TL Mafia Behavior

On December 17 2013 07:09 Coagulation wrote:
I always ask myself
What Would Coag Do

before I post.

On December 17 2013 07:03 GMarshal wrote:

Actually, I'm considering just enacting tl behavior rules on this whole forum again. With TL bans for bad behavior, because this is reaching absurd levels.

What would people think about that?

EDIT: Actually this merits its own thread

On December 17 2013 07:17 Corazon wrote:

Why were they ever taken down?

On December 17 2013 07:22 kitaman27 wrote:


Would hosts still have the final say on modkills or would we potentially run into the issue of a stray Banling enforcing these behavioral rules by handing out a temp ban during an ongoing game?

Handing them out post game might work, but I'd be hesitant to encourage people to use the Report function to try to enforce the rules. I'd worry that people might start resorting to strategic reporting.

On December 17 2013 08:27 Coagulation wrote:
will tribunal members be able to take bribes and extort

If so sign me up.

On December 17 2013 08:58 kushm4sta wrote:
to me all of those are fine but the last one

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?

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.

On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote:

This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become.

On December 17 2013 09:05 GreYMisT wrote:


2 day TL ban

On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:

I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game?

Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups.

On December 17 2013 09:08 HiroPro wrote:

I fail to see how we can have a sitewide ban for a rule that only really applies in the mafia forum. Why would anyone outside of mafia care that someone abandoned a game?

Also, 2 days isn't even a punishment as the person can just immediately join whatever game is in signups.

On December 17 2013 09:10 Blazinghand wrote:


Well I really think an Inactivity Modkill NEEDS to be punished with /sitouts, even if we ALSO punish it with a 2 day temp or whatever (which I think is inappropriate anyways). The fact of the matter is if you are not active enough for a game, you can't just be away from the forums for a couple days, you need to /sitout a game, you need to put in that time to not be able to /signup but instead have to /sitout

On December 17 2013 09:06 HiroPro wrote:

This is not reasonable. We need sitouts for inactivity modkills. Furthermore, I don't agree that a TL.net ban is an appropriate punishment for bad behavior in a mafia game. Even a ban of a week or 2 is completely meaningless considering how slow the subforum has become.

On December 17 2013 09:08 GreYMisT wrote:


By that note, wouldn't you then agree that sitting out for an inactivity is too severe, due to this slowness of the forum? The problem is that currently a "sitout" means nothing. It could be a month or it could be 5 days. My way both standardizes punishments for everyone, and it punishes beyond the subforum.

On December 17 2013 08:53 kitaman27 wrote:


Most of these are from ongoing games, so probably best not to discuss them, but here are a few off the top of my head:

+ Show Spoiler +

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?

On December 17 2013 09:13 WaveofShadow wrote:

Are you saying that a TL.net ban is not enough because of how slow the subforum moves?
To that effect I agree but I also think the current sitout/banlist process is mostly useless. Look at Bill Murray as an example. There are so many people who get banned constantly (whether for behaviour or inactivity) and do not change anything in regards to what they do and how they do it. I'll even bring up another example (sorry to get personal and I'll remove it if necessary but this is how I feel). Onegu---a really great guy personally, but given his life situation (and to a lesser degree his questionable playing tactics as to what a 'wincon' is) I don't think he should be playing Mafia here. His presence has negatively affected at least two games that I have been a part of. The banlist in its current state is probably not harsh enough. I think something akin to a blacklist, like what iGrok does with his personal games, except global is more useful.

On December 17 2013 09:11 GreYMisT wrote:


Would someone who just peaced out of a 30 person themed game be able to sit out one of your instant lynch games that last 3 days?

On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote:

Wow that's bad.


Hmmm. Let me see if I can put this into words. I want to have a rule that bans "trolling," antagonizing someone in order to get a response from them that has nothing to do with the game. This would be for personal attacks that go beyond just heated arguments. I want "leniency" for heated arguments in the sense that I understand people get angry and call each names, but if people apologize and realize that they shouldn't have done that, then we're cool. If people don't understand that then, warnings and modkills are on the table. This also wouldn't be for excessive personal attacks while playing. If while angry someone insulted another player with like 5 of the posts kita quoted, I would probably warn/modkill them immediately because even when angry that is unacceptable.

Also, I was thinking of having a rule where aside from the insults in general, if I were to ask a player the purpose of a post, they better have an answer. Like how does that post further your agenda to achieve your win condition (again excluding the excessive personal attacks caveat). If someone cannot answer that question then again a warn/modkill is in order.

This is the best I got on short notice. I really just started thinking about this in the last few days and don't have anything concrete, but I tried typing down my rambling thoughts.

On December 17 2013 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:


The number of days can be changed. And the goal is not to set a precendent for the entire site, Just for people who use our subforum. Sure people who read the banlist might not know what that means, but we and that person who is banned sure as hell do.

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.

On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:

What would you consider as reasonable for some going inactive for the first time? How about a repeat offender (3/4 times).

I also still don't really understand how you can convince a site admin that they should ban someone from the site because of a rule that we (and not them) made up.

On December 17 2013 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.

On December 17 2013 09:12 Alakaslam wrote:

Had to point out you care when someone's profile portrait is lockdown?

On December 17 2013 09:22 Blazinghand wrote:


We don't need to worry about convincing a site admin or whatever, we have banlings who play here who can do it. People who /in on this forum will know what they're getting into.



yeah basically this. adding in bans, especially after games end to punish people who get behavior modkilled, is a good idea. I see no reason to get rid of our current system though; just supplement it!

On December 17 2013 09:20 HiroPro wrote:

What would you consider as reasonable for some going inactive for the first time? How about a repeat offender (3/4 times).

I also still don't really understand how you can convince a site admin that they should ban someone from the site because of a rule that we (and not them) made up.

On December 17 2013 07:08 GMarshal wrote:
As recent games have showcased, hostility and player behavioral issues have been spiraling out of control. This thread is here to discuss that issue and possible solutions. Consider the fact that this has already been discussed in Polls thread and in the Back to the basics postgame.

One solution I've been toying with is simply reinforcing moderation in this forum, in the form of actually giving out tl bans on top of banlist bans for behavior, and enforcing the behavior rules outlined in the commandments. This would put a damper on some of the fun we have but would also address the core behavior issues. Thoughts?

On December 17 2013 09:25 GreYMisT wrote:




Looks like we don't need to do much convincing.

What I'm suggesting is not perfect, but from what I have observed the banlist is not serving its current purpose. I'm seeing a lot of assumptions here about posting patters of the standard person who AFKs a game. but these are assumptions that only hold true (if at all) to this forum. A number of times I have seen people who went inactive in a mafia game be active in other places on TL.net. In this case a site ban would affect them.

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?

On December 17 2013 09:18 WaveofShadow wrote:

Your thoughts regarding this are a pretty good start imo, but how exactly can you make something like that into a global ruleset? How can you really decide what is trolling and what isn't, when 'leniency' should be applied or not? For example Greymist stepped in to warn a couple of people in my game for some words during a 'heated' argument that in the end amounted to something closer to joking in the end anyway.

On December 17 2013 09:21 WaveofShadow wrote:

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).

On December 17 2013 09:29 GMarshal wrote:
I don't agree with removing the banlist, because as mig said, its crucial for dealing with inactives. I also don't thin TL higher ups would be amenable to a council essentially controlling how tl bans are meted out.

On December 17 2013 09:35 Corazon wrote:
There are also the people that constantly troll other players who don't do enough to get the hosts attention but do enough to get the person being trolled wanting to use the report button because he doesn't feel it is being handled correctly by the hosts.

We need a system to get rid of people who don't actually play the game and only troll, yet don't get any punishment because they are considered "veterans" by everyone else and immune to all of the rules.

On November 16 2013 02:48 GMarshal wrote:
Special Signup rule: Wisdom of the Crowds: If you do not wish to play with a player for any reason, PM me, if I receive enough votes against a player (five or more) then he or she will not be allowed to play in this game. Your vote against a player will be held in the strictest confidence. You *must* be signed up to vote against someone.

On December 17 2013 09:41 Blazinghand wrote:


You're talking about something beyond just a temp ban, here, right? I recommend for situations like that that we use a "wisdom of the crowds" style rule that GM uses in his setups. Here's what he used most recently:



This way, if there's a player who everyone hates but people are afraid to speak up about, there is a confidential way to not have to play with him! IMO Wisdom of the Crowds should become a standard rule for non-invite games.

On December 17 2013 09:43 Corazon wrote:

Yes I agree with this. However, only GM does that.

However, there are also people who troll outside of games or on PMs/non-game threads and can't get punished because it isn't a game. I just report those posts and nothing gets done about them.

On December 17 2013 09:47 Corazon wrote:
I feel like if I PM GM anymore he's going to hate me forever.
I'll have a lot of stuff to pm him with after a certain game is over.

On December 17 2013 09:15 Crossfire99 wrote:
Also, I was thinking of having a rule where aside from the insults in general, if I were to ask a player the purpose of a post, they better have an answer. Like how does that post further your agenda to achieve your win condition (again excluding the excessive personal attacks caveat). If someone cannot answer that question then again a warn/modkill is in order.

On December 17 2013 09:46 Blazinghand wrote:


It only being GM who uses that rule is a problem, you're right-- so, let's roll Wisdom of the Crowds into our new banlist policy revamp. I personally promise that regardless of what gets chosen I'll include Wisdom of the Crowds in all games I host from now on anyways.

Re: reporting posts in non-game threads, I recommend you PM GM instead of reporting them. I think the TL Mods mostly leave reports coming in from TL Mafia forum alone since they are somewhat aware of our internal rules. PM GM with quote, link, and reason.

On December 17 2013 10:54 kushm4sta wrote:
sounds like a terrible rule that is going to make people feel bad.
quick let me organize a couple of people through PMs and we can someone who we dont like feel terrible. that is some high school level shit you are enabling.

On December 17 2013 10:59 Mid or Feed wrote:

Actually like I've already said, for the most part that won't happen here. Unless you're worried for some other reason, kush.

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.

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.

On December 17 2013 11:13 Mig wrote:
Darth, I agree with you that part of the problem is people sometimes take mafia too seriously and thus become too emotional. However, that doesn't mean allowing people to be dicks is good for TL mafia as a whole. People play the game for fun and many people don't enjoy playing in games where people are needlessly insulting and flaming each other. There are plenty of ways to play mafia that don't involve telling people to kill themselves.

If you look at the poll that kita made it appears that the majority of the players would enjoy the games more with less flaming.

On December 17 2013 11:20 Mid or Feed wrote:

I disagree wholeheartedly. You think if a bunch of people don't want to play with you then they're the problem?

It's one thing if it were a 1v1 thing like Coag v Cora, but from what I understand of WotC it requires a lot of people to not enjoy playing with somebody for that to work. Can you think of anybody who would be excluded from a game that doesn't deserve to be under such a policy?

Do you have a method of forcing this fundamental understanding onto people? Because if so, then problem solved, amirite?

On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:


Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved.

Original Message From kushm4sta:
Tech me how to troll as good as you

On December 17 2013 11:22 DarthPunk wrote:

But saying 'you're retarded' or 'that is fucking stupid' is not.

It IS an important tool or option to use. Sure, it is possible to play in a different way, but many people use aggressiveness as mafia for example to hide weaknesses in their arguments or to disguise inconsistency.

And if you do something as Mafia you have to do it as town.

I have been called scum many times for not being enough of a dick.

On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:


Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved.

On December 17 2013 11:30 Corazon wrote:


Someone who pms anybody this:



Should deserve to face the wrath of WotC

On December 17 2013 11:35 Corazon wrote:
I think anyone who gets shut out with WotC does not "deserve" to be here and should be forced to beg and grovel for their place back in TL Mafia.

On December 17 2013 11:35 DarthPunk wrote:


Cora you are a a large contributor to the problem. You always take things personally, hold grudges and allow those grudges to manifest in the next games. Maybe you should take I break like me?

On December 17 2013 11:22 DarthPunk wrote:
I have been called scum many times for not being enough of a dick.

On December 17 2013 11:30 Mig wrote:


I don't think anyone is saying we should be modkilling for people saying "that is fucking stupid". Some aggressiveness is obviously fine and this is mafia sometimes emotions do run high and if someone makes 500 good posts then gets angry and makes 1 over the line they shouldn't be instantly modkilled.

All this being said, you can play an aggressive style without having to just insult people. If your mafia game revolves around calling everyone a fucking retard then a lot of people won't enjoy playing with you. So regardless of whether it is a legitimate strategy or not it isn't something that should be encouraged because it isn't fun for a lot of the people playing.

On December 17 2013 11:40 Mig wrote:
Cora, you have had one person disagree with you. There is no need to play the victim.

On December 17 2013 11:48 Mocsta wrote:
I don't particularly care whether you guys ignore my points I raised earlier.

What I do care about is however is that, whatever enforcement comes from this discussion is issued out fairly regardless of status in the forum.

---

In my opinion: I don't think that WotC is the solution.

What it does is to create a system of discrimination/ostracizing that ironically will perpetuate this very culture you are trying to mitigate in the first place.

In regards to emotional "butthurt":
what is the difference someone between Troll A saying "you're a cum dumpster"
and a group of people unanimously voting "you're not worthy to play a free game on a free forum"

On December 17 2013 11:40 purpletrator wrote:

Sadly, I am guilty of this. However, if such behavior was more strictly moderated, it would no longer be a viable point of calling someone scum since they are in fear of disciplinary action.

I am on the fence with regards to DP's point about having an "abusive" meta. Something like "Have you seen what he's been writing? Guy is obviously too stupid to find scum" is not over the line, as it is using the perceived intelligence as an argument against believing that player. This is what a lot of the game is about, changing the way people read one another to further your win-con.

Most of the time, furthering your win-con is trying to make YOU look better/smarter/townier, but in some cases you NEED to be able to call someone (or at least their logic) terrible/stupid/scummy. We all understand that the game can get emotional and personal attacks are more likely to occur when you are riled up. It is going to be a part of the game, so this is a very fine line to be walked in terms of identifying what level of insults is classified as "going too far".

On December 17 2013 11:39 Corazon wrote:

Why don't you read the big picture before making statements like that.

I hold grudges against 3-4 people (who will not be named). I don't break them out in the games. I don't even talk to the people I have a grudge with. I avoid them, like I should.

Why is it when other people are parasites to this forum, they don't get called out for it, but whenever I say anything, I get called out and accused of things that are obviously not true? Why do they get confidentiality and I don't?

If anyone is reading Titanic, my behavior was really good until the last bit. I have 2 responses to getting irritated:

1) Getting mad and being a dick (what happened in BttB)
2) Not willing to play or post (what happened in Titanic)

Does anything I say actually matter at this point? I get the feeling that no matter what I say or what I do, I'm just going to get hate for it.

On December 17 2013 11:56 Mig wrote:
Stop arguing about Cora's behavior, cora/others. This isn't the place for it. You are derailing the discussion.

On December 17 2013 11:48 Mocsta wrote:
I don't particularly care whether you guys ignore my points I raised earlier.

What I do care about is however is that, whatever enforcement comes from this discussion is issued out fairly regardless of status in the forum.

---

In my opinion: I don't think that WotC is the solution.

What it does is to create a system of discrimination/ostracizing that ironically will perpetuate this very culture you are trying to mitigate in the first place.

In regards to emotional "butthurt":
what is the difference someone between Troll A saying "you're a cum dumpster"
and a group of people unanimously voting "you're not worthy to play a free game on a free forum"

On December 17 2013 12:01 Mocsta wrote:

I agree with this.

@Mig
What is the actual issue we are dealing with broken into its most raw state?

- Newbies not continuing past the newbies?
- Guests deciding not to join the newbies?
- Experienced players leaving?
- Something else?

I hear a lot of people saying, we need to do "this and that"
but I don't recall anyone saying because we need to achieve "this and that"

Where I am going with this is, how do you fix a problem if you have no understanding of the root cause.
And how do you ascertain the root cause if you do not understand what you are investigating.

On December 17 2013 12:01 Mocsta wrote:

I agree with this.

@Mig
What is the actual issue we are dealing with broken into its most raw state?

- Newbies not continuing past the newbies?
- Guests deciding not to join the newbies?
- Experienced players leaving?
- Something else?

I hear a lot of people saying, we need to do "this and that"
but I don't recall anyone saying because we need to achieve "this and that"

Where I am going with this is, how do you fix a problem if you have no understanding of the root cause.
And how do you ascertain the root cause if you do not understand what you are investigating.

On December 17 2013 12:06 WaveofShadow wrote:

I can name quite a few people who have left or have had no desire to continue playing as a direct result of the atmosphere in recent games. Whether or not these people need to 'suck it up' according to some people remains to be seen, but then you also have people leaving due to other ingame behavioural issues ie non playing according to win-con.

This then becomes compounded because people leaving mid-game due to above reasons doesn't exactly IMPROVE conditions (and is incredibly hypocritical).

In my opinion the core issue is that games are becoming increasingly 'less fun' due to a few factors people have mentioned, among them bad atmosphere/toxicity, spam, lurking/inactivity, and people not properly playing the game they signed up for. These issues sometimes overlap as well.

On December 17 2013 12:20 Mocsta wrote:
This is very reasonable.

I completely forgot about the spam argument that was being held 6 months ago.

Bad atmosphere/toxicity: If bans are meant to address this, then fine. But as I said before, all players need to be treated fairly and not be exempt due to reputation.

Spam: This is what I would consider to be a generation thing that wont cede anytime soon. Until an influential low-volume poster *that can play regularly* comes in to show people the ways of less spam; people that play currently have no reason to change what wins them games. That is a fact of any sport/human nature.

Lurking/inactivity: This might not remove "trolls", but would have not mitigation towards actives blowing their lids. Having said that, I agree it should be the responsibility of the active to keep their cool - a lesson i've had to learn the hard way multiple times.

Not enjoying the game: I agree. Its annoying to put so much time/care into a case and to then be thwarted. Some say, learn to improve and take motivation from it; others are shattered and won't put their heart on the sleeve again. Everyone is different, and opinions need to be respected.

Obviously the above is generic; I just felt like rambling to distract me from work

On December 17 2013 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:


Yes Kush. He would 100% be excluded from some games and it would not be deserved.

If you don't want to play with someone just don't play.

On December 17 2013 12:28 Aquanim wrote:

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.

On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:
What about second chances.

6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me?
After BttB maybe not so?

On December 17 2013 12:29 Mocsta wrote:
What about second chances.

6months ago Im confident you would have WotC voted me?
After BttB maybe not so?

On December 17 2013 12:34 Aquanim wrote:

Nah, I don't think at any point. You frusturated me a fair bit (in LX particularly) and for a while I didn't have a high opinion of your play, but I don't think you personally made playing in any game unpleasant. Frusturation is part of the game.

On topic, there are a fair number of people on the forum who I would WotC veto at the moment; but if I saw they were playing more acceptably in other games, I would consider not vetoing them in the future.

On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote:

But to play devil's advocate (for all of the WotC detractors here), what if everyone else isn't as reasonable as you are? How do we prevent possible WotC abuse?

On December 17 2013 12:38 WaveofShadow wrote:

But to play devil's advocate (for all of the WotC detractors here), what if everyone else isn't as reasonable as you are? How do we prevent possible WotC abuse?

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.

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).
...

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.

On December 17 2013 12:48 Corazon wrote:

That goes back to the problem of soft hosts. How do we go about encouraging hosts to perform more modkills instead of just slaps on the wrist in an effort to preserve their setups?

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.

On December 17 2013 13:05 DarthPunk wrote:


If you are talking about coag then I would say your opinion is being coloured by bias.

Honestly you may think that hosts are wrong to not modkill particular people but it is more likely you are wrong and are simply biased due to being involved in the emotions of the game.

Hosts are the best moderators of games and behavior within games. They are the least likely to be biased due to not being directly involved in a situation and also have a vested interest in the integrity of their game and their future games.

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.

Many of the ideas being espoused here sincerely make me worry about the future of the game on this site.

On December 17 2013 11:48 thrawn2112 wrote:
everyone be chill, problem solved

On December 17 2013 12:06 thrawn2112 wrote:


it's the internet. making new behavior modification rules won't help anything. recidivism is real and new trolls sign up all the time

my earlier post wasn't a joke. i'm not sure that there actually is a problem that goes beyond a few people, or a few relationships, but if there is a problem it can only be solved by everyone chilling out. make as many rules as you want but you're still not dealing with the "core issue" you asked about. that's nothing you can solve, all you can do is make sure you are chill and hope that others follow

On December 17 2013 12:23 kitaman27 wrote:




Little did I expect that this would happen only hours later XD

On December 17 2013 11:47 Corazon wrote:
This discussion isn't going to go anywhere. It's just going to go back into how I'm such a big problem and how I'm such an asshole and I'm the only problem in this subforum when you all need to open your eyes.

On December 17 2013 13:23 bumatlarge wrote:
Scratch that, there is no way that corazon can be town with posts like this.



##Unvote
##Vote Corazon

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.

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.

On December 11 2013 05:01 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Anyone caught actively playing against their win con is auto modkilled / banned. Obviously this is going to be subjective to the mods but seriously. Watching people go into a game and troll to shit while not posting anything meaningful is insanely frustrating.

This is coming from a guy who has watched players make justifications that townies are allowed to be "anti town". If anyone in the town is repeatedly "anti town" or however people want to justify it they die. A town members job is to get scum lynched and make it obvious that they are town and thus shouldnt be lynched. People if they join a game should be trying. There are other people who might or would have made better use of your slot if all your going to do is lurk. Don't have the time required to play in a game? don't join.


Seriously, spam isn't that much of an issue. Even skimming a thread you can spot posts that feel wrong and you can filter the player. Its incredibly easy to still play a game with a ton of spam. Is it frustrating to do? Yes, but its doable. No one wants to play with people who don't play to their win conditions.

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.

On December 17 2013 14:37 Alakaslam wrote:

Not me.
Slam needs his head slammed to not be lazy!

On December 17 2013 14:51 layabout wrote:
lol

has it really gotten worse?

On December 17 2013 14:51 layabout wrote:
lol

has it really gotten worse?

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

On December 17 2013 20:32 Holyflare wrote:


and this is why wotc needs reasoning =/

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.)

On December 17 2013 21:13 marvellosity wrote:
Eh, was gonna write a lot but meh :p. Generally agree with things that DarthPunk, purpletrator, thrawn wrote.

WoS mentioned Onegu, I have no problem with Onegu other than he clearly shouldn't be signing up for more than one game at once.

At the end of the day mafia is adversarial, and it's based on calling other people liars. Irl this is one of the worst accusations you can level at a person, it's no surprise things can get heated, and if you're sucking all the emotion out of mafia then that's a terrible thing. Mafia are trying to lie, deceive and twist town, town are thinking everyone is a bullshitter or liar. The very premise of the game is not nicey-nice.

I hosted LXIII because I felt the previous couple normals had been plagued by some weird hosting decisions or unfortunate host absences (nothing against meapak, shit happens). Regarding behaviour, I was happy with the behaviour in my game. I think I warned once (twice? not sure i bothered the 2nd time) when I thought it might get out of hand and that was that. I'm pretty sure some people might have found some of the things said in my game offensive, but for me a certain level of emotion, and sometimes outbursts, are simply always going to occur. I think the whole playerbase pretty much was happy with the moderation in this game.

Hosts need to be on top of their game and just be very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Warn when it's starting to cross a line, and follow through on your standard (whether your standard is lenient or strict). People need to know what they're signing up for. Anyone who signs up for a game I host should know that I'm reasonably lenient but I *will* warn when I need to and I *will* modkill if the behaviour continues. Simple.

GMarshal should not have been hosting BttB if he couldn't keep up with the game and moderate it.

Personally I hate inactivity/trolling way more than I dislike any heat-of-the-moment outbursts. Like BC said, play to win. Above all, play to win. Too many townies don't actually try. Try goddamnit, every lynch matters, your slot matters, what you post matters, giving a shit matters.

Turns out I wrote more than I thought I was going to...

On December 17 2013 09:55 LSB wrote:
I am really saddened by the fact that this is becoming a problem

I believe TL is a place built on heavy moderation, and as users of the site we should agree with this policy. This whole "this forum is a special place for flame" doesn't make sense to me. People need to begin to understand their behavior in a mafia game should have consequences for outside of the game. At the same time, I think we should reward good sportsmanship. Possibly invite only games, having hosts put tags behind players on the signup sheet for "friendly play" ect.

Although disruptive a ban may be, flame is even more disruptive to a game.


I find it problematical when people consider insults as necessary to further their win condition, or bait to attempt to further their win condition. A lot of us play mafia because we want to have fun, and I want to make a fun environment.

Idk. I really kinda feel like he is playing bad purposely and he's town. Like I wanna modkill him for playing against his win condition but I might be overreacting. Like this post got my blood boiling.

Original Message From Crossfire99:


Ok. Let's put it this way. I just got to that part and it pissed me off cause it seemed like the rest of your play was not trying at all and using a newbie persona as an excuse for that.

I'm sorry if I misread that. All I expect from my players is that they try their best. If you really try to play the game I am fine. Consider this water under the bridge then if you really are trying to play seriously.

Just don't insult people while playing.

On October 30 2013 10:16 OOHCHILD wrote:
Oh WoS I actually think you are town now. Still glad I nuked you. Also I took away your twitter powers tomorrow as an extra f u.