Feedback Communication of admin standards

[Kilprel]

I originally put this thought in my ban appeal reply but this is probably the correct place to put it.

For context, I was banned due to seemingly failing to uphold the rule of escalation for 3.5 days. In the end, it is not a perma (or even long) ban, so while it stings I can live with it. However, something does strike me as odd;

The admin that replied to the appeal ,CaptainBravo, (which now that I am recalling it is also the admin that banned me, is that normal practice?) said the following.

" If you'd like to bomb the station, I generally expect at a minimum that you've done things to have them gunning for your head. They should ideally already want you, specifically, dead or alive. People should be out hunting for you. "

While I understand that section 2 of "things to keep in mind" of the rules talks of admins' different styles, I feel as though this interpretation of escalation is radically different than what other admins might follow, considering the many rounds I have seen where bombers were *not* being hunted to death prior to doing so.

As such, I feel as though it could be nice to have either a warning first when it is mostly an admin-standard issue or some way to, during a round, know the standards of the present admins, especially considering how much it might affect the playstyle of an antagonist during said round, as I do feel that otherwise being banned due to not knowing an unwritten rule that is specific to a precise admin is somewhat surprising and does sting a bit.

Of course, I get that wholly communicating all standards is a difficult affair, doing so in relation to actions likely to be taken by antagonists (especially actions with big consequences like bombing) would be more enjoyable and conducive to expermentation on antags' part.

I will admit that I am now a bit worried and unsure as to how I am to experiment with traitor considering how sudden the ban was.

With thanks for the time you have taken to read this,
Kilp

[GreenJelly]

Hello, thank you for reaching out. To try to address some of your points:

1. Yes, it is standard practice for the banning admin to also be the one looking at the appeal. Under certain circumstances another admin may do it, but most of the time it is the banning admin responding
2. Different admins do indeed have different styles. Though in this case, most admins looking at the appeal agree that "Have enough built-up threat so that at least someone is hunting for you" is an all right example of minimum escalation for a bombing.
3. If you do feel an admin is way out of line with their ruling, sending in a feedback about it like this is the correct course of action. 
4. It is not feasible for us to list our personal standards every time we are on a server, and even if we did a lot of the time we have to simply make judgement calls that may almost-but-not-quite fit the standard depending on the situation.
5. If you are concerned something you are about to do may be against the rules, you can always Ahelp and ask.

Other admins may have further input, but that should hopefully answer some of your concerns.

Jelly

[Kilprel]

Hello, thank you for reaching out. To try to address some of your points:

1. Yes, it is standard practice for the banning admin to also be the one looking at the appeal. Under certain circumstances another admin may do it, but most of the time it is the banning admin responding
2. Different admins do indeed have different styles. Though in this case, most admins looking at the appeal agree that "Have enough built-up threat so that at least someone is hunting for you" is an all right example of minimum escalation for a bombing.
3. If you do feel an admin is way out of line with their ruling, sending in a feedback about it like this is the correct course of action. 
4. It is not feasible for us to list our personal standards every time we are on a server, and even if we did a lot of the time we have to simply make judgement calls that may almost-but-not-quite fit the standard depending on the situation.
5. If you are concerned something you are about to do may be against the rules, you can always Ahelp and ask.

Other admins may have further input, but that should hopefully answer some of your concerns.

Jelly

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it greatly! I'll also reply point by point to make it more readable!
1. Gotcha! I wasn't sure cause at the time I wrote the appeal I had forgotten the username and only recalled it afterwards as I was writing this, thank you for clarifying!
2. Understood! I'll be more wary around bombs in the future, then.
3.  Nothing to add beyond another "Thanks!"
4. Yeah I very much figured it would probably be a bit of a tall ask, admittedly, it definitely seems like a complicated thing to set in place with how complex the systems are
5. Very fair point, preemptive ahelp probably would have solved the situation, I need to make use of it more in situations where I am experimenting as antag

Also, just to clear the air, I do not have any issue with the admin that banned me. In the end, thinking back on it, I see the reasoning behind the action and understand that moderating a game like ss13 is a difficult task which requires judgement calls at some point.

As said previously, I am grateful for taking the time to review the feedback and clarify points that I had misunderstood. I suppose part of my confusion came from the fact this is the first time I have faced such issues.

With thanks to the time you have taken to write and read this,
- Kilp

[GreenJelly]

Glad to hear that I could clear things up a bit. Have a nice day.

Jelly