[Kittenclysm]

Just saw this unfolding in the Discord and came to get some clarification. To what degree are we not allowed to talk about admin actions in the server/discord? Obviously admins have been clear about official complaints and unban requests and things like that belonging in the forums, but where's the line?

I had no idea that we weren't allowed to explain bans. I wasn't there so I didn't see, but if that's actually all that Falcon did to warrant a gag then I think some clarifications would be good, just to make it clear to everyone that even tertiary references to admin actions aren't allowed. It might seem like these kinds of things should be obvious, but honestly what can and can't get you in trouble in SourceOP seems very changeable and inconsistent. I've seen Dopp gag someone for spamming racial slurs, but then I've also seen people do the same thing when someone else is in remote admin and have nothing happen. It makes the rules in the server hard to navigate. Maybe some examples/further explanations of what's not allowed would be more helpful than a list of the repercussions.

[Butane]

1. Clarification is right in the rules thread, please read it since I do not understand what you are asking, seems straight forward to me. If you dont understand it, at least reply quoting it so I know you at least read it and I might be able to explain more.
2. Since you had no involvement, I am declining to discuss any of that with you.
3. I try to be as consistent and fair as possible, sorry I will not go into detail of what criteria I use so as not to be abused. My personal opinion might help tho: people might not understand what my goal as an admin is, I dont care if you are a 10 year grizzled vet of sourceop or first time on the server, ill treat everyone the same and dole out corrective action all the same, regardless. Other admins might be more harsh, some might be more lenient, we all follow our best judgement within the rules.
4. Also addressed in the rules thread.
5. We are not going to list every type of infraction possible, that is unrealistic and lead to users claiming "not explicitly stated, cant ban" as some seem to think is a legitimate defense (hint: its not, its right in the rules thread its not)

If you have further questions, ill do my best to answer.

[Kittenclysm]

Clarification is right in the rules thread, please read it since I do not understand what you are asking, seems straight forward to me.

I know what part of the FAQ you're referring to, and obviously answering a question about another user's absence is technically a comment regarding rules or admins. Clarification: is the rule "don't talk about admin actions ever" or "don't talk about admin actions in a way that disrupts other users' experiences?" Because the "long answer" portion goes on a bit about disrupting others' enjoyment of the game and makes it sound like the spirit of the rule is about being disruptive. If someone asks "what happened to [user]?" and I say "oh she got banned for [action]," is that a bannable offense because it's about admin action, or is it not bannable because it's not disruptive? Of course you can't list every type of infraction, but this is one example of how the rules thread really isn't as clear as you're acting like it is, and why people might be confused.

Other admins might be more harsh, some might be more lenient, we all follow our best judgement within the rules.

I didn't mean to start anything talking about inconsistent admin action, I just honestly shoehorn in that Dopp story whenever I can. But now that you say this, I'm pretty concerned. Are you saying that it's literally just down to the individual admin? There happened to be a more draconian admin present that day so one person got in trouble and another didn't? I understand saying "no admin was present" to explain why that would happen, but in comparable situations where an admin was present in each, the outcome isn't the same? Admins all enforcing the same rules are passing different sentences? We let admins just run around using their power with personal bias? Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?

[Butane]

I know what part of the FAQ you're referring to, and obviously answering a question about another user's absence is technically a comment regarding rules or admins. Clarification: is the rule "don't talk about admin actions ever" or "don't talk about admin actions in a way that disrupts other users' experiences?" Because the "long answer" portion goes on a bit about disrupting others' enjoyment of the game and makes it sound like the spirit of the rule is about being disruptive. If someone asks "what happened to [user]?" and I say "oh she got banned for [action]," is that a bannable offense because it's about admin action, or is it not bannable because it's not disruptive? Of course you can't list every type of infraction, but this is one example of how the rules thread really isn't as clear as you're acting like it is, and why people might be confused.

I dont see we have any exceptions listed in that rule/faq entry. Your above example is borderline asking about a specific case so I cannot fully answer or go into detail but, no ban would be warranted simply saying "x" banned for "y", rather a warning issued and if it continued on, a mute. If a user started to complain about "x" being banned b/c a rule, that I would take further action on.

I didn't mean to start anything talking about inconsistent admin action, I just honestly shoehorn in that Dopp story whenever I can. But now that you say this, I'm pretty concerned. Are you saying that it's literally just down to the individual admin? There happened to be a more draconian admin present that day so one person got in trouble and another didn't? I understand saying "no admin was present" to explain why that would happen, but in comparable situations where an admin was present in each, the outcome isn't the same? Admins all enforcing the same rules are passing different sentences? We let admins just run around using their power with personal bias? Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?

Yes, you did misunderstand a tad. We can be more lenient, and often are then the rules suggest, this we can use discretion for but we must be consistent (individually) in doing so to everyone. Gag or warnings for things that otherwise would be kicks/short bans. Between Admins, this might flux a tad but was/has never been a concern to anyone on staff (I know nothing of any Admins being bias, imo, this is a talking point of some regulars who feel offended they are being held accountable as any random user would be) We do our best never to go beyond what the rules say unless circumstances require and we must document such an encounter and provide it to other admins for review when requested. Other then a new admin making a mistake or two that we corrected, its exceedingly rare we would take more action then what the rules prescribe.

Hope that helps.