V
Vewoth
Guest
- Thread Author
- #1
This abuse report is not just a normal report of an admin abuse that occurred on my appeal. It's a recommendation also for reforming the system that allowed this abuse to happen. But first, for a point of reference, here's the ban message (banning admin's name cut off to protect their privacy on the matter). I'm posting the ban message upfront, because I own up to the poor RP on my part. Even though, according to the relevant rules (as outlined in my appeal), it did not constitute FailRP, I still take ownership that my RP could have been a lot better to the standard I normally set for myself and for which many people in the community know and expect when they RP with me. To any of those players who were the ones I interacted with during this incident: I'm sorry.
THE PROBLEM, THE CAUSE AND THE SOLUTION
Problem: Administrators are able to ban, and then someone they know in the same social circle rejects an appeal without being required to address concerns brought on by the appealer. The current system for ban appeals gives the accepting / rejecting authority a lot of discretion, which means a lot of room for error. And then if they make a mistake, there's little recourse to address that mistake.
Cause: I believe the cause is three fold.
1. Admins are in the same social circle. I'm not saying any errors are intended. But bias exists, and you have to acknowledge that they do, and that admins may be inclined to be biased, even in a way they aren't aware.
2. Admins do not *have to* (aren't required) consider the reasons for appeal. Consider my latest ban appeal. The rejecting admin did not respond to any of my claims that were counterpoints to why I should not be banned. Instead they reiterated the perspective of the ban.
3. When an admin rejects an appeal and does so in a naturally biased and one-sided way, there's no way for the rejected person to say: "Hey look, they did this wrong thing. Can we acknowledge that and fix it?" Naturally the admins are biased. That's not a personal statement. That's a truism to all admins of all games unless that game has admins scheduled to do their jobs at certain times of the day and prohibits any social contact on discord or other games, which they don't. It's a fact of games. Most admins handle the bias well and make objective decisions. But because the bias is there regardless, a system should always be in place to look at it and make sure the bias didn't win out. And because appeals don't require the accepting/rejecting admin to consider each argument, appeals are naturally one-sided. That's not a reflection on @Rabithunter who did my appeal, or any admin. It's the system in place.
Solution: I propose a new system for managing appeals. Because they are currently biased, one-sided, and without recourse.
Current System: Warn/Ban by Admin X > Appeal Decision by Admin Y > OR If Necessary Additional Input with Data or Decision by Admin Z THEN > Appeal is Accepted or Rejected by Admin Y.
Cons: The current system is biased, one-sided and without recourse, not to mention very linear.
Pros: The current system is very easy, fast, and gets rid of the minges, actual FailRPers with no intent ro RP, and people who obviously don't care without wasting admin effort.
Proposed System (changes underlined): Warn/Ban by Admin X > Reply to Appeal Comments by Admin Y with Recommendation of Appeal Decision to Admin A > Response to the Reply by Appealer > (If Necessary Additional Input with Data or Decision by Admin Z) > Final Decision by Admin A to Accept or Reject Appeal.
Cons: The proposed system takes long and grants greater protection to people who are warned or banned (is being innocent until guilty a bad thing though?). More effort is required by the responding Admin Y, because they have to consider the arguments made (and any evidence), and cannot just reiterate the banner's position. And a third Admin, Admin A, has to not only decide on the appeal, but read both a response to Admin Y's reply and Admin Y's reply in order to make that decision.
Pros: The new system is not biased because a separate admin is making the final decision (Admin A) than the ones that replied (Admin Y or Z). The decision is not one-sided, because Admin Y *has* to reply and consider the response of the appealer. They are required to in order to have a chance for the recommendation to go to Admin A, and because Admin A is judging to see if Admin Y followed the process and considered the appeal. The new system is not linear or without recourse because the appealer can respond, before a final decision on both the respond to the reply of Admin Y and the reply of Admin Y itself. Admin A addresses if any bias occurred, and decides not just the appeal by the merit of arguments and counterarguments, and the conduct of Admin Y.
The new server director acknowledged that banning first and asking questions later is an issue that's been brought up in the community. But there's a bigger problem. When the questions Do get asked, but the person asking them gets gaslighted for not taking the original concerns seriously (that are being questioned in the first place, so why should they be heeded like gospel), and when that person's questions are not even considered but the ban just reiterated in their face? For example, in my appeal, I was told after being denied: "You perception is very narrow and to the letter of how they can be interpreted." (not "your" in case anyone thinks I didn't type it correctly, just quoting exactly.) If an admin can say that in an appeal, then that's it. Not only is the person saying what the rules are, they are declaring that in this game, infront of all other admins, this person is narrowminded and you should not listen to them or believe them or what they say.
Application: Take my recent ban appeal for example. I made three major claims and a overall conclusion that brought serious concerns.
In the current system, what happens if Admin Y decides without considering the appeal, but only reiterating the concerns: These concerns were not even addressed in the slightest. I was instead accused of being narrow, single-minded and essentially gaslighted for trying to defend myself by addressing the errors of the ban. Imagine that - for making appeals in the past, I'm a bad person and proves why my appeal carries no weight. In the new system, I would be able to reply to the new evidence the admin brings, and to their new points as well as counterpoints of my own. That admin could also be biased, though. Take my appeal for example, again, when the admin seemed to be airing grievance and have a beef with me when rejecting the appeal by citing something I did that they disliked: "I understand that you wished to dispute my decision on the first, but once a decision is made it typically wont alter, unless a lengthy ban such as three months is handed out to a player." By dispute, the admin was referring to an appeal, which is not a dispute, it's an appeal. They seem to take it personally, because they are mis-identifying the action I took as a "dispute" and not the "appeal" and in a way that uses a different word which implies hostility and combativeness on my part to their person or their decisions. Also, why is the admin talking about my previous appeal of their decision for a completely different ban? I understand talking about previous warnings or bans for things of the same nature (which was not the case here). But talking about my appeal to your decision? The only reason a person would do that is because it bothers them, as an appeal is not a crime or something against the rules. Yet he threw it in there in this list of bad things I had done. I bring that up, because it's a great example of how personal bias against someone influences poor decisionmaking. It's also a great example of gaslight / manipulation by challenging a person's credibility and not their appeal. And if that person is the final decider, then there's no recourse, as in the current system.
What happens if the appealer can respond to the reply? In this reply, if I had the chance, I would have been to consider the counterpoints (there were none, because my claims weren't addressed with any counterpoints) and I would have been able to consider the evidence I had not seen. The only counterpoint that was remotely considered, for example in using my appeal, was when the admin had said I failRP'd by not emoting an action well enough, but typing the /me for an action that showed fear (running away). Is this bannable for a month? Seems excessive. If it is, will another admin look at it? No, even if it is excessive. And why? Because that's the current system. Being told you're one-sided or narrowminded before you can even respond to someone's point of view about what you said is an ironic thing to experience. Not only are you banned, but you're insulted and manipulated into shutting up, or else you're just even more narrowminded for pushing the issue and seeking justice. Another example when using my recent appeal: I applied the rules, to the letter. The rules that govern the server and RP, that all players need to learn and apply very well. I was then told that the admin's interpretation is more important the rules. The wording was: "not all aspects of a rule is written down," after I literally quoted the rules and how they applied, and showed how my behavior was consistent with the rules. If a new system allowed another Admin to evaluate this instance of the rules being thrown away, not by a player, but by an admin.... then maybe the rules would be upheld and the appeal would have justice.
What happens if Admin A makes the final decision. Admin A is given a lot of power here. They decide not just the appeal, but the argument and the evidence. For example in my appeal, I was told that the "the evidence here speaks for itself in regards to not giving enough RP to illustrate anything." However, the admin didn't say how, after I had offered a different interpretation of the evidence. Then, after my reply, three things would be accomplished. One, if there was bias, one-sidedness, and a lack of recourse, as what happened in this instance, I would have included it in my reply to Admin Y, as above, and then Admin A would be able to address it then and there and not in an admin abuse report. It gives protection to Admin Y by letting this appeal being the final word on them, and whether they did have bias, one-sided mindset, or administer with a lack of justice. It forces Admin Y to consider, not just reply, but actually consider what someone being banned is saying, and then counter the point, instead of just driving their own point harder into the dirt. But most importantly, it forces the appealer to actually show their true colors and if they care, and are a serious RP'er. If an appealer replies and just gaslights the admin in return, does not consider Admin Y's points, does not seem to think the rules apply to them, and then insults the post by insulting them... what should happen to that player when an admin is disrespected in such a way and the rules trashed? But in the new system, if a player does that to Admin Y, then Admin Y is vindicated, the appealer is proven in their own actions to not have any new evidence or correct interpretation of the rules, nor any remorse for mistakes that are proven and is instead a disrespectful person with no consideration of other's points of view and no regard for the rules, and Admin A can not only grant the appeal, but address that person's behavior throughout the appeal in his decision. And if the admin does it, as is this case, then Admin A can also address that disrespectful and negligent behavior as apart of the appeal, privately, and not embarrass the admin when that player makes an abuse report that are shown publicly.
Here is a little experiment on how Admin A would judge the appealer and Admin Y's arguments and behavior, using my previous appeal as the experiment of the current system versus proposed system.
Admin A can then do four things: Accept the Appeal, Reject the Appeal, Follow the Recommendation of Admin Y in their Response, or Modify the Ban into a shorter time or a warning. They consider not just Admin Y's response and recommendation, but also the appealer's reply to the response. Maybe Admin A gives a longer ban or warning time, or turns the warning into a ban if the appealer proves to be unremorseful, biased and one-sided themselves.
Ah, but what about the decision on a case where the admin, and not the person is one-sided. What if an admin warned a player about something in game, and the player responded saying they still think the admin is wrong, and then insults them. What would happen to that player? Now imagine it's an admin. What about a case where the appealer is gaslighted, insulted, and literally told that the rules don't matter? Then a bigger decision is made by Admin A. And this decision occurs outside the appeal, regardless of how it turns out. Now Admin Y's behavior, their arguments, the way they respond is put under the microscope. It's either commended to they are themselves addressed.
Would you commend an admin for gaslighting, not responding to claims of an appeal, not clarifying concerns but only listing new concerns that had already been addressed with a previous admin, telling you that their interpretation of the rules is more important than the rules being applied (essentially the rules don't apply to them or their decision, but they can reject your appeal because you have a history of appealing bans and they don't like you 'disputed' them?) What about when that admin then insults a player at the very end of that appeal? Do you think that's professional conduct on the forums, even if the person is not an admin? Would you ban someone from the forums if I just flatout banned someone from my RP group and then told them they have a narrow interpretation of things? Do you think that's respectful? And what about that appeal that's handled in such a poor way? Should you just let it stand?
I'm asking @Imperator RAD-X and multiple members of the admin team to review this, because this recommendation would change a huge aspect of the server and staff management. I know he's been keen on reforming WN for the better. This recommendation and justice for my appeal are steps in the right direction. An admin abuse occurred on my appeal, and they got away with it because the current system allows one-sided, biased and unaddressed decisions to be made on appeals. What do I want out of this? I want the system reformed so this doesn't happen to other players. I want my appeal changed to either a shorter ban or a warnings, because that's what's proportional to the substandard RP that I allowed. My RP was not as good as it should have been and I accept that. Per the rules, it was not failRP (I showed how the rules apply in the appeal though even the rules were dismissed). It was not failRP, but it wasn't good RP either, and that's my fault. I got too caught up in the moment and let it happen. But a month long ban does not warrant that.
I want to break the abuse down into how it's abusive, as the admin in my appeal did not address how my concerns were concerning (I'd like to show how to do the right thing).
Bias - I'm not talking about the natural bias that exists. This admin went into my appeal history and seemed upset about it, because they lumped it in with my ban and warning history like it's a bad thing, and then called it a "dispute." There's no dispute, just an appeal. That's also a bit of gaslighting by undermining an official action a player can take on the forums, but my claim for manipulation is later.
Ignoring Claims - None of my claims outlined in my appeal were ever responded to. I was never told: "So you said this, I thought this, and this is my reply. You are wrong or you are right." And because they never responded to my claims, that means they never actually considered my appeal, just used it to generate arguments as to why they dislike my points, and not counterpoints. Essentially they didn't do their job. Why appeal at all then, if you're just going to be told that your appeal is a narrow interpretation and you're a troublemaker? I was not told what I failed to /checkcrime, was not told why concerns were concerning, was not told what was failRP, even though I literally applied the rules of the server, verbatim. And if the rules aren't good enough, as the admin replied they weren't but their interpretation was, then what's the point of server rules? The admin failed to actually consider the appeal by ignoring the claims. What's the point of the appeal, if the ban message is just read back into your face and you have no chance to tell your side of the story, because you don't even know what you're accused of? With the current system, because the logs showed that I performed /me's in action / reaction sequence, while the RP was not good by any means, it *was* RP, so fail RP didn't occur. And because of the type of RP and /me performed, my character did not act unphased. The logs show this. But I'm not able to respond to the logs or clarify, or even take ownership of the poor RP that was done. My claims were ignored despite the evidence that supports a ban removal or reduction, and it ended in an insult while being gaslighted through the whole thing.
Insults - "You perception is very narrow." If you don't think that's an insult then there's a bigger problem. Also, spending most of the response talking about my past warnings and appeals... not only does that betray bias and dislike you might have for me... but it also is not relevant to the ban message. It's not the ban message. Why bring it up? It seems like you just want to use this reply to my appeal to call me a troublemaker and not talk about the ban message or my claims. Again, most of the admin's response to my appeal was not about the ban message or my claims. They were about me, and what they disliked about me. That created an insulting tone across the whole post. Imagine if you got banned for something. And I replied: "Here's everything else you did that we already addressed, resolved and concluded." Ok, but what about my side of the story with respect to the logs that I had not yet shared? You wouldn't consider my point of view and my actions before and after relevant, since a GM was not with us in the Outlands to objectively document it? " You perception is very narrow" is the only reply to that question I saw to any of my questions, concerns or claims.
Manipulation - If talking about everything but my appeal, insulting my perception (ability to reason and see evidence), ignoring my claims and only building yours up while trying to attack the credibility of my claims and not the claims themselves isn't enough, let's throw in the fact that I, apparently, don't make appeals. According to this admin, I make "disputes." And I make "disputes" because I'm a trouble-making and unremorseful idiot (narrow perception is also an insult for idiocy), and I "dont seem to be getting the message." He goes onto say "you consistently do something to gain warnings and bans, then head to the appeals section of the forums to detail everything you believe to be wrong with the bans." That is essentially saying that I seem to be unremorseful and problematic. Why are we talking about my psychology and me, and not the ban message, anyway? Talking about the history of someone is one thing, but just trying to manipulate them by trashing them as a person in a way that isn't relevant to the ban message, and then talk about anything but the ban message is another. What's most manipulative about that statement that I always appeal "everything," is that the statement implies my appeals are arbitrary, which implies this appeal is arbitrary and emotional, which implies it is without any warrant, credibility, or reason to believe I or the appeal are right. But what's more manipulative yet is the fact that if anyone of the warnings or bans you brought up were even about the same thing as this ban, then I'd understand talking trends and data points. But they weren't related. You just brought up unrelated warnings and bans. And yet you still brought them up in a way that challenged my credibility as an appealer, but did not challenge my appeal. Yes, you showed the logs as I requested and thank you for doing that. Can we talk about them? No? Just that I'm a combative and troublemaking idiot, apparently. Looking back over them, I now see that my RP was substandard and lacking. I'm usually great at RP as many can testify, but I seemed to have dropped the ball here and damn, because it was shitty lol. I guess I got caught in the moment. Can we talk about that? No? Only my warnings and previous bans while at most calling the logs 'evidence' and just say they support the ban without going into reason why? Only me seeming to be unremorseful and "not getting the message?" Only that you dislike my appeals by calling them "disputes" and by doing so imply I'm even more a troublemaker who is hostile whose appeals shouldn't be taken seriously because I appeal "everything" anyway? The most topical thing discussed were these "concerns" that I asked be shared with me and with the reasons they were wrong and the rules they broke, but what was replied to my appeals were just more concerns without saying why they are concerning, only how. We can't even talk about my side of the story that isn't shown in the ban or even my appeal but I just now realize going through the logs you provided? We can't mostly about the ban message? What can we talk about then? How I'm a bad person? You don't want to talk about the ban message at all except to clarify that /checkrp was mistyped from /checkcrime and not even elaborate what I failed to /checkcrime, ultimately and yet again bringing up another concern but not cite the scenario or why it's concerning? If most of your post and literal character count to my appeal is not about my appeal or my ban message, then maybe your final and concluding sentences are? No? What then? What's the last big point you have to make about my appeal, my ban, my behavior and why I deserve a month long ban? "You perception is very narrow."
I'm not saying the admin who committed the abuse is an abusive person, and I don't even know them in real life. They could be a great guy for all I know, and I'll show them respect. I also have nothing against them or any admin. I'm only saying, as I have before, that everyone makes mistakes, and this admin abuse is a serious mistake that shows not only an error on my appeals that should be corrected, but how the current system that let that happen can be revised into a greater one that ensures better admins, better bans or warnings, and a more professional, respectful server where people aren't insulted and manipulated by those with power.
Thanks for your time reading this. But I know if you care about the server and the community in it, you'll read it. This happened to me, which means that it very well could have happened to others in those appeals hidden from the rest of us, and it'll happen again. I also welcome replies as long as you give me the time and a post to understand what your reply is and to then respond to your reply so that I can carefully consider and understand your counterpoints and points so that, hopefully after further replies from others we create a constructive and positive dialogue so that a final admin can step in and say: "Ok, I've looked at everything, here's my decision on the matter of this abuse report and your appeal." I only ask you be respectful in your reply to my abuse report and not gaslight me as a troublemaking and disruptive idiot who can't reason correctly.
I want to finish with this. I'm not saying the admin in question committed the abuse he did purposefully. Shit happens and everyone makes mistakes. Just take a look at me.
THE PROBLEM, THE CAUSE AND THE SOLUTION
Problem: Administrators are able to ban, and then someone they know in the same social circle rejects an appeal without being required to address concerns brought on by the appealer. The current system for ban appeals gives the accepting / rejecting authority a lot of discretion, which means a lot of room for error. And then if they make a mistake, there's little recourse to address that mistake.
Cause: I believe the cause is three fold.
1. Admins are in the same social circle. I'm not saying any errors are intended. But bias exists, and you have to acknowledge that they do, and that admins may be inclined to be biased, even in a way they aren't aware.
2. Admins do not *have to* (aren't required) consider the reasons for appeal. Consider my latest ban appeal. The rejecting admin did not respond to any of my claims that were counterpoints to why I should not be banned. Instead they reiterated the perspective of the ban.
3. When an admin rejects an appeal and does so in a naturally biased and one-sided way, there's no way for the rejected person to say: "Hey look, they did this wrong thing. Can we acknowledge that and fix it?" Naturally the admins are biased. That's not a personal statement. That's a truism to all admins of all games unless that game has admins scheduled to do their jobs at certain times of the day and prohibits any social contact on discord or other games, which they don't. It's a fact of games. Most admins handle the bias well and make objective decisions. But because the bias is there regardless, a system should always be in place to look at it and make sure the bias didn't win out. And because appeals don't require the accepting/rejecting admin to consider each argument, appeals are naturally one-sided. That's not a reflection on @Rabithunter who did my appeal, or any admin. It's the system in place.
Solution: I propose a new system for managing appeals. Because they are currently biased, one-sided, and without recourse.
THE NEW BAN APPEAL SYSTEM (PROPOSAL)
Current System: Warn/Ban by Admin X > Appeal Decision by Admin Y > OR If Necessary Additional Input with Data or Decision by Admin Z THEN > Appeal is Accepted or Rejected by Admin Y.
Cons: The current system is biased, one-sided and without recourse, not to mention very linear.
Pros: The current system is very easy, fast, and gets rid of the minges, actual FailRPers with no intent ro RP, and people who obviously don't care without wasting admin effort.
Proposed System (changes underlined): Warn/Ban by Admin X > Reply to Appeal Comments by Admin Y with Recommendation of Appeal Decision to Admin A > Response to the Reply by Appealer > (If Necessary Additional Input with Data or Decision by Admin Z) > Final Decision by Admin A to Accept or Reject Appeal.
Cons: The proposed system takes long and grants greater protection to people who are warned or banned (is being innocent until guilty a bad thing though?). More effort is required by the responding Admin Y, because they have to consider the arguments made (and any evidence), and cannot just reiterate the banner's position. And a third Admin, Admin A, has to not only decide on the appeal, but read both a response to Admin Y's reply and Admin Y's reply in order to make that decision.
Pros: The new system is not biased because a separate admin is making the final decision (Admin A) than the ones that replied (Admin Y or Z). The decision is not one-sided, because Admin Y *has* to reply and consider the response of the appealer. They are required to in order to have a chance for the recommendation to go to Admin A, and because Admin A is judging to see if Admin Y followed the process and considered the appeal. The new system is not linear or without recourse because the appealer can respond, before a final decision on both the respond to the reply of Admin Y and the reply of Admin Y itself. Admin A addresses if any bias occurred, and decides not just the appeal by the merit of arguments and counterarguments, and the conduct of Admin Y.
The new server director acknowledged that banning first and asking questions later is an issue that's been brought up in the community. But there's a bigger problem. When the questions Do get asked, but the person asking them gets gaslighted for not taking the original concerns seriously (that are being questioned in the first place, so why should they be heeded like gospel), and when that person's questions are not even considered but the ban just reiterated in their face? For example, in my appeal, I was told after being denied: "You perception is very narrow and to the letter of how they can be interpreted." (not "your" in case anyone thinks I didn't type it correctly, just quoting exactly.) If an admin can say that in an appeal, then that's it. Not only is the person saying what the rules are, they are declaring that in this game, infront of all other admins, this person is narrowminded and you should not listen to them or believe them or what they say.
ANALYSIS OF THE NEW SYSTEM AND EXAMPLES OF ADMIN ABUSE ON MY APPEAL, AND HOW THE NEW SYSTEM COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ABUSE
Application: Take my recent ban appeal for example. I made three major claims and a overall conclusion that brought serious concerns.
In the current system, what happens if Admin Y decides without considering the appeal, but only reiterating the concerns: These concerns were not even addressed in the slightest. I was instead accused of being narrow, single-minded and essentially gaslighted for trying to defend myself by addressing the errors of the ban. Imagine that - for making appeals in the past, I'm a bad person and proves why my appeal carries no weight. In the new system, I would be able to reply to the new evidence the admin brings, and to their new points as well as counterpoints of my own. That admin could also be biased, though. Take my appeal for example, again, when the admin seemed to be airing grievance and have a beef with me when rejecting the appeal by citing something I did that they disliked: "I understand that you wished to dispute my decision on the first, but once a decision is made it typically wont alter, unless a lengthy ban such as three months is handed out to a player." By dispute, the admin was referring to an appeal, which is not a dispute, it's an appeal. They seem to take it personally, because they are mis-identifying the action I took as a "dispute" and not the "appeal" and in a way that uses a different word which implies hostility and combativeness on my part to their person or their decisions. Also, why is the admin talking about my previous appeal of their decision for a completely different ban? I understand talking about previous warnings or bans for things of the same nature (which was not the case here). But talking about my appeal to your decision? The only reason a person would do that is because it bothers them, as an appeal is not a crime or something against the rules. Yet he threw it in there in this list of bad things I had done. I bring that up, because it's a great example of how personal bias against someone influences poor decisionmaking. It's also a great example of gaslight / manipulation by challenging a person's credibility and not their appeal. And if that person is the final decider, then there's no recourse, as in the current system.
What happens if the appealer can respond to the reply? In this reply, if I had the chance, I would have been to consider the counterpoints (there were none, because my claims weren't addressed with any counterpoints) and I would have been able to consider the evidence I had not seen. The only counterpoint that was remotely considered, for example in using my appeal, was when the admin had said I failRP'd by not emoting an action well enough, but typing the /me for an action that showed fear (running away). Is this bannable for a month? Seems excessive. If it is, will another admin look at it? No, even if it is excessive. And why? Because that's the current system. Being told you're one-sided or narrowminded before you can even respond to someone's point of view about what you said is an ironic thing to experience. Not only are you banned, but you're insulted and manipulated into shutting up, or else you're just even more narrowminded for pushing the issue and seeking justice. Another example when using my recent appeal: I applied the rules, to the letter. The rules that govern the server and RP, that all players need to learn and apply very well. I was then told that the admin's interpretation is more important the rules. The wording was: "not all aspects of a rule is written down," after I literally quoted the rules and how they applied, and showed how my behavior was consistent with the rules. If a new system allowed another Admin to evaluate this instance of the rules being thrown away, not by a player, but by an admin.... then maybe the rules would be upheld and the appeal would have justice.
What happens if Admin A makes the final decision. Admin A is given a lot of power here. They decide not just the appeal, but the argument and the evidence. For example in my appeal, I was told that the "the evidence here speaks for itself in regards to not giving enough RP to illustrate anything." However, the admin didn't say how, after I had offered a different interpretation of the evidence. Then, after my reply, three things would be accomplished. One, if there was bias, one-sidedness, and a lack of recourse, as what happened in this instance, I would have included it in my reply to Admin Y, as above, and then Admin A would be able to address it then and there and not in an admin abuse report. It gives protection to Admin Y by letting this appeal being the final word on them, and whether they did have bias, one-sided mindset, or administer with a lack of justice. It forces Admin Y to consider, not just reply, but actually consider what someone being banned is saying, and then counter the point, instead of just driving their own point harder into the dirt. But most importantly, it forces the appealer to actually show their true colors and if they care, and are a serious RP'er. If an appealer replies and just gaslights the admin in return, does not consider Admin Y's points, does not seem to think the rules apply to them, and then insults the post by insulting them... what should happen to that player when an admin is disrespected in such a way and the rules trashed? But in the new system, if a player does that to Admin Y, then Admin Y is vindicated, the appealer is proven in their own actions to not have any new evidence or correct interpretation of the rules, nor any remorse for mistakes that are proven and is instead a disrespectful person with no consideration of other's points of view and no regard for the rules, and Admin A can not only grant the appeal, but address that person's behavior throughout the appeal in his decision. And if the admin does it, as is this case, then Admin A can also address that disrespectful and negligent behavior as apart of the appeal, privately, and not embarrass the admin when that player makes an abuse report that are shown publicly.
Here is a little experiment on how Admin A would judge the appealer and Admin Y's arguments and behavior, using my previous appeal as the experiment of the current system versus proposed system.
A. The appealer says something to the effect of "concerns were listed in the ban, but I don't know what they are. They were not listed."
B. Admin Y says: As he rejecting admin said, "There are multiple complaints about you, with other staff members having taken a keen interest in how you behave and RP on the server, bringing concerns about you in general. Looking through the complaints we have, I can see that those are listed in the following order: "Your Viktor character being in the nexus and RP'd as a cafeteria staff member/cleaner, with concerns on how you got there to begin with." (Circular Logic, without clarifying what those concerns were). The admin then said "A minor issue in regards to gaining civil protection codes as a rebel. Logically you wouldn't know all of this in character from the get go, as the codes in civil protection are very well guarded and not well known." (But CP use these codes infront of civilians on the radio all the time).
C. Admin A looks at Admin Y's argument. Would you let any of those arguments fly for enforcing a month long ban? Would you really? One uses circular logic and doesn't actually specific what is concerning, only citing another example of something that brought the "concerns" without saying what those concerns are. What's the real problem here? The other argument is not based in the reality of RP, by citing a reason that is counteracted with the roleplay that occurs on the server. Would you enforce a month long ban for that argument? Now imagine someone gets a month long ban appeal rejected for those arguments. And not only that, imagine that those arguments had nothing to do with the original ban message (reason for ban)? Enter Admin A. Admin is able to pump the breaks and apply justice and say: "hold on, this isn't right."
Admin A can then do four things: Accept the Appeal, Reject the Appeal, Follow the Recommendation of Admin Y in their Response, or Modify the Ban into a shorter time or a warning. They consider not just Admin Y's response and recommendation, but also the appealer's reply to the response. Maybe Admin A gives a longer ban or warning time, or turns the warning into a ban if the appealer proves to be unremorseful, biased and one-sided themselves.
Ah, but what about the decision on a case where the admin, and not the person is one-sided. What if an admin warned a player about something in game, and the player responded saying they still think the admin is wrong, and then insults them. What would happen to that player? Now imagine it's an admin. What about a case where the appealer is gaslighted, insulted, and literally told that the rules don't matter? Then a bigger decision is made by Admin A. And this decision occurs outside the appeal, regardless of how it turns out. Now Admin Y's behavior, their arguments, the way they respond is put under the microscope. It's either commended to they are themselves addressed.
Would you commend an admin for gaslighting, not responding to claims of an appeal, not clarifying concerns but only listing new concerns that had already been addressed with a previous admin, telling you that their interpretation of the rules is more important than the rules being applied (essentially the rules don't apply to them or their decision, but they can reject your appeal because you have a history of appealing bans and they don't like you 'disputed' them?) What about when that admin then insults a player at the very end of that appeal? Do you think that's professional conduct on the forums, even if the person is not an admin? Would you ban someone from the forums if I just flatout banned someone from my RP group and then told them they have a narrow interpretation of things? Do you think that's respectful? And what about that appeal that's handled in such a poor way? Should you just let it stand?
CONCLUSION
I'm asking @Imperator RAD-X and multiple members of the admin team to review this, because this recommendation would change a huge aspect of the server and staff management. I know he's been keen on reforming WN for the better. This recommendation and justice for my appeal are steps in the right direction. An admin abuse occurred on my appeal, and they got away with it because the current system allows one-sided, biased and unaddressed decisions to be made on appeals. What do I want out of this? I want the system reformed so this doesn't happen to other players. I want my appeal changed to either a shorter ban or a warnings, because that's what's proportional to the substandard RP that I allowed. My RP was not as good as it should have been and I accept that. Per the rules, it was not failRP (I showed how the rules apply in the appeal though even the rules were dismissed). It was not failRP, but it wasn't good RP either, and that's my fault. I got too caught up in the moment and let it happen. But a month long ban does not warrant that.
I want to break the abuse down into how it's abusive, as the admin in my appeal did not address how my concerns were concerning (I'd like to show how to do the right thing).
Bias - I'm not talking about the natural bias that exists. This admin went into my appeal history and seemed upset about it, because they lumped it in with my ban and warning history like it's a bad thing, and then called it a "dispute." There's no dispute, just an appeal. That's also a bit of gaslighting by undermining an official action a player can take on the forums, but my claim for manipulation is later.
Ignoring Claims - None of my claims outlined in my appeal were ever responded to. I was never told: "So you said this, I thought this, and this is my reply. You are wrong or you are right." And because they never responded to my claims, that means they never actually considered my appeal, just used it to generate arguments as to why they dislike my points, and not counterpoints. Essentially they didn't do their job. Why appeal at all then, if you're just going to be told that your appeal is a narrow interpretation and you're a troublemaker? I was not told what I failed to /checkcrime, was not told why concerns were concerning, was not told what was failRP, even though I literally applied the rules of the server, verbatim. And if the rules aren't good enough, as the admin replied they weren't but their interpretation was, then what's the point of server rules? The admin failed to actually consider the appeal by ignoring the claims. What's the point of the appeal, if the ban message is just read back into your face and you have no chance to tell your side of the story, because you don't even know what you're accused of? With the current system, because the logs showed that I performed /me's in action / reaction sequence, while the RP was not good by any means, it *was* RP, so fail RP didn't occur. And because of the type of RP and /me performed, my character did not act unphased. The logs show this. But I'm not able to respond to the logs or clarify, or even take ownership of the poor RP that was done. My claims were ignored despite the evidence that supports a ban removal or reduction, and it ended in an insult while being gaslighted through the whole thing.
Insults - "You perception is very narrow." If you don't think that's an insult then there's a bigger problem. Also, spending most of the response talking about my past warnings and appeals... not only does that betray bias and dislike you might have for me... but it also is not relevant to the ban message. It's not the ban message. Why bring it up? It seems like you just want to use this reply to my appeal to call me a troublemaker and not talk about the ban message or my claims. Again, most of the admin's response to my appeal was not about the ban message or my claims. They were about me, and what they disliked about me. That created an insulting tone across the whole post. Imagine if you got banned for something. And I replied: "Here's everything else you did that we already addressed, resolved and concluded." Ok, but what about my side of the story with respect to the logs that I had not yet shared? You wouldn't consider my point of view and my actions before and after relevant, since a GM was not with us in the Outlands to objectively document it? " You perception is very narrow" is the only reply to that question I saw to any of my questions, concerns or claims.
Manipulation - If talking about everything but my appeal, insulting my perception (ability to reason and see evidence), ignoring my claims and only building yours up while trying to attack the credibility of my claims and not the claims themselves isn't enough, let's throw in the fact that I, apparently, don't make appeals. According to this admin, I make "disputes." And I make "disputes" because I'm a trouble-making and unremorseful idiot (narrow perception is also an insult for idiocy), and I "dont seem to be getting the message." He goes onto say "you consistently do something to gain warnings and bans, then head to the appeals section of the forums to detail everything you believe to be wrong with the bans." That is essentially saying that I seem to be unremorseful and problematic. Why are we talking about my psychology and me, and not the ban message, anyway? Talking about the history of someone is one thing, but just trying to manipulate them by trashing them as a person in a way that isn't relevant to the ban message, and then talk about anything but the ban message is another. What's most manipulative about that statement that I always appeal "everything," is that the statement implies my appeals are arbitrary, which implies this appeal is arbitrary and emotional, which implies it is without any warrant, credibility, or reason to believe I or the appeal are right. But what's more manipulative yet is the fact that if anyone of the warnings or bans you brought up were even about the same thing as this ban, then I'd understand talking trends and data points. But they weren't related. You just brought up unrelated warnings and bans. And yet you still brought them up in a way that challenged my credibility as an appealer, but did not challenge my appeal. Yes, you showed the logs as I requested and thank you for doing that. Can we talk about them? No? Just that I'm a combative and troublemaking idiot, apparently. Looking back over them, I now see that my RP was substandard and lacking. I'm usually great at RP as many can testify, but I seemed to have dropped the ball here and damn, because it was shitty lol. I guess I got caught in the moment. Can we talk about that? No? Only my warnings and previous bans while at most calling the logs 'evidence' and just say they support the ban without going into reason why? Only me seeming to be unremorseful and "not getting the message?" Only that you dislike my appeals by calling them "disputes" and by doing so imply I'm even more a troublemaker who is hostile whose appeals shouldn't be taken seriously because I appeal "everything" anyway? The most topical thing discussed were these "concerns" that I asked be shared with me and with the reasons they were wrong and the rules they broke, but what was replied to my appeals were just more concerns without saying why they are concerning, only how. We can't even talk about my side of the story that isn't shown in the ban or even my appeal but I just now realize going through the logs you provided? We can't mostly about the ban message? What can we talk about then? How I'm a bad person? You don't want to talk about the ban message at all except to clarify that /checkrp was mistyped from /checkcrime and not even elaborate what I failed to /checkcrime, ultimately and yet again bringing up another concern but not cite the scenario or why it's concerning? If most of your post and literal character count to my appeal is not about my appeal or my ban message, then maybe your final and concluding sentences are? No? What then? What's the last big point you have to make about my appeal, my ban, my behavior and why I deserve a month long ban? "You perception is very narrow."
I'm not saying the admin who committed the abuse is an abusive person, and I don't even know them in real life. They could be a great guy for all I know, and I'll show them respect. I also have nothing against them or any admin. I'm only saying, as I have before, that everyone makes mistakes, and this admin abuse is a serious mistake that shows not only an error on my appeals that should be corrected, but how the current system that let that happen can be revised into a greater one that ensures better admins, better bans or warnings, and a more professional, respectful server where people aren't insulted and manipulated by those with power.
Thanks for your time reading this. But I know if you care about the server and the community in it, you'll read it. This happened to me, which means that it very well could have happened to others in those appeals hidden from the rest of us, and it'll happen again. I also welcome replies as long as you give me the time and a post to understand what your reply is and to then respond to your reply so that I can carefully consider and understand your counterpoints and points so that, hopefully after further replies from others we create a constructive and positive dialogue so that a final admin can step in and say: "Ok, I've looked at everything, here's my decision on the matter of this abuse report and your appeal." I only ask you be respectful in your reply to my abuse report and not gaslight me as a troublemaking and disruptive idiot who can't reason correctly.
I want to finish with this. I'm not saying the admin in question committed the abuse he did purposefully. Shit happens and everyone makes mistakes. Just take a look at me.
Last edited:
