|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 29 2014 04:26 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:21 justanothertownie wrote:On May 29 2014 04:18 geript wrote:On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote:
There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable? This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice. Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it. That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED. We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/438536-tl-mafia-behaviorthe solution we came up with was: Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote:
So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^ We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it. And yet, here we are.
that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules.
You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language
People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill.
People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them.
What's going wrong (if something is going wrong) is certain hosts who are unable to maintain whatever standards that you feel should be reached. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason?
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On May 29 2014 04:29 Barbiero wrote:
I haven't played in ages and I approve of this message.
Context: this is zephirdd
|
On May 29 2014 04:33 prplhz wrote:
I didn't read Back to Basics so I don't know what happened, but what do people think is not being punished harshly enough? Can someone post me a single ad hominem from a recent game that wasn't punished but that should have been punished? I only remember raynpelikoneet getting drunk and embarassing himself and he's banned now (and I believe most people supported that ban, including himself).
One of the many reasons I don't understand this is because I don't remember a single incident of someone saying something he or she should have been punished for that he or she was not punished for. I really have no idea what's going to change now but claiming that nothing is going to change is ridiculous.
This exactly this.
If hosts didn't punish hard enough since the last time we had this discussion then it is on them and not on the rules. And I sincerely doubt that they didn't. It seems to me that certain people somehow WANT this to be a problem when there actually really isn't one.
|
On May 29 2014 04:44 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:18 geript wrote:On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote:
There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable? This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice. Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it. As usual, you fail to understand what I'm saying. I was making a mockery of the argument you just made in your post, because it is terrible. It is a complicated issue and many people are refusing at all to listen to other people's opinions.
Except that other than Steveling, who IMO is a separate case entirely, most of said "quitters" and newbies haven't spoken up. Thus the point of my argument.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Back to the basics got a bit out of control imo.
And GMarsh was too absent to take charge of it, and his cohosts didn't. It was a little icky
|
On May 29 2014 04:52 marvellosity wrote:
Back to the basics got a bit out of control imo.
And GMarsh was too absent to take charge of it, and his cohosts didn't. It was a little icky
The point was that we had this discussion after BttB, no? And what bad things happened since then?
|
On May 29 2014 04:39 yamato77 wrote:
There should be TL bans for done of the behavior I've seen on this forum. Adversarial game or not, to many people take this way beyond a game.
Having some of the games more strictly moderated does no good if they are the minority. I haven't seen one in a long time, largely because the active player base refused to play in them. Instead, they played in other games without stringent rules. Now, none of those games are hosted anymore. Obviously you people don't want reform, but other players do and you guys refuse to listen at all.
Well, maybe my memory is horrible but I just don't remember that beyond what raynpelikoneet just did, but he was punished for it. Can you direct me at a game or anything? Does anybody remember anything beyond "It's definitely happened"?
Well, actually I remember LSB making a horrible post at getmoript in that game we just played. Really poor style but geript was a champ about it.
On April 03 2014 12:51 LSB wrote:
[...]
Do you shit up tl forums because you find it fun to be a troll? Or are you just a disgusting human being? Please leave
Is this the kind of thing you're going to ban for now? Can anyone from the Junta answer this?
Why will it do no good if strictly moderated games are in the minority? Make a Junta game, send out PM invites (Koshi style, worked awesome for Golden Sun, 32 players in like 1-2 days), play and enjoy. Why is that no good? Does the community have to be that homogenous? Maybe we can even have a special queue category for them (or a queue category for leniently modded games)?
Anyway, I was never actually against this change, it might work and at worst I don't think it will have a big impact anyway. I was just against the way it's being implemented (globally enforced by Junta).
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 29 2014 04:55 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:52 marvellosity wrote:
Back to the basics got a bit out of control imo.
And GMarsh was too absent to take charge of it, and his cohosts didn't. It was a little icky The point was that we had this discussion after BttB, no? And what bad things happened since then?
Well I managed to cut my finger while lifting weights a few weeks ago. There was a surprising amount of blood, quite nasty. Bad times.
|
On May 29 2014 04:58 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:55 justanothertownie wrote:On May 29 2014 04:52 marvellosity wrote:
Back to the basics got a bit out of control imo.
And GMarsh was too absent to take charge of it, and his cohosts didn't. It was a little icky The point was that we had this discussion after BttB, no? And what bad things happened since then? Well I managed to cut my finger while lifting weights a few weeks ago. There was a surprising amount of blood, quite nasty. Bad times.
Poor thing...
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I know 
|
On May 29 2014 04:44 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:26 Blazinghand wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 justanothertownie wrote:On May 29 2014 04:18 geript wrote:On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote:
There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable? This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice. Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it. That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED. We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/438536-tl-mafia-behaviorthe solution we came up with was: On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote:
So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^ We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it. And yet, here we are. that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules. You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill. People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them. What's going wrong is certain hosts who are unable to maintain standards. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason?
This is a good point. I haven't had problems for the most part in my games because I tend to be a proactive host. Hell, I've pre-warned players just to help ensure that shit doesn't get close to overboard. This is one of the things I mean by "more consistency in enforcing moderation." Some people are Good Guy Gregs; some are Scumbag Steves; some are Asshole Andys. For the hosts that tend to be more lax, it would help if we paired them with a Greg or an Andy. Kinda like how we don't let DP host alone (he accidentally fucks up) and often needs help with the meticulous details. Hosts like Wave or Shaiopi IMO could use a strong personality to focus on moderating their games because those two are less willing to be a jerk in order to maintain etiquette in their games.
Edit: to clarify, not trying to snipe at anyone. Kinda how we tend to let hosting vets pick their own setup etc where as newer hosts require pre-approval of set ups.
|
I want to know if marvellosity can also bench 240.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 29 2014 05:00 prplhz wrote:
I want to know if marvellosity can also bench 240.
I'll tell you what - I most certainly can(not)
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 29 2014 05:00 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 04:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 29 2014 04:26 Blazinghand wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 justanothertownie wrote:On May 29 2014 04:18 geript wrote:On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote:
There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable? This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice. Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it. That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED. We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/438536-tl-mafia-behaviorthe solution we came up with was: On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote:
So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^ We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it. And yet, here we are. that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules. You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill. People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them. What's going wrong is certain hosts who are unable to maintain standards. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason? This is a good point. I haven't had problems for the most part in my games because I tend to be a proactive host. Hell, I've pre-warned players just to help ensure that shit doesn't get close to overboard. This is one of the things I mean by "more consistency in enforcing moderation." Some people are Good Guy Gregs; some are Scumbag Steves; some are Asshole Andys. For the hosts that tend to be more lax, it would help if we paired them with a Greg or an Andy. Kinda like how we don't let DP host alone (he accidentally fucks up) and often needs help with the meticulous details. Hosts like Wave or Shaiopi IMO could use a strong personality to focus on moderating their games because those two are less willing to be a jerk in order to maintain etiquette in their games.
oh yeah, I remember, you told me to play nice :p
|
|
|
On May 29 2014 04:33 prplhz wrote:
I didn't read Back to Basics so I don't know what happened, but what do people think is not being punished harshly enough? Can someone post me a single ad hominem from a recent game that wasn't punished but that should have been punished? I only remember raynpelikoneet getting drunk and embarassing himself and he's banned now (and I believe most people supported that ban, including himself).
I don't see how this has anything to do with this because in my opinion i got an appropriate punishment and there is nothing wrong with that. The discussion topic is pretty much the opposite.
And yes i could post at least some examples (even though i haven't followed a single game except for one) after my ban.
|
On topic;
If there is a game where the other team's purpose is to tear down the other one with lies and bullshit, people who can't stand getting called bad or let that go away after the game should not play mafia. In competitive "scene" that's a fact. I agree that ad hom's should not happen but it's hard to draw a line between what's "wrong" and what's "right" because pf the nature of the game.
If the power to decide is given to hosts that's okay, but as a player i would expect them to clearly outline what's within the rules and what's not before the game, so i (and other players) can decide if the game in question is a child's game or adult's game and either play or not. Also all people should be treated equally within the rules.
If the above stands then there is no problem for me.
|
|
|
Also someone brought up the spamming, all caps posting and gifs and stuff, that's something that is impossible to control and why should it be controlled? Post restrictions (limiting posts) are one way and it makes people think what they say but it also limits some people's capabilities of playing regarding their playstyle. Imo mafia nowadays is not what it used to be ~5yr ago, big cases and defences and stuff. Newer people tend to play with more interactive playstyle, they use more time to play the game, and want to have "direct conversations" to push their agenda. Who is to say that's wrong if that accumulates into 10 page, 20 page, or 50 page filter?
If someone makes the thread unreadable, lynch them. Mafia agenda - also perfecly valid mafia strategy if not lynched. Ask Blazinghand.
srsly TL is not even close to the worst places of spamming or "spamming" in what i have seen on other forums. We should be glad if/as/when we only have ~1000 posts on D1. Go play on some other forum (where people actually play mafia) and you get x2 of that post count, at least...
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I for one fully support the change in the OP.
Maybe I am part of the "sensitive" people but I know that I did not sign up for a long while because I just did not enjoy being in games with bad atmosphere flying around. Also while this is strictly subjective feeling from my point of view the tone did get rougher and worse from back when I played my newbies.
I think most of the protesters here are overestimating the impact this rulechange will have on the games. I mean after all it will just make it more acceptable for hosts to deal out strict punishment and measures to keep games civil. Having it announced like this gives hosts simply said a better position to argue from when/if protest against a measure of his arises.
Also I think some players would just dodge games where heavy moderation is mentioned before the start as they think it subtracts from the mafia experience. This makes it more difficult for hosts to fill up their games, especially for newer ones, which are not yet established as "good" hosts (I count myself very much part of the newer host-group).
If all games will be held by the same standard dodging hosts which are more strict will not be viable.
After all most of the things will remain the same anyway, it just gives host more room to maneuver.
On another slightly unrelated note, do I have to understand why steveling brought those PMs up again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
