Should people be allowed to disallow certain admins to review their (un)ban requests?

[Ali]

If you feel a staff member is being bias towards you or anyone else, contact our Super-Admin Grub. PM him on the forums with your concerns and they will be dealt with. Unfortunately you don't get to pick-and-choose admins. In most cases it is only the player thinking that because they've been punished completely justly that infact they players are the ones that attack us when you did something wrong in the first place.

The problem with bias is it cant really be proven. With some of the rules on this server being as vague as they are a lot of ruling comes from how your perceive a rule to be. People will see rules differently and people will see them differently when a person of interest is on the line. It is also next to impossible to not be bias whether that be sub consciously or consciously.

[Joykill]

Only administrators not involved should be able to close the thread and finally make a decision. Every person who has something to add to the case, be it admin or non-admin, should be allowed to post. Being an admin shouldn't give you any more power in terms of when you're allowed to post compared to a regular member. So no, members shouldn't be allowed to pick n' mix which admins they'd like to review the case.

[Ali]

Only administrators not involved should be able to close the thread and finally make a decision. Every person who has something to add to the case, be it admin or non-admin, should be allowed to post. Being an admin shouldn't give you any more power in terms of when you're allowed to post compared to a regular member. So no, members shouldn't be allowed to pick n' mix which admins they'd like to review the case.

They cannot pick and choose which admins they want to review their case only disallow an admin or two based on specific reasoning and I am not talking about posting on the case in general, commenting is fine, I am talking about making a final decision about the case. For example if admin1s best friend is player1 you could ask if possible that admin1 not be allowed to review player1s case.

[Baskingner]

I like how a few people are attacking Zerdrick on this while he obviously has a point because at the time im posting this the poll is 10 yay and 10 nay. So people who are saying that he is emberrasing himself, think again, because youve just unsulted quite some other people.

OT: Im divided about this. There is no doubt in my mind that some UBRs/BRs have been dealt with bias in the past. As someone who has no involvement in cases i feel i can say that. It has been rare but it is most certainly happening. That being said, what do you suggest? That a player can disqualify one staffmember from the thread? We arent very thick on staff currently so i dont know.

[Kierondeeuk]

No, they shouldn't. If an admin banned you, (s)he would know the most about your specific case, thus (s)he should be allowed to deny your UBR if you broke the rules.

[Joykill]

No, they shouldn't. If an admin banned you, (s)he would know the most about your specific case, thus (s)he should be allowed to deny your UBR if you broke the rules.

This has been proven wrong time and time again. So long the template is followed, it should be judged by somebody with as little involvement as possible, while of course anyone with something to add can comment.

[RIC0H]

No, they shouldn't. If an admin banned you, (s)he would know the most about your specific case, thus (s)he should be allowed to deny your UBR if you broke the rules.

It's the same with admin abuse threads, right. The admin being reported would be the one that knows the most regarding the case, so they should be allowed to review their own case and approve/deny it.

We also can guarantee that they would not be bias towards themselves (as it has already been stated that staff are completely unbiased (as if they are machines))

[sarc]

If we can't trust staff to not be bias, what is the point in trusting them in looking after the server?

Why can't admins review their own admin abuse threads?
And then tell me again why they should be able to review UBRs that they issued or reports that they are involved in.