EPT(Googled it)
I have a job!
TL Mafia Behavior - Page 9
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
(Googled it) I have a job! | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
Wizards of the coast might be oddly appropos | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
It might be a good idea for more people to get together and just play some games together. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 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
16319 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 Kingdom36161 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 Kingdom36161 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
Finland43269 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. | ||
| ||
