# I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tcket)



## FlamingLizard (Mar 22, 2012)

We all know that some trouble tickets get answered faster than others. Some lay in limbo for months or more (which is honestly ridiculous imo). I was wondering if an explanation in the form of statistics can be given by staff. Such as how many trouble tickets on average are there waiting to be replied to, and how many actual staff can respond to them? This could perhaps make us understand a bit more why it takes a long time.


----------



## jayhusky (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

The length of time taken to answer a trouble ticket is primarily based on the information you give them.

For example you could give them a ticket saying "OMG That guy copied my work" and they would have a hard time locating the person who had copied you. 
Simply put the more detail you give them (Provided its laid out in a clear and easy to follow manner) the faster they can respond to your ticket.

As far as I am aware, all members of staff shown on the staff page (here) can answer trouble tickets, plus a few others who are not listed on that page. A viable number is about 17 staff members being able to reply to your ticket.

I don't know the number of tickets submitted a day, but you _are_ looking at a large number of tickets per admin.


----------



## FlamingLizard (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

I know it would pure voluntary, but with the thousands of users out there, I would think that they could find somebody to contribute a small portion of a day to be a moderator of some kind to handle trouble tickets and get the ticket totals dwindled down at a faster rate.

I mean in the past, I've heard more people have success by posting their problems in these forums than getting their trouble ticket answered in a timely fashion. I am one example of this.  A year ago, I followed the knowledgebase link to FA Help & Support to find an answer on how to claim an abandoned account. It told me to email accounts@furaffinity.net and put whatever info in the email etc. I did that twice over the span of a few months, never got a response. I then made a trouble ticket asking. Months later, never got a response. It was only until I made a post here in these forums asking about it, that a mod instantly stepped up and said "let me take a look at this account. Oh it is in fact abandoned. Here ya go." Months and months of nothing, then 5 minutes of the forum moderator's help.

As I've said, if it's a lack of staff, I'm sure they can find some people they trust to help out with it.


----------



## FlamingLizard (Mar 22, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

For the record, I did not make this topic to have my current TT in queue answered. I did not even mention in this topic that I had one waiting but yet my last post's point that TT's have a better chance of being responded to if you make a topic about TT's still apparently holds true.

 I am still curious about the statistics that I mentioned in my first post if possible.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

The thing is, the forum would flood with threads if people relied on it to get TT's answered. I feel that would be even worse because instead of dealing with the two accounts involved (the person that submitted the TT and the user with the questionable gallery/behavior) they'd have to deal with searching through a TON of threads and dealing with alllll the forum members that would post in the thread. 

Also, there's no guarantee that your TT would get answered quicker because the admins may not frequent the forums as much as the mainsite. I personally would rather keep the TT's private and wait to get it answered there instead of having an overload of TT request threads.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Tiger In A Tie said:


> The thing is, the forum would flood with threads if people relied on it to get TT's answered. I feel that would be even worse because instead of dealing with the two accounts involved (the person that submitted the TT and the user with the questionable gallery/behavior) they'd have to deal with searching through a TON of threads and dealing with alllll the forum members that would post in the thread.
> 
> Also, there's no guarantee that your TT would get answered quicker because the admins may not frequent the forums as much as the mainsite. I personally would rather keep the TT's private and wait to get it answered there instead of having an overload of TT request threads.


Oh dear god could you imagine what would happen if TT were answered on the forums?
It'd be eternal september.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear god could you imagine what would happen if TT were answered on the forums?
> It'd be eternal september.



I don't wanna imagine. That would be terrifying. :c Especially for the mods.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

Part of the problem is the ticket system itself. Imagine if you job was to look and grade papers at the local school.  Now, imagine if all they papers were cluttered, done by millions of  students, and were sorted by no means. This is how FA's ticket system  currently operates. There is no organization, just a bunch of notes  lying all over the place waiting to be dug into.
A majority of the problem is those entrusted to work with or otherwise fix the system. No one is trying to fix the system, and there is almost a year or more average delay between when a ticket is filed and when it is closed. This delay is so bad, the validity of these tickets has become void because the AUP is changed several times before said ticket can be answered.

The reason the forums is developing a trend of being used as an alternative for TTs*(Again)* is because the admins spend more time here than doing what they've been entrusted to do. If you were around between 2009-2010, maybe a bit earlier, there was actually section on the forums where people could report other users for site violations.* It worked.* Then, the forum was closed and everyone was pointed to using the TT system, *which doesn't work.*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> The reason the forums is developing a trend of being used as an alternative for TTs*(Again)* is because the admins spend more time here than doing what they've been entrusted to do. If you were around between 2009-2010, maybe a bit earlier, there was actually section on the forums where people could report other users for site violations.* It worked.* Then, the forum was closed and everyone was pointed to using the TT system, *which doesn't work.*



Mmm hmm, confirmation bias. That's a great argument. It's not like you have research to back up the amount of time admins spend here and on the site answering TTs. The previous method did not work, but again, confirmation bias. It was riddled full of problems of people handling tickets differently and other conflicts specially when you have people reporting from multiple areas. So being centralized works better.

Now, the ticket system itself needs work, there's no denial. 

The OP pointed out the issue of why talking about his particular case of the forums worked and people missed something obvious. The response was to tell someone to email an account for claim for getting an abandoned account. Do you think everyone has access to the email account the OP mentioned? A staff member glancing through tickets would see someone already responded. He/she wouldn't know if the "accounts" email was responded to.


----------



## Bluflare (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> Part of the problem is the ticket system itself. Imagine if you job was to look and grade papers at the local school.  Now, imagine if all they papers were cluttered, done by millions of  students, and were sorted by no means. This is how FA's ticket system  currently operates. There is no organization, just a bunch of notes  lying all over the place waiting to be dug into.
> A majority of the problem is those entrusted to work with or otherwise fix the system. No one is trying to fix the system, and there is almost a year or more average delay between when a ticket is filed and when it is closed. This delay is so bad, the validity of these tickets has become void because the AUP is changed several times before said ticket can be answered.
> 
> The reason the forums is developing a trend of being used as an alternative for TTs*(Again)* is because the admins spend more time here than doing what they've been entrusted to do. If you were around between 2009-2010, maybe a bit earlier, there was actually section on the forums where people could report other users for site violations.* It worked.* Then, the forum was closed and everyone was pointed to using the TT system, *which doesn't work.*


didn't someone say something about a *submission report button*.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Arshes Nei said:


> Mmm hmm, confirmation bias. That's a great argument. It's not like you have research to back up the amount of time admins spend here and on the site answering TTs.


Then tell us the difference in the amount of time spent by staff looking on tickets on the site and the amount of they spend idling in the forums. Provide us the "research" you believe proves that the staff is doing what it's supposed to be doing on an acceptable basis. From what the staff has shown for the past couple of years, it has made a habit of hopping from one bad idea to the next, backing up the ticket system, making excuses for not getting things done(Like this one), and trying to weasel out of issues when confronted by them or somehow plea ignorance when people start magically getting banned.


> The previous method did not work, but again, confirmation bias. It was riddled full of problems of people handling tickets differently and other conflicts specially when you have people reporting from multiple areas. So being centralized works better.


Going to list some things we had then that we don't get with the current TT system: 
A: People could see that things were getting  done and they could tell when there were more threads than staff handling the issues, 
B: The response time for the issues was relatively quick(within  24hours on almost all issues), and 
C: Multiple users weren't opening multiple  threads on the same thing - That or they got merged/redirected.
Yeah, it totally didn't work out because of what problems it had. The new system works so much better than this, it's almost perfect.
So allow me to rephrase, it worked /_better_/ than the current system when you compare the average response time, the lack of clutter, and the clear and visible admin presence. It was by no means perfect.



> didn't someone say something about a *submission report button*.


This is actually a good idea, however as I stated "_no one is trying to fix the system_".


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> Then tell us the difference in the amount of time spent by staff looking on tickets on the site and the amount of they spend idling in the forums. Provide us the "research" you believe proves that the staff is doing what it's supposed to be doing on an acceptable basis.



You brought up that argument. I asked you to prove it, because you only have confirmation bias as your support. This "NO U"  reply is just a detraction you got called on the confirmation bias. Simple as that.

As stated, it did not work better - in fact people felt their tickets on site were being ignored because of the forums. People felt tickets were being mishandled because multiple people did not know that someone was handling the same report someone else had on the forums. When it got centralized it got better. Right now it is worse as in general (not compared to a system that was broken previously that you keep reminiscing about) because of volume and whatever reason, the lack of proper updates to keep with the increase of user traffic and improvement in technology/code to handle it.

Funny how it's like "Wow it was better back then" when nostalgia kicks in I guess.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Arshes Nei said:


> You brought up that argument. I asked you to prove it, because you only have confirmation bias as your support. This "NO U"  reply is just a detraction you got called on the confirmation bias. Simple as that.


Unlike the previous system inwhich we used the forums to judge how well issues are being handled, there is no way anyone can visually tell how active the administration is in regards to handling the ticket system. Considering the average time to reply to issues filed through that system is so much longer than that of issues brought up on the forums, it can be said that the administration focuses more on the forums than the site itself.
If it's so simple, why do I have to figure it out for you? This is just another excuse.


> As stated, it did not work better - in fact people felt their tickets on site were being ignored because of the forums. People felt tickets were being mishandled because multiple people did not know that someone was handling the same report someone else had on the forums. When it got centralized it got better. Right now it is worse as in general (not compared to a system that was broken previously that you keep reminiscing about) because of volume and whatever reason, the lack of proper updates to keep with the increase of user traffic and improvement in technology/code to handle it.
> 
> Funny how it's like "Wow it was better back then" when nostalgia kicks in I guess.


People's tickets are still being ignored, the switch has not fixed that problem. The ticket hierarchy is still intact, forum or no forum to stand on top of it all.
People's tickets are still being mishandled, partially due to extensive delays between when the ticket is filed and when it is handled.

The system is still broken.


----------



## Corto (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

Here's some proof: Of the 17 mainsite admins, I only see, what, 3 of them regularly post on the forums? (Keep in mind, those 3 started their "careers" as forum staff, and still perform this duty).  Some I have never seen. Most of them I've seen in the forums, posting every once in a while, in admin-specific areas handling admin-specific issues (such as better handling TTs, how funny is that). That's hardly "idling in the forums" or wasting all their time here.

Also I always find it funny how people expect voluntary staff to spend all their time on this site slaving at TTs. Of course they can't be lazy wankers that don't do anything at all (something that was a problem in the past), but going to the opposite extreme (like that users complaining in some old thread because Cerbrus made a joke. OH NOES HOW DARE HE BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY, HIS ACCESS TO EVERY PART OF FA THAT IS NOT FOR ANSWERING TTs SHOULD BE CUT) is equally dumb. 

But yeah feel free to prove me wrong. Link the to the hundreds of no-content posts made by the vast majority of mainsite staff that you imply exist. I'll be here waiting.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> Link the to the hundreds of no-content posts made by the vast majority of mainsite staff that you imply exist.


How you've reached the conclusion of "_hundreds of ... posts_" from "_idling in the forums_" is a somewhat intoxicating. From what I can tell, forum activity is not much greater than that of an average user for a given few people. Others are seldom seen, if around at all. Additionally, since the admin-only forums are for admins only, some visible activity by the staff in the forums goes unseen.
Since we can see that given individuals respond to issues brought up in the forums more promptly than if the issue was brought up on the mainsite, it implies that - despite the average or lower than average activity - the forums are monitored and have been dealt with more swiftly in comparison to issues brought up through the ticket system.
We see things get done on the forums, so we're convinced that when  issues are brought to the forums they get dealt with in a reasonable  manner. We don't see things get done on the mainsite, the average ticket  delay is months to more than a year which indicates that things aren't  be done in a reasonable timeframe, and people aren't very happy with the  system as a result.


> Also I always find it funny how people expect voluntary staff to spend  all their time on this site slaving at TTs. Of course they can't be lazy  wankers that don't do anything at all (something that was a problem in  the past), but going to the opposite extreme ( ... ) is equally dumb.


There are differences between slaving to get things done, doing it when  you can find the time, and not taking the time to do it at all. It's being claimed that things are getting done, yet the staff has failed to provide the numbers to prove it - This thread is one of many requesting for relevant information so we can actually get an idea how bad the situation is and what's being done to fix it. It seems that which "_was a problem_" still "_is a problem_" and nothing is been done except every effort being made to cover it up. (Dragoneerism)


----------



## Corto (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> How you've reached the conclusion of "_hundreds of ... posts_" from "_idling in the forums_" is a somewhat intoxicating.


Because the alternative idea of where you got the proof to fuel your claim (that you know site admins sit in front of their computers, mouth agape as they stare at the forums, either by a net of hidden cameras or black magic) is even stupider. 

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that issues brought up in the forums are noticed by staff because there's an active forum staff with immediate access to mainsite admins (hell, there's 3 mainsite admins that also actively work as forum mods)? Nah, you're right, it's more fun to assume admins like to stare at the forums they don't post in (or appear active at) for no reason.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 23, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> Because the alternative idea of where you got the proof to fuel your claim (that you know site admins sit in front of their computers, mouth agape as they stare at the forums, either by a net of hidden cameras or black magic) is even stupider.


Your definition of "_idling_" is heavily obscured, that or I'm using too literal of a term to describe looking over something and then finding something else to entertain one's self with.


> Has the thought ever crossed your mind that issues brought up in the forums are noticed by staff because there's an active forum staff with immediate access to mainsite admins (hell, there's 3 mainsite admins that also actively work as forum mods)?


It has actually, I believe this fell under the "_forums are monitored_" bit, more so than the ticket system. Does this mean because the forum mods aided in site issues, they would get looked at faster? It seems so. Will doing the same thing with the TT system help in catching up? Perhaps. Are steps being taken to try using this method for the TT system? Absolutely not.


> Nah, you're right, it's more fun to assume admins like to stare  at the forums they don't post in (or appear active at) for no  reason.


The thought of that actually makes me laugh. Intoxicating, I must say.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

I got a idea-

_*What about a compromise that would take the advantages of both systems and put them together?*_
Not using FaF for TT's per say, but a sort of mini-forum in which users' passwords to get on is that exact same for the mainsite and there's different sub-categories for each different type of TT.  Such as there's a sub-forum for harassment or such.  Regular members would not have permission to view other members' threads.  Also there could be designated TT admins.  What I mean by that is that you could change the hierarchy of the mainsite admin structure so that like how on the forums there's moderators for just the den, there'd be admins for each specific type of TT subforum.  It could also allow for rookie staff that couldn't look at all of the miniforum until they prove themselves.  It'd also make it easier to acquire new site staff, cause the rookie admin wouldn't have full permissions until a couple months later when they prove themselves.  If the rookie proves they can't be a admin all it'd take is give them a swift boot.

It wouldn't really change anything, just better organize the trouble tickets so that they are sorted.  The only other real change would be that it would allow for their to be trainee admins without full admin powers that could be fully promoted at a later date.  Also another good thing about the compromise system would be that you could bring in new potential admins extremely fast compared to the current system.

Another advantage to this idea is that the coders could make a sticky thread discussing all the updates they do to the site and have it so that only the coders and senior admins can post on it.  It could just be like quick posts by them to tell users of updates for example, "I just fix a problem with the tables not shrinking large images" or Idunno, "found a problem with blocked users being able to make shouts anyhow, fixing it now".  Not in depth posts, just quick little posts about all the changes they make.

Also a site outage subforum like FaF's current site status page that could also have a sticky thread of all the little site outages.  For example "Site is currently offline due to high traffic, it's not cause of a DDOS or a hacking.  Please take a break and stop hitting F5 to help reduce traffic."

I know reading this you are already thinking, "If we give rookie admins the same powers as senior admins they could potentially cause as much damage as previous instances".  Well you are half right and half wrong, if the rookie admins ONLY have permission to view specific trouble ticket subforums it would cause preemptive damage control even beforehand.  At most it would be a shitstorm within a very small teacup instead of a massive incident.  It wouldn't stop a potential abuse of power, it would just make it so that they couldn't cause a major incident and if there was a incident they could be removed swiftly.  A potential scenario of admin drama from a rookie would go something like this-
Rookie causes a incident -> Higher ranking staff member temporary bans them -> incident is further discussed -> decision is made whether or not to revoke their admin privileges permanently/temporary/not.  It would also give the site a pool of previous admins that can re-apply at a later date.  If the admin has their priviledges removed they could once their temporary removal is up either re-apply or choose to quit.


The advantages of this idea is that it wouldn't change a massive amount of how Fa's staff responds to trouble tickets and at the same time better organize the system.

Also this is just a rough idea I had, obviously further brainstorming is needed.


----------



## Corto (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> It has actually, I believe this fell under the "_forums are monitored_" bit, more so than the ticket system. Does this mean because the forum mods aided in site issues, they would get looked at faster? It seems so. Will doing the same thing with the TT system help in catching up? Perhaps. Are steps being taken to try using this method for the TT system? Absolutely not.


What Arshes said. The same problem she mentioned (redundancy, basically) would still exist. 

I don't argue that there's a bunch of problems with the TT system which can (and should) be fixed (I'm not sure what the specific problem is, maybe you need to throw more admins at it, maybe make upgrades to the system, I dunno, quite possibly both), but I don't think "turning the forums into TT report gallore" is the best solution. I firmly believe that mainsite reports should be kept to the mainsite (for clarity's sake, because most admins don't even visit the forums -outside of admin-mandatory places-, because the forums are a separate beast with it's own accounts and set of rules, because of the relative independence FAF has in relation to FA), basically that mainsite problem-reporting should not be entirely removed from the mainsite, and that implementing a double system (FA and FAF) would be redundant and wouldn't help with the issue at hand.
The fact that issues brought up in the forums are solved faster is not a sign that the forums are a better place to report stuff, but rather of the lacks and need of improvement in the current mainsite system. Ideally you wouldn't need the forums at all (in relation to reporting problems).

Uh, I didn't touch CF's post because it's long and I'm terribly busy, so I'll tackle that later (sorry if you mentioned anything I brought up or whatever).

EDIT: 





> Your definition of "_idling" is heavily obscured, that or I'm using too literal of a term to describe looking over something and then finding something else to entertain one's self with._


well that's exactly what "idling" means. And if you say "idling at the forums", that means "wasting time at the forums". Something you haven't proved, and actually _can't_ prove because it's not true.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> Uh, I didn't touch CF's post because it's long and I'm terribly busy, so I'll tackle that later (sorry if you mentioned anything I brought up or whatever).


I would summarize all of it, but I'd wind up losing a lot of the reasoning and logic behind my idea.
The basic premise is take the advantages of TT system + advantages of forum idea + advantages of how FaF is operated = my idea.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

Well I also should have mentioned and it was a big issue is that the forums did not really have good privacy (the last iteration of people reporting issues here). What might be and advantage can quickly become a disadvantage. For example while it may have been an advantage for people to notice a problem was already mentioned, and people may have additional info, it also became an issue a privacy as well. Harassment cases and all types were being reported for the public to see and caused more problems before, so no again it didn't work. 

While we can filter it similar to how we do auditions for mods these days, we'd still run into redundancy issues and more clutter. You'd have to realize additional work is going to happen just to have someone play the match game for TTs on the main site and the forums.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Arshes Nei said:


> Well I also should have mentioned and it was a big issue is that the forums did not really have good privacy (the last iteration of people reporting issues here). What might be and advantage can quickly become a disadvantage. For example while it may have been an advantage for people to notice a problem was already mentioned, and people may have additional info, it also became an issue a privacy as well. Harassment cases and all types were being reported for the public to see and caused more problems before, so no again it didn't work.
> 
> While we can filter it similar to how we do auditions for mods these days, we'd still run into redundancy issues and more clutter. You'd have to realize additional work is going to happen just to have someone play the match game for TTs on the main site and the forums.


On the other hand you could make it so that only the user who made the thread or admins can view the threads. Like how only the users that made threads in FaF's moderator auditions and staff are only able to see the thread.  The redundancy issue issue can be solved by giving a site wide message to all users that issued a trouble ticket to redo it on the miniforum(like in my idea).  While yes I do admit my idea as stated in that huge post a few back isn't perfect, the problems with it are few and the majority can be hammered out beforehand with discussions on how to implement it.  The biggest problem I can see would be the week after it is implemented.  After that it would be a far better system than to the TT sytem or the forum idea.

So yeah I'll admit my idea isn't perfect, but it's something that if the staff sat down for a bit and discussed how to fix the problems with it could be implemented fairly quickly and be far more effective.  The only major problems I can see would be the transferring of the old TT system to the new system, after that it'd be pretty damn close to perfect.


----------



## sykotikkytten (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

Sounds like there needs to be some people dedicated to sorting through TT's and either sending back the ones that are no longer valid / don't have enough info / are older than, say, 6 months / etc. or forwarding the rest to a pool that all admins can pull a few a day from.

Might cut back on time/energy/frustration.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



CannonFodder said:


> On the other hand you could make it so that only the user who made the thread or admins can view the threads.



You actually DID read my reply before quoting it, correct?


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> actually _can't_ prove because it's not true.


Being unable to prove something doesn't mean it isn't happening. If you want proof, hire someone to monitor everyone's activities.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> Being unable to prove something doesn't mean it isn't happening. If you want proof, hire someone to monitor everyone's activities.



So basically you agree your allegation is baseless. 
Thanks.


----------



## FlamingLizard (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

So my original question cannot be answered then?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



FlamingLizard said:


> So my original question cannot be answered then?



It's not my call to give out stats sorry. You'll have to ask the owner of the site if you want them and if he'll give them.


----------



## Corto (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

So when asked for proof to back your accusations, you answer with





Devious Bane said:


> Being unable to prove something doesn't mean it isn't happening. If you want proof, hire someone to monitor everyone's activities.


That's such an incredibly good reasoning that every single justice system in the world adapted it to work as the renowned "guilty until proven innocent" principle.


In related news, I'm accusing you of repeatedly trying to hack my account to leak admin info. You have one week to prove otherwise or I'm banning you.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



> So basically you agree your allegation is baseless.





Spoiler: Stuff



The admins aren't doing there jobs the way they need to be done because...
1. TT system is overflooded, average ticket wait time is months to over a year.
2. People have been banned for posting on a banned user's page.
3. Despite all these claims that the site is being worked on, not a piece of information has been given to verify it.


Last I checked, these were not allegations but facts. I don't think you  can throw on more guilt than that. Rephrasing a pre-existing guilt is not a denial of writ of habeas corpus_._


Corto said:


> In related news, I'm accusing you of repeatedly  trying to hack my account to leak admin info. You have one week to prove  otherwise or I'm banning you.


Now that's just silly. There isn't enough being done worth leaking information over.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> 2. People have been banned for posting on a banned user's page.



Y'know, harassing/spamming a user is a violation of the ToS, even if they are banned.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Arshes Nei said:


> You actually DID read my reply before quoting it, correct?


I did.  Now did you ACTUALLY read my long post?



CannonFodder said:


> I got a idea-
> 
> _*What about a compromise that would take the advantages of both systems and put them together?*_
> Not using FaF for TT's per say, but a sort of mini-forum in which users'  passwords to get on is that exact same for the mainsite and there's  different sub-categories for each different type of TT.  Such as there's  a sub-forum for harassment or such.  Regular members would not have  permission to view other members' threads.  Also there could be  designated TT admins.  What I mean by that is that you could change the  hierarchy of the mainsite admin structure so that like how on the forums  there's moderators for just the den, there'd be admins for each  specific type of TT subforum.  It could also allow for rookie staff that  couldn't look at all of the miniforum until they prove themselves.   It'd also make it easier to acquire new site staff, cause the rookie  admin wouldn't have full permissions until a couple months later when  they prove themselves.  If the rookie proves they can't be a admin all  it'd take is give them a swift boot.
> ...



There's more than one way to fix the redundancy issue.  There's a couple different ways I can think off the top of my head.  The simplest way would be asking people to refill out the TT on the miniforum.

Another good option would be to issue a site wide notice to fill out any new TT on the forum and not to refill them out there.  You could close the trouble ticket system for everybody, but admins that way all the new trouble tickets would be on the miniforum and all the old trouble tickets would be in the system and you could all give a week of grinding to clear them all out.

A decent option would be for a hybrid of the two.  Close down each individual section of the trouble ticket and ask people to post new ones on the miniforum and at the same time grind through all the old ones while converting over.  A example of this would be to close regular users ability to do trouble tickets over bugs and that, then ask people to fill out the new ones on the miniforum and when you're done with a section move to the next one.

Another decent idea would be to issue a site wide notice a week beforehand that you are converting it to a miniforum.

My point is that I'm even pointing out flaws with my idea and even making suggestions on how to fix them before you even posted.  You can't just propose that the problems with the idea are unfixable when I even post ways to fix them.


Tl:dr; I read your comments, you're suggesting the problems with the forum idea are physically impossible to fix even though I posted ways to fix them with the hybrid idea even before you read it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

I did, but you're still not catching onto everything I mentioned.

1. It's not a good suggestion to tell users to do double the work. Even if this is an imperfect system your suggestion of telling people to fill out one here and one on the main site is really unfair.

If you close down the main site one for the forum, this is no longer a hybrid system. You just want the main forum to take up the brunt of the TTs and this is still a problem this is not hosted on the same area as the main site. It still doesn't handle the problem of people having different access to handle cases on the main site either. Can't train a person to be an admin if they can't have the access needed on the main site. So this isn't exactly a solution either. It's not like one can't just bring over copies of tickets in a private area and ask trainees on how to handle them because in essence it is the same thing. 

The main site needs to be rewritten and going back and forth on the forums with it, is not really a solution to the problem. The solution has been put forth over and over again, it's up to the people in charge to actually take the bull by the horns and get what needs to get done.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Arshes Nei said:


> I did, but you're still not catching onto everything I mentioned.
> 
> 1. It's not a good suggestion to tell users to do double the work. Even if this is an imperfect system your suggestion of telling people to fill out one here and one on the main site is really unfair.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was perfect, any new system implemented will have problems.  The miniforum dedicated to trouble tickets would cause problems the first few days in as people refill out trouble tickets they already did.  However the potential drama can be prevented by as I already said giving a notice at least a week in advance or even a month in advance of the upcoming switching systems.

If the users know a month in advance of the switching systems then they'll be able to prepare for the new system.  For example let's say a person has yet to receive any information about a advertisement they ordered, a few days before they can wait until the new system and then when the new system is open they can post their problem there.  Bam problem solved.

I wasn't proposing having a forum completely integrated with the mainsite.  I was proposing a vbulletin miniforum that in order to log on they'd use the same information as the mainsite.  The only coding needed to be done would be for both sites to share the same password.  Let's say a user's mainsite username is "fox9879987" and their password is "genericpassword" then their username for the forum would be "fox9879987"  and their password for the forum would be, "genericpassword"

You misunderstood what I said about "rookie" admins.  What I meant is that on the mainsite they'd have admin status and everything, same as before, BUT on the forum they would only have permission to view certain areas of it.

It would in reality take very little coding as all you would really need to do is make a FaF clone solely for trouble tickets and all that the coders would need to do is share the mainsite's user information with the forum so that the login information is the same.

So really your argument that the main site would have to be rewritten for the new system is void cause the majority of the work would just be metaphorically copy pasting FaF.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

CF, your idea seems to be essentially "take the TT system on FA and translate it to FAF".

Part of the issue is the system itself, not where it's located.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Xenke said:


> Y'know, harassing/spamming a user is a violation of the ToS, even if they are banned.



You're not classified as a "user" when you've been indefinitely banned from access to the site.
That's like saying something is alive after it has been executed.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Xenke said:


> CF, your idea seems to be essentially "take the TT system on FA and translate it to FAF".
> 
> Part of the issue is the system itself, not where it's located.


I know, the main thing it would do is organize the trouble tickets.  To use a analogy the current system for trouble tickets is like a stack of papers on someone's desk.  My idea is like a filing cabinet with folders for each type of trouble tickets.

In reality it would not change much, just better organize the trouble tickets.



I thought up another advantage to my idea as well.  Once the TT forum is up and all the old TT in the old system are taken care of they could remove the old system and never have to fuck with it again.  In the long run it would save the coders a ton of work.


----------



## Corto (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> Last I checked, these were not allegations but facts. I don't think you  can throw on more guilt than that. Rephrasing a pre-existing guilt is not a denial of writ of habeas corpus_._


Yes those are some perfectly good "facts" that each, individually or considered as a whole, do absolutely jackshit to prove your accusation. C'mon Devious, before this I had never gotten the impression of you being stupid. Just accept that going "EVERYONE ON THE STAFF DOES THIS THING I JUST MADE UP, IF YOU WANT PROOF GET IT YOURSELF" is retarded and that you lost your argument. 

Also, 6 days.


----------



## Corto (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



CannonFodder said:


> I know, the main thing it would do is organize the trouble tickets.  To use a analogy the current system for trouble tickets is like a stack of papers on someone's desk.  My idea is like a filing cabinet with folders for each type of trouble tickets.
> 
> In reality it would not change much, just better organize the trouble tickets.



So if the problem is reorganizing the TTs system into something better than the current one, why not do it mainsite instead of scrapping the system as a whole and making a new one from scratch? Seems like double the work for coders.




CannonFodder said:


> I thought up another advantage to my idea as well.  Once the TT forum is up and all the old TT in the old system are taken care of they could remove the old system and never have to fuck with it again.  In the long run it would save the coders a ton of work.


Except this is not an advantage. Coders would still have to create the new system from scratch, then have everyone move over. If you're already doing that kinda job, it's easier simply fixing the current system. Also, you're forcing every user to register at FAF in case of trouble, making it a bigger chore to report stuff. Also, I imagine you don't really think forums code and fix themselves, right? It's the same amount of work for coders.

Seriously of all possible solutions, closing the entire system and moving it off-site is just unnecesssary.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> So if the problem is reorganizing the TTs system into something better than the current one, why not do it mainsite instead of scrapping the system as a whole and making a new one from scratch? Seems like double the work for coders.
> 
> 
> Except this is not an advantage. Coders would still have to create the new system from scratch, then have everyone move over. If you're already doing that kinda job, it's easier simply fixing the current system. Also, you're forcing every user to register at FAF in case of trouble, making it a bigger chore to report stuff. Also, I imagine you don't really think forums code and fix themselves, right? It's the same amount of work for coders.
> ...


It's like with the GUI, if it's too broken the most logical choice is to scrap it and start over.  Hell anyone with any sort of basic website programming skills can tell you that sometimes scrapping a ungodly outdated system and restarting is less work.
If someone wouldn't log into the miniforum using the same username and password as the mainsite already in place cause it's too difficult they are lazy and there is no excuse.

It wouldn't be creating a new forum from scratch, it would be essentially cloning FaF and the only serious coding needed would be to share the same login information as the mainsite.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Corto said:


> Yes those are some perfectly good "facts" that each, individually or considered as a whole, do absolutely jackshit to prove your accusation. C'mon Devious, before this I had never gotten the impression of you being stupid. Just accept that going "EVERYONE ON THE STAFF DOES THIS THING I JUST MADE UP, IF YOU WANT PROOF GET IT YOURSELF" is retarded and that you lost your argument.


I don't consider this much of an argument. If it were that, we'd be talking more about why something is going on instead of debating what could be going on. I'm accusing the staff of not doing their jobs the way they've claimed to be doing, and I've put out some of reasons why I'm convinced that is the case. This is something which has drug on for years, whether or not it's actually happening doesn't change the situation as it is right now.


> Also, 6 days.


6 days.


----------



## Bluflare (Mar 24, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Xenke said:


> even if they are banned.


Lol we don't use *banned* anymore that word is useless now we call it suspended.


----------



## Accountability (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



CannonFodder said:


> I know, the main thing it would do is organize the trouble tickets.  To use a analogy the current system for trouble tickets is like a stack of papers on someone's desk.  My idea is like a filing cabinet with folders for each type of trouble tickets.
> 
> In reality it would not change much, just better organize the trouble tickets.
> 
> ...



Even easier and better: they could code that "report" button I keep talking about. It shouldn't take more than an afternoon, _maybe_ two. Now suddenly there's no reason to open 95% of the tickets opened under the current system.


----------



## Corto (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> I don't consider this much of an argument. If it were that, we'd be talking more about why something is going on instead of debating what could be going on. I'm accusing the staff of not doing their jobs the way they've claimed to be doing, and I've put out some of reasons why I'm convinced that is the case. This is something which has drug on for years, whether or not it's actually happening doesn't change the situation as it is right now.


No you pretty specifically said "admins waste all their time in the forums rarara" and then, when asked for proof, said "get it yourself". That's dumb.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*

is Devious Bane confusing *Forum *moderators for site ones?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



Devious Bane said:


> 1. TT system is overflooded, average ticket wait time is months to over a year.


I don't know where you got that average from because in my experience it's total bogus. Looking at tickets filed in this year (because 1. I can't be bothered to count any more tickets than that by hand and 2. honestly going back much further than that would be irrelevant to the _current_ state of things), I find that for the ones I've filed, average handling time was 3.39 days; of these tickets 73.6% took 1 day or less to be handled, and the biggest outliers were four tickets that took 17, 16, 11 and 10 days respectively.

There wouldn't be any currently open tickets still in the system a year old, because of an admin decision at some point in the last year (I can't find it offhand) to close all outstanding tickets and tell users to refile any problems that were still an issue.

There are some _outlier_ tickets with unacceptably long handling times, sure, I'll buy that. But I don't have any currently outstanding tickets, despite filing tickets for every clear violation I come across when browsing, and from where I'm standing your "average" response time seems more based on "this is the outlier data I've seen cited on the forums whenever people decide to whine about the TT system".

These are response times I've gotten without being friends with any admins, and without nudging anyone through notes or forums about open tickets, so I have every reason to believe they're pretty representative (of submission violations, at least - I can't speak for harassment tickets etc because I've not filed any such).


----------



## FlamingLizard (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



quoting_mungo said:


> I find that for the ones I've filed, average handling time was 3.39 days; of these tickets 73.6% took 1 day or less to be handled, and the biggest outliers were four tickets that took 17, 16, 11 and 10 days respectively.



Consider yourself lucky. Considering as I've said in my first post (or if I didn't say it, I implied it) that I have waited months on end never to get natural responses to any tickets I've filed.


----------



## Devious Bane (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



			
				Corto said:
			
		

> you pretty specifically said "admins waste all their time in the  forums rarara"


You've clearly misread. Appearing active, or "_idling_", and wasting time are 2 different concepts.


Crysix Fousen said:


> is Devious Bane confusing *Forum *moderators for site ones?


I wouldn't deny it. I was referring to the staff as a whole, forum moderators are more active and therefore have a more visible track-record in comparison to the mainsite staff.


quoting_mungo said:


> I don't know where you got that average from because in my experience it's total bogus.


It varies case-by-case, mainly due to the mentioned ticket hierarchy. I have heard from multiple people and have experienced first hand how awfully delayed response times are for tickets. If you're lucky, you can get your ticket answered within the first week or a matter of days, most of the time delays extend past a month. It actually took the staff until March 21st to answer an AUP ticket I filed on December 2nd - After I brought it up on the forums, by then the AUP had been modified and the ticket was no longer valid. I don't file tickets very often, but those I've filed prior to that were actually answered in reasonable timeframes. Those tickets however date back to 2010, and mainly consisted of ban evasion - which is rather high up on the ticket hierarchy.


----------



## UnburntDaenerys (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: I don't know if this is info that is allowed to be given out by staff (trouble tc*



> I have heard from multiple people and have experienced first hand how  awfully delayed response times are for tickets. If you're lucky, you can  get your ticket answered within the first week or a matter of days,  most of the time delays extend past a month. It actually took the staff  until March 21st to answer an AUP ticket I filed on December 2nd - After  I brought it up on the forums, by then the AUP had been modified and  the ticket was no longer valid. I don't file tickets very often, but  those I've filed prior to that were actually answered in reasonable  timeframes. Those tickets however date back to 2010, and mainly  consisted of ban evasion - which is rather high up on the ticket  hierarchy.



That's interesting.  I filed a ticket about ban evasion on 3/5, just heard back today with a "user has been dealt with" response.  As best as I can tell, "dealt with" means they unbanned the banned account.  My other ticket about someone exploiting the upload limit work around from 3/2 has yet to get a response.


----------

