|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On June 14 2014 04:04 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 03:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 03:12 layabout wrote:On June 14 2014 00:11 iamperfection wrote:On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote:
There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start. That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here. i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot i hadn't realized the rules were going through THEY ARE BULLSHIT attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"? The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people" This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke
edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot"
someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
|
On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
|
On June 14 2014 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 04:04 justanothertownie wrote:On June 14 2014 03:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 03:12 layabout wrote:On June 14 2014 00:11 iamperfection wrote:On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote:
There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start. That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here. i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot i hadn't realized the rules were going through THEY ARE BULLSHIT attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"? The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people" This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then. To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot" someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? 
Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^
|
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. As always, caps for emphasis and not anger.
Nah, the job isn't just take offense and rail at people for it. He's a kind and smiley morale officer.
There are non-rare situations in which people seem to get super frustrated with each other, games kinda get less good/fun/legible, tempers flare, and that seems to be SOME of what the OP is trying to address. Clean up negative behavior.
Guess it depends on where you're starting from. If you think that's a GOOD idea, and also a lot of people seem to be against more stringent etiquette rules, then ONE way to address behavior and not have hosts banning people is to add another layer. YES, it's just another layer, but if you're pro-change and see a lot of anti-change-from-hosts-end stuff, this is kind of a legitimate option in the middle. I'm fine with things being host actionable and a much more strict warning --> ban for language, insults, nearly WHATEVER that isn't puppy dogs and rainbows, but I don't think that's quite the majority opinion.
In my mind, it's not another hammer-wielder, it's a ... outlet? People get pissed at each other in thread, and at points are essentially told by hosts "no more being pissed in thread," yet they still want to be. This leads to modkills, or to crappy pages of posts, or to hosts feeling like they should modkill folks but don't want to, or to "unfair" enforcement, or whatever. Having someone outside the game that you can actually PM, or that can PM you, but isn't dealing with the modkills during the game's run, POSSIBLY provides a way to release anger/tension that people seem to feel, without having to post at the thing you're angry about. It's not just a panopticon looking into games, it's also for communication OUT.
On June 13 2014 02:32 marvellosity wrote:
A dedicated morale officer?
of all the dumb nonsense i've read in this thread I thoroughly enjoy that you disagree with outside-of-game-stuff too.
|
AND OF COURSE, that whole stupid thing is basically saying that if some people want stricter hosting/behavior rules and some people think that's a terrible idea, then maybe the discussion should turn to "what else might work/provide a middle ground" rather than I LIKE THIS SIDE AND DON'T LIKE THAT SIDE, which is not 100% of what this thread is, but a decent part is just "nope, still don't like the other side of this disagreement."
|
austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt"[/i]. I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks.
|
I am not trying to say you can't improve, I suppose what i am saying is that I think it's tricky to do, hard to measure and really easy to plateau. the main example i can think of for somebody improving was VE i cant think of too many more
My original point was more that i think a lot of people approach the game with a competitive mindset (this very site is about competitive Brood War) and that i think it's a major contributing factor to the behavior and problems that the proposed changes are trying to fix. For instance i really want to win i am more likely to annoyed by something silly and to a greater degree than i would if i was playing to win but trying to have fun.
BH i know it wasn't a straight "no" it was just easier to type and the more tangents i go off on adding more information to ensure everything i say is completely correct the less likely my posts are to read well or make sense.
|
On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote:
austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks. [/i]I think there have been a number of recent situations where yeah, someone can decide what's right/wrong or just provide a friendly "hey, you might......not want to do what you're doing, what's up?"
Recent examples are always more fresh to me.
You posting drunk in whatever mafia. I'm not in your head, but you seemed frustrated with the game in general, not just certain people, and there were a couple pages where the game devolved into "rayn posts drunk the everyone else says 'hey, go to sleep, this isn't going to end well.'" Maybe someone outside-the-game gives you a rant-outlet, or maybe someone outside the game has a little more pull when saying "you really should stop" because they're not IN the game you're frustrated with.
ANY time people are just flinging shit at each other. steve/geript/BH in ... Whatever Mafia 2. I am bad with names today. Any time where someone thinks they're just getting attacked and decides to more or less give up on the game (whether personal attacks or "I'm getting lynched? Fuck this I'm afk!"). Especially in the latter case, it's not a warning/ban/anything, it's a much more friendly "yo, what's up, what are you specifically frustrated with and you can PM me." When someone INSIDE the game is telling you to stop, or fighting with you, or whatever, they can have alignment-specific motives. Maybe mafia want you to keep flinging shit, maybe you THINK the dude talking to you is mafia so you're not going to listen, etc. Someone outside the game but not hosting gives a voice that you can maybe trust but also isn't running around handing out warnings/bans, and isn't as worried about influencing a game.
The flip side is that for people who don't want hosts influencing games, this is essentially just another person influencing the game, which would be a negative. I assume the problem isn't the HOST meddling, but the MEDDLING.
I'm bad at calling specific examples of just people fighting for pages on end to mind. But in my head, rough estimate, 1/3 of the games I play in often have some kind of argument that builds and controls the thread for a while and might/should/would-under-a-more-strict-system result in warnings/modkills/bans.
In the same way that more heavy-handed hosting and moderation would influence some strategies, like mafia wanting a thread to be a shitflinging festival, or people trying to use FUCK YOU GUYS I'M OUTTA HERE as a way to change minds. I assume that's a downside to some folks, a steep one.
|
On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote:
austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks. [/i]
Not that I think a "morale officer" or anything is a great idea, but the point isn't "Does everyone hate that style of posting and think it makes the game unfun?" but more "Does everyone *LIKE* that style of posting and find it enjoyable?"
I'm trying to figure out how to say this.....but to focus more on trying to get everyone to have a positive experience rather than just neglecting the negative experiences because its not a negative experience for everyone.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On June 14 2014 04:37 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 04:04 justanothertownie wrote:On June 14 2014 03:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 03:12 layabout wrote:On June 14 2014 00:11 iamperfection wrote:On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote:
There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start. That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here. i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot i hadn't realized the rules were going through THEY ARE BULLSHIT attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"? The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people" This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then. To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot" someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^
I am unambiguously in favor of these changes. Just because I admit that the people who are against these changes have some good points doesn't mean that I'm not in favor. People can disagree on things and be reasonable.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On June 14 2014 04:09 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
|
On June 14 2014 05:49 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 04:09 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude. I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against the changes. You claimed there is a majority for the changes.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On June 14 2014 05:51 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 05:49 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 04:09 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude. I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed. I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes.
Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed!
|
On June 14 2014 05:52 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 05:51 justanothertownie wrote:On June 14 2014 05:49 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 04:09 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude. I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed. I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes. Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed!
I am so sorry...
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On June 14 2014 05:53 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 05:52 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 05:51 justanothertownie wrote:On June 14 2014 05:49 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 04:09 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 06:53 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:On May 28 2014 05:41 marvellosity wrote:
yes, telling us the majority of people agree when judging by this thread the majority of people clearly do not agree is a bit... well... iffy. I count 5-6 people in this thread arguing for that point. I can name at least 10 people (from firsthand experience) in the other boat. The green people essentially agree with the OP marv - doesn't agree, hosts already have power, mafia is adversarial jat - doesn't agree, hosts already have power DP - doesn't agree yamato - "stricter enforcement of standards" Koshi - hosts should warn for BM in thread Kurumi - agrees with GM post iamp - doesn't agree Palmar - doesn't agree sandroba - doesn't agree kitaman - change isn't drastic BH - I guess agrees wordily Odin - agrees Holy - doesn't agree - host can deal coag - doesn't agree OO - agrees with sandroba (i.e. disagrees) thrawn - doesn't agree prplhz - doesn't see the point Keirathi - doesn't agree, hosts already have power Not a great hitrate tbh This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude. I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed. I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes. Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed! I am so sorry...
It's okay, man, we all make mistakes. Admitting them and apologising for them is part of becoming a better person. I graciously accept your apology. We can all strive to become better.
|
On June 14 2014 05:22 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote:
austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks. I think there have been a number of recent situations where yeah, someone can decide what's right/wrong or just provide a friendly "hey, you might......not want to do what you're doing, what's up?" Recent examples are always more fresh to me. You posting drunk in whatever mafia. I'm not in your head, but you seemed frustrated with the game in general, not just certain people, and there were a couple pages where the game devolved into "rayn posts drunk the everyone else says 'hey, go to sleep, this isn't going to end well.'" Maybe someone outside-the-game gives you a rant-outlet, or maybe someone outside the game has a little more pull when saying "you really should stop" because they're not IN the game you're frustrated with. ANY time people are just flinging shit at each other. steve/geript/BH in ... Whatever Mafia 2. I am bad with names today. Any time where someone thinks they're just getting attacked and decides to more or less give up on the game (whether personal attacks or "I'm getting lynched? Fuck this I'm afk!"). Especially in the latter case, it's not a warning/ban/anything, it's a much more friendly "yo, what's up, what are you specifically frustrated with and you can PM me." When someone INSIDE the game is telling you to stop, or fighting with you, or whatever, they can have alignment-specific motives. Maybe mafia want you to keep flinging shit, maybe you THINK the dude talking to you is mafia so you're not going to listen, etc. Someone outside the game but not hosting gives a voice that you can maybe trust but also isn't running around handing out warnings/bans, and isn't as worried about influencing a game. The flip side is that for people who don't want hosts influencing games, this is essentially just another person influencing the game, which would be a negative. I assume the problem isn't the HOST meddling, but the MEDDLING. I'm bad at calling specific examples of just people fighting for pages on end to mind. But in my head, rough estimate, 1/3 of the games I play in often have some kind of argument that builds and controls the thread for a while and might/should/would-under-a-more-strict-system result in warnings/modkills/bans. In the same way that more heavy-handed hosting and moderation would influence some strategies, like mafia wanting a thread to be a shitflinging festival, or people trying to use FUCK YOU GUYS I'M OUTTA HERE as a way to change minds. I assume that's a downside to some folks, a steep one. [/i]
The problem is, as i have said in multiple occasions:
You can always give examples where people "behave bad". True. As i have said if a majority of people feel like other people are rude, assholes, or whatever towards them, they should speak here.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong, except some people being "blabla" (nothing that's directly addressed) towards some other people (noone has ever given examples, except for Aquanim). So what? What are we arguing about. "TLMAFIA BEHAVIOUR IS SHIT AND IT'S LETTING US DOWN" but "noone" knows what's up?!?!?!? what the fuck?
Please, people. If you have examples, bring them up. Aquanim (besides me) was the only one who did so. Speak you motherfuckers. Let's talk about what's wrong and not just paint pictures on the wall. Certainly something is wrong and something needs to change but honestly i have no fucking clue about what people who are driving this want to change.
so please, examples. use me if you want to, idgaf. i can tell my pov.
|
On June 14 2014 05:46 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 04:37 raynpelikoneet wrote:On June 14 2014 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 04:04 justanothertownie wrote:On June 14 2014 03:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 03:12 layabout wrote:On June 14 2014 00:11 iamperfection wrote:On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote:
There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start. That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here. i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot i hadn't realized the rules were going through THEY ARE BULLSHIT attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"? The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people" This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then. To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot" someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^ I am unambiguously in favor of these changes. Just because I admit that the people who are against these changes have some good points doesn't mean that I'm not in favor. People can disagree on things and be reasonable.
Well this is reasonable. Do you have an idea to actually fix this "shit" or are you one of the people who just say "be nice kthxbye" like other opposers?
|
all the people who want something.
grow a pair and say what's fucked up.
if the person is someone who was an asshole i doubt they will get mad because of it, after all they are okay of being called an asshole.
so, examples plz. ppl. especially the ppl who are in this. I don't know what we are are talking about so tell me.
|
i think unilaterally deciding to proceed when there are over a dozen people against this at least is dismissive of those players opinions.
it also shows that asking for input in this thread was farcical when thread majority are blatantly ignored in pursuit of a few peoples agenda.
ignoring the wishes of that many vocal dissenter's will only divide and alienate.
with so much opposition, maintaining the status quo and monitoring things is the best option by far.
|
People who are "toxic":
Give me examples of this please. Use me, i can explain every single one of my actions and for the ones i haven't recieved a ban i can discuss them. Go ahead please, don't just use null politic words, tell us what's unacceptable so i (and others) can adapt or make other decisions.
Spam:
The arguments are shit. Using me or (especially) marv as an example is shit. I don not spam. Marv does definitely not spam, ever. People have different playstyles. We enfoce one that includes one-on-one convos when people are present. If you call that spam you are delusional. Period. gtfo or give arguments with examples (i think spam examples should include like 50 or so posts that are "spam" in a game for one player -> find one example in my games, or marv's,. i challenge you).
ALL CAPS SHIT:
THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS. ROFLSKATES!!!
so, go and give me something i can understand please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
