Formal complaint against the administration.

[TheVirus]

 

HOWEVER, The whole topic of BD's/AO's covering eachothers backs and accusations is a slippery slope to The death of SG (or at least the regulars). I think its wrong but sometimes its best if the community is kept blind to the truth. But also when a day like yesterday arises filled with controversies and Higher ups being "tainted" its hard too see that they(the higher ups) mostly just want the best for the community.

 

Never, ever, ever should the public be blind to how things are run. This will instantly lead to corruption and destruction of the outside community, which is what we're starting to see.

 

Admin complaints should be anonymous to everyone but Haggard. This will help prevent bias in decision making, even if it is slight. I think the decisions out of the admin complaints should be posted in the complaint thread with a detailed explanation as to how they came about the conclusion and how many (not necessarily who) people were involved.

 

Since we are a community and we are built around people joining our servers and forums, we should allow the community some input on admin complaints even if it's with a simple poll "How severe is this complaint on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the worst?" I believe the community should have some public voice in these matters, especially if they were involved.

 

I have more to say on this and will reply back when I finish work. On my lunch break now and I'm already late.

[DoubleSb]

Never, ever, ever should the public be blind to how things are run. This will instantly lead to corruption and destruction of the outside community, which is what we're starting to see.

 

Admin complaints should be anonymous to everyone but Haggard. This will help prevent bias in decision making, even if it is slight. I think the decisions out of the admin complaints should be posted in the complaint thread with a detailed explanation as to how they came about the conclusion and how many (not necessarily who) people were involved.

 

Since we are a community and we are built around people joining our servers and forums, we should allow the community some input on admin complaints even if it's with a simple poll "How severe is this complaint on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the worst?" I believe the community should have some public voice in these matters, especially if they were involved.

 

I have more to say on this and will reply back when I finish work. On my lunch break now and I'm already late.

 

I do not agree with the Haggard only seeing it. It adds more work for him; which is pretty stupid. Maybe the 1-5 thing, but no "retarded" voters.

[Italian Jew]

Get a few well respected, non-admin users in a group to decide if there is a need for punishment and the level of punishment (none/low/medium/high). The BD's would then take this groups decision and decide the details of the punishment. The BD's would also have the ability to alter the group's decision, but not completely change it (i.e. from no punishment to low punishment, not no punishment to heavy punishment).

 

Whatever the decision, it should be made public as well as any evidence or claims presented in the incident. This would stop people from asking so many annoying questions.

[Flash_whAt.?]

I believe that potshot was right. And also I give respect to the BD's for coming out and apologizing and admitting they made a mistake. Kudos to that. But with that said this should never happen again.

Its seems like the reason why this happened in the first place is there wasnt enough BD's/AO's to discuss the situtation. With that said I propose that if a complaint against an Admin is made that at least 80% of BD's and AO's discuss the situation as a group and then come out with a verdict so that was majority of the group would decide the fate of the person. Thank you for yall time yall take care now

 

PS. And if 80% of BD's and Ao's are not present then I guess the complaint will be reviewed at a later time when the majority is present to decide a outcome.

[TheVirus]

I do not agree with the Haggard only seeing it. It adds more work for him; which is pretty stupid. Maybe the 1-5 thing, but no "retarded" voters.

 

There is no reason for the person making the complaint to be made public. Haggard would have zero work added to him on a regular basis. The only time it would matter is if a certain person was abusing the admin complaints and to tell that person to stop or ban them from that forum.

[Bad Dog]

I think everyone needs to remember that this is a community based around a game, and unless anyone really had a hard time dealing with 30 seconds of what I understand to be pure lol, then maybe they should move on to a more serious enviornment. Have you ever tried REAL jail? From waht I understand that shit wouldnt have flyed in a real jail and having "fun" is a near impossibility.

[Jaffa]

I've tried to deal with some of the ideas being posted here, and my suggestions/criticism/contribution.

 

Never, ever, ever should the public be blind to how things are run. This will instantly lead to corruption and destruction of the outside community, which is what we're starting to see.

 

lol? This has been the system since ZM/SG was started (or as long as i remember). Also, you can't really say instantly then "which is what we are starting to see", its a bit of a contradiction.

 

Admin complaints should be anonymous to everyone but Haggard. This will help prevent bias in decision making, even if it is slight.

 

If it is possible to make them anonymous, that would be interesting to explore, but I don't really think Haggard would appreciate having to do work he has assigned to AOs/BDs.

 

I think the decisions out of the admin complaints should be posted in the complaint thread with a detailed explanation as to how they came about the conclusion and how many (not necessarily who) people were involved.

 

Don't think numbers involved is relevant. Nearly all action on admin complaints is sorted by using pms. Strikes are only the business of the higher ups and admin involved, its up to the striked admin to decide to make it public or not. Rejected appeals are nearly always given clear reasons as to why.

 

Since we are a community and we are built around people joining our servers and forums, we should allow the community some input on admin complaints even if it's with a simple poll "How severe is this complaint on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the worst?" I believe the community should have some public voice in these matters, especially if they were involved.

 

Seems a bit pointless, without players being able to leave reasoning. Also, this is open to abuse and to favouritism.

 

Get a few well respected, non-admin users in a group to decide if there is a need for punishment and the level of punishment (none/low/medium/high). The BD's would then take this groups decision and decide the details of the punishment. The BD's would also have the ability to alter the group's decision, but not completely change it (i.e. from no punishment to low punishment, not no punishment to heavy punishment).

 

This seems to be pretty much replacing the AOs contribution with that of non-admins. Not sure how this would really work out, i don't see why it would have to be non-admins, and lastly (no insult intended) i can't really think of a solid selection that would be selected for this.

 

Whatever the decision, it should be made public as well as any evidence or claims presented in the incident.

 

This is what happens already. Some evidence/claims might not be submitted in the complaint thread, but it is up to the player providing to decide if he wants his contribution to have privacy.

 

Its seems like the reason why this happened in the first place is there wasnt enough BD's/AO's to discuss the situtation. With that said I propose that if a complaint against an Admin is made that at least 80% of BD's and AO's discuss the situation as a group and then come out with a verdict so that was majority of the group would decide the fate of the person.

 

This is what happens. If a decision is made that some are upset about, or were not present for, discussion continues till all are satisfied.

 

Feel free to pm me about any of this.

[Bob Loblaw]

I think that anonymity with complaints would be the best course of action to remove bias from what people decide.

[Flash_whAt.?]

well jaffa if punishment is applied then later on when more Ao's and BD's review it and come to conclusion that punishment was to harsh then it just pisses off the person who was punish i.e Potshot.

To avoid that problem i suggest mandatory of having 80% of BD's Or AO's all present at the same time to discuss the situation. Therefore eliminating confusion and having a strong and accurate response to the situation, by having 80% of the BD's and AO's standing behind the punishment. Basically like how a jury is ran. But obviously we have more than 7 or 12 BD's and AO's.

 

So if we have 20 BD's and AO's we must have 80% of them which is 16 of them present to discuss the matter so that was majority of them could stand behind the conclusion of the punishment instead of having a divided outcome.

 

This is a suggestion and im not saying that this must be the way. But to me this seems like the most flawess way of punishing someonr back having 80% of the BD's and AO's agreeing to a punishment.

We use this tactic to vote people into adminship why not use it for the BD's , AO's, VP's and so and so to vote to issue the best and most understanding punishment. I understand that legit admin complaints are hard to come by. But its better to be safe than sorry and have an issue like this to occur again it seems unfair for both parties. I.E Garf apologizing on something that was avoidable and Potshot for having to defend himself like this.

[Bullet Wound]

Get a few well respected, non-admin users in a group to decide if there is a need for punishment and the level of punishment (none/low/medium/high). The BD's would then take this groups decision and decide the details of the punishment. The BD's would also have the ability to alter the group's decision, but not completely change it (i.e. from no punishment to low punishment, not no punishment to heavy punishment).

 

This seems to be pretty much replacing the AOs contribution with that of non-admins. Not sure how this would really work out, i don't see why it would have to be non-admins, and lastly (no insult intended) i can't really think of a solid selection that would be selected for this.

 

His idea is to make it so that higher-ups don't "stick together" and just watch each others backs, or at the very least serve as a second opinion. This idea would relies pretty heavily on all non-admins chosen to have the following qualities:

A) Indifference towards all admins (To prevent favoritism)

B) Here long enough to know all the rules (Obviously)

C) Respect/Caring for the community itself (Somewhat who hates SG would obviously just abuse the position)

D) If they did have any strong opinions [because i doubt anyone here feels neutral to all admins], they would at least be able to put that aside and judge fairly

 

Simply put, if he could find enough people with the qualities (I'm assuming hes including himself in this group,for the other peoples hes probably thinking about those who came in at around the time of ZM) this idea could work, I had thought of this idea before as well, but i figured the admins would never accept it [And i still don't think they will].

 

 

As far as handling complaints go its pretty simple how it should work, once someone submits a complaint it should be copied and put into the admin only (Or a higher up) section, with the name of the person making the complaint not included. From there the admins could discuss it amongst themselves, then decide a punishment, if any. Perhaps they could even put a vote up thats last for a minimum of a day to see the overall opinion. As for the number of admins needed to see it, make it so a minimum of X votes are need to close the complaint, the actually number is up to you guys, just so long as it would work.

 

After its decided, the complaint is responded by a single post from an admin who decides to answer it, the post would only explain the thought process of the admins who looked over the complaint, as well as the verdict.

 

How this would all be done, I don't know, maybe make it the way the admin rating was done; where they input the info, and its sent to Haggard, however instead send it somewhere else and use the info to generate the complaint to the public and admin sections. I do realize its highly unlikely this could be implemented (Allan might be able to do this though, if he spent the time).

 

In the end this would all be solved if the admin selection was so that you could trust the person to admin the servers properly, as well as trust the players to not yell abuse ever time an admin power was used. But hey, the world ain't perfect.

 

 

On a separate note; how do you know the total number of strikes of all the current admins Jaffa?