EPTOn June 01 2014 08:04 VayneAuthority wrote:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rt9FVOB.jpg)
I see your frog and toad
[Important] New TL Mafia Behavior Rules - Page 22
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
I see your frog and toad | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
What about invite-only games, with players known to not shit things up, and slowly including more players into said "invite-list" as they are shown to play in a civil manner (or whatever), until eventually you get games where almost everybody can join and will be played in a way that everybody enjoys it (or at least it's bearable to read). Shadow game comes to mind as an example | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I second the notion to openly discriminate players; and to foster the very 'secret' administration this thread alluded to (by some). | ||
|
Erandorr
2283 Posts
On June 02 2014 03:01 Mocsta wrote: What a great idea Gonzaw!! I second the notion to openly discriminate players; and to foster the very 'secret' administration this thread alluded to (by some). Oh man this thread is getting better and better. First GFeldmarschall confirmed nazi now out of game masonry | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
On June 02 2014 03:01 Mocsta wrote: What a great idea Gonzaw!! I second the notion to openly discriminate players; and to foster the very 'secret' administration this thread alluded to (by some). yeah, oligarchy ftw. glad to have your support. | ||
|
goodkarma
United States1067 Posts
On June 02 2014 04:17 Zorkmid wrote: Just go to Mafiascum. Fun factor is like 7.5x. Care to elaborate, or is this just bitterness over your permaban? | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 01 2014 11:54 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Are you ....................? (got a rando friend request and have been playing dota lately)I have actually always hated the term. also, SUP AUSTIN? Play Dota with us! Or is this to greymistaustin and not meaustin? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On June 02 2014 11:16 austinmcc wrote: Also, you know, let's all be friendly and stuff, or at the very least TRY being friendly and stuff if you haven't in a long time and see if your play actually gets super terrible and people politely tell you that, or if you maybe still feel like you play alright and don't need to be unfriendly to anyone. It is like marv said This takes too much common sense | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
| ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
On June 02 2014 23:38 strongandbig wrote: Actually, does anyone have a different mafia site to recommend if I want a less spammy / more analytical playstyle? You can't have both. I've played on a few different sites. TL is the most spammy and the most analytical one I know of. | ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
On June 02 2014 23:38 strongandbig wrote: Actually, does anyone have a different mafia site to recommend if I want a less spammy / more analytical playstyle? snb, i think you are looking for mafia scum. games are 2 weeks so naturally things move slower. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
| ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
nights are silent 48 hours. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I received a PM from the old man Foolishness on this and I saw it today, figured I'd been invited to drop my 2 cents. Three things that I just wanna touch upon, all of which I think are equally important. They kind of tie into each other a bit as well. 1. I think aside from hard and fast rules about the obvious (no racism/hate speech/completely baseless flaming etc.) the rules on behaviour should mostly be created and enforced on a per-game basis by the host and participating players. I've never known a host to ignore a complaint from a player about in-game behaviour, and I've never really known players to willfully ignore host-specific game-rules when they are clearly and plainly stated. In my own experience as a host (of maybe a half dozen games or so? Maybe a few more/less) and in my own limited memory, I recall that I had to issue a warning for behaviour only once-I did so by request of a player who PMed me a concern, and I thought it was valid. 2. To tie in with the above, I believe that hosts should take as much of a hands-off approach to moderation as possible. This is just my personal belief and obviously to each their own, but I'll justify myself so that others can perhaps understand my perspective, as I anticipate this opinion might be controversial. Aside from violations of official rules stated in the OP of a game and responses to valid player concerns, hosts should not, IMO, be moderating. This is because host intervention (in)directly influences the game itself. If players do not seem to have a problem with how the game is playing out, it is not in the host's prerogative to moderate. 3. Lastly, and again this ties in with the above, all parties involved are inherently biased. Ideally behavioural issues could be dealt with by third parties, but this requires too much of a time investment and it's easier and often fairer to relegate discussion on banworthy offenses to postgame. For this reason I think modkills and replacements should occur if and only if the stated rules of the game have been violated or if there is a serious issue that occurred that certain players have raised concerns about. In the latter case I would also question why the game doesn't have rules that cover such a serious incident (I personally have never seen such a case on TLMafia; almost any such serious occurrence is covered under the rules already). This requires the rules to be clearly and loudly stated pregame, especially those particular to the game at hand. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the host, I have seen many hosts give warnings or threats of replacement to townies who rage/act out, whereas for mafia it is often considered a strategy and the same warnings are either not given out or are only given after much more serious or prolonged outbursts. I myself have experienced this; it's pretty easy for me to tell during the course of a game that as scum I will get praised for doing something, where if I were to do it as town I'd risk getting host warnings. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the players, plenty of players will request host action for things they personally don't like on a very inconsistent basis, e.g. modkills or replacements for certain inactive players while overlooking others, or crying for modkills for certain types of "antifaction" (usually "antitown") behaviour. Obviously this is less of a problem as the action comes down to the host, but if we are going to start banning the types of play that certain groups don't like, then this could potentially be a consequence. So, I think the issue primarily lies with players needing to be more vocal about what they dislike, and not necessarily hosts bringing down the hammer, so to speak. I actually think hosts should do the opposite and back off, rather letting their playerbase decide what's best for their games. Host the games that players want, host the way that players want, and leave the game and the players to play themselves out. Host intervention should be rare and should only occur when absolutely necessary, and I think that this idea would be the opposite of that. Again, to reiterate for one final time, all of the above is a statement of my opinion only. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16317 Posts
On June 05 2014 12:26 wherebugsgo wrote: Hello all, I received a PM from the old man Foolishness on this and I saw it today, figured I'd been invited to drop my 2 cents. Three things that I just wanna touch upon, all of which I think are equally important. They kind of tie into each other a bit as well. 1. I think aside from hard and fast rules about the obvious (no racism/hate speech/completely baseless flaming etc.) the rules on behaviour should mostly be created and enforced on a per-game basis by the host and participating players. I've never known a host to ignore a complaint from a player about in-game behaviour, and I've never really known players to willfully ignore host-specific game-rules when they are clearly and plainly stated. In my own experience as a host (of maybe a half dozen games or so? Maybe a few more/less) and in my own limited memory, I recall that I had to issue a warning for behaviour only once-I did so by request of a player who PMed me a concern, and I thought it was valid. 2. To tie in with the above, I believe that hosts should take as much of a hands-off approach to moderation as possible. This is just my personal belief and obviously to each their own, but I'll justify myself so that others can perhaps understand my perspective, as I anticipate this opinion might be controversial. Aside from violations of official rules stated in the OP of a game and responses to valid player concerns, hosts should not, IMO, be moderating. This is because host intervention (in)directly influences the game itself. If players do not seem to have a problem with how the game is playing out, it is not in the host's prerogative to moderate. 3. Lastly, and again this ties in with the above, all parties involved are inherently biased. Ideally behavioural issues could be dealt with by third parties, but this requires too much of a time investment and it's easier and often fairer to relegate discussion on banworthy offenses to postgame. For this reason I think modkills and replacements should occur if and only if the stated rules of the game have been violated or if there is a serious issue that occurred that certain players have raised concerns about. In the latter case I would also question why the game doesn't have rules that cover such a serious incident (I personally have never seen such a case on TLMafia; almost any such serious occurrence is covered under the rules already). This requires the rules to be clearly and loudly stated pregame, especially those particular to the game at hand. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the host, I have seen many hosts give warnings or threats of replacement to townies who rage/act out, whereas for mafia it is often considered a strategy and the same warnings are either not given out or are only given after much more serious or prolonged outbursts. I myself have experienced this; it's pretty easy for me to tell during the course of a game that as scum I will get praised for doing something, where if I were to do it as town I'd risk getting host warnings. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the players, plenty of players will request host action for things they personally don't like on a very inconsistent basis, e.g. modkills or replacements for certain inactive players while overlooking others, or crying for modkills for certain types of "antifaction" (usually "antitown") behaviour. Obviously this is less of a problem as the action comes down to the host, but if we are going to start banning the types of play that certain groups don't like, then this could potentially be a consequence. So, I think the issue primarily lies with players needing to be more vocal about what they dislike, and not necessarily hosts bringing down the hammer, so to speak. I actually think hosts should do the opposite and back off, rather letting their playerbase decide what's best for their games. Host the games that players want, host the way that players want, and leave the game and the players to play themselves out. Host intervention should be rare and should only occur when absolutely necessary, and I think that this idea would be the opposite of that. Again, to reiterate for one final time, all of the above is a statement of my opinion only. Townpile. | ||
| ||
