Administrative Governance Framework¶

Version 1.1 — Living Document

Purpose¶

This framework establishes leadership-level policy for how Barren Land is administered: server structure, staffing, security, accountability, and the standards staff are held to. Where the Staff Handbook tells staff how to moderate day to day, this document establishes why the structure works the way it does and governs the organizational decisions behind it.

These policies exist to create consistency, transparency, accountability, and sustainability for both staff and players — not to create bureaucracy or restrict staff autonomy. Staff are volunteers, and these policies should be applied with reason, fairness, and common sense.

1. Server Structure & Rule Zones¶

Non-Apex Arena¶

A designated Non-Apex Arena (TP3) exists for PvP activity involving non-apex species, communicated through Discord rules, staff announcements, and rotating RCON messages. It provides a dedicated PvP space for non-apex species and reduces enforcement ambiguity elsewhere.

No Rules Zone¶

A designated No Rules Zone (TP1) exists where normal PvP rules are not actively monitored or enforced. Server-wide and Discord-wide conduct rules remain enforceable regardless of zone — harassment, hate speech, staff impersonation, exploiting, ban evasion, and other serious misconduct are never in-bounds anywhere on the server.

The zone reduces unnecessary moderation workload and gives players a location for unrestricted combat, but it is a PvP-rules carve-out, not a conduct-rules carve-out.

Rotating RCON Message System¶

Rotating RCON announcements communicate essential server information at a recommended interval of every 8–15 minutes:

TP1 is a No Rules Zone.
TP3 is the Non-Apex Arena.
Server-wide conduct rules always apply.
Appeals and grievances should be submitted through Discord tickets.
Join Discord for complete rules and updates.

This reduces confusion, increases rule visibility, and decreases repetitive staff explanations. Implementation is typically a small scheduled RCON script (connect, authenticate, send, wait, repeat) driven by environment-variable credentials rather than hard-coded secrets.

2. Staffing & Recruitment¶

Roles¶

Server Owner, Head Admin, Administrator, Trial Administrator, and Discord Moderator. Discord Moderator status does not automatically include game-server administrative permissions.

Promotion & Application Review¶

Trial Administrators are reviewed for promotion based on policy compliance, communication, reliability, documentation quality, and conduct. Possible outcomes are promotion, trial extension, or removal from staff.

New applicants are evaluated on maturity, communication, reliability, fairness, and ability to follow procedures.

Staff Eligibility¶

Applicants should demonstrate maturity, reliability, professionalism, good judgment, and a history of following server rules. Leadership may weigh frequency and severity of prior disciplinary history, time elapsed since it, community reputation, and evidence of improved conduct. Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify an applicant, but leadership should be confident the applicant can fairly enforce server rules.

Selection Review Process¶

Before appointing a new Trial Administrator, existing Administrators are given the opportunity to raise support, concerns, objections, or firsthand observations — specific, factual, constructive, and made in good faith. Personal disagreements, rumors, or unsupported accusations are not valid objections.

If two or more Administrators raise substantial, specific concerns, the appointment is paused pending leadership review, which may approve, delay, deny, or request more information.

Final appointment authority rests with the Head Admin, exercised only when legitimate concerns exist regarding trustworthiness, professionalism, reliability, abuse-of-authority risk, policy compliance, or community safety.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure (Recommendations)¶

Staff recommending an applicant must disclose significant personal relationships — romantic partners, household members, immediate family, close personal friendships — that could create a conflict of interest. Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the purpose is transparency and maintaining confidence in the selection process.

3. Administrative Security¶

All staff with access to administrative permissions, moderation tools, staff-only resources, server infrastructure, or sensitive community information must maintain appropriate account security. At minimum, Multi-Factor Authentication is required wherever the platform supports it, on: Discord accounts with staff permissions, Steam accounts used for administration, server hosting accounts, RCON management accounts, bot management accounts, and any other account with administrative access to community infrastructure.

Staff may be asked to verify MFA is enabled before receiving or retaining permissions. Failure to maintain required security measures may result in temporary suspension of permissions until compliance is confirmed — this is a protective measure, not discipline.

See the Security Checklist for the full staff-facing version of this policy.

Why: a compromised administrative account can cause substantial damage regardless of whether its owner acted responsibly. This policy exists to protect the server, staff team, community infrastructure, and player data — not to monitor personal accounts.

4. Staff Status, Activity & Policy Compliance¶

Staff positions are volunteer roles; physical and mental health, family, and work obligations come first. Staff are encouraged to notify leadership when expecting to be unavailable more than 14 days when reasonably possible; staff inactive and unreachable for more than 30 days may have their status reviewed. Extended breaks should never automatically result in removal. See Staff Availability Guidelines.

Status reviews may result in no action, clarification of expectations, probation, permission restriction, role reassignment, or removal — proportional to the concern, not automatic.

Permission suspension may follow repeated documentation failures, ignoring disciplinary process, issuing severe punishments without required escalation, or misuse of permissions. Permissions are restored following policy review, acknowledgment, and demonstrated understanding of expectations.

Internal probation exists to correct behavior without immediately removing staff. It should remain private whenever possible, and should specify the concern, improvement goals, a review period, and exit criteria.

5. Staff Accountability & Documentation¶

Any staff member issuing disciplinary action must create the corresponding log within 24 hours, and remains responsible for ensuring it's completed — that responsibility cannot be shifted to avoid the record existing.

Policy changes are documented centrally: what changed, why, when it took effect, and whether player notification is required. See Document Revision History.

6. Appeals, Grievances & Decision Review¶

Any player may submit a Discord ticket to appeal disciplinary action, raise a grievance, or request review of an administrative decision. Whenever possible, appeals are reviewed by staff not directly involved in the original action. Review is required for Trial Administrator actions, permanent bans, staff discipline, appeals, and unusual or disputed cases. See Appeals & Review for the staff-facing process and Review Statuses for the standard status tags.

7. Anonymous Staff Feedback¶

An anonymous feedback channel exists for suggestions, communication concerns, leadership concerns, policy concerns, and morale concerns. It is not a channel for anonymous disciplinary accusations — serious allegations still require evidence and investigation, and anonymous submissions alone are never sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.

8. Governance Principles¶

The sections below establish standing governance principles — some newly formalized from operational and investigative experience. They apply across the handbook and this framework; where a principle is detailed elsewhere (like the Staff Code of Conduct), this section states the underlying rationale rather than repeating the full policy.

Privileged Information & Gameplay Neutrality¶

Staff have access to information ordinary players don't: identities, administrative tools, investigative information, and hidden gameplay information. That access exists solely for moderation and administration, and the full policy — including gameplay neutrality while playing as an ordinary participant — is a core part of the Staff Code of Conduct, not a narrow rule about commands. It governs conduct whether or not a command was ever run: knowing who someone is, or where they are, through administrative means should not shape an ordinary gameplay decision.

The Higher Standard Staff Are Held To¶

Ordinary players generally can't identify who they're fighting, avoiding, or grouping with beyond what's visible in-game. Staff can. That asymmetry is why staff are held to a higher standard than players in the same situation — not as a punishment for having access, but because unmanaged access is exactly what erodes trust in moderation decisions. See Higher Standard for Staff.

Mutual Interaction Restriction¶

A Mutual Interaction Restriction is a preventative administrative tool for situations where two parties have developed an ongoing cycle of reports, investigations, and interpersonal conflict that isn't being resolved by treating each incident in isolation.

It is not a disciplinary action, and it is not a finding that either party is solely — or at all — responsible for the underlying conflict. It applies equally to both parties, exists to reduce ongoing conflict and repeat investigations, and allows both parties to continue participating on the server.

Prohibited intentional interaction under a Mutual Interaction Restriction includes:

Targeted attacks
Following
Repeated engagement
Harassment
References to the other party in chat
Discord interaction
Indirect provocation

Incidental contact is not automatically a breach. Barren Land is a shared server — large FFA fights, shared objectives, and unavoidable encounters happen. When evaluating a reported interaction, consider:

Was the interaction intentional?
Was continued interaction avoidable once it started?
Once aware, did both parties make reasonable efforts to disengage?

Reports between parties under a restriction should be routed through a staff member not personally involved with either party whenever practical, consistent with the conflict-of-interest standard below.

Conflict of Interest¶

When practical, a staff member should not handle moderation involving their spouse or partner, family members, household members, close personal associates, or a player they are themselves subject to a Mutual Interaction Restriction with. If immediate action is required to stop active disruption, the involved staff member may still intervene — but subsequent review should be handled by an uninvolved staff member.

Appearance of Fairness¶

Actual impartiality and perceived impartiality are both important. Staff should conduct themselves in ways that are reasonably perceived as fair by players, not only in ways that are actually fair. Where a decision risks looking biased even though it wasn't, the fix is more transparency, more documentation, and independent review — not less scrutiny.

Investigative Independence¶

To reduce confirmation bias and improve confidence in outcomes, investigators should, where practical:

Review objective evidence before reading colleagues' opinions or conclusions about the case.
Keep evidence and interpretation visibly distinct in write-ups.
Distinguish factual findings from policy recommendations.
Separate governance or process observations from misconduct findings — a gap in policy is not the same thing as a violation of it.
Clearly label unsupported allegations as unsupported, rather than letting them sit alongside evidenced findings with equal apparent weight.

Unknown is an acceptable investigative outcome. Not every report resolves to a clean determination, and treating "the evidence doesn't establish this" as a valid conclusion — rather than pressure toward a decisive-sounding one — is part of staying evidence-based.

9. Governing Philosophy¶

Evidence before interpretation.
Transparency over assumption.
Unknown is an acceptable investigative outcome.
Staff are held to a higher standard because they hold greater authority, not despite it.
Good governance protects both players and staff.
Policy should reduce opportunities for perceived favoritism, not merely prohibit actual misconduct.

Living Document¶

This framework may be revised as server needs evolve. Major changes should be documented in Document Revision History and communicated to staff through the Staff Updates channel.

See Adoption History for the original rollout plan this framework was adopted under.