|
I can't tell who's trolling or not.
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
|
The problem at its root is that the system is either weak and lame or complete and as you said trollish.
I support the post at the top of this page though.
|
for a banlist to work, favoritism and cutting corners should not happen. Banlist is a banlist. an abuse is an abuse.
I also dont like permaban unless the infraction was ridiculously offensive to the community or deliberate attempts to ruin experiences, etc etc. I dont like banning for insults, Mafia is intense but control on it is necessary regardless
i think what i say is sensible so i'll leave it at that. no problem otherwise
|
On February 16 2012 07:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I can't tell who's trolling or not.
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
goddamn this is hilarious
but its sad in that this is similar to what qatol and foolishness want
|
How about we just appoint GMarshal as Supreme Ruler of the mafia subforum. He'll love and tolerate us all. In exchange for his benevolent leadership, all mafia forum member's landmark posts (every 1K posts) must include a tribute to his glory.
|
On February 16 2012 07:17 Kenpachi wrote:
for a banlist to work, favoritism and cutting corners should not happen. Banlist is a banlist. an abuse is an abuse.
I also dont like permaban unless the infraction was ridiculously offensive to the community or deliberate attempts to ruin experiences, etc etc. I dont like banning for insults, Mafia is intense but control on it is necessary regardless
i think what i say is sensible so i'll leave it at that. no problem otherwise
Arest this man, he is an enemy of the TL mafia state!
On a real note:
If people in the community can forward with a complete and clear proposal that outli.es everything it needs to outline then we can really talk. What the OP is currently suggesting is a vague group that can step in and declare law when they see the need to. Vets can pretty much already do that and I just cant see what problems this sytem would fix that don't already resolve themselves. I am left feeling like this would just give an air of seperation between one type of user and another and while that naturally occurs anyway it is not something to promote as a rule or policy.
To bring a very recent debate up for pure example reasons if Redff had decided to constantly troll igrol on the forum, irc, and via whatever means he thought of we would have resolved it without a council of mafai rule meisters. I just dont get really what this actually accomplishes beyond being a status enhancement for some users.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Stop the trolling the guys; this is an honest effort to improve our forum. This forum should be a place where masterminds and geniuses meet to play a competitive game. The responses in this thread heavily indicate what kind of community this has become though, and that's not something to be proud of. There's a reason this is one of the best places to play forum mafia, and everyone should be striving to make it better. Reading the thread I'm disappointed more than anything (and I'm not saying that cause the general consensus disagrees with the idea) at the overall behavior.
On February 16 2012 04:14 layabout wrote:
So..
The current banlist hands out bans for offences such as inactivity. These offences are simple to deal with as they are a case of a player breaking a rule and receiving the punishment for breaking that rule. The proposal will not change this.
With some offences, like behavioural offences the punishment is less clear cut and individuals can have wildly different opinions.The way these offences are currently being dealt with is largely down to the host in question, which results in inconsistency and leads to drama.
It is being proposed that we introduce a council of players that players will choose to make the decisions. This council will then make the decisions about contentious bans.Since the same people will make all of the contentious decisions, there will be more consistency in the decisions that are reached.By electing the members of the council it is hoped that the decisions will not only be fairer but that they will reflect the wishes of the community.
I think that this is a fairly good idea. For me the main question is whether or not it is worth taking these steps to deal with issues that do not arise very often.
Would elections for council members be done in a separate thread?
I'm bringing up this post because it's a very accurate summary of what is trying to get accomplished here, and I think many people are getting bogged down in the semantics of it all. This is not supposed to be as complicated as people are making it out to be.
A few people don't seem to realize that the problem we're addressing is actually a problem. I would like to say in regards to it that we have lost members (good ones to) because of these issues (DoctorHelvetica is the name that immediately comes to mind here). It seems that people who keep up with the banlist and are reading up on all the cases realize that this is a problem (don't mean to judge here). So to say that this isn't really a problem is not a fair assessment of the situation.
|
You proposed that some people de facto get on the banlist which just doesn't work. All of them need to be elected.
Like i said though you are attempting to address a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know why, maybe its because you feel like you have to "do something" even though there is no need to.
Ban for inactivity
Ban for game ruining
Encourage hosts to not let people play if they don't like the way they behave in games.
there done
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
I wouldn't mind a change in the way the banlist works. I just think have 3 people rather than 5 people judging these things makes it simpler, and it would be easier to find volunteers. In terms of term length maybe 3 months instead of 6 months is more reasonable, since it's a certain amount of work (possibly) and may restrict your ability to play games.
I'd also be hesitant to remove the banlist because it's an optional feature at the moment.
|
On February 16 2012 07:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I can't tell who's trolling or not.
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
TROLL
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On February 16 2012 09:14 redFF wrote:
1You proposed that some people de facto get on the banlist which just doesn't work. All of them need to be elected.
2Like i said though you are attempting to address a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know why, maybe its because you feel like you have to "do something" even though there is no need to.
Ban for inactivity
Ban for game ruining
3Encourage hosts to not let people play if they don't like the way they behave in games.
there done
1 That's a legitimate concern and others have mentioned that as well, and will definitely be considered if this gets implemented.
2 I addressed this in my previous post. There is a problem, and good players refuse to play in the forum because of it. That should be sufficient for trying something.
3 Many people are divided on whether hosts should be allowed to do such a thing. Is it fair for a host to kick me out of a game cause he hates my guts even if I don't break the rules? I would say no, but I may be biased cause when I first started playing here I was hated by a lot of people (and still am to a degree) cause I was a big troll at the time. When the hosts have that say, it leads to the situation we are in. They go to the banlist, demand a ridiculous punishment and it gets granted.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
The system we have right now is that a host requests the ban postgame. If its reasonable, then the player accepts the ban and moves on. If its unreasonable, the player questions the ban and it is opened to discussion. Anyone who has been following the situation is allowed to comment and at the end, everyone's opinions are taken into account and a decision is made by flamewheel, taking into account past precedent as well.
From what I can tell, the only difference between the current system and the "council" system is that rather than having the final decision come from a tabulation of everyone, its limited to a group of five players, who may or may not be following the game in question. If flamewheel has decided he would prefer not to make the final decision on every issue, then the change seems reasonable, but otherwise I'm not sure how it is much of an improvement from what we already have.
|
On February 16 2012 09:21 Foolishness wrote:
3 Many people are divided on whether hosts should be allowed to do such a thing. Is it fair for a host to kick me out of a game cause he hates my guts even if I don't break the rules? I would say no, but I may be biased cause when I first started playing here I was hated by a lot of people (and still am to a degree) cause I was a big troll at the time. When the hosts have that say, it leads to the situation we are in. They go to the banlist, demand a ridiculous punishment and it gets granted.
yes because its their game and you have no inherent right to play in it without their permission.
|
On February 16 2012 04:45 redFF wrote:
This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council.
Im glad im not the only one that thinks this is silly.
Gmarsh is a mod he should have 100% control. Anyone else on some "council" is laughable at best.
like after the council concludes its session they gonna go outside pick up sticks and play cops and robbers.
|
I don't see how electing members to a council will ensure more consistency and representation of the community than what we see now.
It will be more consistent, if only because it's the same people making the decisions. However, without answering how often the council is likely to be changed, this might not actually be consistent with the wishes of the community, which are likely to change with time and flux in the player-base. So, depending on the permanency of the council, they might not actually reflect what the community desires, and instead impose their own decisions based on their own rationale.
Secondly, I fail to see how this would represent the community better than an open forum where the entire community has the opportunity to voice their opinion and have it accounted for. With this system, it seems like you can voice your opinion, but it will be devalued, because in the end, you have no influence over the decision as a community member besides when you voted people in.
Next, I don't understand how this will bring anything different to the table from what we have now. The council will end up being formed nearly completely of veterans or active players, and these same people are the players who would comment on a ban anyways, and whose words would be more respected due to that status. All I see the council doing is cutting off everyone who doesn't get elected.
Finally, this system introduces problems and complications of its own that need to be addressed. I and others have brought some of these up, but just off the top of my head:
- Will the decision making process of the council be made entirely transparent?
- Who will ensure consistency, effort, and transparency from the council?
- How will we avoid favoritism or unfair persecution when there's only a small group making the decisions?
- How often will the council change to reflect the wishes of the community?
Which makes it a hassle to use, and in my eyes undesirable.
Instead, I think that we just need to structure ban list discussion better, and stick to actually using the rules of the ban-list, if we're going to keep it.
First, discussion should be a lot more organized. For contentious issues, we should open up discussion one by one. Then, we get a statement of what happened factually (1) from the host, then their take/impressions on the situation (2), and finally, what they want to do about it (3) (punishments, warnings, etc.). Then, the player being accused should respond if what the host said was factual (1), and then give their own interpretation of the situation (2), and then if they disagree with the asked for punishment (3). Then, the host and the player should both shut up while everyone else discusses it. If they need to comment again a little later, they can. I honestly feel one of the biggest problems with ban discussion is the people involved keep yelling back and forth about it, and it makes discussion a lot harder. They should each just state their side, then wait while people decide who's in the right. Keep in mind, this is only for things like behaviour or 'ruining game' bans, not inactivity or the like.
So, we could go from:
Host:
Player X ruined my game, please ban him.
Player X:
No I didn't, you're just a bad host and hate me!
Host:
What lies! 5 Games!
To something like:
Host:Player X made the following posts in the game (1): I think this is unacceptable behaviour, and made the game less enjoyable for others playing. (2) I'm requesting a standard ban (3).
Player X:
I did make those posts. (1)
They were made in the heat of the moment, and I don't agree that they made the game worse for others to play (2)
I don't think I deserve any kind of punishment (3)
And then they both stop posting while it's discussed, unless input is needed from them.
If hosts don't want to go through the effort of actually explaining what happened with all relevant evidence when trying to ban someone for behaviour, then they probably shouldn't be hosting, as it takes a bare minimum of effort and makes discussion a lot better. These two posts could then be cataloged if need be to use as reference in the future.
Secondly, people need to actually start following the ban list, with ratifications possibly made to how the punishments work and how games played affect future bans. When I joined, it was the first time you get banned, 1 game, the second, 3 games, the third, 5 games, and that was that. Now, I see hosts asking for specific ban counts for specific players based on what happened, or basing bans on what happened without reference to any past ban history. If you feel that hosts asking for specific punishments is a problem, stop letting them. I'm not sure when, but at some point, punishments changed from how often you were banned in the past, to the whim of the host, or with the old system being applied haphazardly. So, we should either revert back to bans being based on previous ban count, or if there's some underlying issue that's making hosts ask for specific bans for different infractions, then we should address that. Everyone should be held to the same standards, and any bans should be consistent. They shouldn't be up to the host to decide if he's feeling nice or doesn't like a certain player, they should be normalized.
I feel like a lot of people want to actually change how bans work out, but that's a discussion for a thread of its own. All I'm saying is that it should follow guidelines, not be up for a case-by-case basis that has no assured consistency between different players and hosts.
/rant
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On February 16 2012 09:51 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 04:45 redFF wrote:
This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council. Im glad im not the only one that thinks this is silly. Gmarsh is a mod he should have 100% control. Anyone else on some "council" is laughable at best. like after the council concludes its session they gonna go outside pick up sticks and play cops and robbers.
However from what I can tell there is some precedent for self-moderation and a certain amount of internal autonomy for the TL Mafia board regarding these things
|
On February 16 2012 09:51 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 04:45 redFF wrote:
This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council. Im glad im not the only one that thinks this is silly. Gmarsh is a mod he should have 100% control. Anyone else on some "council" is laughable at best. like after the council concludes its session they gonna go outside pick up sticks and play cops and robbers.
and then cowboys and indians
|
I'll refer to my previous post in the matter. I would be happy with either the current system or the council as long as it follows certain parameters.
1. The system needs to be impartial. Anyone that is influenced in one way or another about the possible ban needs to be replaced by a uninvolved party. Blazinghand is a friend of mine, and if he is possibly being banned, I should have no say in his case, per say.
2. There should be an odd amount of number of people, and there should be certain parameters for those people to be elected, and tht way should be agreed on. Is it a public community vote? Are the positions appointed? I feel that three people with two alternative council members would be ideal.
3. The people in the council must be cycled out after each term. Period. Men in power only want more power. It needs to be recycled in order to get new blood and new ideas into the positions.
4. Lastly, people need to honor and respect the system. Take you're licks and take the punches if you fuck up.
Ill agree to either position as long as those at met.
Look at my first post in this thread to refer back too.
~Jitsu
|
On February 16 2012 09:51 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 04:45 redFF wrote:
This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council. Im glad im not the only one that thinks this is silly. Gmarsh is a mod he should have 100% control. Anyone else on some "council" is laughable at best. like after the council concludes its session they gonna go outside pick up sticks and play cops and robbers.
This isn't even constructive.
|
who are all these random people i've never seen before posting walls about shit when they've been here for like 2 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
