Proposal to Admins

[Garrett Jax]

To Thread Poster ::: NO!!!

okay okay, chill and continue posting more useless flaming posts around the very same subject
but rest assured, that this wont end anywhere good and it's shocking to know that it's coming from a former admin.

I did bring your name up out of nowhere in a derogatory sense. That was uncalled for and I apologize. If you read the posts in this thread, I was called a hypocrite, which is untrue when looking at the facts. I've been accused by a Green, in Skype chats, of having some agenda here, and people have been encouraged to not listen to me. To that I would say, yes, I do have an agenda. An agenda that will improve the process for implementing bans that doesn't cause community outrage and cause admins to take off their green jackets. That is it, the sum and total of my grand master plan. I have no ambition to be an Admin again, to certain members great delight. I only have tried to come up with reasonable suggestions, brought forward in a respectful manner, that might help fix and restore the situation.

I think I have that right. For you to tell me to stop, and for the admins to tell people to stop listening to me, is inappropriate.

---

[Tarator]

Garret, the points you make, and the idea are a good subject of discussion. Don't let trolls derail that discussion, just ignore the drama queens.


P.S. Any mods around?

---

O'Rhu Cell Database|||O'Rhu Cell Feedback|||Join O'Rhu Cell|||Jump

[Xenon]

I did bring your name up out of nowhere in a derogatory sense. That was uncalled for and I apologize. If you read the posts in this thread, I was called a hypocrite, which is untrue when looking at the facts. I've been accused by a Green, in Skype chats, of having some agenda here, and people have been encouraged to not listen to me. To that I would say, yes, I do have an agenda. An agenda that will improve the process for implementing bans that doesn't cause community outrage and cause admins to take off their green jackets. That is it, the sum and total of my grand master plan. I have no ambition to be an Admin again, to certain members great delight. I only have tried to come up with reasonable suggestions, brought forward in a respectful manner, that might help fix and restore the situation.

I think I have that right. For you to tell me to stop, and for the admins to tell people to stop listening to me, is inappropriate.

I understand what you are saying very good, and i just want to tell you one thing. I think that your post include a suggestion for the admins to follow, which means, that you don't agree with the current system, which means that you without maybe feeling, is enhancing the idea that some flamers are trying to draw here saying that the admins are banning people without reasons. This thread here is one of many discussing the very same subject. Some of those were closed and locked and some was abandoned because the admins released a notice saying that they are discussing it and will get back to the community once they are done. I don't understand why assuming that the admins did select some people that they didn't like and ban them? - I don't either agree with some of the bans, like @Karst because i didn't see anything bad from his side but i try to wait and be patient since the admins did reply to the community and said that they are discussing it. So, do you get my point now Garrett? By the way, i am not trying to make an argument pointlessly as some may claim. Thanks for reading.

---

NEBULA INFORMATION BOT ☆ NEBULA DISCORD SERVER
XENON WEAPONS MARKET ☆ NEBULA GRAND PLAZA ☆ NEBULA TECHNOLOGIES
THE DISCOVERY POBCAST ☆ DISCOVERY SERVER RULES

[Tunicle]

It might be polite to try and stop sniping at each other, feel free to keep offering suggestions.

For interest, of the bans the vote figures for banning ranged between 70% and 90%.

---

[Tabris]

Ok kids, the Moderation has been watching and we are not really impressed by how folks are starting to snipe at eachother. If it continues we'll lock the thread until folks calm down and apply slaps where needed to the offenders who are apparently fanning the flames. Keep it cool, keep it civil. - Moderation

[Jack_Henderson]

It might be polite to try and stop sniping at each other, feel free to keep offering suggestions.

For interest, of the bans the vote figures for banning ranged between 70% and 90%.

A vote of 70 % against someone who has no relevant sanctions and has never done anything against the community is rather shocking, but can be explained rather easily if you look behind the numbers.

Main point: I bet that only few Admins voted.

For the sake of the experiment, let's assume 4 to 5 Admins voted.

Who voted always?
The admins whose initiative and motivation triggered the purge.
Let's assume that these are 2-3 Admins with an interest to see their initiative go through.
That would mean 3 of 5 are always in favour of "ban". That's already 60 % without any effort.

Looking at it like this, 70 % approval ratings are nothing spectacular.
It's actually to be expected if you manage to draw another staff member in that you can convince.

The only solution is in my opinion: All Admins need to vote, regardless of bias, personal connection, or whatever other reason. In a small group of voters, the initiating group will always push the result heavily in favour of 'passing'. In small groups this factor can be a breaking one.

I dare say that this "initiator advantage" plus the "some abstain" factor are responsible for hitting some people with bans that would not have been hit if there had been more opinions to potentially counterbalance the unified voice of the initiating party.

Scoring a 90 % approval in a group of 8 will for sure not be that easy, and - given the consequences of these votes - it should not be that easy.

Thank you to Tunicle for discussing this point.
I think it is important to take a look at mechanics and unwanted consequences to improve the system.
Everybody can only benefit from creative thinking into that direction.

[Cashew]

It might be polite to try and stop sniping at each other, feel free to keep offering suggestions.

For interest, of the bans the vote figures for banning ranged between 70% and 90%.

A vote of 70 % against someone who has no relevant sanctions and has never done anything against the community is rather shocking, but can be explained rather easily if you look behind the numbers.

Main point: I bet that only few Admins voted.

For the sake of the experiment, let's assume 4 to 5 Admins voted.

Who voted always?
The admins whose initiative and motivation triggered the purge.
Let's assume that these are 2-3 Admins with an interest to see their initiative go through.
That would mean 3 of 5 are always in favour of "ban". That's already 60 % without any effort.

Looking at it like this, 70 % approval ratings are nothing spectacular.
It's actually to be expected if you manage to draw another staff member in that you can convince.

The only solution is in my opinion: All Admins need to vote, regardless of bias, personal connection, or whatever other reason. In a small group of voters, the initiating group will always push the result heavily in favour of 'passing'. In small groups this factor can be a breaking one.

I dare say that this "initiator advantage" plus the "some abstain" factor are responsible for hitting some people with bans that would not have been hit if there had been more opinions to potentially counterbalance the unified voice of the initiating party.

Scoring a 90 % approval in a group of 8 will for sure not be that easy, and - given the consequences of these votes - it should not be that easy.

Thank you to Tunicle for discussing this point.
I think it is important to take a look at mechanics and unwanted consequences to improve the system.
Everybody can only benefit from creative thinking into that direction.

It's not very fair to suggest these figures. I can tell you all admins voted, bear in mind we also had @Arioch at that point as well. That's quite a few more than 5 admins.

Hope this helps.

[Jack_Henderson]

And I know that not all admins voted on all "up for ban" people.
I bet Karst's ban was one of the "closer" ones. So let's assume he is close to the 70 % mentioned.
How many Admins voted on him?

You claim it is more votes than 5.
How many were there?


Plus: The effect that I described has an impact on the outcome, that's why I think it would make sense to include it as a thought into the making of a new voting system.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Garrett Jax]

The only solution is in my opinion: All Admins need to vote, regardless of bias, personal connection, or whatever other reason. In a small group of voters, the initiating group will always push the result heavily in favour of 'passing'. In small groups this factor can be a breaking one.

It is unreasonable to expect Admins to vote without bias concerning players in their own factions, or in any other areas where bias (toward or against) might be obvious. Better to let the Admins, who share no such conflict with individual community members, vote, and leave legitimate accusations of bias by the wayside. I still believe a unanimous vote is the way to go here, since the potential number of Admins may be be effected to varying degrees, depending on what faction the players might be involved with. It would be a kindness to the player up for ban vote to require all Admins, not effected by bias, to vote, or at least count their abstaining as a vote against the ban.

---

[Thyrzul]

Why would it be unreasonable to expect an Admin to be capable of separating his player self, with connections, friends, emotions, player preferences, goals and ambitions, from his Admin self, supposedly objective, fair in judgement, etc.? Why would it be unreasonable to expect such in a roleplay community where we already expect players to separate themselves from their characters and inRP from ooRP? How about thinking of it as just another role to play? The role of a fair judge, how about that?

---