Discussion in 'Head Admin Applications (CLOSED!)' started by WellingtonTheThird, Aug 13, 2014.
nice guy with the qualities of a head admin +1
Wellington is a fair, kind, passionate, and helpful player and admin. He helped me with a case I was having trouble with and gave me honest feedback. He has good judgement, and would be an amazing headmin in my opinion. For what it's worth, I really hope you get it welly. +1
I thank you all for your feedback and support.
Wellington in my time here has always been a good admin that was there both for the players and for the admins, standing out before and after his promotion to Senior. He never stopped communicating with the lowermins and always explained the choices he or the team took, and took his time to make sure you understood.
He stayed level-headed when I gave him shit and excuses, and still kept himself composed when faced with my broken english. When I first joined he was always the best admin taking my cases. The way he talks with players is appreciable if a little bit too much gentle and giving too much benefit of the doupt. However, with all that said, Wellington a too few flaws and many qualities that make him possibly the best choice for this new Headmin position.
+ 1 Support.
1) Have you played lately, besides admining? If not, why?
2) Which IC names do you regularly use?
3) Which jobs do you pick, and why?
4) What activities usually take most of your time while playing (chasing criminal scum, breeding slimes, greytiding, drinking fuel...)?
5) Have you been antag lately?
6) How do you feel with the current rules and what would you change?
7) How far will a player have to go to get banned or job-banned?
8) What is the minimal responsibility of someone picking an important job in the station (AI, Captain, CE, Sec Officer...)?
1.) Not really. I usually observemin. I messed around yesterday on CentComm whilst handling ahelps and testing weaponry on my own bodies. Playing SS13 and adminning SS13 are just distinctly different for me now. Although I enjoy the game I usually end up having to sacrifice my game to handle ahelps so I just observemin instead and I'm fine with it.
2.) Jaques Demiere. Mandingo Steel.
3.)Botany because I have a legitimate interest in Botany. I play Security occasionally to set a good example. I've played a bit of everything to get a feel for new mechanics and the like.
4.) Observing. If I'm playing I'm usually growing food/ambrosia.
5.) I was a Rev a week or so ago. And a shade before that. I have antag turned off most of the time. As in 6+ months without antagonist. Saving lives is more fun and challenging.
6.) I've stated above that they aren't perfect, but I would change them as they needed to be changed.
7.) To get banned a player has to have a history of similar incidents usually. If the player in question truly doesn't care about what they have done then I tend to be less lenient. No sense in have people on the server who just want to ruin the good times for others.
8.) I'd say to know the basics of their jobs. AI's are important, but it is a lot to learn so I'm more lenient toward new AIs. Captains should have a general idea of how the entire station works and how to hide the disc. CEs should know how to setup the engines. Security officer should know space law. We all learn from performing the roles, though. No one should get in trouble as for being new as long as they try to abide by the rules and do right. Accidents happen.
We had a small chat in person, and I believe that you are the right man for this job. You know what to do, and you are quite a nice guy.
1.) Do you sometimes play at all? When messing around, do you let observers or dead people gone for good participate (gibbed, spaced, so on)?
2.) I've seen you around the station. Though I can't say I love or hate you (for lack of better knowing you), I like your attitude. +1
3.) Do you ever play as a head of staff? If not, why?
4.) Do you communicate with the chef, fellow botanists and people that need to use hydroponics for cloning, or do you just stay on your own corner?
5.) While I can understand and even agree with you, I'd say that is perfect for a player, but an admin, and specially a headmin, must wear every possible shoes to know what is going on around the server and give an informed opinion on game balance matters, rules and their application. -1
6.) Anything specific you'd like changed?
7.) Very well. I'd have to actually see you admining, but it's a correct answer. Maybe I have, but my memory is terrible... +1
8.) The current rules do not force anyone to know or do anything. Are you ok with that? (/me points to point 6.) What if the captain knows nothing? What if he, HoP and/or CE simply use their access to go to space adventures and personal projects in space, without doing anything related to their jobs? Can a Security Officer stand idly watching a traitor murder and debrain someone, for fear or whichever other option?
1.) Yeah, when I was testing those items out I'd brought someone over who had been legitimately killed. I figured since they were freshly dead and out of the round most likely for good they'd want to play around with what I was spawning on CentComm.
2.) Thank you.
3.) Sometimes. I usually want a more relaxed pace when I play SS13 because of my authoritative role as an administrator I usually shy away from authoritative roles. I play Warden/HoS from time to time and I like to think I'm good at it (If a bit strict on my officers), but it is overall more stressful of an experience that I seek in the game.
4.) Of course I communicate. I reserve my right to refuse service to Chefs who are bossy or mean, but I usually ask what they need made.
5.) I've wore the shoes plenty of times and I know how they fit. Antagonist isn't really my style, but I respect your opinion regardless.
6.) Not off the top of my head, no.
7.) Thank you, I'm glad you agree.
8.) That is kind of the point of player liberty. Instead if getting on to inexperienced players when they take on those roles we should give them advice and feedback. Better to teach them to do the role than to drive them off from it because they didn't do well their first time. Also I don't think security officers should allows traitors to kill innocents, but IC if they're afraid to face them or don't want to then that is their character's choice.
1.) I personally, as have stated in other applications, prefer admins who actually play, have chances to make their own mistakes, and sometimes stand in the shoes of those they judge. That said, I cannot fail to respect someone that despite not doing that will go out of its way to share the entertainment he has privileged access to as an admin. 0
3.) This pleases me greatly. +1
4.) This too. +1
5.) Thank you for your answer. Please do not take personally the fact my opinion remains unchanged. -1
6.) You said they aren't perfect, and that you'd change them. In which cases? If people complained about them? Would you only review them in such scenario? No offense, but on this point your answer has been a little ambiguous.
8.) I like your answer and philosophy, even if I disagree on this specific point with you. Can't say I can support it, but I can certainly respect it. 0
6.)My apologies for the ambiguity, but hypothetical situations are ambiguous in their very nature. As it stands the rules reflect principles held by LLA. We don't want to lose several players due to one player's negative playstyle even if it is within the current rules. This is what I meant earlier when I responded to Lemon by saying rules should be based off of principles. If there comes a time that our rules don't line up with these principles then they need to be adjusted.
6) Do you feel the current rules line up with the principles you consider correct/desirable for LLA? Do you feel the rules are too liberal? Or too restrictive? Do they encourage or tolerate an unwanted negative playstile? Would you change the content or format of the rules? Or any specific ruling?
6.) As it stands, yes. I feel the rules are fine just liberally applied by some, but because those administrators really want to see players change even to the point in which it becomes a hindrance to their job. I don't feel the rules encourage any positive or negative playstyles, but that it is purely up to the individual and how they interpret them. I would change them if they needed it as said.
If this in reference to the strange notion I've heard floating around that certain borderline-griefy behavior is an IC issue no matter what then allow me to clarify the actual ruling. If someone gets on the server, decides to break into the armoury and take some guns that is fine. If all this person ever does is break into the armoury every round just to load up on guns then it isn't okay. It begins to impact the rounds negatively. They shouldn't be punished just steered away and encouraged to do something else. If someone has a bad run-in with security, makes an IED, and bombs security yelling "REVENGE!" again, that is fine. Once. If they assault security every round just to get their jollies then it becomes a problem and the same approach should be used. Some things can be an IC issue the first time, but when in repetition it gets out of hand and it becomes an administrative issue.
With the LLA ruling I think, you need to say that you needed something so it can be considered IC issue.
What if the same guy does the very same thing, but each time he gets PM'd, he gives you different answer:
1) He arrested me so I had my revenge
2) I wanted to get into the armory
3) He arrested my IC friend
4) I wanted his ID
5) I wanted his gun
6) A specific officer was shit so I did the above stuff
7) They are shitcurity when they arrested a guy for nothing (But the guy was acting as same as him)
Is it all considered IC issue, or not?
If yes, do you agree on that policy admin-wise?
If yes, do you agree on that policy player-wise?
Then I'm going to notice a pattern and act on it accordingly. It is pretty clear most of the time when people are lying to admins. If they have a legitimate reason to do something then it is fine, but if they just seek out the same old tired gag all the time then it is an issue from a player and admin point of view and one that isn't very hard to spot.
Eh, He yells at me a lot, for the times I am on. I need to be yelled at a lot; can't hate him for it.
6) To be honest your answer didn't really convince me. First you said there were issues, then there weren't, then it was all up to interpretation, with the rules being fine but potentially needing a change. -1
Last question (for now, I think):
9) What is the consequence of outright lying to the admins? In several scenarios: to get away with punishment or to have someone banned, alone or with the aid of an OoC friend that will corroborate the appealer's lies, by inventing facts or by distorting what happened. Would lying receive a punishment on its own, act as a modifier of the sentence or be simply ignored by the admins as if it didn't happen? Please answer with both what you think should be the best for the server, and what you think is the current procedure/ruling on the case.
As it stands, yes.
I feel the rules are fine just liberally applied by some, but because those administrators really want to see players change even to the point in which it becomes a hindrance to their job.
I don't feel the rules encourage any positive or negative playstyles, but that it is purely up to the individual and how they interpret them.
I would change them if they needed it as said.
There are undoubtedly issues, but not with the rules at the moment. If there were no issues to be handled by the Head Administrator then there would be no need for the position. My apologies for not being clear on that. The issues I were referring to are ones that are constant since I first became a trialmin. 1.) Inactivity. This is something that has to be monitored constantly and it is the Headmin's job to take care of it. I mentioned the ways in which a Headmin would take care of inactivity in my above post to Mint. 2.) Player misinterpretation of a ruling.
I do believe the rules are fine. If the time comes when they need to be changed then I won't be adverse to changing them, but as it stands they're working and no major issues relating to them have arisen.
9.) Lying to administrators isn't tolerated, but it really depends on the severity of the lie. If someone lies about "I DIDNT KILL HIM" but my logs show they bashed his head in fifteen times with a fire extinguisher I'll tell them my logs are telling a different story. More elaborate lies deserve more punishment in turn especially if they are trying to frame someone and get an innocent person in trouble. Most of the time your common lie will be "I DIDNT DO IT" and I don't add time or anything for it. In fact it makes laying down the punishment they deserve easier. If it was an elaborate lie as previously mentioned then I believe it should have a punishment all of its own as this sort of thing is detrimental to the community. There have been no specific rulings or anything on it, but I imagine we'd try thing the LLA way and we'd chastise them and guide them to the right way before taking harsher action.
6) Ok, I like that last response, but remain neutral on the issue. 0
9.) Interesting answer. I'll have to ask highermins before evaluating, but RebelAmerica told me (if my memory does not fail me) the policy was not to take into account the lies, and that they had no effect on any ruling, thus there being no punishment for them either. Personally I tend to agree more with your view, though.
I'll sum up my review later, when hopefully the rest of the candidates have answered. Thanks a lot for your time and patience answering.
And thank you IMVader for taking the time to pick all the applicants brains for information.
9.) And I'd be inclined to agree with Rebel regarding lies in PMs on administrative cases, but if the case is in regards to a lie such as framing someone or intentionally trying to get the innocent into trouble then it needs to be dealt with by admins.
Separate names with a comma.