[Important] New TL Mafia Behavior Rules - Page 22

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).

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).

On June 02 2014 04:17 Zorkmid wrote:
Just go to Mafiascum. Fun factor is like 7.5x.

On June 01 2014 11:54 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:

I have actually always hated the term.
also, SUP AUSTIN? Play Dota with us!

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?

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?

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.