RE: Admin Transparency

[Miley]

Wait, this bullshit is still going on?

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Blackanese

[Canary]

Question 1: What measures are taken to ensure admins actually understand the rules?

Question 2: Why was no action taken against Ragnar_Ulfson who "didn't see what happened either" yet continued to post no less than nine separate times in my thread?

Question 3: if bro-coding your team to defeat is the same as teamwounding why isn't the punishment?

1. Currently, the only (NA) admins who have assuredly been directed to the rules are those who've been picked more recently, since our old head NA admin was replaced. Any future admins will be made to understand to follow not only the rules written on that post, but also try to adhere to a set of less apparently precedents of rulings which, unfortunately, are not specified and listed there and include elaborations on major rules (those listed) and some which are not identified in the official rules post (such as the strategus server rules).

I am fairly certain, though, that all current NA admins have read the rules and understand most of the 'between-the-lines' aspects to them. There's always room for improvement, of course.

If an admin makes a contentious decision we have an entire forum board devoted to the NA admins for us to discuss such things as past decisions, rules clarifications, and players whose behavior we should be wary of. In part it's a sort of system of peer review. Consistent improper administrative action can be dealt with by removal of admin power. Such cases are rare.

2. There is a little link in the bottom right of every post you may click to report a post to the moderators. Without reporting a post, it's hard to expect mods to read every single post in every single thread just to determine which ones are in breach of the forum rules. Moderators will give out warnings (which increase 'warning level' and can lead to forum mutes) for things like improper use of the ban section. Regular admins can not give out forum warnings.

In Ulfson's case, he was there when it happened, which can be credible even in spite of not directly seeing the exact issue the ban request was made for, and had some relevant things to say about the nature of ban requests. Whether he's warned or not is not really your concern beyond the 'report' button, which I'm afraid you or anyone else neglected to use.

3. Almost none of the rules are as black and white as, surprisingly, most of the people posting in this thread seem to make them out as. Even intentional teamwounding isn't as easy to determine as you might think, because actually knowing a person's intent is not as easy as watching a teamhit take place.

Here's the rub: It's not as simple as "bro-coding is okay" versus "bro-coding is against the rules".

What is bro-coding? It is basically choosing not to fight your friends on the opposite team. Is that intrinsically against the rules? No. You are allowed to choose who and where you fight on a server, as long as you are fighting. If you decide not to fight a particular person, that does not automatically mean you did something that harms your team or something that is against the rules (also note that something "to harm your team" and something "against the rules" are not inexorably linked).

Can bro-coding be against the rules? Yes, in some cases. I'll use a scale of examples to show what I mean.

• Not against the rules: seeing an opponent you wouldn't like to fight on one end of the battlefield, moving to the opposite side.
• Not against the rules: seeing a friend of yours in a row of enemies facing your row of teammates, choosing not to move over to attack him.
• Not against the rules: running away from a specific opponent, as long as delaying rules do not apply.
• Borderline, probably doesn't warrant admin action: choosing not to chase a player on the opposite team who is moving to attack your teammates without being contested.
• Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)
• Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think
• Breach of rules: blocking your teammates from being able to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes griefing rule).
• Breach of rules: attacking teammates for trying to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes intentional teamwounding rule).

This is how I interpret the rules are they pertain to the concept of bro-coding. The way I handle issues is not the way every admin may handle them, but should another NA admin consult the rest of us on these kinds of issues this is what I would personally tell them. It's up to the admins at hand to make of a situation what they can see, and all necessary information is not always available. It can be difficult to determine fault even in the case of a true breach of the rules. There are also no definite rules on it, except in the case of the last two examples where other rules are involved.

We try to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent, but because so many of the concepts in the rules are open to interpretation and there are no guidelines for issuing punishments beyond our personal judgment, there tend to be intermittent discrepancies.

[Wrangham]

If an admin makes a contentious decision we have an entire forum board devoted to the NA admins for us to discuss such things as past decisions, rules clarifications, and players whose behavior we should be wary of. In part it's a sort of system of peer review. Consistent improper administrative action can be dealt with by removal of admin power. Such cases are rare.

What is the purpose of this forum: http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-admin-feedback/

I had understood that forum to be the place for "peer review" of admins yet it now seems that despite not knowing whether a significant portion of admins have even read the rules you trust them to review each other's comprehension of those rules in secret?

• Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)
• Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think
• Breach of rules: blocking your teammates from being able to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes griefing rule).
• Breach of rules: attacking teammates for trying to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes intentional teamwounding rule).

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

We try to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent, but because so many of the concepts in the rules are open to interpretation and there are no guidelines for issuing punishments beyond our personal judgment, there tend to be intermittent discrepancies.

Except you do not know if the admin team tries to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent. You just said that you simply direct new admins to the rules and old admins may not have even read them.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

[RandomDude]

What is the purpose of this forum: http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-admin-feedback/

I had understood that forum to be the place for "peer review" of admins yet it now seems that despite not knowing whether a significant portion of admins have even read the rules you trust them to review each other's comprehension of those rules in secret?

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

Except you do not know if the admin team tries to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent. You just said that you simply direct new admins to the rules and old admins may not have even read them.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

It's for feedback, not peer "review" from my understanding of what "review" means. Feedback as in people giving their opinion, no matter what it is.

As far as "comprehension of those rules in secret" it's already been said that the rules arent always clear as black and white and the people to discuss the best interpretation of the rules for any given situation is the same people who enforce them dont you think?

As also said before, "Common Sense" is the main rule for any given scenario and admins are trusted to use their own common sense at the time something happened or after reviewing evidence in the ban request section.

[Molly]

[...]
As also said before, "Common Sense" is the main rule for any given scenario[...]

This.

[Lt_Anders]

Canary, just make the admin forums visible! There
Of course, lots of stuff said in those needs to be removed before the public sees it. Would be bad if admins were seen posting some bad stuff.

[Relit]

Wrang, this is not worth it.

Cronyism is rife here and the admin feedback section has no direct impact on anything, its used by admins to direct anger to a specific section so it can be ignored/disregarded. You would accomplish more telling a brick wall to "fall over!" than trying to change anything related to the admins in this community.

[IG_Saint]

Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin?

Probably not, because most admins don't consider it ban worthy. You're all up in arms about something that most admins just don't consider ban worthy and I really don't see the NA admins changing their minds just because of your little crusade for justice.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

Being an admin is a service to the community, not a privilege. The minor benefits are far outweighted by the major inconviences.

[Wrangham]

I have nothing to do with, nor any knowledge of this situation, or how the NA admins operate in general. . .  You also seems to expect a lot of profesionalism from a bunch of unpaid admins in a mod.

Probably not, because most admins don't consider it ban worthy.

Yesterday you had no knowledge of how the NA admins operate. Today you know what most admins think. Did you take a straw poll in the secret admin enclave sometime in the last few hours?

Being an admin is a service to the community, not a privilege. The minor benefits are far outweighted by the major inconviences.

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists out there would love to hear more about these benefits.

[IG_Saint]

Yeah, thanks to your handy quotes. I count 3 NA admins that say it's not against the rules and 2 that say it is. You also missed this part: "I really don't see the NA admins changing their minds just because of your little crusade for justice". The NA admins are old enough to make up their own minds as to what's ban worthy and what isn't, they don't need your, or my help.

[Rumblood]

Yesterday you had no knowledge of how the NA admins operate.

Neither does anyone posting in a manner you feel supports your side of things. But that's your modus operandi isn't it? Attack anyone who disagrees with you such as Ulfson did, going so far as to try to invoke a rule that didn't apply to shut him down, even though he had entirely relevant points? Now you are essentially telling IG_Saint to gtfo.

Canary took the time to respond to your questions and provide some insight into how the NA admins operate, and again, since the answer wasn't "You are so right Wrangham, bans issued", you go on the offensive against a post that was a straight up official response with the relevant information that you requested. While cloaked in respectful language, this is nothing more than a temper tantrum because a decision regarding an event did not go your way. Your response to Canary's post makes that more than evident and I think at this point you've gotten more than the attention such an attitude deserves.

[Rhaelys]

• Borderline, probably doesn't warrant admin action: choosing not to chase a player on the opposite team who is moving to attack your teammates without being contested.
• Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

For me, the yellow borderline situations are not admin-actionable, because they depend on too many factors. Maybe someone who chooses not to intercept (as in the first situation) or join in the dogfight (as in the second situation) is bro-coding. Or maybe they are just apprehensive about potentially getting in the way or being hindered by their own teammates and end up teamwounding or being teamwounded. In that instance, wouldn't their participation be even more detrimental to the success of their team?

• Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think

Even this is context-specific, in particular time-sensitive. When is the supposed infraction occurring: at the beginning of the round, during the round, or near the end of the round? I have definitely "bro-coded" in this manner in the beginning of the round and even during the round, but never at the end of the round. *As a note I would only ever bro-code people I know I couldn't easily beat, because by bro-coding better players I ensure my survival and possibility of continuing to contribute to the success of my team during the rest of the round. But I guess you wouldn't be able to consider that bro-coding so much as strategic selection of combat.

Also I would never willingly engage Saul in a one-on-one unless I had to because I know that the results of that encounter are death or death. Of course this would never actually pan out to be an issue because:

Ganking clanmates who are in TeamSpeak with you is some of the most fun you can have in the game.

Oh hey there Saul, I'll just be on my- no, wait, stop; what are you doing? Oh g-BLAEAGJLKEJF

[Ninja_Khorin]

Ooh! Since you're collecting! Here's my opinion:

(click to show/hide)

• Not against the rules: seeing an opponent you wouldn't like to fight on one end of the battlefield, moving to the opposite side.
• Not against the rules: seeing a friend of yours in a row of enemies facing your row of teammates, choosing not to move over to attack him.
• Not against the rules: running away from a specific opponent, as long as delaying rules do not apply.
• Borderline, probably doesn't warrant admin action: choosing not to chase a player on the opposite team who is moving to attack your teammates without being contested.
• Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)
• Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think
• Breach of rules: blocking your teammates from being able to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes griefing rule).
• Breach of rules: attacking teammates for trying to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes intentional teamwounding rule).

Honestly, though. I would never trust what anyone says regarding anything. Too often I've seen people demanding bans without a legit cause.

I don't always attack enemies either, even if that puts teammates in danger, if I have some other more fun plans to put in to action. Even if I was fighting the entire enemy team I'd consider it a personal failure if I lose the fight. I assume that my teammates feel the same. I don't rely on them, and I hope they don't rely on me too much. Of course I'm thankful for any assistance, and do offer it myself if it seems fun.

[Turboflex]

Even this is context-specific, in particular time-sensitive. When is the supposed infraction occurring: at the beginning of the round, during the round, or near the end of the round? I have definitely "bro-coded" in this manner in the beginning of the round and even during the round, but never at the end of the round. *As a note I would only ever bro-code people I know I couldn't easily beat, because by bro-coding better players I ensure my survival and possibility of continuing to contribute to the success of my team during the rest of the round. But I guess you wouldn't be able to consider that bro-coding so much as strategic selection of combat.

Also I would never willingly engage Saul in a one-on-one unless I had to because I know that the results of that encounter are death or death. Of course this would never actually pan out to be an issue because:

This is not the best way to achieve victory for your team and a very poor justification for "bro coding"... If you encounter someone THAT dangerous the best for your team is to tie them down by distracting them and drawing out a fight with them. You can use a defensive posture to prolong the 1 v 1  fight and extend your chances of survival until hopefully help arrives. This is much more productive than just letting them walk away to mow through teammates. I do this all the time against dangerous players like San or Saul.

I think we need to reinstate Smoothrich as an admin to clean up this rotten state of affairs. We need Dirty Harry back.

[Rhaelys]

This is not the best way to achieve victory for your team and a very poor justification for "bro coding"... If you encounter someone THAT dangerous the best for your team is to tie them down by distracting them and drawing out a fight with them. You can use a defensive posture to prolong the 1 v 1  fight and extend your chances of survival until hopefully help arrives. This is much more productive than just letting them walk away to mow through teammates. I do this all the time against dangerous players like San or Saul.

I think we need to reinstate Smoothrich as an admin to clean up this rotten state of affairs. We need Dirty Harry back.

Maybe if you're a shielder. But if you are a hero yourself, it makes more sense to engage in a "base trade" from a team success point of view. Perhaps you lose the "base trade." It's still better than ensuring that your team loses because you die to a person you know will beat you.