|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
I think I mediated everything related to my hosting, if not great, well enough that there have been no premeditated attempts on my life this week
|
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
|
On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
BlazingHand has incurred an unofficial Warning of Justice for this post
|
On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On June 13 2014 02:07 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally. I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
|
On June 13 2014 02:24 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 02:07 iVLosK! wrote:On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally. I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that. Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
A dedicated morale officer?
of all the dumb nonsense i've read in this thread
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On June 13 2014 02:31 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 02:24 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 02:07 iVLosK! wrote:On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally. I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that. Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though. You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response.
It's entirely your call as a person, but here's my philosophy: if the host tells me to listen to someone, even if I think the concept of a morale officer is monumentally hilariously stupid, I either listen or I /out. I wouldn't /in and ignore the instructions of the host. I either follow the rules and instructions of the host or I leave. There is no reasonable third option. I wouldn't even /in in the first place to such a game. When you /in you agree to follow the rules, even the ones you think are bad.
|
On June 13 2014 02:31 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 02:24 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 02:07 iVLosK! wrote:On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally. I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that. Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though. You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
whose*
|
On June 13 2014 02:31 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 02:24 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 02:07 iVLosK! wrote:On June 13 2014 01:42 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 01:17 iVLosK! wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote:
amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that. Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash. Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally. I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that. Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though. You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
The bolded is completely true. I would dare to say even the hosts can't always tell "what's acceptable and what's not" because they are not players in the game. It is all situational and if you are not playing a game yourself you can't possibly read the thread putting yourself into "player's mindset". That's a fact.
|
|
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:19 Alakaslam wrote:
So
What happened here?
The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons
|
On June 13 2014 06:25 Blazinghand wrote:The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons
lol. I tried reading the ongoing game. Have you (or anyone) read it and compared it to what's been said here.
My response: 
|
On June 13 2014 06:39 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 06:25 Blazinghand wrote:On June 13 2014 06:19 Alakaslam wrote:
So
What happened here? The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons lol. I tried reading the ongoing game. Have you (or anyone) read it and compared it to what's been said here. My response:
Am I part of the problem?
|
zEVErYONE IS WAY OUT OF LINE!
ALAKA vlosk is proper enligh and ifyou disagree you are unamerican.
alakaslam you are the worst you add nohting goodbye.
|
Why there aren't all that many people arguing for these changes in this thread
1) Many people who feel particularly strongly about it have already left the forum in disgust, by definition
2) They don't want to face up to your harassment and abuse, and I don't blame them
On hosts enforcing their rules unilaterally
Doesn't work. If a host cannot enforce out-of-game consequences for breaking their particular rules then any troll or toxic little turd can just come into their game, break a rule which doesn't break the subforum-wide ruleset, and get away scot-free for ruining the game. If you don't think this subforum has trolls and toxic players who'll do just that you're plain wrong.
Why Mafia bans are necessary to the forum
See above: this community has plenty of people who would ruin games time and time again if there were not measures to prevent them from doing so. Starting with the players from OMGUS - they have their own forum to retreat to after they amuse themselves trolling TL. Anybody who gets banned and doesn't give enough of a damn to sit out a game or two doesn't care enough about the game to be worth playing with.
As far as I'm concerned, Rayn getting banned for multiple games and leaving the site, and people who want to play with Rayn leaving with him, is clear evidence that the system works.
...And why these changes are futile
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
EDIT: The following is directed at the players above. I'm not saying everyone on TL Mafia is toxic.
You might try to hide behind "Well Mafia's just a game, harden up"; but that's bollocks. Look at the personal attacks and ad hominems you've seen fit to use in this thread, out of game, against people who disagree with you.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=7#121
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=9#163
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=13#255
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=15#289
...and basically everything about the "junta" theories besides.
Besides that, your attempts to derail the thread with irrelevancies and by spamming +1s at one another (JAT, I'm looking at you here) are also disgusting.
You are, quite simply, unpleasant people to share a community with. I'm not talking about you as Mafia players. I'm talking about you as people, or at least as overall internet personas.
I imagine that's why GM and Foolishness aren't being forthcoming about the list of hosts in favour of these changes; they have no wish to subject nice people to your abuse. And if hosts enforce these rules individually, then like vultures you will swoop on them individually and peck them to death. A combined effort like this is the only way to "beat" your clique, if it can be done at all. Which I doubt.
But Aqua your opinion is irrelevant because you're not an active community member anymore
You can take my opinion or leave it; I don't intend to ever again share a community with many of you, so whether you pay any attention to me or not doesn't really affect me. Your community dying is your problem.
In the end, DP and Marv are kind of right - they are arguing for the community and the ruleset they want to play in, same as I am. I don't think their ideal community is pleasant or sustainable; in fact I think it will almost certainly perish for lack of new players who are willing to put up with their clique. And the last question: does that kind of community belong on teamliquid.net?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2014 14:42 Aquanim wrote:Why there aren't all that many people arguing for these changes in this thread1) Many people who feel particularly strongly about it have already left the forum in disgust, by definition 2) They don't want to face up to your harassment and abuse, and I don't blame them On hosts enforcing their rules unilaterallyDoesn't work. If a host cannot enforce out-of-game consequences for breaking their particular rules then any troll or toxic little turd can just come into their game, break a rule which doesn't break the subforum-wide ruleset, and get away scot-free for ruining the game. If you don't think this subforum has trolls and toxic players who'll do just that you're plain wrong. Why Mafia bans are necessary to the forumSee above: this community has plenty of people who would ruin games time and time again if there were not measures to prevent them from doing so. Starting with the players from OMGUS - they have their own forum to retreat to after they amuse themselves trolling TL. Anybody who gets banned and doesn't give enough of a damn to sit out a game or two doesn't care enough about the game to be worth playing with. As far as I'm concerned, Rayn getting banned for multiple games and leaving the site, and people who want to play with Rayn leaving with him, is clear evidence that the system works. ...And why these changes are futileThe problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.). EDIT: The following is directed at the players above. I'm not saying everyone on TL Mafia is toxic. You might try to hide behind "Well Mafia's just a game, harden up"; but that's bollocks. Look at the personal attacks and ad hominems you've seen fit to use in this thread, out of game, against people who disagree with you. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=7#121http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=9#163http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=13#255http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=15#289...and basically everything about the "junta" theories besides. Besides that, your attempts to derail the thread with irrelevancies and by spamming +1s at one another (JAT, I'm looking at you here) are also disgusting. You are, quite simply, unpleasant people to share a community with. I'm not talking about you as Mafia players. I'm talking about you as people, or at least as overall internet personas. I imagine that's why GM and Foolishness aren't being forthcoming about the list of hosts in favour of these changes; they have no wish to subject nice people to your abuse. And if hosts enforce these rules individually, then like vultures you will swoop on them individually and peck them to death. A combined effort like this is the only way to "beat" your clique, if it can be done at all. Which I doubt. But Aqua your opinion is irrelevant because you're not an active community member anymoreYou can take my opinion or leave it; I don't intend to ever again share a community with many of you, so whether you pay any attention to me or not doesn't really affect me. Your community dying is your problem. In the end, DP and Marv are kind of right - they are arguing for the community and the ruleset they want to play in, same as I am. I don't think their ideal community is pleasant or sustainable; in fact I think it will almost certainly perish for lack of new players who are willing to put up with their clique. And the last question: does that kind of community belong on teamliquid.net?
Well put, Aqua. I agree with pretty much all of this, with the exception of these changes being completely futile. I mean, if you start screening out the most toxic you will make a more welcoming community. Sure, it won't change immediately, but it will over time. This may not be the only measure needed, but I believe it's a giant step in the right direction.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
the irony is, Aqua, is that your whole post is highly unpleasant. So much holier-than-though stuff that is really quite yucky tbh.
Personally I find that far more unpleasant than Bill Murray calling me a dickhead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
