| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: General Forums :: Server: Fish Tank Classic |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Admin Responsibilities | ||
| This topic is now closed |
| Author | Post | ||
| Kalibur |
|
||
Registered Member #101
Joined: Thu Dec 29 2005, 01:04AMPosts: 578 |
kddude wrote ... The old classic punishment procedures. I know you will probably just skip over this post. I don't want to write an essay, so here: 1. Warn 2. Slay 3. Kick 4. Warn (If they rejoin) 5. Tell them they're being banned temp/perm 6. Ban. I think my first post goes into all of that  |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PMPosts: 1545 |
Again, thanks for the suggestions but a recap of the punishment escalation procedure (which is going away soon anyway) is not what I'm looking for here... Please read my previous posts in this thread carefully. We should agree on WHAT rules we enforce before we understand HOW we enforce those rules. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Knightrider |
|
||
Meteor 2016
Registered Member #316
Joined: Mon Jun 26 2006, 09:14PMPosts: 3503 |
I explained above about the rules. We should have: 1. Camping rule (30 seconds, as mentioned above, includes non-objective, and spawn camping) 2. FF rule (No tolerance, absolutely) 3. Team Balance rule 4. Microphone Spamming Rule 5. Admin Respect Rule (I deal with that alot) 6. Racism rule (One warning should be enough) 7. Sexism rule (Same applies) 8. Hacking rule (Ban on spot) 9. Smoke Spamming Rule (This is a bigger issue then most think) Those are the basic fundamentals that this server should run on, recommended from my point of view. 9 simple easy rules to follow. These rules are already implicated on the current running server, but I think that they should stay into effect. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| O_Mega |
|
||
Inconsistant Ownage Device
Registered Member #59
Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 06:12PMPosts: 1058 |
as to the camping i take each situation seperately, I dont think you can have a clear cut rule, as in at exactly this time at this spot you will be slayed. If your sitting in long window with 30 secs in the game left and your team is all in office, im going to slay you. If its there's one minute left and you are 1v7 im going to cut you some slack. Just saying we need to leave some things up to the admin discretion. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| AwsedreswA |
|
||
Registered Member #223
Joined: Wed Apr 26 2006, 10:53PMPosts: 126 |
I kind of see the point that bleek has about not stating admin responsibilities, but then again having something written makes it easy to refference new admins to what is expected of them. I think it would be a good idea to continue with a democratic theme from the vote procedure days and have these items not stated as admin rules, but instead state them as player rights. The admins job would be to protect these rights. You have the right to play on Fish Tank Servers.. .....without Admins or Players combining highly skilled players on a team for the purpose of uninterupted winning. .....with people that are not using aimbots, wall hacks, or any other type of unfair advantage. .....without team members intentionally or repeatedly unintentionally teamkilling and creating friendly fire. .....with players that strive to complete their objectives without camping in a non-objective location for half a minute. .....with players that truthfully represent their clan affiliation and server admin status. .....without players maliciously typing to make text scroll or using mic to mask out other sound. .....with players that share and yield space for other players to move through tight places and jump out of the way of enemy fire. .....in a happy environment where there is no racism, religious hate, or sprays that players are voicing their offense against. What do you think about wording it this way, Alex? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| BuBBLe GooSe |
|
||
The Original MilfHunter
Registered Member #163
Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 02:24PMPosts: 1592 |
AwsedreswA wrote ... You have the right to play on Fish Tank Servers.. .....without Admins or Players combining highly skilled players on a team for the purpose of uninterupted winning. I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. You have the right to play without having admins intentionally stacking highly skilled players on a team for the purpose of winning. Haha. What about... You have the right to play on a server that un-stacks highly skilled teams. Rofl. Anyways, Alex I think this is an interesting thread and looking for input is always key. Lots of interesting points of view regarding HOW rules should be enforced. I actually fell into the same trap as many other respondants and started defining each listed rule and gave suggestions as to the method that the rule should be enforced... then I reread some replies and realized that this thread is intended to find WHAT rules to enforce rather then HOW to enforce them. Needless to say,,, thats a few hundred word post down the drain...  To start off I say that if more than one admin is playing, then admins must try to play on opposite teams in order to take note of mic spammers and have a better eye on players as a whole. Whats the point of having 2 admins on if both are playing on the same team? I think that it would be helpful to come up with a list of perhaps 10 or so rules that can be listed on the MOTD with perhaps some flashy colors and graphics. The current MOTD is informative and provides links and what is expected from players and admins and such, but honestly, I don't think to many players actually take the time to read it much less come across the '20 second rule' or other stuff. If there is some way of having a single page that lists the rules in a column marked 1-10 and have flashy colors and such, then incoming players will possibly take a few seconds to quickly scan the rules and know what to expect. The current MOTD -[link]- , while functional, efficient and informative may not be everyone's cup of tea and clicking links to get to player rules is cumbersome for many noobs. What do you think about this as a first step in informing incoming players and a way to help minimize confusion for first timers? I think that the added bonus would be that players may be impressed with some graphics and might even be more inclined to add the server to the favorites and check out the site. Something that is quick to read, and the players will get at first glance... 1. No Stacking! Admins will enforce this as necessary. 2. No Hacking or any form of Cheating. 3. FF is ON! Do Not TK or Team Attack. 4. Do Not Impersonate an Admin or [FT] 5. No Mic or Text Spamming! 6. No Racism or Malicious Asshatery! 7. Complete the objective, no camping for CTs. 8. No overly-disgusting sprays Or something like that with the rules listed in priority of their importance and have a link to detailed explanations. If MattieScripts works then perhaps have an advert that says "Type 'MOTD' in chat to see the rules" The problem is that its difficult to come up with definitions as to what each rule is. I started doing that in the first go-around I had with this thread, and its quite cumbersome. I mean, I'm all for having 'interesting' sprays with hawt chicks and funny pics and such, but I agree that there should be a line drawn that separates what is acceptable from what is just plain nasty. How can this line be objectively drawn and understood by all admins and players? As of late, I have had the alias of (Chimp Pimp) attached to the end of my name and I go at lengths at letting people know that I'm pimping some chimp hookers for $15 a pop (or $10 if the chimp has Aids, like Lucy) My chimps will pleasure you long time and if you request 2, I'll even throw in a free barrel of bananas. I don't deal with apes though. I also go to great lengths to let potential Johns know that chimp ass tastes like shit and my half price Christmas sale is approaching. Well, the point I'm trying to make is, what is acceptable and how far can certain conversations (sprays) go? I'm all for freedom of expression and the odd political debate doesn't bother me. I even get some kicks when 2 people are arguing and tossing around some humorous namecalling. I like Trueagle's hawt chick sprays and I'm sure many people do as well. Sometimes the conversation may go into talking about cock and ass and who is splooging where and such,,, what is appropriate and what is offensive and who makes the call? If players are joking aroud too and having a good time, then why should there be conduct limits on conversations or even sprays for that matter. If nobody leaves the server because of it, then there is no harm, no foul and if players don't say anything, then couldn't one assume that they tacitly condone it.? I like the idea of having a 'flashy MOTD' with rules written out concisely and vertically, but saying "no offensive porn sprays" and NO this and NO that might make the environment look too strict or too nancy-boy. We seem to strictly enforce loosely defined rules but aside from the ones listed in the initial post, many decisions are subjective and based on the flow of the game. Example: Keep teams fair by handing out cash/health. But it doesn't specify after how many rounds of domination. The 20 second spawn camp rule started as a way to get players out of spawn but it seems to have extended to "CTs cannot camp anywhere on the map for more than 20 secs" I mean, with a 2:15 timer, its like admins use their bound 'no camping' saying and its almost as if CT's are forced to rush everytime and in every instance. You could be approaching (walking) down long hall, but an admin may say "No non-objective camping". The rounds move quick as it is, its almost like people look for things to enforce sometimes when the flow of the game doesn't necessarily call for it. Besides that, it seems like the only methods to enforce rules are ... green text, mute, slap, slay, kick, ban. Don't get me wrong, these are the most efficient methods to use in every instance, but what about allowing admins to blind, freeze and drug for other instances? Would this just be utilizing the mani tool or would it cause retaliation and eventhough these measures are not 'necessary', if a responsible, common sense minded admin uses Drug instead of slap, would it have negative effects? What about using beacon instead of slay for CT spawn campers? Whenever I beacon a spawn camper and they get moving, I feel guilty and take the beacon off. What about using timebomb instead of beacon? Should there be less remourse for asshats? Would it lead to abuse and players getting pissed off and leaving? I think that the two most enforced rules on FTC are the Team Balance and the CT spawn camp rule. Lets face it, these are pretty 'unique' to FTC. The thing is, many CT's don't go for hosties because there is no 'reward'. Its known that admins will give cash to the losing team, so these is no real incentive to rescue hosties. Awsedreswa has shown in a previous thread that Office is favorable to the T side and the Psychostats show that T's win more rounds than CTs. Hence, CTs are the recipients of cash more often than the Ts, meaning that the $4000 from rescuing hosties is sorta useless. With 'free ammo' with every gun purchase, maybe looking to swap skilled players to the CT side instead of handing out $$ may promote more objective based play and completion of attaining the hosties thus @swap may be the best command. The problem with swapping players is that they gat pissed saying "admin WTF!". What about considering a PTBx plugin that balances teams and prevents players from intentionally trying to join a winning team? This way, players won't get pissed at admins, cash won't be handed out as much meaning that CTs will actually see a point to getting the $150 for touching a hostie and a $1000 for rescuing him. I dunno, I'm just throwing some stuff out there because I can't really come up with any more rules that 'common sense' won't cover. Werd.
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
|
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PM Posts: 1545 |
First off, thanks for the suggestions. It is nearly impossible for someone to sit through a discussion of every single contribution to this thread, and I'm not yet entirely sure about the definitions we should go with. I will try to use what has been provided here and come up with "best of breed" definitions (meaning I take the good stuff you guys have suggested and throw away the crap  ) later this week.It seems like a lot of people mentioned the punishment escalation procedure and, despite the fact that I reinforced that the goal of this thread has little to do with execution of punishment, I feel obligated to respond to a few posts that touch on the overall concept of admin accountability (and a few other things): bleek wrote ... This is my suggestion. You shouldn't set rules for admins, and tell them to only escalte punishment ata steady pace. Truth to the matter is with so many assholes and turds out there, you should as Op, pick people for admin, who you can trust with their best judgement. That beaing said, I mean you should let admins decide what the best punishment for the given rule breaker is. Each situation has different circumstances, and setting rules for admins, only allows turds to find loop holes, and break rules, and annoy the hell outta everyone. With that outta the way here are some of the definitions you wanted. I disagree with deputizing admins and letting them shoot first and ask questions later. Leaving everything up to pure discretion is too flexible and creates much potential for abuse while leaving everything up to rigid procedure is too cumbersome to be beneficial. I say this half-way joking, but some of our admins lack creativity in their methods of punishment. There is some truth to it though when you consider several admins slay immediately for many types of (debatably) punishable types of behavior -- CT camping especially. When we have no definition of what CT camping entails then how can we even begin to debate the method of punishing someone for CT camping? Omega wrote ... as to the camping i take each situation seperately, I dont think you can have a clear cut rule, as in at exactly this time at this spot you will be slayed. If your sitting in long window with 30 secs in the game left and your team is all in office, im going to slay you. If its there's one minute left and you are 1v7 im going to cut you some slack. Just saying we need to leave some things up to the admin discretion. I agree that there are no exact specifications for camping, or some other types of punishment, but we have to agree upon baseline definitions before we begin warning or punishing. AwsedreswA wrote ... I kind of see the point that bleek has about not stating admin responsibilities, but then again having something written makes it easy to refference new admins to what is expected of them. Precisely! Players should know what to expect as well, which is what you're getting at below. AwsedreswA wrote ... I think it would be a good idea to continue with a democratic theme from the vote procedure days and have these items not stated as admin rules, but instead state them as player rights. The admins job would be to protect these rights. This an interesting angle, and the "democratic theme" is certainly notable concerning our community clan... but it just doesn't mesh well with server operation. I'm not trying to diminish your suggestions about player rights, but what is really "democratic" about your suggestions? This is sort of like saying the fact that businesses try to give the bullshit perception that "the customer is always right" means the responsibilities of employees of that business are democratic. AwsedreswA wrote ... (purple stuff here) What do you think about wording it this way, Alex? I think these are positive ideas. The wording of some could use work but the notion of trying to guarantee players certain "rights" (which should be read as "privileges") or expectations is a good idea. However, the goal of this thread is to explain the purpose and responsibilties of administrators, and provide concrete definitions of what types of player behavior warrant punishment by admins. Let's not go too far beyond the scope of this thread, please. And speaking of going too far beyond the scope of this thread, we get to Goose's post. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... To start off I say that if more than one admin is playing, then admins must try to play on opposite teams in order to take note of mic spammers and have a better eye on players as a whole. Whats the point of having 2 admins on if both are playing on the same team? This is an interesting idea and I believe Narf has suggested this before. As much as I like the idea of interacting with admins as teammates it may be the way to go. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... I think that it would be helpful to come up with a list of perhaps 10 or so rules that can be listed on the MOTD with perhaps some flashy colors and graphics. The current MOTD is informative and provides links and what is expected from players and admins and such, but honestly, I don't think to many players actually take the time to read it much less come across the '20 second rule' or other stuff. If there is some way of having a single page that lists the rules in a column marked 1-10 and have flashy colors and such, then incoming players will possibly take a few seconds to quickly scan the rules and know what to expect. This is off topic but I will try to give you some "flashy" and bite-sized responses. We certainly wouldn't want to elaborate on details... Having a quick summary of rules is what we've had and will continue to do; however, extended definitions are needed. We've had simple definitions for a while now and there are still misunderstandings. We don't need a code of law but verbosity of punishable behavior can only limit the amount of confusion. As far as the "flashy" MOTD goes I disagree. Having a quick list of rules as the first page displayed would probably accomplish what you are suggesting, though I think most players avoid reading MOTD's and adverts as if ignorance will make them play better... [quote] The current MOTD -[link]- , while functional, efficient and informative may not be everyone's cup of tea and clicking links to get to player rules is cumbersome for many noobs. What do you think about this as a first step in informing incoming players and a way to help minimize confusion for first timers? I think that the added bonus would be that players may be impressed with some graphics and might even be more inclined to add the server to the favorites and check out the site. Something that is quick to read, and the players will get at first glance... [...] Or something like that with the rules listed in priority of their importance and have a link to detailed explanations. If MattieScripts works then perhaps have an advert that says "Type 'MOTD' in chat to see the rules" [/quote1165985705] OK, we're on the same page (haha, pun intended). Start off with the birdseye view and give players the ability to drill down and find more details. BTW, we use mani to handle the "webshortcuts" of being able to fire the in-game browser by saying a particular word or series of words. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... The problem is that its difficult to come up with definitions as to what each rule is. I started doing that in the first go-around I had with this thread, and its quite cumbersome. I mean, I'm all for having 'interesting' sprays with hawt chicks and funny pics and such, but I agree that there should be a line drawn that separates what is acceptable from what is just plain nasty. How can this line be objectively drawn and understood by all admins and players? It's actually pretty easy when you temper expressive objectivity with a pragmatic approach to keeping as many players satisfied as possible. In general terms: what works is good and what's good is what works. Just as every admin reaction will be based upon discretion and cirumstance, so will the interpretation of rules. If, however, we can find rules that are understood by, and appeal to, as many players as possible then we can prevent much of the confusion concerning we run into now. We'll never find something that all will agree upon, but the key is to find the best language for any players and admins as possible. Think about this: we say no CT spawn camping beyond 20 seconds of round start, right? Front office is definitely not "CT Spawn" so is it permissable for a CT to stay in front office for the entire round? Most admins and players would say "no," that is not acceptable because it is a huge waste of time to watch T's stay in projector and some jackass CT sits in front office for the better half of a round. This is already a common understanding among most regs and admins but what if we had a documented explanation of this concept instead of relying people to just catch on to what most regs and admins accept as law? BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... As of late, I have had the alias of (Chimp Pimp) attached to the end of my name and I go at lengths at letting people know that I'm pimping some chimp hookers for $15 a pop (or $10 if the chimp has Aids, like Lucy) My chimps will pleasure you long time and if you request 2, I'll even throw in a free barrel of bananas. I don't deal with apes though. I also go to great lengths to let potential Johns know that chimp ass tastes like shit and my half price Christmas sale is approaching. Well, the point I'm trying to make is, what is acceptable and how far can certain conversations (sprays) go? This is nearly impossible to define and will always be up to admin-discretion. There are certainly topics that will evoke negative responses from players yet personally mean nothing to admins. If the topic seems disruptive to playing CS:S then what is the obvious solution? BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... I'm all for freedom of expression and the odd political debate doesn't bother me. I even get some kicks when 2 people are arguing and tossing around some humorous namecalling. I like Trueagle's hawt chick sprays and I'm sure many people do as well. Sometimes the conversation may go into talking about cock and ass and who is splooging where and such,,, what is appropriate and what is offensive and who makes the call? If players are joking aroud too and having a good time, then why should there be conduct limits on conversations or even sprays for that matter. If nobody leaves the server because of it, then there is no harm, no foul and if players don't say anything, then couldn't one assume that they tacitly condone it.? This one is a stumper. The level to which these questions vex me, as well as my inability to come up with a simple answer, pisses me off to no end. This taps into the "Disruptive Sprays" thread from months ago and clearly we need to readdress this social issue. Expect a new thread on this in the next week or so. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... We seem to strictly enforce loosely defined rules but aside from the ones listed in the initial post, many decisions are subjective and based on the flow of the game. Example: Keep teams fair by handing out cash/health. But it doesn't specify after how many rounds of domination. The 20 second spawn camp rule started as a way to get players out of spawn but it seems to have extended to "CTs cannot camp anywhere on the map for more than 20 secs" I mean, with a 2:15 timer, its like admins use their bound 'no camping' saying and its almost as if CT's are forced to rush everytime and in every instance. You could be approaching (walking) down long hall, but an admin may say "No non-objective camping". The rounds move quick as it is, its almost like people look for things to enforce sometimes when the flow of the game doesn't necessarily call for it. Again, there is nothing official beyond "No CT Spawn Camping" wich is very much different from "No CT Camping." This is why I would like to define a more general understanding of "CT Camping." Having a precise order of giving cash, giving health, swapping, etc. is pointless because most of you could be replaced by a script or plugin if it were that easy. If you're under the assumption that we've done somethings well so far and need to improve in other areas then you're still with me. You seem to be off a tangent of questioning why we even have admins at this point when we could all be replaced by code. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... Besides that, it seems like the only methods to enforce rules are ... green text, mute, slap, slay, kick, ban. Don't get me wrong, these are the most efficient methods to use in every instance, but what about allowing admins to blind, freeze and drug for other instances? Would this just be utilizing the mani tool or would it cause retaliation and eventhough these measures are not 'necessary', if a responsible, common sense minded admin uses Drug instead of slap, would it have negative effects? What about using beacon instead of slay for CT spawn campers? Whenever I beacon a spawn camper and they get moving, I feel guilty and take the beacon off. What about using timebomb instead of beacon? Should there be less remourse for asshats? Would it lead to abuse and players getting pissed off and leaving? There should be a logical ordering of punishments for people. If you mic spam then you get muted or if you camp repeatedly you get beaconed, etc. I completely agree with your suggestion and punishments like freezing (even if temporary) to get someone attention followed by an immediate unfreeze seems legitimate to me. The key is to not go "nukalur" as my preznit would say. Make the punishment fit the crime. Hell, even admin said warining may be enough for most people as you suggest.BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... I think that the two most enforced rules on FTC are the Team Balance and the CT spawn camp rule. Lets face it, these are pretty 'unique' to FTC. The thing is, many CT's don't go for hosties because there is no 'reward'. Its known that admins will give cash to the losing team, so these is no real incentive to rescue hosties. This is an excellent point. I frequently get answers of "why the fuck would I do that?" when I tell CT's to hurry up and try for hosties. I don't have an answer for this one. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... Awsedreswa has shown in a previous thread that Office is favorable to the T side and the Psychostats show that T's win more rounds than CTs. Hence, CTs are the recipients of cash more often than the Ts, meaning that the $4000 from rescuing hosties is sorta useless. With 'free ammo' with every gun purchase, maybe looking to swap skilled players to the CT side instead of handing out $$ may promote more objective based play and completion of attaining the hosties thus @swap may be the best command. The problem with swapping players is that they gat pissed saying "admin WTF!". This is a common problem and one that is not easily fixed because human-enforced admin intervention as far as team balance goes is not common. BuBBLe GooSe wrote ... What about considering a PTBx plugin that balances teams and prevents players from intentionally trying to join a winning team? This way, players won't get pissed at admins, cash won't be handed out as much meaning that CTs will actually see a point to getting the $150 for touching a hostie and a $1000 for rescuing him. I dunno, I'm just throwing some stuff out there because I can't really come up with any more rules that 'common sense' won't cover. Werd. Already tried PTBx well over a year ago. Didn't work and I can tell you it will not work. I've mentioned it before, but this is probably why I feel so obligated to admin-enforced team balance. I was so utterly pissed about the player reaction to PTBx and ETB in the fall of 2005 that I think I've been bitter ever since. Still thinking about the definitions. Thanks again for all the input. Edited Wed Dec 13 2006, 06:51AM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|