(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
See Divines points on why unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, you essentially backed his post up even further.
You don't seem to have a lot of faith in your fellow admins' competence if you believe that they would be incapable of setting aside bias after thorough discussion of a player's offences.
If you are correct in believing that individual admins' opinions on sanctions are so easily swayed by personal friendships with other players - instead of being based on objective evidence - that paints a grim picture of the admin team as a whole.
I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING
In all seriousness, I have to agree that if bias is a major motivator in staff decisions, their positions should be re-evaluated as a whole.
I think it boils down to moderation. Knowing what steps you need to take to make these so called 'big decisions'. Knowing when to abstain from a decision if there is personal involvement, which is probably hard considering how small the community is these days. It's also hard to not have an opinion of someone, but the staff need to be aware and understand that they can't use their position to protect their friends and remove people they don't want with a rushed, fumbled decision like this.
Unanimous vote? I can see this working out. People might disagree, but it's probably the best system. Those who don't feel confident in the evidence provided or feel too involved with said particular case, or have any inkling of dislike for someone shouldn't involve themselves in the decision. Plain and simple. That lowers the number of voters. Note: A vote shouldn't be done without discussion and a warning. Not some one on one sit down and chit chat, but a public warning so the community is aware and doesn't get all up-in-arms like this. Someone's being harmful? Player warned: Name. Reason why they're being warned. Tell them they need to improve their behavior in public. If they don't, then you have a vote on the case for removal from the community. Yeah it'll be tough, but this is the level of work and care that has to go in to these decisions.
And to be fair, Jansen, I don't think you're a very good admin. I don't really have a lot of faith in you to make an unbiased decision. That's my view of you from experience. I don't think you're a good fit for the team, but it isn't up to me to decide who is and who isn't. That's my opinion. I don't let it sway my choices, and neither should any of the staff let theirs sway their work.
(07-21-2016, 02:04 PM)Haste Wrote: If you are correct in believing that individual admins' opinions on sanctions are so easily swayed by personal friendships with other players - instead of being based on objective evidence - that paints a grim picture of the admin team as a whole.
Definitely breaking news here.
Seriously, admins are taken from the player pool and it's usually people that have been here for years. They'll have built connections. There's going to be friends and foes. What are you expecting, this is just the same as what regularly unfolds between faction leaders and even simply players.
Some admins do a better job than others to stay impartial and the entire vote system is here for the exact purpose of limiting bias. You don't really get anything better than that unless you can suddenly hire people completely unconnected to discovery to manage a kindergarten with all kids deliberately throwing sand in each other's eyes.
To be honest, I'm kinda(?) okay with voting-to-ban. I mean, it certainly isn't a substitute for actual rules but we already have those.
What really stinks about the whole bangate thing is that it wasn't publicly documented, and it happened without any real warning. As far as I can tell, one day a bunch of people logged in to a ban message, and if there's one thing about this whole mess that needs to never happen again it's that. The only thing that warrants outright banning applied immediately is explicit griefing - everything else needs to involve the player and ideally happen in front of the community.
There's a system for this. It works quite well. Why. Why why why would you ignore it?
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"
Posts: 3,228
Threads: 100
Joined: May 2012
Staff roles: Balance Dev
(07-21-2016, 02:39 PM)Alley Wrote: Seriously, admins are taken from the player pool and it's usually people that have been here for years.
I've always (probably naively) believed that the players selected to be admins are those who are very capable of looking at every report as fairly as they can, regardless of the players involved. Of course we're all human beings and as such it's impossible to rule out any and all emotion, but the admins are expected to at least try, aren't they?
And Christ, look at how long it's taking the team to review these bans (and other sanctions in the past). It should be possible to weigh every pro and con and come to a fair and unbiased conclusion in that much time. Insert jab at Haste here, for not implementing the Jackal or something in months in the past.
(07-21-2016, 04:02 PM)Haste Wrote: I've always (probably naively) believed that the players selected to be admins are those who are very capable of looking at every report as fairly as they can, regardless of the players involved.
[Cold, bitter laughter]
(07-21-2016, 04:16 PM)Bloxin Wrote: Of course it could be, but it takes decent people.
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"
There is nothing passive-aggressive in it, at least not intentionally, I just don't know why would it be hard to separate one's relations as a player and one's job as an admin, and stay objective and free of any bias when doing admin job. Because Divine's reasoning against the unanimous vote system suggests that, but I see no reason why it couldn't be otherwise.
Of course it could be, but it takes decent people.
(07-21-2016, 02:39 PM)Alley Wrote: ou don't really get anything better than that unless you can suddenly hire people completely unconnected to discovery to manage a kindergarten with all kids deliberately throwing sand in each other's eyes.
If Admins can come to unanimous decisions despite bias to select Admins (arguably a more important decision), they can, despite bias, come to a unanimous decision to choose who gets banned.
(07-21-2016, 07:07 PM)Garrett Jax Wrote: 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.
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Former admin teams went with unanimous vote system and there were bans. However, it took some time to convince some staffers, and sometimes a final, very clear warning had to be given, and once that final warning was not working out, the unanimous vote was easy to get.
So, yes. It can work. But it takes effort and time from the side of the staff. It demands conversation about the case, discussion and it will end in fewer people being banned after an assessment process in which snapshot decisions are not an issue any more.
Go ahead and show me which Admin decisions in the past have been done with this legendary unanimous vote system of yours.
Obviously, I am not an Admin, so I cannot check. But I was told that the bans of Divine, Tutaskhia and Altejago were unanimous, and if I had to guess, the Hone ban likely also was. You are an Admin, should be really easy to verify.
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Let's step back for a moment... I guess, this is exactly what would have been a good outcome, wouldn't it?
Quote:[...]unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, [...].
Quote:[...]community vote[...]
Between these extremes, the 2/3 majority vote that I mentioned already comes as the natural option.
(07-21-2016, 11:35 AM)Jansen Wrote: If I now tell you that ALL of the bans would meet exactly this, they would be completely justified and fair?
I would be fine with vote bans if they cannot come out of nowhere to people who have never been a problem before. I mean, seriously... what is so hard to understand that it should not be possible to kill off players who have a white vest?
If the Admin team decides to do such votes with a 2/3 majority , I'd be fine with it as a voting procedure. If every Admin has to vote, and there is no option to stay out, the numbers should be high enough to make 2/3 majority create acceptable outcomes for most.
8 Admins vote. With a result of "7 : 1" , I assume no one will complain much. "6 : 2" would also be accepted as a very solid majority and would also not invite criticism. That would be a 2/3 majority.
If your answer is meant to imply that all the people banned were banned with a 2/3 majority, I doubt that.