|
On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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?
|
On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:08 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote: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. 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.
|
On December 17 2013 08:53 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 States25557 Posts
IMO we cannot completely abandon the ban list, because it was instituted for more reasons than most people think of
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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:13 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote: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. 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 States25557 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:11 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:10 Blazinghand wrote:On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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 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.
|
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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 08:53 kitaman27 wrote: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. Wow that's bad. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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.
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 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).
|
If we do do the ban from TL route, it should be in conjunction with the banlist sitout process. Banning from TL is too short for mafia games, but it is helpful as an additional punishment.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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. 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!
|
On December 17 2013 09:12 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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?
I don't understand what you mean.
|
On December 17 2013 09:22 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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. 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. Show nested quote +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!
I can get behind this, but I still think a Mafia OP restatement/change is necessary.
|
On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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. 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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:25 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote: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 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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
United States22154 Posts
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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote:On December 17 2013 08:53 kitaman27 wrote: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. 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. 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.
|
On December 17 2013 09:21 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +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). If we are talking about prolific posters.. I have seen it plenty of times.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
