Why are the players who break rules the most immune?


Why doesn’t the high level administration (Level 7-10) just have a group conversation/pow-wow and see who needs Level 2 and who doesn’t.

If the actual purpose of Level 2 is protection against vote kicks that are called unfairly, the people given Level 2 should be considered with caution.

There is nothing inherently wrong with giving people vote kick immunity, there just has to be some sort of line regarding who gets it.

Does the player speak little, but play well without cheating? Give him Level 2. Does the player troll a lot but because some friends of his are admins he wants immunity? Probably shouldn’t give him Level 2. Does a player get targeted by trolls but not troll them back? Give him Level 2.

There are a lot of scenarios regarding which players should be allowed Level 2 and players who shouldn’t be given it, but I also suggest that the actual admins (Level 3-10) just do their jobs as admins and report with evidence (screenshots, condumps, logs) players with Level 2 who DO troll/grief/bleed/tk/general fuckery so that they can be demoted from Level 2 to Level 1 by a high admin with !setlevel.


@Rekove We could probably set something like this up in slack :slight_smile: ?


However you and the rest of the Level 7-10 admins decide to do it will probably be better than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, but I’m getting tired of seeing people complain about this and then just let it slide.

It’s fairly easy to just make good decisions about who has Level 2 and who doesn’t.

Obviously I suggest Desala be given Level 2 immediately, with possible promotion to Level 5 after two weeks probationary period.

P.S. That was a joke. I’m sorry Desala, I love you buddy. But idk how you’d do with admin :’(


As it has been done currently, each level 9+ can setlevel an L1 to an L2 at their own discretion. That is not to say that the selection process can’t be improved.

But something to keep in mind is that an inherent problem with this L2 system is that even if every single L2 follows the rules perfectly, many times if a player feels the need to call a vote on a player with vote immunity and can’t they can get “perturbed” to varying degrees. I’ve this happen often in-game, where reactions can range from just simply a brief complaint, to extreme reactions. The very creation of this topic could very well have been a result of this phenomanon.



But for the most part, I would assume that people who SHOULD have Level 2 wouldn’t be getting callvote kicked very often, UNLESS they were doing something to warrant it. And I would furthermore assume, that if they were doing NOTHING to warrant it, then that’s the reason they should have Level 2 and the person(s) calling the kick votes are probably trying to cause problems.


and/or are not fully aware of the rules, and/or misinterpreting the rules, and/or have a false positive of a rule violation.


This idea was dismissed for bullshit reasons I don’t care to remember.


Then the idea should be resubmitted and L2s should be combed by the GrangerPub administration (probably thru Slack and VOIP) of who should keep their L2s status and who should have it removed based on recent history, personal testimony and server logs.



Could just assign them immunity flag
. .

I don’t see the need for a cancel vote at such a low status other than the lack of higher admin availability because it isn’t often that they are needed and are in my opinion, more tempting to be abused

wait what? I see more questionable behaviours of immune players than I get votes against me if that is what you mean.

Slack is shit for me. Discord does pretty much almost everything slack can so I only open slack once a season or to notify dgr8mightyadmins of something or if someone notifies me on IRC / discord to check something there, which happens like twice a year

This is actually a good reason. Then again, we could just assign him the immunity flag without effecting his level (though he needs to be at least registered).

Flag assigning only works with respective flags of your level, just like !setlevel. This means that admins can’t set flags that they don’t have to a player so I’d rather just have flag assigning given all the way down to level 4/5 or so and allow immunity from thereon, so they can set immunity on players below/at level 4 that don’t have it. The only thing we need to touch the source code with this idea is to know the respective admin.dat equivalent flag symbol for flag assigning, though as a level 9 I actually do have a problem with it: flag status * (asterisk) apparently doesn’t allow assigning rights that the asterisk flag includes. It can easily be fixed by giving the give-flag flag to every one with the * status in the admin.dat though


Elaborate please.

How is this beneficial over using L2 for this purpose? When L2 is used for flag immunity, admins can tell just by looking in !listplayers who has L2 on the server, additionally !lisadmins can be used for L2 players offline.

At the moment only L9+ admins can setlevel and in general give admins powers. The decisions for admin applications and promotions are ultimately done by the L9+ admins. Why would we want to not only give L5 admins the ability to give vote immunity to any registered non-admin, but also give them the ability to give non-admins other admin powers (even if this only applies to the commands the flagging admin has)?


Well, Discord can be used the same way. A good amount of our admins are in there and usually on though some may not be active or to respond it can work out in an OK manner. :granger:


Nuh huh

Why r u so attached to the idea of people with immunity being intrackable?

Teh fuck is * status? U mean ALLFLAGS? There is no * flag on slackers

Therefore, as a responsible level 9 admin, U let it slip and don’t report them?

Ya and all italians r utter niggers so why r they not subnetted already? If U have a problem with someone report them or make a specific list of players instead of targetting the entire level.