Comparing only for cynicism
Fair, but I still want some kind of explanation. Even if itâs just âWe meant to handle this internally, this wasnât meant to be shown in public and thatâs why it was removedâ, that wouldâve been a better answer. For me at least.
At this point itâs just a difference between how transparent the admin team should be with some things and how transparent I think some things should be. I spent a short time being a admin on bee, and getting admin positions in other communities I understand handling things internally and most of it is things that the general community doesnât and shouldnât have to get answers to. But at least some basic explanation looks a lot better to the community than being super tight lipped in a situation like this.
TLDR: I understand handling things internally when dealing with admins, I just believe elaborating on why this once public ban is suddenly being handled internally is something that should be done. And a elaboration that isnât just âAdmin secretsâ
I use to BE a admin for beestation, I just have differing opinions in admin transparency and think in this situation that their should be a better reasoning why itâs suddenly being handled internally after being a public ban. Even if it just boils down to âWe meant to do this internally and not make this publicâ. I donât have anything against winter either.
Nice pun there buddy
The autisme did it wrong thatâs the reason I trust him, he might be a new headmin but still
Admins are judged differently, because âregularâ people would never get it. First of all you are approved after they discuss that internally, then you are promoted after they discuss that internally, so thatâs two steps. Then every report is processed by them internally, so again they discuss (keep in mind that it might be completely different set of headmins at this point). If headmins decide that some admin can be removed, they donât go through strikes anyways and remove them.
Edit: Also there is always Crossed, without him the server wouldâve gone to shit like 2 years ago already so if you really believe headmins are doing a shitjob (and they arenât), then you may try messaging him.
Because after investigating the ban, we found that it didnât apply. Looking into the actual context of things the ban wasnât found to be applicable. Itâs that simple. We do the same shit when we find that player bans arenât applicable.
As for the rest of your post⌠My personal stance on admin punishments is pretty simple. If an admin does something minor that weâd note a player for, we reprimand them and make an internal note about it. If an admin breaches conduct, depending on the severity, itâll either be an internal reprimand or a strike. If an admin does something provably ban-worthy then theyâre dropped from the team and (potentially) banned.
So, I mean, if I have my way, no, admins canât be job banned. Theyâd be removed from the team first.
Shouldnât they have made an appeal then like everyone else?
Not really. It was a post investigation brought on by our usual process of reprimanding staff. Specifically, it was during our usual investigation and discussion that we found the ban to have been misapplied. If that wasnât part of our usual procedure, then yeah, theyâd probably have made a ânormalâ appeal.
How was it misapplied?
They didnât do anything banworthy. Given the context, their actions were ultimately fine. It would have been preferable to have had a bit more roleplay in the mix, but they didnât do anything deserving of a ban in that instance.
So security officers are free to kill people silently and without announcing it to the rest of security if they misjudge and think itâs valid?
Youâre removing all of the context there. No, generally speaking, security officers are not free to silently kill people for no discernable reason.
However, if a security officer is responding to a distress call from another officer, during a confirmed lings round, on blue alert, and encounters someone (who had prior reports and was seen wielding the fire axe not too long ago) in that area wielding an arm-blade⌠Then yeah. It can be understandable that the officer might shoot first and ask questions later.
Was this the preferable action? No.
Was this a banworthy action? Also no.
4 Likes
Mmk, got it. I myself actually lacked half that context so thanks for filling that in. I only had the context from the now deleted ban so yeah. Thanks for finally swinging by and bringing more context to a thing that severely lacked any from all sides.
No problem.
I would have hoped by now that people would trust the fact that if we delete a ban it was because it was unduly applied, not because weâre trying to quietly sweep it under the rug. Câest la vie
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.