Completed Limit appeals from being locked

[PicklePicklePickle]

Threads are locked for many reasons. Maybe, the discussion has reached its conclusion. Maybe the discussion will never reach its conclusion. Or maybe the discussion has been derailed. Whatever the case may be, threads are locked. However, there is one place in the forums where I feel that locks need to be limited. And that place is none other than PUNISHMENT APPEALS.

The first time I was greeted to the “Not open for further replies” was here:

https://blackwonder.tf/threads/admin-abuse.18723/

Note that I’m not arguing I’m in the right here, I’m arguing that you prematurely closed a discussion. I made two points about what I did and you only really mentioned one. Why not continue the discussion to talk about the other? I’m expecting a lot of bias to be at play here because if I was an admin, I personally would not put the additional effort of having a conversation when I could just reply and lock. However, if you want to have a fair system you got to put limits on it. Here’s another case where my thread got locked even though I had plenty more to say:

https://blackwonder.tf/threads/picklepicklepickles-mute-appeal.22114/

Ah yes, call me obnoxious, mention a point I made that was at the very end and wasn’t really even a point, and then end it off by addressing another point which I barely talked about. But that’s all it takes for the thread to be locked.
The most recent locked thread which has really tingled my pringles is this one:

https://blackwonder.tf/threads/picklepicklepickles-ban-appeal.22467/

Kerknor’s second reply is so terrible. So, first off, you misinterpreted what I said in the second quote. I meant that it makes sense how I got kicked in regard to SourceBans not being connected, not that your reason for kicking me makes sense. For the third quote, my comparison to you and the rules is something that is obviously not to be taken seriously, I said it was just something to think about. You also take me saying that I held the spawn door open and ignore that I explained how it wouldn’t be defined as griefing, I put the definition, why didn’t you quote that? And the most important part is that you DIDN’T give a DEMO. Even if it isn’t necessary, I asked for the demo from the very start. But instead of saying all of this in a neat reply, guess what? It’s fucking locked. No more replies, no more discussions, no more reasoning, and completely unfair. Imagine if they did that in court, the defendant is in the middle of saying his case and the plaintiff is allowed to say “Nah, this case is closed”.

I’ve recently talked to RainbowRobb and according to him, he says that people add him all the time in regard to appeals/bans. I assume the same thing happens with other admins. You know why people take appeals outside of the forums? It’s because their thread gets locked and they don’t get a chance to reply. So how do we limit these unfair locks? Well, I made three simple guidelines:

• The person who made the ban is not allowed to lock the thread

The admin is going to be biased in 9 out of 10 appeals so why would they be allowed to lock the thread?

• The appealer needs to be asked if they have anything else to say.

This avoids prematurely locking the thread when the appealer still hasn’t finished.

• Lock threads once the appealer has said that they have nothing else to say or the appealer stops replying. Additionally, if the appealer isn’t adding anything of value or derailing the conversation the thread can be locked.

Pretty self-explanatory… I would define ‘not adding anything of value’ as not making any new counters, points, or reasons in replies.

Again, appeals should be as fair as possible, so preventing someone from defending themselves IN THEIR OWN APPEAL is silly. Hopefully, it isn’t just a bunch of admins who come in and say their two cents but some actual PEOPLE who experienced having their appeal being locked and not being able to respond.
Anyways, that’s my suggestion.

 

[RainbowRobb]

Good afternoon @PicklePicklePickle . I would like to address a few things here.

• The person who made the ban is not allowed to lock the thread

The admin is going to be biased in 9 out of 10 appeals so why would they be allowed to lock the thread?

I would like to direct you to the fact that only 48 of the 104 pages of appeals, are marked as Declined. And those include many repeat appeals where the same person was declined. Most people are biased toward their own actions, but don't blow this out of proportion.

I would also like to advise you that policies for punishment appeals do exist. There has just never been a reason to explicitly share them with non-staff before. We actually have extensive guides and the expectations vary slightly between moderators and admins.

Generally for admins, so long as the punishment is in-line with the expected progression of punishments, evidence is not needed. (Exception here would be permanent bans).

For moderators, there is a higher burden for them.

I am not going to go into details; because, I do not want to invite people to exploit the policy to their own benefit, but it has existed for nearly 2 years.

• The appealer needs to be asked if they have anything else to say.

This avoids prematurely locking the thread when the appealer still hasn’t finished.

• Lock threads once the appealer has said that they have nothing else to say or the appealer stops replying. Additionally, if the appealer isn’t adding anything of value or derailing the conversation the thread can be locked.

Pretty self-explanatory… I would define ‘not adding anything of value’ as not making any new counters, points, or reasons in replies.

These are the same thing, in practice. Some people would continue to respond for days or weeks, without adding objectively new information. The internet is full of conversations where individuals respond 100's of times, talking in circles, but each believing they are making their case. When in fact, little value is ever created from such exchanges.

In summary, if evidence has been provided (or is not necessary, as was the case of your admitted griefing by holding the spawn door open for the enemy) and obvious gray areas have been eliminated, I am going to stand behind the staff who placed the punishment. You can look at archived appeals and see that I have personally stepped in to accept them, when uncertainty exists, and to see where I have overturned my own punishments when evidence of cheating could not be produced.

I understand you feel personally slighted, but I can promise you, that you have been given more staff attention with your personal concerns than nearly any other players, ever. I am going to leave this unlocked, provided that it does not turn into a mess.

 

[PicklePicklePickle]

These are the same thing, in practice. Some people would continue to respond for days or weeks, without adding objectively new information. The internet is full of conversations where individuals respond 100's of times, talking in circles, but each believing they are making their case. When in fact, little value is ever created from such exchanges.

In summary, if evidence has been provided (or is not necessary, as was the case of your admitted griefing by holding the spawn door open for the enemy) and obvious gray areas have been eliminated, I am going to stand behind the staff who placed the punishment. You can look at archived appeals and see that I have personally stepped in to accept them, when uncertainty exists, and to see where I have overturned my own punishments when evidence of cheating could not be produced.

After reviewing the last two guidelines I've realized that you are absolutely right. These guidelines would lead to valueless rambling. The reason for them being so similar was because I was originally gonna make it one big rule but split it into two. But, yes, you do have a point. So, thus, I think there should really only be one new guideline, which is this:

• After the thread has been declined, one day is required minimum before the appeal can be locked.

This one day can be used by the appealer to ask any questions so that things are cleared up. If possible, the appealer should get a notification saying that their appeal will be locked in "insert exact time".

The first guideline would also be completely useless since this one day rule would basically solve all the problems I have. For example, in the most recent appeal I made, if this system was in place I would have had a day to ask questions to Kerknor.

 

[drowsee]

I agree. Once an appeal is locked, you really can't explain further your point. Sometimes (all the time) that is frustrating when you make an appeal, wait upwards of an hour for a response, then get shut down by 3 sentences. It's not fair to the people who are actually in the right, but can't get that fact across because the appeal is the only way they can contact a mod/admin about it.

 

[Poizen]

I agree with both sides, sometimes it can get frustrating having a thread locked down and u feel like you have more to say.





But like just no, arguments would go on forever if they were kept up, and just like, Dms exist you know? if its an argument, just dm them about it and argue there. I'm pretty fucking immature so i don't personally do that, but i dont complain when my threads that got locked down get locked cause i realize they should lock any dumb threads that are mainly arguments and honestly i would be more pissed if they just straight up let me bitch and rant on the forums

 

[PicklePicklePickle]

I agree with both sides, sometimes it can get frustrating having a thread locked down and u feel like you have more to say.





But like just no, arguments would go on forever if they were kept up, and just like, Dms exist you know? if its an argument, just dm them about it and argue there. I'm pretty fucking immature so i don't personally do that, but i dont complain when my threads that got locked down get locked cause i realize they should lock any dumb threads that are mainly arguments and honestly i would be more pissed if they just straight up let me bitch and rant on the forums

I've realized that arguments would go on forever so I changed it so that it stays unlocked for 24 hours after the thread is declined. Also, I thought admins and moderators get annoyed when people DM them?

 

[RainbowRobb]

The majority of the time staff turn away DMs for appeals is because they are told to direct all such inquiries to the forum. This was any evidence is public and on record. It provides transparency for both the player and the staff.

 

[RainbowRobb]

While not revealing specifics of the appeal policy in-place, it has been amended to accommodate a common ground to address the basic concern of this suggestion.