|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On June 14 2014 06:51 DarthPunk wrote:
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.
imo maintaining the status quo and monitoring things is not a good solution at all. For the past 6 months we've done that. It's entirely reasonable to disagree about this being a good idea, but I think you'll need to offer a better alternative than "let's do more nothing and see if that changes things" if you want to be considered. You may not consider this fair, but this is how it is. I may not have liked the idea of a "morale officer" but the idea of "give more informal input about behavior and enjoyment" sounds good to me. austinmcc at least gave an alternative.
In any case, what's your solution?
|
I just want people to state what their problem is.
I mean, i just told what my problem with Aquanim is, what he did was he addressed 1/10 of the post (what he felt confindent in commenting on - textbook mafia). Fucking asshole. Tell me where i have done wrong, publicly, not just dance around the issue.
Be a man you pussy.
yes i hate pussies like that, say what you have to say ffs.
|
BH i think i just asked for your solution. What's yours?
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On June 14 2014 07:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:
BH i think i just asked for your solution. What's yours?
Sorry, I must have missed it. Here's what I think would be good. This is the current model OP on behavior (link):
If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff.
The only thing we change is that we require that this passage be used by everyone (as it basically is), and change it so it's like this:
If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, and it's in violation of the teamliquid.net commandments, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff.
As you can see, the added line doesn't even necessarily make things stricter. We ALREADY require that people not post things the TL mods would have a problem with elsewhere. The big changes here are 1. everyone will definitely have this in their op, as opposed to everyone just happening to have this in their op and 2. we directly reference the ten commandments (though tbh they were kinda referenced before when you say you can't do things tl mods wouldn't like elsewhere).
These changes would be minimal but would also make clear our goals as a community.
|
So you want TLMafia behaviour rules to be like they are anywhere else on the forum? Or hosts to decide what's appropriate / not? Or GMarshal?
EDIT: I reread and what you are suggesting is basically (given the current situation) hosts to take a stricter stance on things. Right? Can you give me examples on what "was accepted before" and now "would not be". You can just look at my games, i think you find all the answers there. 
|
Has there ever been anyone who has personally argued against a behavioural ban? In last year?
Like, i am really interested because i realize there is a problem, i just don't know how to fix it and i certainly do not think that the ways suggested here are even near acceptable, i personally find them ridiculous. I am willing to contribute to find an answer but iunno if this is the way to go with this issue.
|
At least i am listening to In Flames so good Friday for all of you guys. <3
|
On June 14 2014 06:55 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 06:51 DarthPunk wrote:
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. imo maintaining the status quo and monitoring things is not a good solution at all. For the past 6 months we've done that. It's entirely reasonable to disagree about this being a good idea, but I think you'll need to offer a better alternative than "let's do more nothing and see if that changes things" if you want to be considered. You may not consider this fair, but this is how it is. I may not have liked the idea of a "morale officer" but the idea of "give more informal input about behavior and enjoyment" sounds good to me. austinmcc at least gave an alternative. In any case, what's your solution?
i don't think there is a problem, and no evidence has been presented that conclusively shows one.
take a couple of months, find examples of the 'problem' in that time and present some clear evidence that we need to consider changes like this.
at that point create an open decision making process that equally weighs BOTH sides of the argument.
The rules as presented in the OP are ridiculous as laid out presently.
Spamming is a legitimate strategy, All caps is fine IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE A POINT. 'abuse' is often subjective and has a legitimate place in high level mafia.
Blazinghand, you have NOT been given a mandate to enact change, neither has foolishness. By his own admission GM will represent the wishes of the player base and is not interested in forcing rules changes that are unwanted.
So i'm not sure why you think you can just 'decide' what is happening when there has been a large and vocal majority in the discussion thread vehemently against these changes.
|
I liek you DP as you know. <3
|
On June 14 2014 07:27 DarthPunk wrote:
...
The rules as presented in the OP are ridiculous as laid out presently.
...
Although i don't find any problem with this. If someone hosts a game with this set of rules people can by themselves decide if they join the game or not. In the long run yes, i could see disadvantages.. but i think this is fine.
EDIT: Oh fuck you can't actually cgo to the orignal post by link on TL. gimme se i find the link to the post., here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451351-important-new-tl-mafia-behavior-rules?page=27#528
EDIT 2: lol it was 1 post above. i suck. filters come with a price.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
My ban on Kush in GSL IV was contested by Kush, though his "defense" was in fact worse than saying nothing:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/427933-tl-mafia-ban-list-20?page=34#670
On February 23 2014 04:25 Blazinghand wrote:
For GSL Mini Mafia IV:
Standard Behavior Ban for Vivax420 (Hydra of Vivax and Kush). After being warned to not use homophobic language, they continued to do so. Their language would not have been acceptable on any TL forum, and their modkill lost the game for their team. If one of them was responsible for both incidents, just ban that one.
FWIW though I'd say that "contested bans" isn't the thing to look for, it's "behavior that should be modkilled for or banned for but wasn't"
like this page of posts almost entirely by alakaslam just talking 1-liners to himself http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/440546-golden-sun-the-lost-age-mafia-djinn-edition?page=199#3962
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On June 14 2014 07:27 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 06:55 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 06:51 DarthPunk wrote:
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. imo maintaining the status quo and monitoring things is not a good solution at all. For the past 6 months we've done that. It's entirely reasonable to disagree about this being a good idea, but I think you'll need to offer a better alternative than "let's do more nothing and see if that changes things" if you want to be considered. You may not consider this fair, but this is how it is. I may not have liked the idea of a "morale officer" but the idea of "give more informal input about behavior and enjoyment" sounds good to me. austinmcc at least gave an alternative. In any case, what's your solution? i don't think there is a problem, and no evidence has been presented that conclusively shows one. take a couple of months, find examples of the 'problem' in that time and present some clear evidence that we need to consider changes like this. at that point create an open decision making process that equally weighs BOTH sides of the argument. The rules as presented in the OP are ridiculous as laid out presently. Spamming is a legitimate strategy, All caps is fine IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE A POINT. 'abuse' is often subjective and has a legitimate place in high level mafia. Blazinghand, you have NOT been given a mandate to enact change, neither has foolishness. By his own admission GM will represent the wishes of the player base and is not interested in forcing rules changes that are unwanted. So i'm not sure why you think you can just 'decide' what is happening when there has been a large and vocal majority in the discussion thread vehemently against these changes.
What do you think of my solution presented above? Quoted here:
On June 14 2014 07:11 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 07:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:
BH i think i just asked for your solution. What's yours? Sorry, I must have missed it. Here's what I think would be good. This is the current model OP on behavior (link): Show nested quote +If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff. The only thing we change is that we require that this passage be used by everyone (as it basically is), and change it so it's like this: Show nested quote +If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, and it's in violation of the teamliquid.net commandments, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff. As you can see, the added line doesn't even necessarily make things stricter. We ALREADY require that people not post things the TL mods would have a problem with elsewhere. The big changes here are 1. everyone will definitely have this in their op, as opposed to everyone just happening to have this in their op and 2. we directly reference the ten commandments (though tbh they were kinda referenced before when you say you can't do things tl mods wouldn't like elsewhere). These changes would be minimal but would also make clear our goals as a community.
|
BH i did not like the wording you used on the post (kush ban) you quoted. I don't know / remember if the ban was ok for me or not.
I don't think there is anything wrong with what Slam posted. People have (even himself ) done way worse.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On June 14 2014 07:37 raynpelikoneet wrote:
BH i did not like the wording you used on the post you quoted. I don't know / remember if the ban was ok for me or not.
Fair enough, but the point isn't whether or not my ban was just; it was whether there was a contested ban, and there you go. That being said, I don't think contested bans are an indication of an unhealthy community. I think people contesting bans is fine as long as it doesn't turn into a shitfest. I think the real issue is examples of unbanned behaviour that could/should be punished.
|
Okay sorry. I'll look into kush's response and get back to you (as that's my point). ^^
gimme a sec
|
On June 14 2014 07:36 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 07:27 DarthPunk wrote:On June 14 2014 06:55 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 06:51 DarthPunk wrote:
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. imo maintaining the status quo and monitoring things is not a good solution at all. For the past 6 months we've done that. It's entirely reasonable to disagree about this being a good idea, but I think you'll need to offer a better alternative than "let's do more nothing and see if that changes things" if you want to be considered. You may not consider this fair, but this is how it is. I may not have liked the idea of a "morale officer" but the idea of "give more informal input about behavior and enjoyment" sounds good to me. austinmcc at least gave an alternative. In any case, what's your solution? i don't think there is a problem, and no evidence has been presented that conclusively shows one. take a couple of months, find examples of the 'problem' in that time and present some clear evidence that we need to consider changes like this. at that point create an open decision making process that equally weighs BOTH sides of the argument. The rules as presented in the OP are ridiculous as laid out presently. Spamming is a legitimate strategy, All caps is fine IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE A POINT. 'abuse' is often subjective and has a legitimate place in high level mafia. Blazinghand, you have NOT been given a mandate to enact change, neither has foolishness. By his own admission GM will represent the wishes of the player base and is not interested in forcing rules changes that are unwanted. So i'm not sure why you think you can just 'decide' what is happening when there has been a large and vocal majority in the discussion thread vehemently against these changes. What do you think of my solution presented above? Quoted here: Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 07:11 Blazinghand wrote:On June 14 2014 07:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:
BH i think i just asked for your solution. What's yours? Sorry, I must have missed it. Here's what I think would be good. This is the current model OP on behavior (link): If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff. The only thing we change is that we require that this passage be used by everyone (as it basically is), and change it so it's like this: If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, and it's in violation of the teamliquid.net commandments, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM the host, a co-host, or GMarshal before involving the other TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can discuss the situation with other members of the TL staff. As you can see, the added line doesn't even necessarily make things stricter. We ALREADY require that people not post things the TL mods would have a problem with elsewhere. The big changes here are 1. everyone will definitely have this in their op, as opposed to everyone just happening to have this in their op and 2. we directly reference the ten commandments (though tbh they were kinda referenced before when you say you can't do things tl mods wouldn't like elsewhere). These changes would be minimal but would also make clear our goals as a community.
I don't agree. If I am hosting a game I want to decide the rules I use, I want to decide to use the banlist or not.
Sure, give people the option to use whatever the fuck they want in their OP. People will either join that game or not.
that is the way it currently works and it is fine,
I want you to provide some evidence from current games of a 'problem' before any 'changes' are considered though.
When/if that evidence is presented, at that point an open decision making process should occur, The way that people have gone about this thus far has been farcical.
|
On June 14 2014 07:35 Blazinghand wrote:My ban on Kush in GSL IV was contested by Kush, though his "defense" was in fact worse than saying nothing: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/427933-tl-mafia-ban-list-20?page=34#670Show nested quote +On February 23 2014 04:25 Blazinghand wrote:
For GSL Mini Mafia IV:
Standard Behavior Ban for Vivax420 (Hydra of Vivax and Kush). After being warned to not use homophobic language, they continued to do so. Their language would not have been acceptable on any TL forum, and their modkill lost the game for their team. If one of them was responsible for both incidents, just ban that one.
FWIW though I'd say that "contested bans" isn't the thing to look for, it's "behavior that should be modkilled for or banned for but wasn't" like this page of posts almost entirely by alakaslam just talking 1-liners to himself http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/440546-golden-sun-the-lost-age-mafia-djinn-edition?page=199#3962
That is when you vig shot or policy lynch, That is not something that should be moderated.
|
EDIT: as in response to BH
Yeah it was the "gayfk" case. I think it was kinda silly but if you had warned them before i think they deserved a ban (as you told them "not to anymore") and there was nothing to complain about. I still don't think the way you presented it in this thread does any justice to kush/Vivax and their actions/ban.
Please talk about things with their names and don't make people look like total dicks when they are not. I'd appreciate that and that's what I AM trying to enforce here even if people don't give a fuck about it.
|
Tool - Schism
get rekt yall!
|
On June 14 2014 06:55 raynpelikoneet wrote:
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.
Okay so, BH is the only one who have actually contributed to this. This is what the OP wants so can we discuss this instead of some other dumb shit?
Examples. If people are dumb they deserve to hear about it. There is no harm in telling what someone has done wrong, they can only learn from it, so let's go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
