|
On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. What about second chances.
6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me?
After BttB maybe not so?
|
On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. 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.'
|
Perhaps one game a month where WotC is not implemented?
|
On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. 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.
|
hmmm
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.
|
On December 17 2013 12:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. 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.
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?
|
On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 12:34 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. 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. 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.
|
United States4714 Posts
I personally have no problem with people posting a lot. Sometimes people can go a bit overboard but I would much rather have people who are too active than lurkers.
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.
|
On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 12:34 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote: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? 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. 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. 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? Which is where I come back to the discrimination factor.
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.
|
On December 17 2013 12:40 Mig wrote:
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 genuinely surprised such a suggestion has come from a low-volume poster such as yourself. I admire the courage to take up this position.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
I think that lurking is a legitimate scum play and should not be disallowed. Perhaps games should be balanced around having more vigilantes so we can just shoot people who are lurking?
But then we get silly vigilante shots. I guess.
|
On December 17 2013 12:48 Corazon wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On December 17 2013 13:05 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 States25551 Posts
I still think the best solution is one that doesn't impact the current gameplay experience directly; increasing the duration and strength of ban list actions, or having TL bans AFTER the game end (or the modkill), are both good solutions because they leave the host with sovereignty within the realm of his own game, and just amp up (or add where there wasn't before) the punishments after the game is over.
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
