Administrator's Creed.

Administrator's Creed

1. An admin is Impartial.
1 1/2. Don't direct votes.
2. An admin is meant to moderate, not regulate.
3. An admin who doesn't need to use his powers is the best admin.
4. An admin is beneath the whole of players in the chain of command.
5. An admin does not rage.
6. Admin-ship is a volunteer job, not a privilege.


Six(and a half) Tenants.

If anything should be adjusted/added, note it to me or post it here and I will check it over and give a reason for why or why not. This is something I am doing myself which may or may not reflect the views of the PULP admins. I encourage criticism. If there is a hole in the Administrator's Creed, point it out and I will take it under consideration.

Reasons for these Tenants:
1. An Admin is Impartial. No matter what, there is a reason for everything that everyone does, even if it isn't clear to you. This does not excuse hacking, but I 'think' everything else practical is able to be discussed two ways. Get both sides of the story even if you hate the guts of one of the people. An admin that acts on their feelings towards someone is on his way to admin corruption.

1 1/2. Don't direct votes. I've seen admins often manipulate the fine print of Tenant 2 but putting up a vote after thoroughly telling the server repeatedly that it would be cool or if you don't vote their way, they poke fun at you, or worse, kick you. This could be thrown under Tenant 1 as being impartial, but I guess some of them don't understand, so I made it more noticeable.

2. An admin is meant to moderate, not regulate. You do not guide the server. You do not lead it, push it, turn it, steer it, head it, point it, or direct it. You are there to induce a normalcy (yes its a real word). Your job is to make sure that your pot of water doesn't boil over. Whenever possible/applicable, use votes.

3. An admin who doesn't need to use his powers is the best admin. This applies with all powers that the admin uses absolutely. An admin who can stop the guy in the orange spawn with words, is more respectable and may get you a regular player.(Note That there are people that play without sound and if that's the case you should take your time after you next enter a safe place to talk in text.) Now, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't use your powers. What I am saying is that being an admin is MORE in the presence of the person than their powers.

4. An admin is the voice and right hand of the players. You don't run the server, the players run the server. The server goes on without you, but doesn't go on without the players.

5. An admin does not rage. There is an age limit for a reason and your on the interwebs. still in my experience with this, this is a major problem that may not be a major tenant but often leads to the breaking of other, more important, tenants. Particularly number 1.

6. Admin-ship is a volunteer job, not a privilege. You may say you got picked. But you accepted and so you are in fact a volunteer. This is a lot like a regular job except that you dont have to get out of your chair and you don't get paid (usually). You can also get fired. It is pretty obvious on what I fire my admins for. Im not evil 1 shot guy. I work the 3 strike system depending on which tenant they break. If you can't be bothered to go get on the server EVERY FIVE MINUTES EVERY DAY, your still a sane person, but you still gotta do it if nobody else will.

People who have aided me in perfecting this:

Nick CTR (Edited Tenant 3 and 4)
Young Greezy (Aided the founding of Tenant 6)

Good job. Good ol' Nick, what part did he help with?

Thanks for the creed Kinseth. I am glad to see we have a decent crowd nowadays. Few micspammers/hackers. You can see the bans here, which in my opinion are few compared to the almost 10.000 people that played on our servers:

http://pulpfortress.clanservers.com/sourcebans/index.php

I agree that kicking and banning are ultimate measures. You can always do admin chattext, drug or slap a player if they don't respond. Most people who spawncamp aren't aware of the rule and sometimes like you said don't have voice on or simply don't notice your chat messages.

I think the first time i banned someone was 2 months after we started.

While we're on this topic, I had to permaban a whopping 4 people last night on the rotation server. I was especially jarate\'d off because I had to leave my lobby game for 5 minutes to do this. They were all being giant douchebags, micspamming, trying to voteban, impersonating gismo, and showing aggressive behavior. I asked a few of them to stop and I was ignored, so I just said "fuck it" and gave them the permaban.

To put this in context, I've only ever had to give 2 bans before this.

On Topic: I like this list a lot Kinseth.

UberLord wrote:Good job. Good ol' Nick, what part did he help with?

He had me clarify on rules 3 and 4.

Young Greezy wrote:While we're on this topic, I had to permaban a whopping 4 people last night on the rotation server. I was especially jarate'd off because I had to leave my lobby game for 5 minutes to do this. They were all being giant douchebags, micspamming, trying to voteban, impersonating gismo, and showing aggressive behavior. I asked a few of them to stop and I was ignored, so I just said "fuck it" and gave them the permaban.

Well. Here is my comment to this. Votekick votemute and voteban... the first two are simple and fine. Voteban should never go beyond a 30 minute ban. Ever. By doing this, it makes a fail proof setup. If a bunch of people get on your server and manage to voteban someone, I say let them. First of all there must not be a lot of peopleif they managed to do this and at that point in time, they are the players on the server. if they decide they wanna get rid of a person for no reason, let em. once thats done, they will leave and in 10 mins server returns to normal. If it becomes a frequent thing, deal with it by permamute or permagag. a random vote that goes up normally wont legitimately go against what the server wishes, (there are mods to change the vote buttons, i highly reccommend) As for aggressive... its the interwebz... they gonna punch you?

broken down a bit more...

Micspamming is beaten by votemute
Impersonation of admins is beaten by an admin name color mod
Leaving a game lobby? Tis the job. Sorry.

Don't mean to be an ass but I am a blunt guy.

Hmmmm, am I the only one who read that whole thing in the accent of the guy in Assassin's Creed who was the leader of the Brotherhood?

Kinseth wrote:Well. Here is my comment to this. Votekick votemute and voteban... the first two are simple and fine. Voteban should never go beyond a 30 minute ban. Ever. By doing this, it makes a fail proof setup. If a bunch of people get on your server and manage to voteban someone, I say let them. First of all there must not be a lot of peopleif they managed to do this and at that point in time, they are the players on the server. if they decide they wanna get rid of a person for no reason, let em. once thats done, they will leave and in 10 mins server returns to normal. If it becomes a frequent thing, deal with it by permamute or permagag. a random vote that goes up normally wont legitimately go against what the server wishes, (there are mods to change the vote buttons, i highly reccommend) As for aggressive... its the interwebz... they gonna punch you?

Well, along with the fact that you probably just made Greezy feel like shit for "breaking the creed", I think these perma-bans Greezy just did should turn into a perma-mute.

Kinseth, I like this list. To a lot of real life leaders, this would seem familiar, but unfortunately sometimes in the conversion of IRL responsibility to online responsibility, some of this is lost. This is a great list you have here.

I would have muted them but I don't have that capability and I was the only administrator online. I can only ban or kick. So I did basically all I could.

Also, votes wouldn't work, because only 8 people were on and 4 were the dicks.

i'm sorry in advance but i have to do this.

so basically, you got screwed by a group of dicks

Nick2020 wrote:i'm sorry in advance but i have to do this.

so basically, you got screwed by a group of dicks

Har Har Har.

Young Greezy wrote:I would have muted them but I don't have that capability and I was the only administrator online. I can only ban or kick. So I did basically all I could.

Also, votes wouldn't work, because only 8 people were on and 4 were the dicks.

then thats what I am saying. if the dicks outnumber the regs, the dicks should win. they will serve no long term damage to the server. 30 mins. No more than that most likely cuz after they get rid of everyone, they get bored and leave most of the tim and if they stay they are almost guaranteed to get caught and dealt with by someone who has the powers to properly handle the situation. With 50/50 NEITHER side would win so the point is null.

In your position, I would have done the same cept for kicks instead. (if they rejoin, you can rekick but since you were doing something else, what you did was okay, though a 2 hour ban or something like that would have been preferred so that an admin that can mute/gag could go do what was needed later if they returned.)



Also, I believe there is a way to revoke particular player's vote-making abilities, very valuable.

ninji wrote:Well, along with the fact that you probably just made Greezy feel like shit for "breaking the creed", I think these perma-bans Greezy just did should turn into a perma-mute.

Not the point to make him feel bad, but perhaps to give a touch of advice from an arrogant old pro.

Hoboapple wrote:Kinseth, I like this list. To a lot of real life leaders, this would seem familiar, but unfortunately sometimes in the conversion of IRL responsibility to online responsibility, some of this is lost. This is a great list you have here.

Greatly appreciated

Nick2020 wrote:i'm sorry in advance but i have to do this.

so basically, you got screwed by a group of dicks

+1 Interwebz point

then thats what I am saying. if the dicks outnumber the regs, the dicks should win. they will serve no long term damage to the server.

I disagree with this. A sense of sanity and order should be maintained, and these so called "dicks" should not have the ability to boot regulars from the server. This creates a bad name for the server if we let it happen. Every little bit counts, and I believe that they do have the ability to taint the reputation of the server through their actions. We are trying to maintain a competitive, fun atmosphere there, and if admin has to step in, I don't see why they wouldn't.

On top of everything I think giving a 2 hour ban is also somewhat of a hypocritical idea, because if they do end up coming back and I or another admin is forced to deal with them again, then we are basically breaking the tenant of "A good admin is one you don't know about," as twice the admin action is required, with potentially more required if a 2 hour ban is given again. Giving a permaban is something I had to go to sourcebans to do, as I gave them a shorter ban in game. I just think that based on the impression they gave me in game, they are not people we would ever want to play with on our server, and I would be willing to take action and suffer the consequences of being a "bad admin" rather then assuming inaction and letting the server suffer.

Young Greezy wrote:On top of everything I think giving a 2 hour ban is also somewhat of a hypocritical idea, because if they do end up coming back and I or another admin is forced to deal with them again, then we are basically breaking the tenant of "A good admin is one you don't know about," as twice the admin action is required, with potentially more required if a 2 hour ban is given again.

You misunderstand the Tenant. Its not to hide your admins, its to show them off and let the fact that they are there deterr any people doing things.

also, assuming there is 60% rule pass for votes, it would take some determined trolls to affect the server.

Permaban is the easy way out. As for two times the admin effort, if you have to deal with them more than once get over it. Thats your job to be just, not to deal with it as fast as possible at the least of your expense. Ban them for 2 hours til an admin with proper powers can deal with them with finality since you dont have the powers to properly deal with it yourself. Never punish someone because its easier for you. This is your job. You signed up for it.

Young Greezy wrote:A sense of sanity and order should be maintained, and these so called "dicks" should not have the ability to boot regulars from the server. This creates a bad name for the server if we let it happen.

I agree partiallly. It sucks. But if you have so many dicks on that they outnumber the regulars, it may just be better to let it go for awhile. I have only once EVER seen this happen. This wasnt the case here. it was even numbers and not enough for them to get their way, They posed minor threat to the server and a temporary ban would have sufficed very easily.

Fair enough though, you get to add a Tenant. Tenant 6. Check above.

Kinseth wrote:

Young Greezy wrote:On top of everything I think giving a 2 hour ban is also somewhat of a hypocritical idea, because if they do end up coming back and I or another admin is forced to deal with them again, then we are basically breaking the tenant of "A good admin is one you don't know about," as twice the admin action is required, with potentially more required if a 2 hour ban is given again.

You misunderstand the Tenant. Its not to hide your admins, its to show them off and let the fact that they are there deterr any people doing things.

also, assuming there is 60% rule pass for votes, it would take some determined trolls to affect the server.

Permaban is the easy way out. As for two times the admin effort, if you have to deal with them more than once get over it. Thats your job to be just, not to deal with it as fast as possible at the least of your expense. Ban them for 2 hours til an admin with proper powers can deal with them with finality since you dont have the powers to properly deal with it yourself. Never punish someone because its easier for you. This is your job. You signed up for it.

Young Greezy wrote:A sense of sanity and order should be maintained, and these so called "dicks" should not have the ability to boot regulars from the server. This creates a bad name for the server if we let it happen.

I agree partiallly. It sucks. But if you have so many dicks on that they outnumber the regulars, it may just be better to let it go for awhile. I have only once EVER seen this happen. This wasnt the case here. it was even numbers and not enough for them to get their way, They posed minor threat to the server and a temporary ban would have sufficed very easily.

Fair enough though, you get to add a Tenant. Tenant 6. Check above.

You signed up for it.

Technically I didn't actually.

But other than that, I guess I see what you're saying. I'm just especially worried about the stock server right now because it's new, and these first few weeks will be really important in establishing a playerbase, especially with a lot of new players out there, we need to make good first impressions.

Young Greezy wrote:Technically I didn't actually.

But other than that, I guess I see what you're saying. I'm just especially worried about the stock server right now because it's new, and these first few weeks will be really important in establishing a playerbase, especially with a lot of new players out there, we need to make good first impressions.

If you do the job, you have volunteered. there is always the option to refuse. Null point to argue that tho. This was a very good conversation. Thank you Greezy.

As for the problem, i would highly recommend a method to revoke vote-making privilege from particular people. I think that is something that could be used freely when someone is running votes that are questionable. The reason is that as long as your not blocking EVERYONE, if there is a vote, they will still get their say but it wont be a vote that is... you understand? i cant really figure out a way to say it.

if its a person making 'bad votes' block em from making them. doesn't affect their ability TO vote so they still get an opinion, but they lose the ability to make them which is something that on a lot of servers is left for admins only anyway. so it shouldn't be a big deal. plus if someone else wants the same thing as they do and is unblocked, they could ask them to make it.

While im saying this, it seems a little sketchy, because I have never done this myself because I haven't had the need to. Feedback would be appreciated.

While I agree with you in theory Kinseth, there's too many factors and biases for an admin to determine a "bad vote". If a group of trolls rolls onto the server and starts throwing down inane votes, that's one thing. If a player tries to votemute someone mic spamming that happens to be a buddy of an admin, it's another.

I've seen both happen, and in the end I personally think there's too much grey area. I don't see why normal administrative procedure couldn't work for true "bad voters". If they're that much of a problem: warn 'em kick 'em ban 'em.

Practical question: How is it possible to block specific players from voting?

It isn't exactly practical to block specific players from voting. We could create a group for the players we don't want to allow to vote and then when we create a vote we can say to allow !group which would then allow everyone but that group from voting. It would take a lot of maintenance to make sure we add anyone in the group that we don't want voting. Also usually by the time we find out who we want not to vote then they have already caused the issue at hand.

The Mad Hatter wrote:While I agree with you in theory Kinseth, there's too many factors and biases for an admin to determine a "bad vote". If a group of trolls rolls onto the server and starts throwing down inane votes, that's one thing. If a player tries to votemute someone mic spamming that happens to be a buddy of an admin, it's another.

2 parts to that.

First is thanks for support

Second is that mute is a joke and personal mute is there for a reason, I include mutes in my lists because i find people are lazy and expect admins to do everything for them.

in addition to that

The Mad Hatter wrote:If a player tries to votemute someone mic spamming that happens to be a buddy of an admin, it's another.

Tenant Number One.

Eraserhead wrote:Practical question: How is it possible to block specific players from voting?

As jameless said, you could create a group for it but also make it so that there is a command to add someone to it in the on-server admin commands. You use sourcemod? Mani? either of them will allow it.

We have sourcemod.

I also prefer to use personal mute, we also have an advertisement about it on our servers which is aimed at making people aware of personal mute.

Although i must say that there are rare occasions where i instantly mute someone because it's obvious there mic spam is meant to irritate people. Then again you have people who do it in a funny way like Darky.

Right you could add a command in the menu but this returns to my previous point. If an admin isn't there to add the person before the person leaves, you would have to add him/her manually. More than likely this would be after the issue has already happened and the person who created the problem more than likely is off to another server to annoy someone else. Stripping their option to vote wouldn't be practical except if the admin is in the game already. In this case it would affect tenant 1.5 directly. If you only let the people you agree with vote you are then directing votes in your favor.

The Mad Hatter wrote:If a player tries to votemute someone mic spamming that happens to be a buddy of an admin, it's another.

Tenant Number One.

--Just because you make it a tenant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you want an elaboration feel free to PM me, I don't want them crying at me. I've had enough of some people disagreeing with what I say only because I said it.

We don't disagree with everything you say The Mad Hatter!

That's why I said some people, Jameless.

I hear ya. That's why I stuck my tongue out.