Staff "going by the report response"

When you place no reason we expect you have none.
Psychology 1o1 says a innocent will defend itself.

 

Yeah Xpro I usually catch on to these types of situations and I usually send the logs and sort of describe the deathscene to them so they can remember. I will admit it isn't the best way to handle it because the person can easily just give a reason that may not actually have been their reason, but at least then i'm not slaying someone for having a valid reason.

Cowcakes, stop pretending you know anything about me or how we operate as a staff team, because you dont. Your constant anti-staff attitude is starting to seriously piss me off, if you haven't anything good to say then you might as well not say anything at all. I volunteer my time to this and i've volunteered a lot of it not only to staff the servers, but to train and promote people who can staff it as well. I've been very successful as well, and to be told by someone who has never even been staff, let alone one of the most antagonistic people on the forums, that I am the one that has a bad way of doing things is not only comical, but laughably hard to take seriously. So just stop.

jshore you gave a reason for your report that was incorrect. That isn't the same thing as what we are talking about at all. You TOLD them why you killed the person. They checked the logs to verify your response and came up with the fact that you were wrong. You didn't give a response that was vague, you gave a response that was just flat out wrong. maybe if you had given them a second reason of gba in the report you would have been fine. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

why do i even bother, yall will just rate me dumb anyways.

 

Spoiler

I'm not sure how it works around here anymore, but when a Lead/community manager says that something is STAFF PROTOCOL and that STAFF IS REQUIRED TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF THE RESPONSE IS VAGUE, then that means that it's not up to you to decide whether you do or don't, even if the response is "Sorry i was asleep" "Fuck you" "you shitbag" etc etc, if the response is vague, YOU NEED TO ASK THAT PERSON WHY THEY DID IT.


And to double confirm this since it doesn't seem like most people understand what helix said @HelixSpiral can you put it into simpler terms? seems some staff doesn't understand what "Staff Protocol" and "required" mean. In the meantime here's what required and vague mean

 

idk what you are talking about, I was really respectful to xpro.

 

@Rozboon I'd guess that vague in this sense is not the same as the actual definition of vague. This is a hyperbolic example, but if you answer your report response by just saying "Kike", you're going to be slain. Technically, the response might be uncertain and unclear as to why you killed someone, but I don't believe the staff team takes vagueness that far. I could be wrong though.

 

Is the suspect saying they killed the person for being a kike? or did they say it because the person pissed them off? That response is as vague as possible and a simple "!p Name Why did you kill so and so" can grant a slay or not, and by what helix said, it is staff protocol to find more information for a report if the response isn't clear.

 

I think you missed my point. Yes, it is vague, but I doubt that most staff members are going to investigate report responses like that. They don't take vagueness that far. I don't believe Helix would either, but we'll just have to see what he meant by that.

 

based and redpilled

So is anyone actually gonna say anything about the CONCRETE CASES that I have listed in my original post or are you all gonna be really wishy-washy and make general statements about vague scenarios we have no idea about? Let's use the one where it was crossfire and the reported person simply apologizes for the kill. Anyone with half a brain will instantly see that it was crossfire, from both the damage logs (person also damaged an innocent at the same time) and from the Death Scene.

The person who got reported MAY NOT KNOW that there is a rule about crossfire that could save him from being slain and it is NOT the job of the players to know the intricacies of the extended rules: The extended rules are just there to cover all cases for the staff to handle. The rules are mainly just common sense, but they have to be written down somewhere so everyone handles them the same. It is insane that you expect people, especially newcomers, to react to an accidental teamkill by citing the name of a clause that invalidates a potential slay. Just apologizing is a completely natural reaction because the person might feel like they deserve a slay. They did fuck up. It is your job to know that our server happens to be one where crossfire does not get punished. You know why lawyers exist? Because despite having done nothing wrong, a defendant might not know how to explain that they did nothing wrong or they might not even know that what they did isn't punishable in that specific place they are tried in.

By the way, realizing that that report was crossfire as a mod took less/about the same amount of time it takes a person to write a report response. You literally see it instantly.

I will repeat: Looking at death scenes for easy cases like this takes less than 10 seconds. Any staff that wants to have even the least bit of information about what happen will want to look at it. It is understandable that you will go by the response if it is GIBBERISH, or an INSULT, or something that CONTRADICTS A VALID REASON, but you should not just go by the response if it is just VAGUE and/or DOES NOT CONTRACT THE VALID REASON.

Don't misinterpret all-caps as anything but emphasis.

 

The way I handle it is distinguishing between unclear responses and stupid responses.

"Adf eh jjggyhjgfdsws" gets slain, since no attempt to answer the report was made.
"stupid mfers hope u die" gets slain, because no attempt at a proper response was made.
"sorry I thought you were the traitor" needs further investigation.

Of course, I take the response in context of the report itself, both when reading the response and considering the need to inquire.
So if the report is just "sdhkkggdfh" I would not blame the reported player for an equally nonsensical response, and I would ask for a reason in that scenario, despite the stupid response.

And if a complaint is raised about a slay, of course I listen to that as well - to avoid slaying someone who is actually innocent of RDM.

 

Snowflake, I'd have handled them the same as you and I agree that what you're doing is the rational way of going about it.

But yeah, @HelixSpiral, would you also agree with how he does it?

 

lol. This is already explained to staff during trial, but yeah, I can explain it a bit more.

By vague responses, I'm talking about instances where people say stuff such as "I thought you were a traitor", "Sorry", "Because I saw you!" etc. Where there isn't really any information on why he did what he did.

If someone replies "Fuck you", or random characters, etc, or doesn't even make an attempt to answer the report-- then that's on them. This is beyond being vague-- this is just not answering the report. They were given an opportunity to reply to the report, and instead, they used that opportunity to harass the players, or completely ignore it. We are not going to cater to that.

Dani is correct- in cases with crossfire, often times players don't even realize that they even crossfired someone, and that should be considered. If it looks like crossfire on deathscene, which only takes a moment to view, I usually just close the report and tell the reporter "Yeah, that was pretty obvious crossfire, unfortunately" and that's that.

The primary goal is to just figure out what the hell happened whenever a report comes through, and some common sense really goes along with that. There isn't always going to be a concrete this is exactly what you should do in this scenario, vs this scenario and that is going to rely on the individual staff member to actually use that brain that they got.

Edit: @Dani - ye. Snowflake would have handled all of those the same way I would have.

 

I handled this report.
For the record, I asked @Toest for his reasoning. Like I always do when the response is unclear.
I investigated the report. My investigation showed that he confused the kill with another one, hence the response.
He explained that the kill on you was crossfire. The DS confirmed that.

I'm not sure what you're on about.
This thread is not the right place to continue the discussion. If you have any further questions, pm me.

 

You read the title of the thread?

Staff "going by the report response"

My post kinda shows how important it is to get more information, If it was any one else that did that, it would have been a slay since he not only damaged me first, but also killed me after everyone else was dead.

You're not being reported so you don't have to get all up in arms over it lol.

Spoiler: Deathscene if anyone cares. worst angle

https://gyazo.com/046b9580aa5cc88bae6175ac1a0b3ca5

 

1. The round was over before I killed you, it just showed in the logsfor some reason, the detective was the last one left alive.
2. For someone that doesnt typically rdm, this was a VERY vague response. One that someone might ask for more information on perhaps.
3. Heres a better angle for you: https://gyazo.com/0497a57bf8cc339c8b37d93e602e7854

You got killed after the round ended, no need to get all up in arms about it.

 

Let's not turn this thread into a troll thread, you're not being reported, you don't need to defend yourself, just thought it was funny that this thread is a thing, then the events happened today. I got the D kill, so I win.


Also

 

itt: mods circlejerking

 

@HelixSpiral I understand that you can't account for human error, but would it be possible to get the procedures that staff are supposed to take for reports in writing? As it is, there's really no discernible way to tell if staff followed procedure or got lazy, one of which would require a report on the forums. There seems to be a little too much wiggle room for what should be a fairly standard system. Obviously staff can't (and shouldn't) please every player and there are an infinite number of situations where an in-game report can be made, but having the option to determine whether or not a report was handled appropriately at that moment eliminates the need for players to contact the mods and ask them why they handled a report a certain way which frees up moderator time (and patience).