One solution I've been toying with is simply reinforcing moderation in this forum, in the form of actually giving out tl bans on top of banlist bans for behavior, and enforcing the behavior rules outlined in the commandments. This would put a damper on some of the fun we have but would also address the core behavior issues. Thoughts?
TL Mafia Behavior
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
One solution I've been toying with is simply reinforcing moderation in this forum, in the form of actually giving out tl bans on top of banlist bans for behavior, and enforcing the behavior rules outlined in the commandments. This would put a damper on some of the fun we have but would also address the core behavior issues. Thoughts? | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
What Would Coag Do before I post. | ||
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
On December 17 2013 07:09 Coagulation wrote: I always ask myself What Would Coag Do before I post. *Pulls rope on magic conch shell* Nothing.... | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 07:03 GMarshal wrote: Actually, I'm considering just enacting tl behavior rules on this whole forum again. With TL bans for bad behavior, because this is reaching absurd levels. What would people think about that? EDIT: Actually this merits its own thread Why were they ever taken down? To be honest, as a host I could see why you wouldn't want to modkill because you set your game up with the mindset that no one is going to get modkilled and it is going to be a perfect game. However, this hasn't happened in a while. A lot of games I have been involved with have been shitfests of personal attacks and other things that would definitely be worthy of TL bans (yes some of it has been my fault but I get a lot more shit than I deserve). I think the hosts are being way too soft and have too short-term memories as they allow the same players to play games and derail them over and over and over again. It's taken the integrity of this forum and put it in the tank and the atmosphere here is pretty piss-poor. It can't be put on 2 or 3 people as I think almost everyone is guilty of some negative behavior, but it needs to change. Personally, I just started reporting posts because I feel like hosts are not doing enough to maintain the integrity of TL Mafia and I think that having harsher punishment and ruining a few games with tons of modkills would do us wonders for the long run. Alternate suggestions would be to encourage hosts to have a large list of replacements to allow for modkills to be replaced or perhaps shutting down the TL Mafia forum for a few days/a week if behavior gets worse. This decision could come from a "council" of 5/7/9 veterans who could shut down the queue and suspend everyone if the bad manner gets really bad. I know the second one sounds drastic but some people have to be taught to play nice by having their toys taken away from them. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
Call such people babies for not being able to 'take' that kind of play if you will, but a population decline as a result is not a good thing to me. Now the issue becomes will the enforcement of such bans actually help/deter/preevent such behaviour and cause a necessary shift in a positive direction? | ||
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On December 17 2013 07:08 GMarshal wrote: One solution I've been toying with is simply reinforcing moderation in this forum, in the form of actually giving out tl bans on top of banlist bans for behavior, and enforcing the behavior rules outlined in the commandments. Would hosts still have the final say on modkills or would we potentially run into the issue of a stray Banling enforcing these behavioral rules by handing out a temp ban during an ongoing game? Handing them out post game might work, but I'd be hesitant to encourage people to use the Report function to try to enforce the rules. I'd worry that people might start resorting to strategic reporting. On December 17 2013 07:21 WaveofShadow wrote: To restate one of the things talked about previously (to get this rolling), the larger issue at hand isn't necessarily when people like when two veteran players go at it in the heat of the moment and call each other fucking asholes It also isn't very clear what level of standard hosts should be enforcing when it comes to modkills. Is Wave's example something that should be enforced or simply warned? As it is now, I'd think most hosts would let this slide. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
The TL:DR is people getting banned for minor infractions in heated arguments resulted in some games being ruined, since the banlist existed, it was suggested that TLMafia sort of selfregulate. We did, quite well, for a long time, but something's changed and I'm not sure we're up to it anymore, as mentioned, hosts have gotten soft (I'm as much to blame as anyone else), either we toughen up as hosts or go down the "moderation outside of hosts" route. I think the shutting down the mafia forum bit is excessive, its does nothing a tl ban can't do. On December 17 2013 07:22 kitaman27 wrote: Would hosts still have the final say on modkills or would we potentially run into the issue of a stray Banling enforcing these behavioral rules by handing out a temp ban during an ongoing game? Handing them out post game might work, but I'd be hesitant to encourage people to use the Report function to try to enforce the rules. I'd worry that people might start resorting to strategic reporting. I was just going to ask people to pm me/mig instead of using reports, but yes, banning midgame, if you get banned you also get put on the tl mafia banlist automatically. I think the bottom line is that people have been too afraid of ruining games to set precedent, which is understandable, but I fear a few games might have to be ruined to get the message across. | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
Edit: "I think the bottom line is that people have been too afraid of ruining games to set precedent, which is understandable, but I fear a few games might have to be ruined to get the message across." 100% agree | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
Edit: to make it clearer, are there people who would be deterred from playimng on TL mafia if these rules go into effect, and if so, why? | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
The easiest solution is just to add a TL ban to anyone who gets warned or modkilled in a game. If someone has to be warned in game, hit them with a 2-day ban after the game ends. If they have to be warned more than once, make it a week. If someone has to be modkilled, as soon as they're modkilled, ban them for 2 weeks. If hosts are just warning too much and not modkilling, this will make players more careful about being friendly. I think further than that, also, there should be a tribunal (I nominate myself as a member!) for submitting additional TL moderation actions to GMarshal post-game. For example, let's say Ange777, a well-known moderation softie, lets people go with very wild stuff in the game that would have resulted in modkills anywhere else. It's the responsibility of at least one member of the tribunal to read every game that happens on TL, and if there is unpunished behavior, to alert the rest of the tribunal. If the tribunal agrees, they pass the buck over to GM for a TL Ban. I think this should be a two-tiered post-game review process for two reasons: 1) The Tribunal can be largish (5 people +/- 1 seems ideal to me; appointed by GMarshal also seems ideal to me) so that there's enough manpower to have eyes in every game, and also give Tribunal members the opportunity to play in addition to just watching. It takes the pressure off of GM; he will only have to see the final recommendation, since he already has lot sof work 2) This won't interfere with any ongoing games. All review will take place after the game, and the Host of the game still has absolute authority within his own game to warn, modkill, or not modkill who he wants; at the same time, the automatic consequences (weeklong TL bans for being modkilled) will be supplemented with review by the community who just want good games. So, in summary, I recommend that we keep the experience of being in a game or hosting a game largely the same; hosts have total control over modkills and bans, and TL bans won't interrupt ongoing games. However, we add two things to put a curb on heinous behavior: 1) Mandatory punishment post-game (or post-modkill) for anyone who is warned or modkilled in a game, ranging from a 2 day ban for a warning to a 2 week (or 1 month?) ban for being modkilled for behavior reasons. Note that these punishments won't apply to, say, inactivity modkills, which are probably best handled by just banning the people from TL Mafia. 2) Additional review of all games by a group of trusted veterans who will submit ban requests to GM. This will solve the problem of hosts being softies. Games will be the same; but now there will be consequences. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
If people liked the idea of pming me/gm and having us look at things I would be open to it. However, I wonder if adding TL bans to people's punishments would actually improve people's behavior anymore than having tougher hosts with stricter guidelines would. This also wouldn't address some of the other issues there are such as people who just decide to quit and take a modkill (I would be in greatly in favor of having a harsher punishment than the standard 1 game ban for these people). People who quit games / don't try to win at all hurt the game environment and make the games unenjoyable to play as well. I think overall I would be more in favor of revising the standard TL mafia rules to address all the problems we have and encouraging the hosts to be significantly tougher on people. Then we could have me/gm or a committee as a fall back plan if players felt the hosts were being too lenient. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
If so sign me up. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:27 Coagulation wrote: will tribunal members be able to take bribes and extort If so sign me up. not only wlil they be able to, they will be required to by tribunal law seriously though the final call will be with a moderator anyways, the point of a tribunal is that that way GM doesn't have to literally ready every game on this forum | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
| ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
Also, I don't see any need to make this any more complicated than it has to be. Leave in-game punishments to the host of the game. They're the ones running the game; they deserve the right to make the call. Post-game stuff should be part of the banlist thread as always. What is the point of a "tribunal" other than giving some people a sense of importance? There's no need for a body to gather "evidence" since the players/observers involved with a game are perfectly capable of doing that. If someone has an issue with a player's behavior from a certain game and the host doesn't want to take action, let them bring it to GM (pointing out specifically what the problem is) and have him decide. I don't understand the purpose of having sitewide bans (especially since most of those are short in length and ineffective at preventing people from playing games). To be honest, the only thing that I think needs changing punishment-wise is that players should have more of a say in what happens for post-game bans. | ||
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
| ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
A lot of people are asking specifically as to what behaviour has caused this sort of thing lately---is there going to be a way for mods to know what kind of behaviour 'crosses the line?' Will it only be when people complain? Will it be the first time someone calls somebody a bitch? How exactly can we draft a set of rules that apply to every case to make it easier for the 'lenient' mods to decide lay down the hammer or the tougher mods not to necessarily go draconian? | ||
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:43 HiroPro wrote: Would someone like to give examples of these "spiraling out of control hostility and behavior issues"? Most of these are from ongoing games, so probably best not to discuss them, but here are a few off the top of my head: + Show Spoiler + Probably the worst post I've read in a while. If you're town, please kill yourself. You're also wrong on my fucking alignment so fucking blow me prick. stop being a retard Go fuck yaself. nah, you are fucking trash at this game kid You are basing a scumread off a joke I made you dumb cum dumpster. | ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
| ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
-Remove the banlist as we currently have it (ie: the sitout process) -Every punishment is now handled by a TL.net ban, ranging in severity from a day or 2 to weeks. - These bans can occur in game along with a modkill, or can be administered after the game. The goal of removing the sitout process and doing everything based on time, would be to allow a player who made an error to try and prove he has remediated that behavior as fast as possible, while still handing out a significant punishment. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:43 HiroPro wrote: Would someone like to give examples of these "spiraling out of control hostility and behavior issues"? Also, I don't see any need to make this any more complicated than it has to be. Leave in-game punishments to the host of the game. They're the ones running the game; they deserve the right to make the call. Post-game stuff should be part of the banlist thread as always. What is the point of a "tribunal" other than giving some people a sense of importance? There's no need for a body to gather "evidence" since the players/observers involved with a game are perfectly capable of doing that. If someone has an issue with a player's behavior from a certain game and the host doesn't want to take action, let them bring it to GM (pointing out specifically what the problem is) and have him decide. I don't understand the purpose of having sitewide bans (especially since most of those are short in length and ineffective at preventing people from playing games). To be honest, the only thing that I think needs changing punishment-wise is that players should have more of a say in what happens for post-game bans. Snip Duly noted, I may be hosting stuff in the future. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
| ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:59 GreYMisT wrote: When people come to TL.net they expect a higher level of courtesy between the posters. TL achieves this in no small part due to its moderating staff. I think to be welcoming to other members of TL we need to adhere more strictly to the rules of the whole site. What do people think about the following measures? -Remove the banlist as we currently have it (ie: the sitout process) -Every punishment is now handled by a TL.net ban, ranging in severity from a day or 2 to weeks. - These bans can occur in game along with a modkill, or can be administered after the game. The goal of removing the sitout process and doing everything based on time, would be to allow a player who made an error to try and prove he has remediated that behavior as fast as possible, while still handing out a significant punishment. I second this and call it genius. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:58 kushm4sta wrote: to me all of those are fine but the last one kill yourself prick blowing retard your trash. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:02 Mig wrote: I don't think you can just remove the ban list. How would you deal with inactivity modkills/quitters? 2 day TL ban | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:59 GreYMisT wrote: When people come to TL.net they expect a higher level of courtesy between the posters. TL achieves this in no small part due to its moderating staff. I think to be welcoming to other members of TL we need to adhere more strictly to the rules of the whole site. What do people think about the following measures? -Remove the banlist as we currently have it (ie: the sitout process) -Every punishment is now handled by a TL.net ban, ranging in severity from a day or 2 to weeks. - These bans can occur in game along with a modkill, or can be administered after the game. The goal of removing the sitout process and doing everything based on time, would be to allow a player who made an error to try and prove he has remediated that behavior as fast as possible, while still handing out a significant punishment. This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:02 Mig wrote: I don't think you can just remove the ban list. How would you deal with inactivity modkills/quitters? With longer durations for that sort of misbehavior if it appears the player quit. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
In any case I like the "mafia modkills and warnings for inactivity result in TL bans in the post game" coupled with "outside review in case the hosts are too meek for additional TL bans after games" | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote: This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become. I was thinking because of this we would be handing out one and max month bans | ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote: This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become. By that note, wouldn't you then agree that sitting out for an inactivity is too severe, due to this slowness of the forum? The problem is that currently a "sitout" means nothing. It could be a month or it could be 5 days. My way both standardizes punishments for everyone, and it punishes beyond the subforum. | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game? Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote: I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game? Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups. Well I really think an Inactivity Modkill NEEDS to be punished with /sitouts, even if we ALSO punish it with a 2 day temp or whatever (which I think is inappropriate anyways). The fact of the matter is if you are not active enough for a game, you can't just be away from the forums for a couple days, you need to /sitout a game, you need to put in that time to not be able to /signup but instead have to /sitout | ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote: I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game? Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups. The number of days can be changed. And the goal is not to set a precendent for the entire site, Just for people who use our subforum. Sure people who read the banlist might not know what that means, but we and that person who is banned sure as hell do. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:08 Blazinghand wrote: The problem is we use bans for reasons other than behavior. A player who signs up for a game then isn't suffeciently active (or decides he doesn't like mafia and quits amicably halfway through) needs to be punished, but banning him from TL is probably not usable. In any case I like the "mafia modkills and warnings for inactivity result in TL bans in the post game" coupled with "outside review in case the hosts are too meek for additional TL bans after games" This looks good as well. Meh I am too wushu washy I will look back here but won't comment. Whatever you all decide I will probably agree with. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:10 Blazinghand wrote: Well I really think an Inactivity Modkill NEEDS to be punished with /sitouts, even if we ALSO punish it with a 2 day temp or whatever (which I think is inappropriate anyways). The fact of the matter is if you are not active enough for a game, you can't just be away from the forums for a couple days, you need to /sitout a game, you need to put in that time to not be able to /signup but instead have to /sitout Would someone who just peaced out of a 30 person themed game be able to sit out one of your instant lynch games that last 3 days? | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote: I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game? Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups. Had to point out you care when someone's profile portrait is lockdown? | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote: This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become. Are you saying that a TL.net ban is not enough because of how slow the subforum moves? To that effect I agree but I also think the current sitout/banlist process is mostly useless. Look at Bill Murray as an example. There are so many people who get banned constantly (whether for behaviour or inactivity) and do not change anything in regards to what they do and how they do it. I'll even bring up another example (sorry to get personal and I'll remove it if necessary but this is how I feel). Onegu---a really great guy personally, but given his life situation (and to a lesser degree his questionable playing tactics as to what a 'wincon' is) I don't think he should be playing Mafia here. His presence has negatively affected at least two games that I have been a part of. The banlist in its current state is probably not harsh enough. I think something akin to a blacklist, like what iGrok does with his personal games, except global is more useful. | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:08 GreYMisT wrote: By that note, wouldn't you then agree that sitting out for an inactivity is too severe, due to this slowness of the forum? The problem is that currently a "sitout" means nothing. It could be a month or it could be 5 days. My way both standardizes punishments for everyone, and it punishes beyond the subforum. No I don't. The people who constantly get modkilled for inactivity don't play frequently. They sign up for a game every 4 or 5 months, barely post for a day or 2, and then proceed to afk. A 2 day ban really doesn't affect them in any way. In most cases, people don't even remember that these guys abandoned a game previously, as they're completely invisible. | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:53 kitaman27 wrote: Most of these are from ongoing games, so probably best not to discuss them, but here are a few off the top of my head: + Show Spoiler + Probably the worst post I've read in a while. If you're town, please kill yourself. You're also wrong on my fucking alignment so fucking blow me prick. stop being a retard Go fuck yaself. nah, you are fucking trash at this game kid You are basing a scumread off a joke I made you dumb cum dumpster. Wow that's bad. On December 17 2013 08:52 WaveofShadow wrote: Whatever we decide to do (intervention of reds/TL bans or not), I agree with Mig that the rules need to overhauled a little to address current issues. Crossfire maybe if this is something you're already doing you could let us know what your ideas are? A lot of people are asking specifically as to what behaviour has caused this sort of thing lately---is there going to be a way for mods to know what kind of behaviour 'crosses the line?' Will it only be when people complain? Will it be the first time someone calls somebody a bitch? How exactly can we draft a set of rules that apply to every case to make it easier for the 'lenient' mods to decide lay down the hammer or the tougher mods not to necessarily go draconian? Hmmm. Let me see if I can put this into words. I want to have a rule that bans "trolling," antagonizing someone in order to get a response from them that has nothing to do with the game. This would be for personal attacks that go beyond just heated arguments. I want "leniency" for heated arguments in the sense that I understand people get angry and call each names, but if people apologize and realize that they shouldn't have done that, then we're cool. If people don't understand that then, warnings and modkills are on the table. This also wouldn't be for excessive personal attacks while playing. If while angry someone insulted another player with like 5 of the posts kita quoted, I would probably warn/modkill them immediately because even when angry that is unacceptable. Also, I was thinking of having a rule where aside from the insults in general, if I were to ask a player the purpose of a post, they better have an answer. Like how does that post further your agenda to achieve your win condition (again excluding the excessive personal attacks caveat). If someone cannot answer that question then again a warn/modkill is in order. This is the best I got on short notice. I really just started thinking about this in the last few days and don't have anything concrete, but I tried typing down my rambling thoughts. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
1) we institute the banlist because we believe as a small community we can self-moderate. maybe this isn't true any more, but this isn't the only reason 2) we want punishments that apply to people who come and go. If someone /ins for a game, then goes afk and is inactivity modkilled, and comes back a month later, he still has to /sitout a game. If someone is given a one week and just happens to be afk for a month, what does he carE? he doesn't care at all. we need something farther-reaching than this for inactivity modkills. 3) this kind of applies to behavior modkills too. I'd like to see the behavior modkill guy get banned from TL, but after that, I want him to have to /sitout a game too. I want him to have to post in a thread "/sitout" and for all of us who play and spectate that game to be aware that he is /sitouting it. /sitout is a good punishment, even if we also ban people. | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:13 WaveofShadow wrote: Are you saying that a TL.net ban is not enough because of how slow the subforum moves? To that effect I agree but I also think the current sitout/banlist process is mostly useless. Look at Bill Murray as an example. There are so many people who get banned constantly (whether for behaviour or inactivity) and do not change anything in regards to what they do and how they do it. I'll even bring up another example (sorry to get personal and I'll remove it if necessary but this is how I feel). Onegu---a really great guy personally, but given his life situation (and to a lesser degree his questionable playing tactics as to what a 'wincon' is) I don't think he should be playing Mafia here. His presence has negatively affected at least two games that I have been a part of. The banlist in its current state is probably not harsh enough. I think something akin to a blacklist, like what iGrok does with his personal games, except global is more useful. The reason why those players aren't being dealt with is that hosts are being too lenient with their bans (and because we got rid of all the punishments from the old banlist). Someone like Bill Murray or Zealos would probably have 7 game bans by now if stuff had been kept track of. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:11 GreYMisT wrote: Would someone who just peaced out of a 30 person themed game be able to sit out one of your instant lynch games that last 3 days? Why not have that on top of a TL ban? Is there a problem with it? What if a guy just goes afk for a month after doing said peace-out, and doesn't even know he's banned? Would that be okay with you? My solution of "do both" seems obviously the best. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
I think a lot of frustration comes from people signing up and then AFK'n. In these situations sometimes people over-exaggerate their position on the lurker leading to the type of insults that O* cross the line. (Especially when the 'so-called' lurker calls you scum) One contributor to this is people signing up to multiple games (sometimes even more than 2 at a time). I completely understand why people sign up for multiple games; however, I also know that I personally become really frustrated when I see someone that I think is scummy not posting in my game, and spamming away in the other game. I *do* think this type of sign-up mentality needs to be restricted regardless of population decline or not. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote: Wow that's bad. Hmmm. Let me see if I can put this into words. I want to have a rule that bans "trolling," antagonizing someone in order to get a response from them that has nothing to do with the game. This would be for personal attacks that go beyond just heated arguments. I want "leniency" for heated arguments in the sense that I understand people get angry and call each names, but if people apologize and realize that they shouldn't have done that, then we're cool. If people don't understand that then, warnings and modkills are on the table. This also wouldn't be for excessive personal attacks while playing. If while angry someone insulted another player with like 5 of the posts kita quoted, I would probably warn/modkill them immediately because even when angry that is unacceptable. Also, I was thinking of having a rule where aside from the insults in general, if I were to ask a player the purpose of a post, they better have an answer. Like how does that post further your agenda to achieve your win condition (again excluding the excessive personal attacks caveat). If someone cannot answer that question then again a warn/modkill is in order. This is the best I got on short notice. I really just started thinking about this in the last few days and don't have anything concrete, but I tried typing down my rambling thoughts. Your thoughts regarding this are a pretty good start imo, but how exactly can you make something like that into a global ruleset? How can you really decide what is trolling and what isn't, when 'leniency' should be applied or not? For example Greymist stepped in to warn a couple of people in my game for some words during a 'heated' argument that in the end amounted to something closer to joking in the end anyway. | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote: The number of days can be changed. And the goal is not to set a precendent for the entire site, Just for people who use our subforum. Sure people who read the banlist might not know what that means, but we and that person who is banned sure as hell do. What would you consider as reasonable for some going inactive for the first time? How about a repeat offender (3/4 times). I also still don't really understand how you can convince a site admin that they should ban someone from the site because of a rule that we (and not them) made up. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:18 Mocsta wrote: As an aside: I think a lot of frustration comes from people signing up and then AFK'n. In these situations sometimes people over-exaggerate their position on the lurker leading to the type of insults that O* cross the line. (Especially when the 'so-called' lurker calls you scum) One contributor to this is people signing up to multiple games (sometimes even more than 2 at a time). I completely understand why people sign up for multiple games; however, I also know that I personally become really frustrated when I see someone that I think is scummy not posting in my game, and spamming away in the other game. I *do* think this type of sign-up mentality needs to be restricted regardless of population decline or not. In my experience most of the people who sign up for multiple games actually end up playing both of the games, though to some lesser degree (still not even close to inactivity lurking). | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote: What would you consider as reasonable for some going inactive for the first time? How about a repeat offender (3/4 times). I also still don't really understand how you can convince a site admin that they should ban someone from the site because of a rule that we (and not them) made up. We don't need to worry about convincing a site admin or whatever, we have banlings who play here who can do it. People who /in on this forum will know what they're getting into. On December 17 2013 09:21 Crossfire99 wrote: If we do do the ban from TL route, it should also be in conjunction with the banlist sitout process as well. Banning from TL is too short for mafia games, but it is helpful as an additional punishment. yeah basically this. adding in bans, especially after games end to punish people who get behavior modkilled, is a good idea. I see no reason to get rid of our current system though; just supplement it! | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:12 Alakaslam wrote: Had to point out you care when someone's profile portrait is lockdown? I don't understand what you mean. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:22 Blazinghand wrote: We don't need to worry about convincing a site admin or whatever, we have banlings who play here who can do it. People who /in on this forum will know what they're getting into. yeah basically this. adding in bans, especially after games end to punish people who get behavior modkilled, is a good idea. I see no reason to get rid of our current system though; just supplement it! I can get behind this, but I still think a Mafia OP restatement/change is necessary. | ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote: What would you consider as reasonable for some going inactive for the first time? How about a repeat offender (3/4 times). I also still don't really understand how you can convince a site admin that they should ban someone from the site because of a rule that we (and not them) made up. On December 17 2013 07:08 GMarshal wrote: As recent games have showcased, hostility and player behavioral issues have been spiraling out of control. This thread is here to discuss that issue and possible solutions. Consider the fact that this has already been discussed in Polls thread and in the Back to the basics postgame. One solution I've been toying with is simply reinforcing moderation in this forum, in the form of actually giving out tl bans on top of banlist bans for behavior, and enforcing the behavior rules outlined in the commandments. This would put a damper on some of the fun we have but would also address the core behavior issues. Thoughts? Looks like we don't need to do much convincing. What I'm suggesting is not perfect, but from what I have observed the banlist is not serving its current purpose. I'm seeing a lot of assumptions here about posting patters of the standard person who AFKs a game. but these are assumptions that only hold true (if at all) to this forum. A number of times I have seen people who went inactive in a mafia game be active in other places on TL.net. In this case a site ban would affect them. | ||
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:25 GreYMisT wrote: Looks like we don't need to do much convincing. What I'm suggesting is not perfect, but from what I have observed the banlist is not serving its current purpose. I'm seeing a lot of assumptions here about posting patters of the standard person who AFKs a game. but these are assumptions that only hold true (if at all) to this forum. A number of times I have seen people who went inactive in a mafia game be active in other places on TL.net. In this case a site ban would affect them. He's not talking about a site ban for inactivity from mafia though. He's talking about a site ban for behavior issues, which is something that already happens on other parts of TL. Like it doesn't seem like Mig is amenable to banning for inactivity: On December 17 2013 09:02 Mig wrote: I don't think you can just remove the ban list. How would you deal with inactivity modkills/quitters? | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:18 WaveofShadow wrote: Your thoughts regarding this are a pretty good start imo, but how exactly can you make something like that into a global ruleset? How can you really decide what is trolling and what isn't, when 'leniency' should be applied or not? For example Greymist stepped in to warn a couple of people in my game for some words during a 'heated' argument that in the end amounted to something closer to joking in the end anyway. Idk about the global ruleset, I'll have to think more about that. Ultimately, I would be in favor of warning like GreY did, even if it was basically joking because that should stop escalation. You just don't have to act postgame as a host if you realize it was joking. I know that trolling is very subjective, but I think a key part of it should be intent. Like I think hosts should just pm someone and ask them how that post furthers that player's win condition. If they don't give a satisfactory answer, warn/modkill them. Also, I personally as a host would be ok with having different responses for different people. For example if austinmcc got out of hand, I would be more willing to be lenient with him because he never acts like that, but if idk [Bill Murray] (or someone like him) needed to be dealt with, I would be harsher because that player has a history of bad behavior. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:21 WaveofShadow wrote: If we are talking about prolific posters.. I have seen it plenty of times.In my experience most of the people who sign up for multiple games actually end up playing both of the games, though to some lesser degree (still not even close to inactivity lurking). Super active D1-D2. Then when the second game starts, they don't exist anymore. I won't mention names as some are doing it currently. Personally, I don't see what stricter ban periods will do long-term. (1) Either players will accept the ban (and hopefully mature) or leave to another forum. But there is already a declining population. Do we want even more to leave? I get you may be discarding 3 trolls to keep 1 DP -- but then, since when was this a forum of discrimination? For me, it comes down to respect from the top. Unfortunately, some of the best players on this forum are also some of the most insulting/snide. Because they win games, everyone thinks (a) its acceptable behaviour (b) its an effective way to influence people If something had to be enforced, to me it would be ad-hominem attacks. I dont mind people breaking down shitty logic and calling it exactly what it is. However, the ad-homs are running free reign on this forum, and perhaps are a large component of why people are leaving and/or not joining. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:29 GMarshal wrote: I don't agree with removing the banlist, because as mig said, its crucial for dealing with inactives. I also don't thin TL higher ups would be amenable to a council essentially controlling how tl bans are meted out. The simplest solution then imo is to just ban people when they get modkilled for behavior, and ban them when the game ends if they get warned for behavior. You will have the last say in whether or not the warning or modkill was justified, and if people see bad behavior, they could also bring that to your attention-- but the general rule should be "if the host has to warn you or modkill you, expect a temp ban when the game ends, or on the spot if you were modkilled" would go a long way imo. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
We need a system to get rid of people who don't actually play the game and only troll, yet don't get any punishment because they are considered "veterans" by everyone else and immune to all of the rules. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:35 Corazon wrote: There are also the people that constantly troll other players who don't do enough to get the hosts attention but do enough to get the person being trolled wanting to use the report button because he doesn't feel it is being handled correctly by the hosts. We need a system to get rid of people who don't actually play the game and only troll, yet don't get any punishment because they are considered "veterans" by everyone else and immune to all of the rules. You're talking about something beyond just a temp ban, here, right? I recommend for situations like that that we use a "wisdom of the crowds" style rule that GM uses in his setups. Here's what he used most recently: On November 16 2013 02:48 GMarshal wrote: Special Signup rule: Wisdom of the Crowds: If you do not wish to play with a player for any reason, PM me, if I receive enough votes against a player (five or more) then he or she will not be allowed to play in this game. Your vote against a player will be held in the strictest confidence. You *must* be signed up to vote against someone. This way, if there's a player who everyone hates but people are afraid to speak up about, there is a confidential way to not have to play with him! IMO Wisdom of the Crowds should become a standard rule for non-invite games. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:41 Blazinghand wrote: You're talking about something beyond just a temp ban, here, right? I recommend for situations like that that we use a "wisdom of the crowds" style rule that GM uses in his setups. Here's what he used most recently: This way, if there's a player who everyone hates but people are afraid to speak up about, there is a confidential way to not have to play with him! IMO Wisdom of the Crowds should become a standard rule for non-invite games. Yes I agree with this. However, only GM does that. However, there are also people who troll outside of games or on PMs/non-game threads and can't get punished because it isn't a game. I just report those posts and nothing gets done about them. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:43 Corazon wrote: Yes I agree with this. However, only GM does that. However, there are also people who troll outside of games or on PMs/non-game threads and can't get punished because it isn't a game. I just report those posts and nothing gets done about them. It only being GM who uses that rule is a problem, you're right-- so, let's roll Wisdom of the Crowds into our new banlist policy revamp. I personally promise that regardless of what gets chosen I'll include Wisdom of the Crowds in all games I host from now on anyways. Re: reporting posts in non-game threads, I recommend you PM GM instead of reporting them. I think the TL Mods mostly leave reports coming in from TL Mafia forum alone since they are somewhat aware of our internal rules. PM GM with quote, link, and reason. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
I'll have a lot of stuff to pm him with after a certain game is over. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:47 Corazon wrote: I feel like if I PM GM anymore he's going to hate me forever. I'll have a lot of stuff to pm him with after a certain game is over. My inbox feels lonely if I have less than 20 pms in the morning anyway, so go for it :-P EDIT: And if ignore you, it means I read your pm, intended to reply and got sidetracked and forgot, which happens, oftenish. | ||
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I believe TL is a place built on heavy moderation, and as users of the site we should agree with this policy. This whole "this forum is a special place for flame" doesn't make sense to me. People need to begin to understand their behavior in a mafia game should have consequences for outside of the game. At the same time, I think we should reward good sportsmanship. Possibly invite only games, having hosts put tags behind players on the signup sheet for "friendly play" ect. Although disruptive a ban may be, flame is even more disruptive to a game. On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote: Also, I was thinking of having a rule where aside from the insults in general, if I were to ask a player the purpose of a post, they better have an answer. Like how does that post further your agenda to achieve your win condition (again excluding the excessive personal attacks caveat). If someone cannot answer that question then again a warn/modkill is in order. I find it problematical when people consider insults as necessary to further their win condition, or bait to attempt to further their win condition. A lot of us play mafia because we want to have fun, and I want to make a fun environment. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:41 Blazinghand wrote: You're talking about something beyond just a temp ban, here, right? I recommend for situations like that that we use a "wisdom of the crowds" style rule that GM uses in his setups. Here's what he used most recently: This way, if there's a player who everyone hates but people are afraid to speak up about, there is a confidential way to not have to play with him! IMO Wisdom of the Crowds should become a standard rule for non-invite games. Duly noted. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:46 Blazinghand wrote: It only being GM who uses that rule is a problem, you're right-- so, let's roll Wisdom of the Crowds into our new banlist policy revamp. I personally promise that regardless of what gets chosen I'll include Wisdom of the Crowds in all games I host from now on anyways. Re: reporting posts in non-game threads, I recommend you PM GM instead of reporting them. I think the TL Mods mostly leave reports coming in from TL Mafia forum alone since they are somewhat aware of our internal rules. PM GM with quote, link, and reason. I certainly like the idea of putting Wisdom of the Crowds as an actual rule in every game. We don't have enough people trolly or malicious enough on this subforum to abuse it (ie disallowing someone from entering a game even if they have no reason to be disallowed because 5 people are assholes ) and it actually might prevent some of the larger problem cases from ruining games even if many people are apathetic enough about WotC to not bother voting/complaining. | ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
| ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
quick let me organize a couple of people through PMs and we can someone who we dont like feel terrible. that is some high school level shit you are enabling. | ||
Mid or Feed
Korea (South)250 Posts
On December 17 2013 10:54 kushm4sta wrote: sounds like a terrible rule that is going to make people feel bad. quick let me organize a couple of people through PMs and we can someone who we dont like feel terrible. that is some high school level shit you are enabling. Actually like I've already said, for the most part that won't happen here. Unless you're worried for some other reason, kush. | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
As someone who I guess has reputation as being a bit of a dick and who uses aggressiveness or whatever you want to call it as part of their defined meta and as a legitimate tool in the game I don't think it is appropriate to moderate this forum in the same way as the rest of the forum is moderated. The fact of the matter is that mafia is a game of social interaction and being a dick is an important tool which many of the best players use when playing the game. If you remove that tool I think you are removing something important from the game itself. Sure, It can become too much, and sometimes goes beyond playing the game and turns into something more and that is when you need to take a break from mafia. If things begin to upset you or things that are said during a game are taken personally then people should strongly consider taking a break to recharge the batteries as I have done. But this is not the same as general discussion in a forum, This is a game in which being aggressive and slightly abusive totally and fundamentally has a place. Sure there are Issues and here are some I have noticed. Taking things personally and becoming abusive purely for personal reasons rather than as a part of the game. Holding grudges and playing out those grudges within a game. An example of these two things would be the unhealthy relationship that Cora and Coag share. They clearly have issues with one another and those issues are played out repeatedly, game after game, thread after thread. Things that happen in one game should NEVER be continued into the next game. Another point I think is important is that being toxic whilst not playing to your win condition has got to go. This happens all the time and it is probably one of the worse things in the game. It is fundamental to the game of mafia to be able to be a dick or abusive as part of the game. It is fundamental that people understand that it is only a part of the game and do not take things personally, hold grudges, play against their win condition by being toxic, carry on their disagreements into the next game etc. Many of the best players in these forums are a bit salty. Ace, Marv, Viscera Eyes, Blazinghand, Palmar etc. Many of the ideas being espoused here sincerely make me worry about the future of the game on this site. | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 17 2013 10:59 Mid or Feed wrote: Actually like I've already said, for the most part that won't happen here. Unless you're worried for some other reason, kush. Nice account | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
The wisdom of the crowds just gives people and outlet to express their personal grudges or biases both of which are unhealthy and should not exist in the first place. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
| ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
If you look at the poll that kita made it appears that the majority of the players would enjoy the games more with less flaming. | ||
Mid or Feed
Korea (South)250 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:06 DarthPunk wrote: I do not think that an institutionalized exclusion policy is the answer. That is really messed up. If you don't want to play with someone just don't play. The wisdom of the crowds just gives people and outlet to express their personal grudges or biases both of which are unhealthy and should not exist in the first place. I disagree wholeheartedly. You think if a bunch of people don't want to play with you then they're the problem? It's one thing if it were a 1v1 thing like Coag v Cora, but from what I understand of WotC it requires a lot of people to not enjoy playing with somebody for that to work. Can you think of anybody who would be excluded from a game that doesn't deserve to be under such a policy? It is fundamental to the game of mafia to be able to be a dick or abusive as part of the game. It is fundamental that people understand that it is only a part of the game and do not take things personally, hold grudges, play against their win condition by being toxic, carry on their disagreements into the next game etc. Do you have a method of forcing this fundamental understanding onto people? Because if so, then problem solved, amirite? | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:13 Mig wrote: Darth, I agree with you that part of the problem is people sometimes take mafia too seriously and thus become too emotional. However, that doesn't mean allowing people to be dicks is good for TL mafia as a whole. People play the game for fun and many people don't enjoy playing in games where people are needlessly insulting and flaming each other. There are plenty of ways to play mafia that don't involve telling people to kill themselves. If you look at the poll that kita made it appears that the majority of the players would enjoy the games more with less flaming. Telling people to kill themselves is clearly going too far, but that is also a very extreme example, which is being used to discredit my point. Aggression is without a doubt fundamental part of the game, as the game is fundamentally a game of social interactions. For example; I would say calling someone a 'cum dumpster' or to 'kill themselves' is going too far. But saying 'you're retarded' or 'that is fucking stupid' is not. It IS an important tool or option to use. Sure, it is possible to play in a different way, but many people use aggressiveness as mafia for example to hide weaknesses in their arguments or to disguise inconsistency. And if you do something as Mafia you have to do it as town. I have been called scum many times for not being enough of a dick. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: I disagree wholeheartedly. You think if a bunch of people don't want to play with you then they're the problem? It's one thing if it were a 1v1 thing like Coag v Cora, but from what I understand of WotC it requires a lot of people to not enjoy playing with somebody for that to work. Can you think of anybody who would be excluded from a game that doesn't deserve to be under such a policy? Do you have a method of forcing this fundamental understanding onto people? Because if so, then problem solved, amirite? Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote: Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved. Someone who pms anybody this: Original Message From kushm4sta: Tech me how to troll as good as you Should deserve to face the wrath of WotC | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:22 DarthPunk wrote: But saying 'you're retarded' or 'that is fucking stupid' is not. It IS an important tool or option to use. Sure, it is possible to play in a different way, but many people use aggressiveness as mafia for example to hide weaknesses in their arguments or to disguise inconsistency. And if you do something as Mafia you have to do it as town. I have been called scum many times for not being enough of a dick. I don't think anyone is saying we should be modkilling for people saying "that is fucking stupid". Some aggressiveness is obviously fine and this is mafia sometimes emotions do run high and if someone makes 500 good posts then gets angry and makes 1 over the line they shouldn't be instantly modkilled. All this being said, you can play an aggressive style without having to just insult people. If your mafia game revolves around calling everyone a fucking retard then a lot of people won't enjoy playing with you. So regardless of whether it is a legitimate strategy or not it isn't something that should be encouraged because it isn't fun for a lot of the people playing. | ||
Mid or Feed
Korea (South)250 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote: Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved. Well you and I probably disagree on the fundamental meaning of 'deserved,' then. (And this is probably not a discussion for this thread.) | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:30 Corazon wrote: Someone who pms anybody this: Should deserve to face the wrath of WotC Cora you are a a large contributor to the problem. You always take things personally, hold grudges and allow those grudges to manifest in the next games. Maybe you should take I break like me? | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:35 Corazon wrote: I think anyone who gets shut out with WotC does not "deserve" to be here and should be forced to beg and grovel for their place back in TL Mafia. This post is not appropriate cora. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:35 DarthPunk wrote: Cora you are a a large contributor to the problem. You always take things personally, hold grudges and allow those grudges to manifest in the next games. Maybe you should take I break like me? Why don't you read the big picture before making statements like that. I hold grudges against 3-4 people (who will not be named). I don't break them out in the games. I don't even talk to the people I have a grudge with. I avoid them, like I should. Why is it when other people are parasites to this forum, they don't get called out for it, but whenever I say anything, I get called out and accused of things that are obviously not true? Why do they get confidentiality and I don't? If anyone is reading Titanic, my behavior was really good until the last bit. I have 2 responses to getting irritated: 1) Getting mad and being a dick (what happened in BttB) 2) Not willing to play or post (what happened in Titanic) Does anything I say actually matter at this point? I get the feeling that no matter what I say or what I do, I'm just going to get hate for it. | ||
purpletrator
Vanuatu64 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:22 DarthPunk wrote: I have been called scum many times for not being enough of a dick. Sadly, I am guilty of this. However, if such behavior was more strictly moderated, it would no longer be a viable point of calling someone scum since they are in fear of disciplinary action. I am on the fence with regards to DP's point about having an "abusive" meta. Something like "Have you seen what he's been writing? Guy is obviously too stupid to find scum" is not over the line, as it is using the perceived intelligence as an argument against believing that player. This is what a lot of the game is about, changing the way people read one another to further your win-con. Most of the time, furthering your win-con is trying to make YOU look better/smarter/townier, but in some cases you NEED to be able to call someone (or at least their logic) terrible/stupid/scummy. We all understand that the game can get emotional and personal attacks are more likely to occur when you are riled up. It is going to be a part of the game, so this is a very fine line to be walked in terms of identifying what level of insults is classified as "going too far". | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:30 Mig wrote: I don't think anyone is saying we should be modkilling for people saying "that is fucking stupid". Some aggressiveness is obviously fine and this is mafia sometimes emotions do run high and if someone makes 500 good posts then gets angry and makes 1 over the line they shouldn't be instantly modkilled. All this being said, you can play an aggressive style without having to just insult people. If your mafia game revolves around calling everyone a fucking retard then a lot of people won't enjoy playing with you. So regardless of whether it is a legitimate strategy or not it isn't something that should be encouraged because it isn't fun for a lot of the people playing. But if you DO play an aggressive style, and some of the things that are being mentioned come to pass. Then people will get banned or move on. 1 post in 500 is not a realistic expectation of the manner in which aggressiveness could or should be used. Marv, Ace, VE, Palmar, Blazinghand. These are all people that this will affect in some way. And these are all people who are highly valuable to the community. I am just saying to be very careful about how you regulate, that is all. Because it has the potential to be a net negative IMO. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:40 Mig wrote: Cora, you have had one person disagree with you. There is no need to play the victim. This isn't just directed at DP, it's kind of based off of my posts in BttB postgame that were completely ignored. It just sucks that I'm held to different standards than other players. | ||
Mid or Feed
Korea (South)250 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
This is what I was talking about. Sigh. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
What I do care about is however is that, whatever enforcement comes from this discussion is issued out fairly regardless of status in the forum. In my opinion: I don't think that WotC is the solution. What it does is to create a system of discrimination/ostracizing that ironically will perpetuate this very culture you are trying to mitigate in the first place. In regards to emotional "butthurt": what is the difference someone between Troll A saying "you're a cum dumpster" and a group of people unanimously voting "you're not worthy to play a free game on a free forum" | ||
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:48 Mocsta wrote: I don't particularly care whether you guys ignore my points I raised earlier. What I do care about is however is that, whatever enforcement comes from this discussion is issued out fairly regardless of status in the forum. In my opinion: I don't think that WotC is the solution. What it does is to create a system of discrimination/ostracizing that ironically will perpetuate this very culture you are trying to mitigate in the first place. In regards to emotional "butthurt": what is the difference someone between Troll A saying "you're a cum dumpster" and a group of people unanimously voting "you're not worthy to play a free game on a free forum" This guy is town. 100% <3 | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:40 purpletrator wrote: Sadly, I am guilty of this. However, if such behavior was more strictly moderated, it would no longer be a viable point of calling someone scum since they are in fear of disciplinary action. I am on the fence with regards to DP's point about having an "abusive" meta. Something like "Have you seen what he's been writing? Guy is obviously too stupid to find scum" is not over the line, as it is using the perceived intelligence as an argument against believing that player. This is what a lot of the game is about, changing the way people read one another to further your win-con. Most of the time, furthering your win-con is trying to make YOU look better/smarter/townier, but in some cases you NEED to be able to call someone (or at least their logic) terrible/stupid/scummy. We all understand that the game can get emotional and personal attacks are more likely to occur when you are riled up. It is going to be a part of the game, so this is a very fine line to be walked in terms of identifying what level of insults is classified as "going too far". This. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
The one-sided persecution continues. | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
purpletrator
Vanuatu64 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:39 Corazon wrote: Why don't you read the big picture before making statements like that. I hold grudges against 3-4 people (who will not be named). I don't break them out in the games. I don't even talk to the people I have a grudge with. I avoid them, like I should. Why is it when other people are parasites to this forum, they don't get called out for it, but whenever I say anything, I get called out and accused of things that are obviously not true? Why do they get confidentiality and I don't? If anyone is reading Titanic, my behavior was really good until the last bit. I have 2 responses to getting irritated: 1) Getting mad and being a dick (what happened in BttB) 2) Not willing to play or post (what happened in Titanic) Does anything I say actually matter at this point? I get the feeling that no matter what I say or what I do, I'm just going to get hate for it. Cora you are directly contributing to the shit that gets thrown at you. You take zero ownership of your attitude in response to being called out for ANYTHING. Whether it occurs in game, post game, heck I'd bet if it showed up on a different forum somehow, you'd respond with a similar attitude of "woe is me, no one loves me" when you give them no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are always saying you get more than you deserve, but you incite, flame, accuse and attack with reckless abandon, and you manage to do it without having a particular target, just the blanket of people attacking you. If there is so great an issue with you that everyone has to raise the point, you need to work on understanding how people perceive you and then work on fixing that from a place understanding and acceptance. Here are my suggestions for you:
Please understand that we (at least I) want you to improve and have fun. We're trying to help, we're trying to foster open and supportive discussions with you so that we all benefit as a community. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
| ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:56 Mig wrote: Stop arguing about Cora's behavior, cora/others. This isn't the place for it. You are derailing the discussion. I agree with this. @Mig What is the actual issue we are dealing with broken into its most raw state? - Newbies not continuing past the newbies? - Guests deciding not to join the newbies? - Experienced players leaving? - Something else? I hear a lot of people saying, we need to do "this and that" but I don't recall anyone saying because we need to achieve "this and that" Where I am going with this is, how do you fix a problem if you have no understanding of the root cause. And how do you ascertain the root cause if you do not understand what you are investigating. | ||
purpletrator
Vanuatu64 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:48 Mocsta wrote: I don't particularly care whether you guys ignore my points I raised earlier. What I do care about is however is that, whatever enforcement comes from this discussion is issued out fairly regardless of status in the forum. In my opinion: I don't think that WotC is the solution. What it does is to create a system of discrimination/ostracizing that ironically will perpetuate this very culture you are trying to mitigate in the first place. In regards to emotional "butthurt": what is the difference someone between Troll A saying "you're a cum dumpster" and a group of people unanimously voting "you're not worthy to play a free game on a free forum" The difference is the needs of the Few vs needs of the Many. Troll A's right to play how he wants cannot and will not interfere with what is deemed appropriate for our "free game on a free forum". Its the entire reason we have a ban list and have this thread in the first place. However, there are always caller games for those who need to be complete and utter assholes. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
Extending from the above If you want my selfish opinion which is clearly biased towards what I care about. The issues I see with the thread are: - Games take ages to sign up - Half the games people modkill/replace out Both translate to less enjoyment overall. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:01 Mocsta wrote: I agree with this. @Mig What is the actual issue we are dealing with broken into its most raw state? - Newbies not continuing past the newbies? - Guests deciding not to join the newbies? - Experienced players leaving? - Something else? I hear a lot of people saying, we need to do "this and that" but I don't recall anyone saying because we need to achieve "this and that" Where I am going with this is, how do you fix a problem if you have no understanding of the root cause. And how do you ascertain the root cause if you do not understand what you are investigating. it's the internet. making new behavior modification rules won't help anything. recidivism is real and new trolls sign up all the time my earlier post wasn't a joke. i'm not sure that there actually is a problem that goes beyond a few people, or a few relationships, but if there is a problem it can only be solved by everyone chilling out. make as many rules as you want but you're still not dealing with the "core issue" you asked about. that's nothing you can solve, all you can do is make sure you are chill and hope that others follow | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:01 Mocsta wrote: I agree with this. @Mig What is the actual issue we are dealing with broken into its most raw state? - Newbies not continuing past the newbies? - Guests deciding not to join the newbies? - Experienced players leaving? - Something else? I hear a lot of people saying, we need to do "this and that" but I don't recall anyone saying because we need to achieve "this and that" Where I am going with this is, how do you fix a problem if you have no understanding of the root cause. And how do you ascertain the root cause if you do not understand what you are investigating. I can name quite a few people who have left or have had no desire to continue playing as a direct result of the atmosphere in recent games. Whether or not these people need to 'suck it up' according to some people remains to be seen, but then you also have people leaving due to other ingame behavioural issues ie non playing according to win-con. This then becomes compounded because people leaving mid-game due to above reasons doesn't exactly IMPROVE conditions (and is incredibly hypocritical). In my opinion the core issue is that games are becoming increasingly 'less fun' due to a few factors people have mentioned, among them bad atmosphere/toxicity, spam, lurking/inactivity, and people not properly playing the game they signed up for. These issues sometimes overlap as well. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
| ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:06 WaveofShadow wrote: This is very reasonable.I can name quite a few people who have left or have had no desire to continue playing as a direct result of the atmosphere in recent games. Whether or not these people need to 'suck it up' according to some people remains to be seen, but then you also have people leaving due to other ingame behavioural issues ie non playing according to win-con. This then becomes compounded because people leaving mid-game due to above reasons doesn't exactly IMPROVE conditions (and is incredibly hypocritical). In my opinion the core issue is that games are becoming increasingly 'less fun' due to a few factors people have mentioned, among them bad atmosphere/toxicity, spam, lurking/inactivity, and people not properly playing the game they signed up for. These issues sometimes overlap as well. I completely forgot about the spam argument that was being held 6 months ago. Bad atmosphere/toxicity: If bans are meant to address this, then fine. But as I said before, all players need to be treated fairly and not be exempt due to reputation. Spam: This is what I would consider to be a generation thing that wont cede anytime soon. Until an influential low-volume poster *that can play regularly* comes in to show people the ways of less spam; people that play currently have no reason to change what wins them games. That is a fact of any sport/human nature. Lurking/inactivity: This might not remove "trolls", but would have not mitigation towards actives blowing their lids. Having said that, I agree it should be the responsibility of the active to keep their cool - a lesson i've had to learn the hard way multiple times. Not enjoying the game: I agree. Its annoying to put so much time/care into a case and to then be thwarted. Some say, learn to improve and take motivation from it; others are shattered and won't put their heart on the sleeve again. Everyone is different, and opinions need to be respected. Obviously the above is generic; I just felt like rambling to distract me from work | ||
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:53 bumatlarge wrote: Bahahahahahahahahahaaha the coagulation temp ban in the thread about improving behavior. Why can't I stop laughing at this. On December 17 2013 07:22 kitaman27 wrote: Would hosts still have the final say on modkills or would we potentially run into the issue of a stray Banling enforcing these behavioral rules by handing out a temp ban during an ongoing game? Little did I expect that this would happen only hours later XD | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:20 Mocsta wrote: This is very reasonable. I completely forgot about the spam argument that was being held 6 months ago. Bad atmosphere/toxicity: If bans are meant to address this, then fine. But as I said before, all players need to be treated fairly and not be exempt due to reputation. Spam: This is what I would consider to be a generation thing that wont cede anytime soon. Until an influential low-volume poster *that can play regularly* comes in to show people the ways of less spam; people that play currently have no reason to change what wins them games. That is a fact of any sport/human nature. Lurking/inactivity: This might not remove "trolls", but would have not mitigation towards actives blowing their lids. Having said that, I agree it should be the responsibility of the active to keep their cool - a lesson i've had to learn the hard way multiple times. Not enjoying the game: I agree. Its annoying to put so much time/care into a case and to then be thwarted. Some say, learn to improve and take motivation from it; others are shattered and won't put their heart on the sleeve again. Everyone is different, and opinions need to be respected. Obviously the above is generic; I just felt like rambling to distract me from work I agree regarding your thoughts on the spam thing, but I figured I should mention it to be fair because I know others have said it has deterred them from playing recently. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote: Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved. I'm not speaking specifically about Kush here - but if a lot of players in a game have good reason to believe that playing with X will diminish their enjoyment of a game, isn't that the definition of X not deserving to play in it? Of course, the problem with WotC is that it may make players feel entitled to whinge even more about the quality of others' play. But perhaps that's unavoidable, and maybe even a good thing. EDIT: Also, there are some players on the forum which play in so many games that If you don't want to play with someone just don't play. would result in you playing zero games | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
| ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote: What about second chances.I'm not speaking specifically about Kush here - but if a lot of players in a game have good reason to believe that playing with X will diminish their enjoyment of a game, isn't that the definition of X not deserving to play in it? Of course, the problem with WotC is that it may make players feel entitled to whinge even more about the quality of others' play. But perhaps that's unavoidable, and maybe even a good thing. 6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me? After BttB maybe not so? | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote: What about second chances. 6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me? After BttB maybe not so? Maybe there can be some sort of 'WotC eligibility' in that people who are consistently voted out for something bad they did ages ago are given a second chance? Maybe that's getting too complicated though. I would imagine though that a WotC vote should probably be accompanied with some sort of reason more sufficient than 'I didn't like how he played in XXX Mafia.' | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote: What about second chances. 6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me? After BttB maybe not so? Nah, I don't think at any point. You frusturated me a fair bit (in LX particularly) and for a while I didn't have a high opinion of your play, but I don't think you personally made playing in any game unpleasant. Frusturation is part of the game. On topic, there are a fair number of people on the forum who I would WotC veto at the moment; but if I saw they were playing more acceptably in other games, I would consider not vetoing them in the future. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
Like, I can handle an inactive a majority of the time - I think. A lot of people read the thread heaps and are just paralyzed. I can't handle people that post genuine spam about absolutely nothing. The mechanics of the game do not offer a viable means to deal with these people either - as they usually town. I would consider to WotC those people; but to be honest, I dont know if that would improve my enjoyment of the game. Maybe I speak alone, but I think i enjoy this game the most when I lead a successful lynch and/or win the game. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:34 Aquanim wrote: Nah, I don't think at any point. You frusturated me a fair bit (in LX particularly) and for a while I didn't have a high opinion of your play, but I don't think you personally made playing in any game unpleasant. Frusturation is part of the game. On topic, there are a fair number of people on the forum who I would WotC veto at the moment; but if I saw they were playing more acceptably in other games, I would consider not vetoing them in the future. But to play devil's advocate (for all of the WotC detractors here), what if everyone else isn't as reasonable as you are? How do we prevent possible WotC abuse? | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote: But to play devil's advocate (for all of the WotC detractors here), what if everyone else isn't as reasonable as you are? How do we prevent possible WotC abuse? Well, my first thought is that when I host a game I could apply my own judgement to WotC - for instance, if five smurfs show up and veto Hapahauli I'm gonna ignore that. But that just moves the possibilities for abuse onto the host. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
I would like to see some changes in the rules for activity. 1) I think the punishment for inactivity/quitting modkills should be harsher. Something like having a first offense be a 3 game ban and going up from there. Modkills for inactivity ruin games and shouldn't be tolerated (unless there is a good reason and if there is one they can always appeal it). 2) I would like to see the standard posting requirements raised. Right now the norm is 1 post per cycle. If you are making 1 post per cycle you might as well not even be playing and it really saps the fun out of the game when a bunch of people are skating by doing almost nothing. I would propose raising the standard requirement to 5 posts per cycle with the caveat that you can miss the limit 1 cycle in case you are busy/etc. I remember this was proposed a long time ago but people decided it would be too difficult for hosts to keep track of, but with the filter system now it would be easy. Wotc - I have a bit of mixed feelings about. I would say let hosts decide if they want to use it or not instead of making it a standard rule. Some hosts will use it and if a player is booted from the game they can play in a game where the host isn't using it and show that they can play in a way in which people won't mind playing with them. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote: Which is where I come back to the discrimination factor.But to play devil's advocate (for all of the WotC detractors here), what if everyone else isn't as reasonable as you are? How do we prevent possible WotC abuse? I disagree outright with purpletrator opinion of "few vs many" but I respect that this is his opinion as well and likely to be shared by others. ____________________ respect This forum needs more of it. | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:40 Mig wrote: I am genuinely surprised such a suggestion has come from a low-volume poster such as yourself. I admire the courage to take up this position.2) I would like to see the standard posting requirements raised. Right now the norm is 1 post per cycle. If you are making 1 post per cycle you might as well not even be playing and it really saps the fun out of the game when a bunch of people are skating by doing almost nothing. I would propose raising the standard requirement to 5 posts per cycle with the caveat that you can miss the limit 1 cycle in case you are busy/etc. I remember this was proposed a long time ago but people decided it would be too difficult for hosts to keep track of, but with the filter system now it would be easy. I am OK with this idea, but i am not confident on what it will achieve. The 5 posts can easily be "u suck" "im clearly town" "thats wrong" "dont be so dumb dumb" 'im busy at work today thats my 5 posts" Reading between the lines; we want someone to actually use their 1 to 5 posts to inject genuine thought into the thread. However, scum have a responsibility to create an atmosphere where people *don't feel comfortable* to do this. So where I am going with this is that the mechanics of the game are also its own worst enemy. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
I think that hosts should give a warning about toxic behavior (not language necessarily) in the thread. Then individually via PM, then it is a mod-kill and three game ban that can be discussed in the ban list thread. Repeat offenders can be permed in the banlist thread and discussing that will show the general will of the player base. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:40 Mig wrote: ... I would like to see some changes in the rules for activity. 1) I think the punishment for inactivity/quitting modkills should be harsher. Something like having a first offense be a 3 game ban and going up from there. Modkills for inactivity ruin games and shouldn't be tolerated (unless there is a good reason and if there is one they can always appeal it). ... I agree with you up to a point but I think I'd make an exception for newbies. IIRC there have been a couple of newbies who got inactivity-modkilled, sat out their one game, came back and became reasonable players. If a newbie gets modkilled and has to sit out 3 games they're almost certainly not coming back. Inactivity is always going to be a problem in newbies, but given the constantly cycling nature of their player pool I don't think handing out huge bans there is as valuable a deterrent and may drive away some reasonable players. Some newbie games are always gonna be ruined by inactivity whatever you do, but enough newbie games are good enough at present. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:47 DarthPunk wrote: I also think that hosts should decide if they wish to implement WotC or not. I think that hosts should give a warning about toxic behavior (not language necessarily) in the thread. Then individually via PM, then it is a mod-kill and three game ban that can be discussed in the ban list thread. Repeat offenders can be permed in the banlist thread and discussing that will show the general will of the player base. That goes back to the problem of soft hosts. How do we go about encouraging hosts to perform more modkills instead of just slaps on the wrist in an effort to preserve their setups? | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
But then we get silly vigilante shots. I guess. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:48 Corazon wrote: That goes back to the problem of soft hosts. How do we go about encouraging hosts to perform more modkills instead of just slaps on the wrist in an effort to preserve their setups? You may think a host is soft. But whether a host is soft or not is subjective and should not be moderated. If you host a game, then we as a community should trust that host to be a rational human being and enforce the rules the way they think is best. Generally hosts are going to be upset at people for ruining their game and as they are removed from the situation they provide a balanced perspective towards things that happen in their game. If you think a host is too soft I would assume the host is correct and the person who thinks they are too soft has a personal bias. | ||
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
I think that a host flat-out denying someone to their game would stir the waters a lot and I'm pretty sure that hosts are being soft because they are trying not to stir up the waters and turn the thread into a fight about if someone should be able to play or shouldn't. But there have been egregious behaviors (MYSELF INCLUDED) lately that have deserved modkills yet haven't been served. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 12:59 Corazon wrote: But there are players who derail every single game that they play in, yet hosts continue to let them play in their games. In my opinion, its them being soft and not me having a personal bias. I think that a host flat-out denying someone to their game would stir the waters a lot and I'm pretty sure that hosts are being soft because they are trying not to stir up the waters and turn the thread into a fight about if someone should be able to play or shouldn't. But there have been egregious behaviors (MYSELF INCLUDED) lately that have deserved modkills yet haven't been served. If you are talking about coag then I would say your opinion is being coloured by bias. Honestly you may think that hosts are wrong to not modkill particular people but it is more likely you are wrong and are simply biased due to being involved in the emotions of the game. Hosts are the best moderators of games and behavior within games. They are the least likely to be biased due to not being directly involved in a situation and also have a vested interest in the integrity of their game and their future games. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:05 DarthPunk wrote: If you are talking about coag then I would say your opinion is being coloured by bias. Honestly you may think that hosts are wrong to not modkill particular people but it is more likely you are wrong and are simply biased due to being involved in the emotions of the game. Hosts are the best moderators of games and behavior within games. They are the least likely to be biased due to not being directly involved in a situation and also have a vested interest in the integrity of their game and their future games. And yet this is exactly why some mods can be 'soft.' If they have a vested interest in the integrity of their game they are not likely to want to see it ruined by, say, 15 modkills. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
Imo: the host should have discretion for modkills and warnings in games, and we should ramp up punishment actions that happen later. The simplest and best solution imo should be threefold: 1) TL Bans as a result of host warnings/modkills: If a host has to warn you, once the game is over, you will be TL Banned in addition to TL Mafia Ban List Banned. If you are modkilled, the TL Ban starts right away since you're no longer in the game. This will not change the host's ability to decide who lives and who gets modkilled, but supplements current punishments 2) TL Bans beyond the scope of normal host activities: After a game is ended, if you've been a huge dick and the mod has happened not to modkill you, you are still liable for egregious violations of TL conduct beyond that which is normal and acceptable for a game. This will be less common, but shoudl still be an option. 3) Increased use of Wisdom of the Crowds: Maybe don't make this mandatory, but add it to, for example, the standard OP. I'll always use it in my games with a caveat that I have a final veto when I host in the event I detect abuse. Simple, easy, doesn't change what happens INSIDE the games, just what happens outside. | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:01 DarthPunk wrote: Hmm. I wasn't sure if I was going to post something here but I guess I will. As someone who I guess has reputation as being a bit of a dick and who uses aggressiveness or whatever you want to call it as part of their defined meta and as a legitimate tool in the game I don't think it is appropriate to moderate this forum in the same way as the rest of the forum is moderated. The fact of the matter is that mafia is a game of social interaction and being a dick is an important tool which many of the best players use when playing the game. If you remove that tool I think you are removing something important from the game itself. Sure, It can become too much, and sometimes goes beyond playing the game and turns into something more and that is when you need to take a break from mafia. If things begin to upset you or things that are said during a game are taken personally then people should strongly consider taking a break to recharge the batteries as I have done. But this is not the same as general discussion in a forum, This is a game in which being aggressive and slightly abusive totally and fundamentally has a place. Sure there are Issues and here are some I have noticed. Taking things personally and becoming abusive purely for personal reasons rather than as a part of the game. Holding grudges and playing out those grudges within a game. An example of these two things would be the unhealthy relationship that Cora and Coag share. They clearly have issues with one another and those issues are played out repeatedly, game after game, thread after thread. Things that happen in one game should NEVER be continued into the next game. Another point I think is important is that being toxic whilst not playing to your win condition has got to go. This happens all the time and it is probably one of the worse things in the game. It is fundamental to the game of mafia to be able to be a dick or abusive as part of the game. It is fundamental that people understand that it is only a part of the game and do not take things personally, hold grudges, play against their win condition by being toxic, carry on their disagreements into the next game etc. Many of the best players in these forums are a bit salty. Ace, Marv, Viscera Eyes, Blazinghand, Palmar etc. Many of the ideas being espoused here sincerely make me worry about the future of the game on this site. This is a good post, but I think there are boundaries where "being a dick" is taken too far. The things kita posted I think are not, in any way, good for anything. PERSONAL attacks of that nature are unnecessary. But I agree to some extent, being aggressive IS a part of the game, people need to learn to not take or make anything personal. That includes both the player making the post and the player it was aimed at. As far as additional punishment for infractions, that is fine. Some players do need to be taught a lesson. I think the game could go on and grow fine as it is if some of the more extreme behavior was moderated more aggressively and more emphasis was put on it being a GAME. | ||
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
I know some people might think that's lenient but even if someone who acts terribly is only kept out of every other game that's still a lot more than right now, additionally I think if I was told every other game I signed up for that enough people didn't want to play with me that I'm not allowed in then I probably would really try to shape up in the games I am allowed in. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Many of the ideas being espoused here sincerely make me worry about the future of the game on this site. I'm not sure the game HAS a future on this site without some drastic ideas | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
This thread is getting a bit clogged and I don't see much progress from anyone towards a lynch candidate aside from darthpunk saying kush will probably get lynched. I don't take that to heart to much because darth's posts ave been on track. thrawn has hardly been participating in the thread, and when he does, he really detracts from the importance of today. On December 17 2013 11:48 thrawn2112 wrote: everyone be chill, problem solved On December 17 2013 12:06 thrawn2112 wrote: it's the internet. making new behavior modification rules won't help anything. recidivism is real and new trolls sign up all the time my earlier post wasn't a joke. i'm not sure that there actually is a problem that goes beyond a few people, or a few relationships, but if there is a problem it can only be solved by everyone chilling out. make as many rules as you want but you're still not dealing with the "core issue" you asked about. that's nothing you can solve, all you can do is make sure you are chill and hope that others follow This is not conducive to finding scum. We really don't have alot of means aside from "rule-making", so it's slgithly pessimistic to downplay that aspect. His use of the word 'chill' multiple times counteracts his scuminess IMO, but I'd keep an eye on this guy. On December 17 2013 12:23 kitaman27 wrote: Little did I expect that this would happen only hours later XD This is a very nice catch, and maybe we can figure out who killed coagulation? He kept posting afterwards, but it would take a bit for the action to go through, so that makes me very suspicious of the people active at that time. We can't speculate too hard on this though. Kita is probably town though. Until we find someone worse, I think thrawn is our best bet today. ##Vote thrawn2112 | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
Modkill people who are being Toxic after a warning in thread and then a warning via PM. Basic penalty is 3 game ban for Toxicity related modkills. All other bans/warnings stay as current. Repeat offenders get 6 month semi perm from all TL mafia games. If there is a disagreement then that is discussed freely in then Banlist thread. Host get's final say unless GMarshal overrules. Really simple and I think would this solve a lot of the problems due to toxic behaviour. | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:47 Corazon wrote: This discussion isn't going to go anywhere. It's just going to go back into how I'm such a big problem and how I'm such an asshole and I'm the only problem in this subforum when you all need to open your eyes. ##Unvote ##Vote Corazon | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
##Shoot: Corazon | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:23 bumatlarge wrote: Scratch that, there is no way that corazon can be town with posts like this. ##Unvote ##Vote Corazon I appreciate you're having some fun but this thread is srs business. | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
bumatlarge the Mafia Day Vigilante has been killed All Mafia have been eliminated! Town wins! | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 17 2013 07:52 Risen wrote: If global moderation became I think it would deter me. If hosts were stricter (as long as they were clear so maybe update the OPs) with enforcing madness it would not. I will be making a longer Axle post but this is important, as outside most pans there is a fire. There are many more ways to do this stuff wrong than right. A problem, with non mafia players, deciding on what is in and out, is that the game is inherently adversarial. *I* believe I can play mafia inside the usual TL posting guidelines, I am not sure (indeed probably the opposite) that the game would then be fun for quite number of people as it would be very dry, sober, clinical, ... I believe mafia is best moderated by people who have played, I suspect its even best if its played by people who played recently as its easy to go all ivory tower on how it ought be played. My personal rules, for what i would allow as a host seem to be settling down Rule 0: The contention in post needs to be about the game. Exception 0: its social interactive game not every post is on topic, some of it will be banter. Consider a recent post that did get (as a final straw?) the player modkilled "You are basing a scumread off a joke I made you " derogatory epithet While I don't dispute that mod kill case at all. This post has actual game content, providing the epithet was not beyond the pale it is an invective that adds this meaning "You are basing a scumread off a joke I made you, and i really mean it, your logic is badly flawed!" but in a more natural and less forced manner. Now that is extreme, but the problem is there is considerable context to a mafia post, and posts that I suspect would get you banned elsewhere on the forum are a natural part of the game IMO, and dont really upset people. The discussion is adversarial people will make mistakes in individual posts but providing they get back to the game. Perhaps its like the pool table, or the dad rule, where you must keep one foot on the ground at all times while in my daughters bedroom or addressing the ball. (changing hats) I could well be wrong, I have not read enough games on 2p2, or seen how their dispute process operates in pratice enough to judge and be sure. (Oh look I just went wishy washy.) ##shoot Aquanim he is obviously not playing. | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
VayneAuthority
United States8983 Posts
even if it was acceptable, there was already a warning and I let my frustration get the better of me. i don't plan on playing anymore games and im sure people will be relieved to hear that. | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:33 VayneAuthority wrote: lol please don't try to defend that axle, it was way over the line (assuming im reading that correctly) even if it was acceptable, there was already a warning and I let my frustration get the better of me. i don't plan on playing anymore games and im sure people will be relieved to hear that. | ||
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7875 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:01 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Anyone caught actively playing against their win con is auto modkilled / banned. Obviously this is going to be subjective to the mods but seriously. Watching people go into a game and troll to shit while not posting anything meaningful is insanely frustrating. This is coming from a guy who has watched players make justifications that townies are allowed to be "anti town". If anyone in the town is repeatedly "anti town" or however people want to justify it they die. A town members job is to get scum lynched and make it obvious that they are town and thus shouldnt be lynched. People if they join a game should be trying. There are other people who might or would have made better use of your slot if all your going to do is lurk. Don't have the time required to play in a game? don't join. Seriously, spam isn't that much of an issue. Even skimming a thread you can spot posts that feel wrong and you can filter the player. Its incredibly easy to still play a game with a ton of spam. Is it frustrating to do? Yes, but its doable. No one wants to play with people who don't play to their win conditions. Figured this is still applicable to the general situation. As someone who's been here since the beginning of TL mafia basically I can say that aggressive behaviour/being an asshole never really kept people from playing the game. I say this as we were able to for a long time hold a fairly steady and strong group that played frequently. Did we let it go too far? possibly, however "attacks" are part of the game. You can use them to garner emotional responses which can prompt people to slip up. If the posts are directed at the person and clearly not in any way shape or form game related or serve a game related purpose warn for it. Or ban. However the biggest issue IMO is and has been for ages people not playing to win. I can point out more than one game in the last year of people spending more time being trolls/afks/dbags who don't play to win and join to be complete assholes/continue grudges from previous games. If people actively start playing to win and honestly trying to win the dynamic would change completely here. | ||
Pandain
United States12932 Posts
| ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:33 VayneAuthority wrote: lol please don't try to defend that axle, it was way over the line (assuming im reading that correctly) even if it was acceptable, there was already a warning and I let my frustration get the better of me. i don't plan on playing anymore games and im sure people will be relieved to hear that. I am not defending your post in the game or the series of them at all. If I host game and that happens you would get mod killed for it. I used it as an example because it was modkillable BUT if the (omitted by me) words in literally JUST that post had been less strong and the invective merely emphasised that drawing a scum read from a joke is a bad idea, then it is a play that I think maybe ought be allowed providing the rest of your play had been inside the lines. It was good example because it was a post that I could suggest small changes in circumstance where it would still perhaps be bannable in a general TL thread but a proper part of mafia game on the same forum. It was hence case for why ban & mod kill decisions probably ought not be in non (former player)/host hands. + Show Spoiler + Axle: Your original "joke", did even while I guessed it was bad joke and you were town, potentially materially aid the enemy and go against win con. Skip: How? Axle: games ongoing cant. L8r Vayne: "im sure people will be relieved to hear that." I don't mind if you go on playing at all. You can choose how to play and see if it works, if not adapt. If in the end you decide this, on this forum, is not a game you want to play that is good too. (I too make the same decision for me) If you wanted to play in game I hosted in the near future we would be having a PM discussion first. As you are clearly aware (having I think played in other places) mafia is game that is played in different ways in different places. Here is one rather different place http://otakucentral.org/mafia-lair/7748-mafia-round-29-harou-n-14.html#post582892 I dont play there. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:33 VayneAuthority wrote: lol please don't try to defend that axle, it was way over the line (assuming im reading that correctly) even if it was acceptable, there was already a warning and I let my frustration get the better of me. i don't plan on playing anymore games and im sure people will be relieved to hear that. Not me. Slam needs his head slammed to not be lazy! | ||
Mocsta
Australia8811 Posts
On December 17 2013 14:37 Alakaslam wrote: Not me. Slam needs his head slammed to not be lazy! WotC alert. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
has it really gotten worse? | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 17 2013 14:51 layabout wrote: lol has it really gotten worse? I don't think any of the players you played with are any worse now than they were when we played together regularly. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
What is WotC? | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
(Googled it) I have a job! | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
Wizards of the coast might be oddly appropos | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
It might be a good idea for more people to get together and just play some games together. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
| ||
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On December 17 2013 14:51 layabout wrote: lol has it really gotten worse? Hey lay! I think you are trying to get rid of some people "legally" to improve situation, not change them. Inactivity has been a problem for a long time, we tried to solve it with lurker banes, more posts required and it keeps coming back. The issue I see is people's work ethic being just bad. | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Full context] + On December 17 2013 13:39 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Figured this is still applicable to the general situation. As someone who's been here since the beginning of TL mafia basically I can say that aggressive behaviour/being an asshole never really kept people from playing the game. I say this as we were able to for a long time hold a fairly steady and strong group that played frequently. Did we let it go too far? possibly, however "attacks" are part of the game. You can use them to garner emotional responses which can prompt people to slip up. If the posts are directed at the person and clearly not in any way shape or form game related or serve a game related purpose warn for it. Or ban. However the biggest issue IMO is and has been for ages people not playing to win. I can point out more than one game in the last year of people spending more time being trolls/afks/dbags who don't play to win and join to be complete assholes/continue grudges from previous games. If people actively start playing to win and honestly trying to win the dynamic would change completely here. On December 17 2013 13:39 BloodyC0bbler in part wrote: As someone who's been here since the beginning of TL mafia basically I can say that aggressive behaviour/being an asshole never really kept people from playing the game. I say this as we were able to for a long time hold a fairly steady and strong group that played frequently. Did we let it go too far? possibly, however "attacks" are part of the game. You can use them to garner emotional responses which can prompt people to slip up. If the posts are directed at the person and clearly not in any way shape or form game related or serve a game related purpose warn for it. Or ban. I have read the games from long ago even though I wasn't here. Pulling it bit more modern I fully expect say VE, Marv, and BC can go yah yah yah at one another, and it (usually) not get out of control. (although I remember games with more experienced players ending in tears&bans too.) Worse unless they go in hard... and strong, at one another, then it wont "You can use them to garner emotional responses which can prompt people to slip up." as it will be water off a ducks back. To garner emotional response you must push the player so hard that for time they forget their win con, forget they are in game, and respond with true emotions and then try to read whether they got a scum PM (and hence have the power to shoot you tonight) or are they "pissed off and frustrated as towny failing to be able to play the game because you are pressing emotional buttons and hence shitting up the thread... (as town)". It is a way to play, and it works. Many ways work but, have limitations, costs, or are not a good long term plans. When others learning emulate your play without either understanding it fully or having the skill to know to push how hard, we get oopsies. Also townies doing that as town let scum impersonate it as scum and shit up the thread. I too don't like what I perceive as players not playing to their alignment in the current game (win con), specifically and most often personal survival seems to be important, and I am not sure why they would do that as people could just sign up for more games if they get killed too fast. So survival while it is good meta to adopt that will also help you next game if you are scum, when I play, I am not yet playing next game.+ Show Spoiler + never seeing a D2 would however get tiring.. so everything in moderation. perhaps survival is all they feel they can try for and more skill/learning is the answer? My preferred host solution for observing ppl not playing to win con is more town controlled kills until 'not playing', no longer promotes survival. If in a game I host too many people don't play to win con, next game the players will be able to sort that out by killing them. I am pretty sure death will be a deterrent and that where as you might as host see 4 players you deem "not playing" (hence being boring to host for) letting players kill 2 of them N1 will rapidly evolve their playstyle. After while you will probably only need to have 1 kill, and then an occasional one. (I also intend to run my own personal blacklist, if it turns out there are insufficient people not on it to run a game then I guess that would mean I didn't want to host games and wouldn't. The two host strategies (vig+blacklist) synergize rather well actually.) This is truth On December 17 2013 13:39 BloodyC0bbler in part wrote: If people actively start playing to win and honestly trying to win the dynamic would change completely here. pretty much everything that anyone posting dislikes would be changed by this. (Remember honestly trying to win: means your team winning not you personally having everybody listen to you and auto assume you are town because after all you read your own PM why are they so bad...yadda yadda ) Emotional button pressing CAN be part of finding out alignment. and if you keep your eye FIRMLY on "honestly trying to win" by determining the other guys alignment and what PM he got, then at least one person is in control and has an eye on the lines and keeping one of his own feet on the ground. If you are honestly trying to win, then tilting another player who you might then decide is town is a rather bad plan as scum will leave them alive until end game to be the puppet. Honestly trying to win involves you trying to determine the other guys alignment without interfering with their or the rest of towns ability to play this game on this occasion. As simply "start playing to win and honestly trying to win" also requires skill, games that both actively and constructively promote growth in skill and enforce standards of play will foster an environment where people want to L2Play. A number of initiatives have been made in that regard. They need to be made to work. The concepts of shadowing, mentoring, and personal coaching exist. I suspect in most peoples mind they map onto "Become a killer player with uber reads and an unreadbale scum game" or heading in that direction. I would suggest a much better plan would be for people to get mentoring in how to keep the game in perspective and make it fun. A personal coach, you can talk to rather than spray reactive invective at the thread might help some people rather a lot. Personally if you continue finding the game too challenging and confrontational, then perhaps you may need help keeping things in perspective. Personally I intend to re-read the following two posts before every game I play. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=20354882 (how to be brave/confident....town) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=19915756 (how to lean on my team) | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 17 2013 15:19 Kurumi wrote: Hey lay! I think you are trying to get rid of some people "legally" to improve situation, not change them. Inactivity has been a problem for a long time, we tried to solve it with lurker banes, more posts required and it keeps coming back. The issue I see is people's work ethic being just bad. Evolution. it (low effort play) also needs to not be an effective way to play. (or less at least) Altering some things so that the reward from playing the game is higher, would also make the value proposition of having a work ethic a better one. | ||
justanothertownie
16243 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:39 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Figured this is still applicable to the general situation. As someone who's been here since the beginning of TL mafia basically I can say that aggressive behaviour/being an asshole never really kept people from playing the game. I say this as we were able to for a long time hold a fairly steady and strong group that played frequently. Did we let it go too far? possibly, however "attacks" are part of the game. You can use them to garner emotional responses which can prompt people to slip up. If the posts are directed at the person and clearly not in any way shape or form game related or serve a game related purpose warn for it. Or ban. However the biggest issue IMO is and has been for ages people not playing to win. I can point out more than one game in the last year of people spending more time being trolls/afks/dbags who don't play to win and join to be complete assholes/continue grudges from previous games. If people actively start playing to win and honestly trying to win the dynamic would change completely here. I agree. A good amount of frustration (at least for me) results of the people who join but don't play the game to win and show no interest in changing that. I think heated arguments belong to the game. If someone crosses a line like the quoted examples just warn/modkill him (maybe raise the amount of games he has to sit out). Why is there a need to create more complicated rules if the hosts can just be stricter? | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 17 2013 15:15 Blazinghand wrote: I actually really like ET's idea, I don't think people who play games together will rage at each other. since they know each other out of the game Confirming I stopped hating Oats after playing Voice mafia with him. | ||
Plutarch
Greece515 Posts
On December 17 2013 13:33 VayneAuthority wrote: lol please don't try to defend that axle, it was way over the line (assuming im reading that correctly) even if it was acceptable, there was already a warning and I let my frustration get the better of me. i don't plan on playing anymore games and im sure people will be relieved to hear that. Personally I hope you don't quit playing mafia. I was not personally offended in the slightest by those attacks even though they were directed at me. Mafia is a game and that is part of it. | ||
iVLosK!
Djibouti545 Posts
| ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
Within the countless studies that were conducted (Sherman et al (2007) being the main component on the collection of data) it was discovered that in most cases the recidivism rates for restorative justice were lower in comparison to its criminal justice counterparts. When a problem such as this is around handing out punishments will not deter the people whose mindset is firmly set on their style of play, instead, I think the best way to approach the system is that of a restorative approach. That being said restorative justice CAN and should be used in tandem with punitive justice as it is not a bandaid fix to everything, meaning, that the banlist and temp bans need to still be used just in a less imposing and less absolute way. There are several methods that I think can be applicable to sorting out the situations that I see arise in games. Inactivity There is a significant amount of inactivity modkills present in games. However, there are several reasons that this can happen and so a standard blanket ban for inactivity cannot always be the best approach. Some people join larger games and feel completely overwhelmed by the amount of posting that occurs and find that they cannot reasonably post their thoughts into the game (I know of at least 2 accounts of this happening), a ban in this case would not be reasonably the best approach as the reason is a flaw in a players mindset or logic to the game. That is why I suggest that punishments should happen on a case by case basis and discussed with other players to make sure the justice is fair rather than a set standard for every player in the game. I think the best approach for this type of thing is both a punitive and restorative approach. A player knowingly joined a game and didn't contribute and so must sitout a game, however, in the game that he sits out I think it is also imperetive that he learns the ropes of how to display his thoughts by shadowing another player within that game. The shadow must interact with the player and ask him for his thoughts, what he would do in these situations, any posts he would make. Anything that gets the player to write out his thought process. There are others that just get caught up in RL and this is completely understandable, although, they need to request a replacement if they cannot actively contribute for an entire cylce. If this does not happen then they are knowingly (unless power cuts out etc etc) ruining the game for other people and should receive punishment for their wrongdoings - this is where the banlist comes into effect. If a player knowingly does not ask for a replacement then a game sitout is very effective, escalating more each time. I think there should be a timeframe where these modkills stack as well rather than a 1 game sit out because I see some people be guilty of this over and over again. Then there are people that are in several games. These are the people that I do not like and someone mentioned that it was not a problem, however, I have to disagree. There are many many games that I have played and seen that span over many days and when a plan is set out by someone that they feel is towny they sheep it (even if it is wrong) and discussion completely dies out for days 3-5 (as an example) because they think the plan is logical and would much rather post in their other game than try and actively solve the game that they are in. This is ridiculous and while people say that they can play in more than 1 game I am of the opinion that it heavillyyyyyyy detracts from their thought process in 1 game to be in another. The problem lies in punishment. You can't actively prove without a lot of effort on someone's part that their activity would be different if they weren't in "X" game and so this crime goes relatively unnoticed and unpunished. I do not think it is acceptable to be in more than 1 game at a time UNLESS you can prove that you can remain active and competitive in both games. The only solution to this is having a 2 game trial run and then your name being added to a list of people that can do it or something. BEING IN 3 GAMES IS RIDICULOUS AND PEOPLE STILL DO IT. The final category of people are the active, but lurker, category. Policy lynch them. It's part of the game to skate by when people destruct the town. If you aren't killed for it you can keep on doing it. However, I think a raising of the minimal post count would be better for this because then you know they aren't totally inactive but still around and I think 5-10 posts and a vote cast would be reasonable. TL NEEDS MORE POLICY LYNCHING PLOX <3 Lurkers won't solve themselves. Behaviour I am of the opinion that behavioural modkills are good when they are seriously detracting from the enjoyment of other people. Warn, then kill. If a player posts that "your case is bad and you should feel bad or shit or useless or retarded" it makes that player agitated and more likely to reveal their alignment and I think this is a staple of mafia. If a player goes further and uses things that out of context look awful (kill yourself, get cancer, bla bla bla bla bla) then that player should be warned/killed even if it was in relation to the game. If hosts aren't comfortable about banning then there should be a system where people that do not like that post or play can PM the host and then the host discusses it with a pre-determined list of people at the time and a decision can be reached. The punishments of this should be scaling as it is an attitude and mindset problem that isn't easily changed quickly and if it can't be changed then this player shouldn't be playing the game. This is where I find that the banlist comes in handy. There is also a subset of this category. People that do not post to warrant a warn or modkill but also do not actively contribute to winning the game for their team. This is not bannable or warnable or punishable and these people can get away with it all game every game. I could harp on about policy lynches all day but I don't think people will do it pretty much ever because they have an invested interest on solving the game from people that do talk. So, in order to do this I think that the WotC (Wisdom of the Crowds) system SHOULD be adopted. However, each player that votes out another player needs to post a detailed reasoning on why they do not want to play with that player. The host can see the reasoning and I think the best way to deal with it is summarise players feelings (The ideal way to do this is by voice chat as it is far less confrontational and egotistical) and tell the player. The caveat is that the player that is banned out can acknowledge the reasoning and then "promise" to change (This promise should be binding and discussed among hosts of the game etc.) EDIT: (((((((((((((I didn't mean for the reasoning to be public I meant the straw poll scenario but with a PM on why someone voted someone else. That being said, if a person /in's to a game but gets straw polled unanimously after then that is still public information anyway. So this way the host knows a player has a legitimate reason for voting a player out and rather than turning that player away and causing yet more victims the host can then make it seem like 5 votes didn't get reached but still try and improve the player that was supposed to be removed either way. If at the end of the game the host felt like the player didn't meet up to the goals that the crowd felt appropriate then he can reveal that they made an arrangement and then an approach can be used at the end of the game. It comes to a problem of how many people do you want to exclude. The people that people seem to dislike clearly enjoy playing mafia and trying to solve it even if they don't post that way because they repeatedly sign up to game after game. I think it's best to at least try and rehabilitate these people secretly and then punish rather than ostracise them totally. Not only does it reduce the ostracisation of the original WotC but it should theoretically improve the standard of play between the current TL Mafia playerbase.)))))))))))))) There are far too many people that take hate from game to game and this is a mentality problem. I don't think it is realistically solveable without the WotC solution, or some form of mediation (the one that is most commonly used and also provides seemingly the highest rates of victim satisfaction are face to face victim/offender mediations (Marshall, 1999)). Whereby the player is mediated on TS by someone and they talk it out and reach a solution or change of mindset. Also, games like BttB should be used increasingly more (even though that game kinda went downhill fast). Post game analysis is always very useful (to me anyway) because it points out perspectives from players that weren't in the game and can be used in the future for yourself. This increases the skill set of the players involved drastically. I also think coaches/shadowing should see a rise (this was mentioned in BttB) because they are incredibly good to do. The problems arise when the person can't see that their play is bad and so won't follow through with these strategies to improve their game and so enforced shadowing/coaching may have to be used at some points as I mentioned above (not nearly enough mentions!) There are more points to raise that I'll do later but I think this is apt for now. Bear in mind that all good systems begin with an idea that is refined over and over. Also, bring in the TL Mafia tribunal!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
geript
10024 Posts
Here's my thoughts: 1. There needs to be enforcement of the language/tone. Scum can create a bad atmosphere without making it toxic; The Game is a good example of this. Town shouldn't be allowed to "eat it's own" or "eat it's young" in this way. It makes it unfun to play. That said, there needs to be more level enforcement across the board. Those running the games need to be held to a standard to "hold the line" as well. 1-2 hosts doing this doesn't change anything. There needs to be frank and open discussion on where to draw the line and why. No, it's not ever going to be perfect. But as of right now from a players perspective, I'm not sure anyone draws the line even close to anyone else. The language/attitude/etc. type behavior is probably best dealt with a short term TL ban and an X week/month automatic sitout period. This feels like the most fair punishment as game bans could end up being a much longer ban period. 2. There needs to be a better tracking system for people who are serially inactive and are replaced or mod killed. This applies both to players who replace out with an excuse and those who are totally inactive requiring a replacement/mod kill. This type of behavior needs to be met with increasing severity. I think this is where the ban list really shines. My solution would be to have a "date banned" be added to the list; after 12 months, old bans are expunged from the record. Short version: having harsher progressive bans for inactivity which eventually get forgiven while having clear and set "TL bans with cool-down period" would benefit the environment leading to better games. As for wisdom of the crowds, I really don't get why it hasn't been used by everyone? Limit it so people have 1-2 votes max and help self-regulate what type of play is allowed. For example, I loathe playing with Chezinu on the boards, but I'd not play over ever giving him a wotc vote because he's good folk. I'd much rather save wotc for Coag/Stutters/BM/etc; those guys either shouldn't be part of the community or are serial lurkers who are worthless as teammates or both. | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
On December 17 2013 07:52 Risen wrote: If global moderation became I think it would deter me. If hosts were stricter (as long as they were clear so maybe update the OPs) with enforcing madness it would not. Not read the rest of the thread yet, but I essentially agree with this. edit: tbh this thread looks like tough work, a brief skimmywimmy is probably in order | ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
I will put together a coalition of trolls that will unfairly wotc WoS from every game he tries to play in. | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On December 17 2013 20:11 kushm4sta wrote: WoS can't wait to get all his lol groupies together and wotc me. Fuck mafia let's turn every game into big brother. I will put together a coalition of trolls that will unfairly wotc WoS from every game he tries to play in. and this is why wotc needs reasoning =/ | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 17 2013 20:32 Holyflare wrote: and this is why wotc needs reasoning =/ and hosts with brains that don't like being gamed . and dragged into personal disputes as a weapon.... ("put together a coalition of trolls that will unfairly wotc WoS") really? and you expect host to lie down for that? Kush would please clarify which playstyle, these groupies would be banding together to vote you over? You used to play one way, and lately have in number of games played entirely differently. I could expect some people might really not enjoy playing with one of those, but i am not sure why you think in advance WoS would have the sway over number of players to make that happen and if it did happen why it would not be their actual opinion. Also if you were going to play in the way where you could well get scum nk'd id be asking serious questions of whoever wanted to WoC you. If indeed you have or can "I will put together a coalition of trolls that will unfairly wotc WoS from every game he tries to play in." Id probably agree to host a games so you could play with just your trolly friends. However Id probably also run games that no matter how many trolly friends you had to vote they couldn't WoC as id have personally black listed them first for _that_ game. Is there some reason you need to make war out of this? Your fears also seem tad unfounded as he is currently hosting a game and let you play. + Show Spoiler + WoS WoC Kush , really an unpunny pun? Id be more worried about VE myself. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=20278392 | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
WoS mentioned Onegu, I have no problem with Onegu other than he clearly shouldn't be signing up for more than one game at once. At the end of the day mafia is adversarial, and it's based on calling other people liars. Irl this is one of the worst accusations you can level at a person, it's no surprise things can get heated, and if you're sucking all the emotion out of mafia then that's a terrible thing. Mafia are trying to lie, deceive and twist town, town are thinking everyone is a bullshitter or liar. The very premise of the game is not nicey-nice. I hosted LXIII because I felt the previous couple normals had been plagued by some weird hosting decisions or unfortunate host absences (nothing against meapak, shit happens). Regarding behaviour, I was happy with the behaviour in my game. I think I warned once (twice? not sure i bothered the 2nd time) when I thought it might get out of hand and that was that. I'm pretty sure some people might have found some of the things said in my game offensive, but for me a certain level of emotion, and sometimes outbursts, are simply always going to occur. I think the whole playerbase pretty much was happy with the moderation in this game. Hosts need to be on top of their game and just be very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Warn when it's starting to cross a line, and follow through on your standard (whether your standard is lenient or strict). People need to know what they're signing up for. Anyone who signs up for a game I host should know that I'm reasonably lenient but I *will* warn when I need to and I *will* modkill if the behaviour continues. Simple. GMarshal should not have been hosting BttB if he couldn't keep up with the game and moderate it. Personally I hate inactivity/trolling way more than I dislike any heat-of-the-moment outbursts. Like BC said, play to win. Above all, play to win. Too many townies don't actually try. Try goddamnit, every lynch matters, your slot matters, what you post matters, giving a shit matters. Turns out I wrote more than I thought I was going to... | ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
On December 17 2013 11:34 Mid or Feed wrote: Well you and I probably disagree on the fundamental meaning of 'deserved,' then. (And this is probably not a discussion for this thread.) ^Indication that WoS totally wants to wotc me. I don't really blame him though. I think what I consider funny, he considers antagonistic. I have been trying to improve though! Instead of calling people little bitches, now I call them little Bs. Instead of telling someone to suck my dick, I now tell them to go kick rocks. Instead of telling someone to kill themselves, now I say that they make ME want to kill MYSELF. | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
I've been lately trying to be more polite as i know i tend to have a bad mouth and i sometimes reply to things impulsively. I don't mean to ever insult anyone personally and my comments are always directed to people's actions rather than them as a person. I agree what marv says, the nature of the game makes it impossible for there to be no "insults" and emotions. But i think if i am able to get out of calling people stupid and whetever other names i think everyone else should be able to do that too. That being said i think after all this is a game and noone should take this seriously enough to get insulted, because personal insults tell about the person accusing more than the one they are accusing. If you can't fight against a lynch/whatever with rational arguments instead of calling other players names you are clearly doing something wrong. But yeah, i agree it needs to stop. I think a good way to that would be if people would realize after the game when/if they have insulted someone and talk about it in PM's. I remember after LXIII where i called someone whatever, we took it to PM's, i apologized as it was not my intention to insult them, and it was all okay after the talk. | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
I've been too concerned about my setups, and have been too lenient. This will change. My suggestion is to do peer reviews post-game. Each player reviews the setup, the host, the gameplay, and the players. Even if most people just zip through it, some will take the time to flesh out their thoughts and some really good things could come from it. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10822 Posts
On December 17 2013 21:13 marvellosity wrote: Eh, was gonna write a lot but meh :p. Generally agree with things that DarthPunk, purpletrator, thrawn wrote. WoS mentioned Onegu, I have no problem with Onegu other than he clearly shouldn't be signing up for more than one game at once. At the end of the day mafia is adversarial, and it's based on calling other people liars. Irl this is one of the worst accusations you can level at a person, it's no surprise things can get heated, and if you're sucking all the emotion out of mafia then that's a terrible thing. Mafia are trying to lie, deceive and twist town, town are thinking everyone is a bullshitter or liar. The very premise of the game is not nicey-nice. I hosted LXIII because I felt the previous couple normals had been plagued by some weird hosting decisions or unfortunate host absences (nothing against meapak, shit happens). Regarding behaviour, I was happy with the behaviour in my game. I think I warned once (twice? not sure i bothered the 2nd time) when I thought it might get out of hand and that was that. I'm pretty sure some people might have found some of the things said in my game offensive, but for me a certain level of emotion, and sometimes outbursts, are simply always going to occur. I think the whole playerbase pretty much was happy with the moderation in this game. Hosts need to be on top of their game and just be very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Warn when it's starting to cross a line, and follow through on your standard (whether your standard is lenient or strict). People need to know what they're signing up for. Anyone who signs up for a game I host should know that I'm reasonably lenient but I *will* warn when I need to and I *will* modkill if the behaviour continues. Simple. GMarshal should not have been hosting BttB if he couldn't keep up with the game and moderate it. Personally I hate inactivity/trolling way more than I dislike any heat-of-the-moment outbursts. Like BC said, play to win. Above all, play to win. Too many townies don't actually try. Try goddamnit, every lynch matters, your slot matters, what you post matters, giving a shit matters. Turns out I wrote more than I thought I was going to... Marv I miss your body. | ||
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
I agree with some points and not so much on others. First off, activity. A single post per cycle is stupid. If you spend any amount of time at this game you can usually come up with some sort of opinion. What I mean is; if you check into an OP, you can get *usually* a updated cycle post. You can then filter people that are on those. Otherwise you can read 10 pages in a few minutes around those (Maby a little longer if your a terribly slow reader, like myself.) Get a grip on the immediate task at hand, and pump out at least a few post of content, if you filter people. If someone else is around, that you can bounce ideas off of at the time, you can probably get a few times fold on that. This needs fixed. It only serves to promote really lazy town play and permit scum to do it. Neither is acceptable. Less than 10 post a cycle though (It's 24 hours at night cycle.., anyone who spends at least an hour or two can accomplish this. Period.) makes me wonder why someone signed up in the first place. WOTC comments: I kind of like this idea. The simple answer to me.. Blatantly put - Screw anonymity. I have several people I would prefer not to play with again. In my 4 mafia games played... ever. Do I care that those people, causing me to not want to continue to play this game, know that they are the reason? No. I feel like this option also helps weed out "clicks" trying to ban out people for no better reason than "Oh well, me and my friends don't want to play with you." I don't really like the Tl.net bans (for months) along with this though. Ye, I might be on the fence, because I hardly post elsewhere anyway. But if I was really active in the LoL/SC2 sub-forums myself right now this would probably cause me to never play mafia on this site again. I'm not... thus I really don't care(I play Lol/SC sporadically *at this point*. Being terrible at both games, I never post crap to either sub-forum.) So a ban would still mean nothing to me.) I read and keep up to date with topics but being denied other outlets on this site all-together would/will drive me away from it. I can't talk about this from a vet standard though. Mafia is full of emotions. Try being bipolar, and getting a 6 months bans because you decided to have a drink on your good night. Which promtpy turned into a "You fucking serious? (Snide turd flinging contest ensues)". It's wrong. But getting a several month ban over it, I don't agree with it at all. Ok yes, some players can be a real hassle. More so if you are unfamiliar with them. But is it a ban-worthy offense? Aggression, as noted, is part of this game. I'm going to go out on a limb and hopefully not cross borders (Can ez edit if I do!!) "Pls die" is something I heard at least 25 times a day from a certain someone. When I heard it, I pretty much confirmed him as town for showing genuine frustration. Did anyone else in the game know it? No. Should he get a several month ban over it? Over what? One liners/ two post per cycle coasters? Fuck no. It's retarded. Fast edit: Compare my last Newbie/White Flag/ PYP Lol games. In two of them I was really frustrated and trying to shift/ figure things out. One of them I was really just bothered to try playing two games. Even when I forgot to /out (to aviod playing multiple games) I still tried to give my best in the time restrains I had in both of them. Also edit: Cut out lurker comment, as per was brought up to me, every game has some sort of problem with this. But that doesn't translate to "I should just condone it." to me.. | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:55 LSB wrote: I am really saddened by the fact that this is becoming a problem I believe TL is a place built on heavy moderation, and as users of the site we should agree with this policy. This whole "this forum is a special place for flame" doesn't make sense to me. People need to begin to understand their behavior in a mafia game should have consequences for outside of the game. At the same time, I think we should reward good sportsmanship. Possibly invite only games, having hosts put tags behind players on the signup sheet for "friendly play" ect. Although disruptive a ban may be, flame is even more disruptive to a game. I find it problematical when people consider insults as necessary to further their win condition, or bait to attempt to further their win condition. A lot of us play mafia because we want to have fun, and I want to make a fun environment. I think you misunderstood me and I can see why because what I wrote is confusing. I meant that statement to mean the exact opposite of what you think it means. Excessive personal attacks are warn/modkill worthy even if they further your win condition. | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
As for the playing against the win condition stuff. Honestly, this can only be enforced by the hosts and should only be enforced by them. Not many people know this but I had serious thoughts about modkilling kush (smufing as OOHCHILD) in ## mafia. I bring this up not to shame him or attack him or anything like that because he shaped up and played well afterwards and I respect and thank him for it. I think this is a good example of what hosts need to do in a game (and players in this situation) from now on. I'll quote our pms that we had. He's ok with me posting this. First off I said this in my host qt: Idk. I really kinda feel like he is playing bad purposely and he's town. Like I wanna modkill him for playing against his win condition but I might be overreacting. Like this post got my blood boiling. I then had this pm exchange: Original Message From Crossfire99: Ok. Let's put it this way. I just got to that part and it pissed me off cause it seemed like the rest of your play was not trying at all and using a newbie persona as an excuse for that. I'm sorry if I misread that. All I expect from my players is that they try their best. If you really try to play the game I am fine. Consider this water under the bridge then if you really are trying to play seriously. Just don't insult people while playing. Like I said earlier after this exchange, kush played better. I thank him for that and for letting me use him as an example. Mr. Cheesecake, my cohost, and GMarshal, a boss, were a great help in this situation for maintaining a good perspective and I thank them for that. I think hosts should do something similar as well. PM/warn the player(s) you have problems with. Discuss things over with your cohosts and other outside people you respect in order to make a better decision about warning/modkilling people because if we want hosts being more proactive for playing against win condition (which I think we should) then having other perspectives is a big help. TL;DR: Hosts need to be more proactive about warning/modkilling for playing against win condition which will require more work on their part. I also gave an example of it from my time hosting ## mafia. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16947 Posts
Wisdom of the Crowd I know, this is why I am migrating to hosting. I am perfectly set up for hosting to become not as difficult as playing. Not half as difficult. | ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
On October 30 2013 10:16 OOHCHILD wrote: [/quote]Oh WoS I actually think you are town now. Still glad I nuked you. Also I took away your twitter powers tomorrow as an extra f u. Crossfire I think you crossed the line by interfering with my play for this quote. There are no ad hominem attacks here. There is no anti wincon behavior if you look at the context, which was that I was constantly changing my mind about his alignment. I thought he could be scum, so why is it wrong to nuke him/take away his twitter powers? Also if you act somewhat outrageously, you can use that as a test to see how people respond, and get reads off them from that. I mean I'm not saying I played brilliantly that game or anything, or even played good, but what I did was not illegal and you had no right as a mod to interfere. | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 18 2013 02:42 kushm4sta wrote: Crossfire I think you crossed the line by interfering with my play for this quote. There are no ad hominem attacks here. There is no anti wincon behavior if you look at the context, which was that I was constantly changing my mind about his alignment. I thought he could be scum, so why is it wrong to nuke him/take away his twitter powers? Also if you act somewhat outrageously, you can use that as a test to see how people respond, and get reads off them from that. I mean I'm not saying I played brilliantly that game or anything, or even played good, but what I did was not illegal and you had no right as a mod to interfere. First, I just want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to get this thread off topic and just used that example of how I think hosts should be more aggressive/strict in their moderating. If my response to this is not relevant for this discussion, then I'll edit it out. If it is, then we can continue. Yeah I agree, it wasn't just that quote that got me upset. It was your entire body of play up until that point. I agree most of what you said wasn't a lot of personal attacks (but there were some as well). A lot of it was what seemed to be trolling. You smurfed in that game, pretended to be a first time player, arbitrarily stopped interacting with people for no reason multiple times, antagonized people, etc. Even if you meant for these things to have a purpose to further you win condition, most of them did not come across that way, and seemed antagonistic for the purposes of being antagonistic. To me this is also the same as attacking someone personally repeatedly in order to get a response to judge their alignment. It may be possible to do that, but I find that method unacceptable because it isn't very fun (and we play this game for fun; you may have fun antagonizing people, but those people don't have fun being antagonized; this is different from repeatedly refuting their arguments because they can achieve the same thing, but one goes about it in a more acceptable manner). I also got more angry at you because you said you wanted to play like shit (to me this meant not to try), which was why I got so upset, but you clarified what you meant. In the end I didn't modkill you, and just let it be, but I am still glad that I did it because I wanted the trolling to stop or at least what I thought was trolling and honestly what some of thread did as well. I guess people can discuss what I said and did and discuss if people think that is too harsh or what. I'll definitely want to hear other peoples opinions. Hopefully everybody can learn from this. | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
Now i do not know what kushmasta's intentions in that game were but i definitely do not think he was even close in "crossing some line". | ||
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 18 2013 03:42 raynpelikoneet wrote: I don't think there was anything wrong in kush's play in ##'s game in a way you are trying to make it look like Crossfire. In that game i personally tried to make marv distracted from the actual game for a full phase, not with personal attacks but by attacking him in a way that's so stupid and in so many ways it would not serve any purpose other than "shitting up the thread". It's called strategy, and town players can do that as well. When people get emotionally invested they play differently and say things they don't think of very well - distracting the town by doing so, or scumhunting by doing so - both can be done. Now i do not know what kushmasta's intentions in that game were but i definitely do not think he was even close in "crossing some line". I'm not saying his play the entire game or most of it was like that, just his day/night 1 play because we had those pms during night 1. I'm also not trying to misrepresent his play that day/night. That is what I thought of his play during that time frame, and like i said in that pm exchange, I apologized if I misread his posts, but I do know I wasn't the only one who thought of his play like that during day/night 1. Maybe I still was too harsh, and I definitely want to hear other people's opinions, but I think it is good to discuss stuff like this out (referring to what's happening in this thread), so we aren't too harsh or too lenient. I know I'm not perfect. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
1. Playing/moderating a game should be largely the same. I don't think putting new in-game rules, or having someone other than the host doing modkills or TL bans during a game, is a good idea. I like the dynamic of a host having control over his game. People don't like that some hosts are less aggressive about moderation or more aggressive (ie the shitstorm when ange777 modkilled more aggressively than most in her most recent game), but imo having a variety of hosting styles is a strength, not a weakness. I want that authority, at least during the game, to rest with the host. 2. The amount of "not playing to wincon", trolling, and abuse should go down. I don't know what the best solution to this is. A super obvious solution that would get rid of trolling and abuse would be to just have this board moderated exactly like the rest of TL; reports, bans, and so on, without regard to ongoing games. That would definitely solve abuse and trolling, though people playing not to their wincon (ie marv deciding to lynch me for funsies even though he knew I was town) would still be unpunished. More importantly though the problem with having just regular TL moderation during games with reports and so on is that it can disrupt games pretty easily. Things like strategically reporting people on the other team might happen. I think this authority is best in the hands of the hosts. 3. The TL Mafia community should come to see each other as friends, not enemies. EchelonTee had a good point that an out-of-Mafia interaction like playing games together could help a lot. We should do team-building exercises and play voice mafia more so we come to be friends with each other, that way this kind of thing doesn't happen. This is best solved not via a rule change imo, but via team-building, group gaming, voice mafia, and so on. We need to become a community again. iGrok and I, for example, had our differences in the past, but we are the best of buds now from many games of dota together (though actually dota may be a bad example given how much clarity rage i've seen lololol). Ultimately I think more than anything else this will strike at the root cause of our problems. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
| ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
Crossfire I think you crossed the line by interfering with my play for this quote. There are no ad hominem attacks here. There is no anti wincon behavior if you look at the context, which was that I was constantly changing my mind about his alignment. I thought he could be scum, so why is it wrong to nuke him/take away his twitter powers? Also if you act somewhat outrageously, you can use that as a test to see how people respond, and get reads off them from that. I mean I'm not saying I played brilliantly that game or anything, or even played good, but what I did was not illegal and you had no right as a mod to interfere. So...is there any particular reason you have to continually antagonize me in games and out under the guise of 'joking?' I'd almost believe what you say is true regarding it being strategy if you weren't constantly an ass to me outside of games as well. In fact I'm almost certain you specifically stated part of the reason you created that account was to troll me---whether that is true or not, that statement in and of itself is meant to troll me. Let's get this out Kush, because I'm honestly sick of it, especially since GMarshal's post has more or less wrapped things up. | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
| ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:30 raynpelikoneet wrote: Okay if WoS thinks so then i am wrong. I have to go back and look at his play contextually because I don't remember the game 100%, but I'm not trying to prove Xfire's point here or not. I'm just sick of fighting with Kush and perpetuating it. I've tried to bury the hatchet before and he won't let it die so I'd like to figure out why. On December 18 2013 04:22 Blazinghand wrote: I'd also like to add in that we should do more voice mafia, team building exercises, and playing of video games together. This ESPECIALLY applies to people who maybe have bad interactions with other players (I'm not gonna name names, but definitely iGrok jkjk) and want to improve that. When it comes down to it, we're all reasonable people and some out of game interactions might be able to help us a lot. Agreed. I haven't has as much time to play LoL lately as I used to but we should try to run stacks again, because it was a lot of fun for the most part if I remember correctly, and quite a lot of us play. I know BH keeps trying to get me to talk/play HS with him too ^^ | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
That was my point. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote: What i meant is if someone feels something is personally offending i am not the one to argue about if it really is so or not. I can't be "right" or "wrong", only the person in question can. That was my point. If Kush and I were on amiable or even neutral terms there is absolutely no question that I would have not found anything he did that game offensive. Annoying in terms of his early trolliness maybe, but not offensive. Rayn at this point you could probably go into one of your weird 'drunk-tunnel-WoS' rants and I doubt it would bother me a great deal, but the point is the context of the relationship between Kush and I doesn't allow for me not to be bothered by his actions, and possibly vice-versa. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
But we are allowed to swear at each other right? And we are allowed to call things stupid (but hopefully with a helpful reason)? Because you have to be able to swear at your stupid friends! Maybe somebody should run "Courteous Mafia". It could be a very British affair, most proper. Or maybe very role-play-y.. + Show Spoiler + Can we adopt "cum dumpster" as a term of endearment? I really want to call people that now | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
When you have talked to somebody or even heard them (RIP podcast) it's much harder to hate them. So maybe reboot the podcast or encourage people to play voice. There should also be more effort in newbies to remind people of the differences between in game and out of game so people have the right attitude going in? Perhaps people could just act more maturely. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:46 layabout wrote: Ima double post after reading BH's. When you have talked to somebody or even heard them (RIP podcast) it's much harder to hate them. So maybe reboot the podcast or encourage people to play voice. There should also be more effort in newbies to remind people of the differences between in game and out of game so people have the right attitude going in? Perhaps people could just act more maturely. I agree with this to some degree, but there are examples of people I have played with that get salty even when playing games other than mafia, and I also feel like most of the people who are pretty well-balanced in mafia games tend to be so outside of games as well. We should totes reboot the podcast though. | ||
Plutarch
Greece515 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:48 WaveofShadow wrote: I agree with this to some degree, but there are examples of people I have played with that get salty even when playing games other than mafia, and I also feel like most of the people who are pretty well-balanced in mafia games tend to be so outside of games as well. We should totes reboot the podcast though. If we do it needs to be well structured like the early ones. No more than 2 hours at most. The long rambling casts were just not interesting to listen to. And get genuine vets on the show. Best person to ever do it was palmar. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
If someone wants to host a podcast and wants me along, let me know. The thread is here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=400994 I'll be hosting a podcast once Extractor Trick is done. Don't forget to sign up for Voice Mafia, especially if you haven't played! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=427131 | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:22 Blazinghand wrote: I'd also like to add in that we should do more voice mafia, team building exercises, and playing of video games together. This ESPECIALLY applies to people who maybe have bad interactions with other players (I'm not gonna name names, but definitely iGrok jkjk) and want to improve that. When it comes down to it, we're all reasonable people and some out of game interactions might be able to help us a lot. This is totally true. After one night of DotA Blazinghand and I were screaming at each other, but now we get along really well and he's in my top 5 favorite mafia people. | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
GM includes it in all of his games, and if I host games it's going on there. Not because I want to perpetuate a system of exclusion, but because I've been burned by having games I've played in ruined by individuals that I KNEW would cause a problem in the game. It's true that I could just avoid the game, but the question becomes: why should /I/ be punished because someone else habitually ruins games? | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
I wouldn't actually mind enforcing a strict modkill policy and remaking the game at a future date if it was completely ruined. The game's expendable compared to the atmosphere within. In the short term it sucks, but eventually you have people you can trust to not do anything stupid, and actually see how your setup works. Then again, I haven't had the chance to do an ultra-complex setup yet, so maybe that's why I'm okay with it. I'd actually love to do more voice mafia and stuff when I get time on my hands. I had a lot of fun in the podcast, and I think faster, more relaxing games are definitely needed in this forum. | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On December 18 2013 06:29 VisceraEyes wrote: WotC: I agree with this notion. It's not an "exclusion" policy per se. Yes, it will prevent the "wisdomed" (I make up words because it's fun) player from playing in the said game, but the intent isn't to remove the person from the community, it's to get the wisdomed player to consider why they might have drawn so many votes to be removed in the first place. The idea isn't to pare the community down with Wisdom of the Crowds, it's a method or rehabilitating the behavior of individuals. Is it always going to work this way? Obviously not - no one likes being excluded and players might take that stuff personally - but in my opinion it will work on the people who it's supposed to work on, people who care about the community and the integrity of the game. GM includes it in all of his games, and if I host games it's going on there. Not because I want to perpetuate a system of exclusion, but because I've been burned by having games I've played in ruined by individuals that I KNEW would cause a problem in the game. It's true that I could just avoid the game, but the question becomes: why should /I/ be punished because someone else habitually ruins games? VE, I have never intentionally killed you D1 or N1. Hopefully that makes you feel a little better <3 | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
I don't think bans are going to solve anything. Bans come from GM and too often that can just be written off as "well whatever, it's just the man getting me down". If fellow players repeatedly refuse to play with someone, it becomes a thing where they have to prove that they're not going to ruin games anymore to play. I've been Wisdomed out of games before - it's not fun - but it has improved my attitude and my outlook on how to play the game. That is a fact. | ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 18 2013 06:37 VisceraEyes wrote: I feel fine dude, just giving my 2c on the discussion. I don't think bans are going to solve anything. Bans come from GM and too often that can just be written off as "well whatever, it's just the man getting me down". If fellow players repeatedly refuse to play with someone, it becomes a thing where they have to prove that they're not going to ruin games anymore to play. I've been Wisdomed out of games before - it's not fun - but it has improved my attitude and my outlook on how to play the game. That is a fact. Really? When was this? Was it more common a couple years ago? I wasn't aware of any games that used it aside from GM's games (and maybe RoL's? I forget), at least not since I've been around. | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I am less inclined to run Wotc for the game simply because I am unconvinced that it works. | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On December 18 2013 07:07 LSB wrote: I plan on running a clean game for XLIV. For people interested in playing I have put up a poll about behavior moderation. I am less inclined to run Wotc for the game simply because I am unconvinced that it works. Sort of tempted to play but I think I need a break from mafia here, not to mention going to be on vacation. | ||
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
| ||
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Remember, when in doubt, ask yourself: What would Chezinu do? | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 18 2013 02:42 kushm4sta wrote: Crossfire I think you crossed the line by interfering with my play for this quote. There are no ad hominem attacks here. There is no anti wincon behavior if you look at the context, which was that I was constantly changing my mind about his alignment. I thought he could be scum, so why is it wrong to nuke him/take away his twitter powers? Also if you act somewhat outrageously, you can use that as a test to see how people respond, and get reads off them from that. I mean I'm not saying I played brilliantly that game or anything, or even played good, but what I did was not illegal and you had no right as a mod to interfere. You can do that, and it may help your reads. If people DO believe you're for real, in your "somewhat outrageously", then you can get reads. But what damage does having someone actually outrageous (or believed to be anyway) in a game, and what does that do to the rest of your town team? If people DONT believe you're for real, in your outrageous, then you cant really get reads. As then your just some clown pretending. Same thing is true if you call me a bleeping bleep bleep bleep. (choose one you think I would believe you mean) it is only if I believe you and get actually upset and thus have that effect my ability to play the game, that you get your read that I am town(frustrated)/scum(angry and could kill you). I suppose it is less harmful than shooting me and flipping me to determine alignment. It does however have a down side(3/4 times). It does however have the personal side benefit that you get to troll captive people in a game and they cant just DNFTT as they have to determine your alignment and you get to jerk them around as much as you want for amusement. Yo Kush I am only trolling close to the bone man... does it help to know that? | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 17 2013 08:51 Blazinghand wrote: I wouldn't be terribly traumatized if punishments are handed out that interrupted games, but I think it would be prudent to try a combination of "tell hosts to be more aggressive" and "tl bans after games for people warned/modkilled for behavior" first in hopes of maybe returning to normalcy moree asily. Licence to Kill I agree, if host really has to modkill a player in a game I am in and it results in my team losing, I promise to regard that as a mercy kill that saved me from having to play another day. If I still want to play another day I can sign up for another game. (hey and if I am the one modkilled (crosses fingers and hopes I dont lose it sometime) I will in hindsight regard it as mercy kill that stopped me digging my hole any deeper. T_T.) regarding overreacting. In the same way that backing trailer is tricky business and its easy to over react. Steering the forum is the same. This thread is great big red flag. Apart from perhaps anyone trolly and attention seeking enough to want to be the first killed by the new style hosting I fully expect any host thinking Fictional Judge Dread Host: Right now to modkill me some of those jackasses screwing with my games is likely to find a rather empty plate. This is a social game. We interact socially. Finding out what people actual draw as conclusion when person A calls B names or trolls, berates, stalks, them or ... and that the conclusion is A is a jerk wad. Do note this is an adversarial game and as pointed out, doing that to get reads is "kinda" fine.... But just the same, the conclusion for me now is person A wishes to practice being a jerk wad for the purpose of winning this game or having fun. Not really sure I am seeing the distinction. The point of ^^^ is that it will not be necessary to ModKill as many people as have been seen to cross the line in the past. baby steps and see what happens, don't pull down hard left on the steering wheel and jack knife the forum. Also I suspect at least some people may be seeing this discussion and revision of how we play as making it all ponies, fairy floss, please and thank you. I suspect that not getting to hide behind "Youre just wah wah wah" then AFK because your pretending to be upset to "see reactions", or establish meta for doing that so next game you can do that as scum. I think some may find some of what I say in this post little 'in their face' and confrontational, yet I have carefully been polite. Adversarial comes in many flavours. Lastly a suggestion. What would happen to you(anyone reading this) as real life human being if you did the following. Played as town as best as you possibly could. (straight up) Then as scum, tried to be sufficiently self aware of who you really are that you can impersonate it. If a trolly abusive belligerent person is who you really are consider changing first. BH has suggested doing other things outside mafia so we get to know one another. We could always practice being who we are while we play mafia. His plan however is good one. | ||
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 18 2013 10:00 gonzaw wrote: But seriously, chill out guys. Remember, when in doubt, ask yourself: What would Chezinu do? Solved problem: nah I ask myself "What would nuızǝɥɔ do?" laugh Then do what I was going to do anyways. new problem: What if I am only one of angry or shit at the game? Reduce it to previously solved problem and then I am done. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
thats why I did it btw.. someone needed to be made an example of so gmarsh could show everyone that he means business so I stepped up for the good of tlmafia. | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
geript
10024 Posts
On December 19 2013 15:32 VisceraEyes wrote: The sacrifices you make for the good of the community. I stand in awe, sir. I AM AWE-STRICKEN!!! Stop feeding the troll VE. As a side note, I finally realized why I instantly liked you when I first heard you. Your voice reminds me of one of my favorite authors, David Rackoff. | ||
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
I feel that there's a few things I'd like to chime in on quickly. Firstly, I think that people should realize the difference between attacking someone's arguments and attacking the player. I don't see a problem with attacking someone's case or their behaviour when calling them scum, e.g. "Your case is terrible because of x, y, and z", but I do feel there is a problem when this turns into attacking the player instead, and people write things like, "You're fucking retarded, because of x, y, and z". There's a clear separation between attacking the content of someone's posts, versus attacking the poster themselves. I feel that keeping this distinction in mind would also help curb the escalation of flame wars, since it's easier to take a personal insult to heart than someone insulting your argument. Secondly, I think that people can play aggressively without needing to be overly insulting to other players. It might be a difference in how you define playing "aggressively", but I don't see why aggressively pushing someone, calling them out, or tearing apart their cases needs to go hand in hand with calling them names or trying to actively make them feel crappy. I'm not saying that's what people imply when they say they like to be aggressive, but I think there's better ways to get a reaction out of someone than by doing something that would get you banned on the rest of TL. Lastly, I don't think I'd want to see WotC implemented in every game. In my experience here, there's been a few over time players that people in general didn't like playing with for some length of time, and the reasons for this have ranged from not liking their play style, to thinking they were unskilled, to thinking they actively try to ruin games. In some of these cases, I felt the dislike was unwarranted, and using WotC might have kept some players from joining games. In general, I just don't feel like it's a consistent way to improve games, since in some cases a player's behaviour that causes them to be removed from the game might be something they actually need to address, but in other cases, it might just be a behaviour that goes against what people expect or what the meta is, or that is somewhat unpopular, and so that player might be unfairly discriminated against. That's about all I have to say for now, I might have forgotten something I wanted to talk about when I was reading the thread. I just went through the whole thing in one go, so I might come back and add something here later. | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On December 19 2013 18:36 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I guess I'm a little late to the party. I haven't played much recently since I've been pretty busy, but still check in on the forum every now and again. I feel that there's a few things I'd like to chime in on quickly. Firstly, I think that people should realize the difference between attacking someone's arguments and attacking the player. I don't see a problem with attacking someone's case or their behaviour when calling them scum, e.g. "Your case is terrible because of x, y, and z", but I do feel there is a problem when this turns into attacking the player instead, and people write things like, "You're fucking retarded, because of x, y, and z". There's a clear separation between attacking the content of someone's posts, versus attacking the poster themselves. I feel that keeping this distinction in mind would also help curb the escalation of flame wars, since it's easier to take a personal insult to heart than someone insulting your argument. Secondly, I think that people can play aggressively without needing to be overly insulting to other players. It might be a difference in how you define playing "aggressively", but I don't see why aggressively pushing someone, calling them out, or tearing apart their cases needs to go hand in hand with calling them names or trying to actively make them feel crappy. I'm not saying that's what people imply when they say they like to be aggressive, but I think there's better ways to get a reaction out of someone than by doing something that would get you banned on the rest of TL. Lastly, I don't think I'd want to see WotC implemented in every game. In my experience here, there's been a few over time players that people in general didn't like playing with for some length of time, and the reasons for this have ranged from not liking their play style, to thinking they were unskilled, to thinking they actively try to ruin games. In some of these cases, I felt the dislike was unwarranted, and using WotC might have kept some players from joining games. In general, I just don't feel like it's a consistent way to improve games, since in some cases a player's behaviour that causes them to be removed from the game might be something they actually need to address, but in other cases, it might just be a behaviour that goes against what people expect or what the meta is, or that is somewhat unpopular, and so that player might be unfairly discriminated against. That's about all I have to say for now, I might have forgotten something I wanted to talk about when I was reading the thread. I just went through the whole thing in one go, so I might come back and add something here later. So what do you think about my modified WotC? | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
| ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
On December 20 2013 02:16 marvellosity wrote: I always PM you to come play with me, but then at the same time I PM hosts not to let you in :/ :OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO | ||
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On December 20 2013 02:12 VisceraEyes wrote: I would have been Wisdomed out of several games here on TL. I would have deserved it too O.O Makes no sense to me. Besides you being a paranoid dodo sometimes and making decisions in a blood rush *coughs* Veteran Zombie *coughs*. It is just the way you are. Sure, you can and you did tone it down, but it wasn't because you got wotc'ed. People need to want to change, keeping them out of the game doesn't do much. | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 20 2013 02:46 Holyflare wrote: It's as if i posted a solution to what everyone is saying but then nobody reads it T_T All this stuff is treating symptoms, imo, the real solution is to do movie nights together and play video games together | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
On December 20 2013 02:46 Holyflare wrote: It's as if i posted a solution to what everyone is saying but then nobody reads it T_T tldr sweetcheeks | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:07 Holyflare wrote: Movie nights and playing together aren't going to stop people lurking and being bad Yeah and they're not gonna stop malaria either but my goal isn't to stop malaria. More clearly: I don't care (too much) if people are low skilled, and if people lurk we can just policy them or whatever. We're not considering bringing in TL Moderation because people are unskilled or because people lurk-- we're considering it due to bad behavior. My solution directly tackles the underlying problem. | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
WotC where people need to write reasons why they want someone out of the game to the host via pm and if someone get's the required amount of votes to be out of the game the host tells the player that he needs to improve if he wants to play in that game by doing x,y,z (the things players dislike the player for) if he fails to do that then it is discussed in post game and a harsher punishment than normal can be distributed. Obviously no silly or trivial things can be taken as reasoning and that's only for behavioural things really, there's a whole lot of other things for lurkers etc etc stop being lazy and read my post!!! (((( Click? ((((( | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:11 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah and they're not gonna stop malaria either but my goal isn't to stop malaria. More clearly: I don't care (too much) if people are low skilled, and if people lurk we can just policy them or whatever. We're not considering bringing in TL Moderation because people are unskilled or because people lurk-- we're considering it due to bad behavior. My solution directly tackles the underlying problem. Half of the games I've played in aren't ruined by behavioural problems but instead by lurkers and shitty anti town attitudes (not aggressive to people just not playing the game) - being bad at the game was a joke i don't mind that. Playing with people isn't going to make those problems disappear but yes it will get rid of most attitude problems i'm not disagreeing. and don't tell me about policy lynching because no matter how many times you mention it in a game more often than not nobody accepts it.... policy lynching is also getting rid of a player that has already /in'd to a game and -'s a player from a potential town pool thus weakening the playerbase before the game has even really started, this way it eliminates that pre-game rather than in game. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:16 Holyflare wrote: Half of the games I've played in aren't ruined by behavioural problems but instead by lurkers and shitty anti town attitudes (not aggressive to people just not playing the game) - being bad at the game was a joke i don't mind that. Playing with people isn't going to make those problems disappear but yes it will get rid of most attitude problems i'm not disagreeing. and don't tell me about policy lynching because no matter how many times you mention it in a game more often than not nobody accepts it.... policy lynching is also getting rid of a player that has already /in'd to a game and -'s a player from a potential town pool thus weakening the playerbase before the game has even really started, this way it eliminates that pre-game rather than in game. Though I disagree with your conclusions, I think that what you've said is a reasonable point to make, and if you believe the thing that "ruins" games is people not playing the game by choice or by chance, rather than people being mean and flaming and violating TL rules, I see why you'd think that way. Maybe this is just me, but aside from one game in which Marv decided that lynching me was more important than winning, for the most part the only thing I've run into that's a problem is people getting out of line from time to time. I do understand that in the past few months things have really amped up on the flaming though. I guess when it comes down to it, part of it is making sure the games are fun and welcoming, and that new users don't get scared off by the flaming. I think this is more important, more urgent, and more easily fixable than things about "playing to your win con" or whatever. When it comes down to it, if we're friends outside of the Mafia games, we WILL try to have fun together. The urgent thing, the thing that matters, is dealing with the anger issues we have developed. And I think doing that is pretty easy. E: regarding policy lynches, you can say what you want but I love policy lynching, rng lynching, etc. This is my favorite thing to do and I have gotten it done more than once | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:43 marvellosity wrote: if you hadn't been doctor. curses. i'll get you next time! *yarrrrr* | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:43 marvellosity wrote: if you hadn't been doctor. curses. dat 6 hour before lynch claim tho | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
the secret to my claiming is I claim at a time it makes no sense to claim and provides me no benefit, that way people know it's true | ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
iamperfection
United States9604 Posts
On December 20 2013 04:08 Blazinghand wrote: the secret to my claiming is I claim at a time it makes no sense to claim and provides me no benefit, that way people know it's true its like your implying there is a strategy behind it. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 20 2013 04:09 Holyflare wrote: don't think you would have targeted any of risens nk's anyway lololol didn't he like nk oats yeah his nks were too high level for me | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
| ||
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42274 Posts
On December 20 2013 04:17 Holyflare wrote: it's like policy lynching but better Risen should put that as his signature. | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On December 19 2013 16:49 geript wrote: Stop feeding the troll VE 1.coag makes light hearted funny comment 2.ve makes light hearted funny comment back to coag 3.geript comes in and drags hostility into the equation and trys to make coag feel bad. classy. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On December 20 2013 06:14 Coagulation wrote: that kind of toxic attitude is the real problem here at tlmafia. -Coag 2013 | ||
iVLosK!
Djibouti545 Posts
Play this over a montage of us being forced to overcome our differences in the pursuit of some common goal. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434275¤tpage=391#7806 and yet here he is in thread trying to start drama with me lol It tells you a lot about a person who still runs around trash talking a person who made an honest attempt to amend things and make things for the better and resolve differences. | ||
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
I've only every played one match with you. So take this with a grain of salt. You made one? Maby two post in the game I was in with you. Half the reason I left that game was; I believed, I could not reason out players alignments due to how everyone was playing. | ||
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
| ||
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
On December 20 2013 07:14 OdinOfPergo wrote: @Caog - I've only every played one match with you. So take this with a grain of salt. You made one? Maby two post in the game I was in with you. Half the reason I left that game was; I believed, I could not reason out players alignments due to how everyone was playing. imo 99% of the time this is an excuse for bad town | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
geript
10024 Posts
On December 20 2013 06:02 Coagulation wrote: 1.coag makes light hearted funny comment 2.ve makes light hearted funny comment back to coag 3.geript comes in and drags hostility into the equation and trys to make coag feel bad. classy. Dude you seriously need to get over yourself. You got called a troll. You've been called worse; he'll, I've called you worse. You're showing a lot of butthurt here. The only reason why you of all people could be hurt by me is because what I said is true. Me personally, I don't expect you to change... Like ever. I'm not going to bother trying to get you to change; instead I'd rather make it such that you either are forced to change or to leave because how you act in and out of games is unacceptable. If I were really out to target you or piss you off, I'd comment here and on mafia scum or omgus. I'd make a scathing and true remark about you being a replacement in the other big game that's in sign ups just means that you'll be lynched or mod killed D3 again for inactivity. I could comment on the fact that despite essentially figuring out the scum in The Game we NK'd you and discredited you with a wave of a hand because of both your reputation and how you played. If you would invest in games and try, I'd still dislike you but I'd respect you. I've never seen you be anything other than a troll nor have I heard otherwise from many of the 'names' here. It's not that you're unable or incapable of playing well, it's that you choose not to. Until you choose to do otherwise I'd WotC you every time and make sure to put that even if you aren't on the list. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On December 20 2013 08:10 geript wrote: Dude you seriously need to get over yourself. You got called a troll. You've been called worse; he'll, I've called you worse. You're showing a lot of butthurt here. The only reason why you of all people could be hurt by me is because what I said is true. Me personally, I don't expect you to change... Like ever. I'm not going to bother trying to get you to change; instead I'd rather make it such that you either are forced to change or to leave because how you act in and out of games is unacceptable. If I were really out to target you or piss you off, I'd comment here and on mafia scum or omgus. I'd make a scathing and true remark about you being a replacement in the other big game that's in sign ups just means that you'll be lynched or mod killed D3 again for inactivity. I could comment on the fact that despite essentially figuring out the scum in The Game we NK'd you and discredited you with a wave of a hand because of both your reputation and how you played. If you would invest in games and try, I'd still dislike you but I'd respect you. I've never seen you be anything other than a troll nor have I heard otherwise from many of the 'names' here. It's not that you're unable or incapable of playing well, it's that you choose not to. Until you choose to do otherwise I'd WotC you every time and make sure to put that even if you aren't on the list. This feud ends now. You two can hate each other privately if you so choose, but in public you can choose to be nice to each other, or ignore each other entirely, but there will be no more hostile exchanges. Period. | ||
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On December 20 2013 08:06 Coagulation wrote: hes in the hospital Are you kidding? What is up? | ||
iVLosK!
Djibouti545 Posts
| ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
hes alright just getting tests done. | ||
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
Good to hear. Tell him I miss playing with such a beast. Thanks Coag <3~ | ||
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
On December 20 2013 09:25 Kurumi wrote: Good to hear. Tell him I miss playing with such a beast. Thanks Coag <3~ +1 | ||
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
I think you mean he's out bowling | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
On December 20 2013 10:16 geript wrote: Who is Jackal? Coagulation's Item Game partner | ||
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On December 20 2013 09:25 Kurumi wrote: Good to hear. Tell him I miss playing with such a beast. Thanks Coag <3~ hes hosting next at omgus if you want to tell him. http://www.omgus.net/viewforum.php?f=149 | ||
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I will be the bitch but only if we get to spoon after | ||
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
geript
10024 Posts
On December 20 2013 11:48 Coagulation wrote: I call your hug it out and raise you a buttsex it out. + Show Spoiler + I will be the bitch but only if we get to spoon after On second thought, idk man. Isn't cuddling a little gay? | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35820 Posts
On December 20 2013 11:10 Coagulation wrote: hes hosting next at omgus if you want to tell him. http://www.omgus.net/viewforum.php?f=149 Thank you for this, I had a message i hadn't replied to ^^ | ||
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6782 Posts
Way back when I first started mafia I used to play BGH with RebirthofLegend, foolishness, and Ver. It was fun and I actually talked with RoL on skype fairly frequently for several months until I went through an afk spell. I've met incog, Ver and foolishness irl. More recently I had a lot of fun playing LoL with WoS, VE, and others who I (sadly) forget at the moment. Basically these interaction remind you that the guys playing against you are people too. Now I'm not really known to rage hardcore around here but having a more personal connection with some people certainly tempers what I say. Also hosts need to be way harsher. Also hosts need to be willing to spend the time required on their games. Doing what I did the last game I hosted is unacceptable. | ||
| ||