|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
This is not a discussion about spam, that should be saved for a separate topic.
On May 27 2014 22:13 DarthPunk wrote:
I don't agree with what GMarsh is saying and I don't like the fact that this is brought up every few months when I don't believe a problem actually exists.
That right there is proof that a problem exists. When the topic keeps coming up over and over again (and not necessarily by the same people) then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. And it's a fact that every time it was brought up the end result was that nothing got changed, and then it keeps coming back up again. This is the first time that GM and I have taken a lead with trying to get opinions on the matter and actually proposing changes instead of just something that is discussed in a thread.
Also, this isn't really a discussion about whether or not you think there is a problem. That's essentially already been decided as the majority of people I ask have already said yes. It's a discussion about what should be done about it.
Really it comes down to what percentage of players should we cater the rules to. I said this in the PM I sent out and it's important to note that everyone has varying levels of behavioral tolerance. Some people are sensitive and some people aren't when being called names and when using obscenities. Should the rules not cater to those who are more on the sensitive side? If they do then that ensures a greater number of people approve of the rules. This is why behavioral rules are often strict in professional sports and pvp video games (dota2, LoL, etc.). And this is also why expiration dates are often days/weeks sooner than the average. In all of these situations they are accounting for the vast majority of tolerance instead of just the average. Mafia should be no different.
For example, DarthPunk's line, "I don't understand why people keep thinking their is a behavior problem in games." means absolutely nothing to me. Why? Cause I know he's a tougher player in that regard and if someone repeatedly calls him a fucking retard in a game he probably won't be bothered by it. So his opinion of "I don't think there's a problem so this is silly" has no weight or bearing to it (Not saying I don't appreciate your opinion or what you're saying because I do and I'm glad you're voicing it).
On May 27 2014 22:13 DarthPunk wrote:
Bigger issues is to try and make games more fun and strengthen the community through stuff like the community thread and playing other games together.
How would you make games more fun? From what I understand everyone is pretty happy with the setups and types of games that are played (normals/themed/etc.) and the community is already pretty strong as lots of people are playing other games with each other.
Games aren't fun when it's people yelling and screaming and insulting each other. Just because some people can put up with it doesn't mean everyone can. When Palmar makes the argument that yelling and screaming is an inherent part of the game (or any game) I feel for him and it's hard to argue against that (I'm not even sure that I would). But when people aren't having fun it's difficult to take that viewpoint.
And for those of you who are worried about power-trips (lol) this is hardly a big change in implementation. As GM said, everything will still be handled on a case-by-case basis (which is why the banlist thread exists). Just be aware that some people have low tolerances to being yelled at. That's a reality of life and if you don't want to accept it then I certainly don't care if you get banned. There's also a huge difference between saying "you're retarded" and "your arguments are retarded", which is something I'm pretty sure everyone of us could use a reminder of.
Similarly the argument that this is preventing people from playing mafia doesn't hold any weight because I can't think of a single example where enforcing tighter behavioral control led to a downgrade in activity (in any sort of game or medium. If you have examples then please show me). And frankly, if you can't afford to be a little nicer to people in games I'm sure you're having a negative impact on the community (in one way or another). And in that case I have no problem with never seeing you again regardless if I like you or not. And I'm also sure that without you I could find two more people to take your spot who actually have fun when they play because there aren't people like you around. (I'm speaking generally when I say 'you', not pointing to anyone specific of course).
On May 28 2014 01:51 sandroba wrote:
Jat's argument is undeniable, hosts can already implement whatever restrictions they want in their own game, so there is no need to change the overall rules. People can just choose with their feet which games from which hosts they want to play in. Marv's point about the game is pretty important and pehaps not taken into consideration. This forum is not about sharing information and chatting with people. There is a competitive and emotional game, which involves lying and deception being played here. Some amount emotianal outburst ought to be expected and dealt with within the game. And then there is palmar's post which I agree a 100% with and couldn't have said it any better.
I feel like there is no need to change, besides the hosts themselves making use of the freedom they were given and running the games the way they feel would be best. Better hosts will have their games fill up and worse hosts will eventually model the better ones to fit into the demand of the comunity.
Then perhaps look at it this way. I talked to a lot of hosts and they are all in favor of supporting a stricter behavior ruleset (even if they don't quite agree it's necessary). So all the hosts will now be more aggressive about keeping people in line and punishing behavior.
Or if you prefer in the words of Kita:
On May 28 2014 00:11 kitaman27 wrote:
From the sound of things, this isn't very drastic of a change. I don't think harsher post-game punishments would solve much, but personal attacks have never been allowed and the only difference now is that hosts would step in a bit sooner with a warning PM before things get out of hand and people would agree to be a bit more pleasant in the thread, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
I also highly doubt anyone would actually need to change their behavior or playstyle because of this. More of an agreement that if the host (or someone else) says your behavior is out of line then you stop, accept the fact that people have varying levels of tolerance and move on.
|
On May 28 2014 05:28 Foolishness wrote:
Then perhaps look at it this way. I talked to a lot of hosts and they are all in favor of supporting a stricter behavior ruleset (even if they don't quite agree it's necessary). So all the hosts will now be more aggressive about keeping people in line and punishing behavior.
Then those hosts should just put it in their OPs and act accordingly. PROBLEM SOLVED.
There is literally no reason to change any basic rules for that. What I am seeing in this thread is mostly people who are rarely playing telling us how this big majority of people always complains about behaviour when I have seen nothing like that at all. What I am seeing is a majority of people disagreeing with this.
If you have a problem with someones behaviour in a game pm the host and if it is reasonable he will act. Also pm the guy after the game and I am sure you can sort that out. We are all adult human beings, right? Or maybe most of us. We don't need stricter rules for that and rules don't make people nicer.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
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'd prefer people to be nice without needing strict behavior rules but there is no way that TLMafia is going to solve that problem. I wish I had a more helpful opinion than that but I don't.
I don't think this thread will ever provide a good representation of what the majority of players want. So I think giving hosts some freedom to make their own behavior rules within reason, and encouraging them to be more explicit about what is and isn't allowed in their game would be better than a site wide set of rules.
|
On May 28 2014 05:42 thrawn2112 wrote:
I'd prefer people to be nice without needing strict behavior rules but there is no way that TLMafia is going to solve that problem. I wish I had a more helpful opinion than that but I don't.
I don't think this thread will ever provide a good representation of what the majority of players want. So I think giving hosts some freedom to make their own behavior rules within reason, and encouraging them to be more explicit about what is and isn't allowed in their game would be better than a site wide set of rules.
Hosts already have all the rights they could ever want regarding that.
|
On May 28 2014 05:28 Foolishness wrote:
[...]
I also highly doubt anyone would actually need to change their behavior or playstyle because of this.
[...]
Can anybody tell me why you are making such a big fuss about this if it's not going to have an impact at all? Or why you're even doing it at all?
|
On May 28 2014 05:42 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:42 thrawn2112 wrote:
I'd prefer people to be nice without needing strict behavior rules but there is no way that TLMafia is going to solve that problem. I wish I had a more helpful opinion than that but I don't.
I don't think this thread will ever provide a good representation of what the majority of players want. So I think giving hosts some freedom to make their own behavior rules within reason, and encouraging them to be more explicit about what is and isn't allowed in their game would be better than a site wide set of rules. Hosts already have all the rights they could ever want regarding that.
then I don't understand this discussion
I don't really care too much because my own preferences won't ever accomodate everyone else's so I'll just have to play along with whatever ends up happening.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 28 2014 05:48 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:42 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 05:42 thrawn2112 wrote:
I'd prefer people to be nice without needing strict behavior rules but there is no way that TLMafia is going to solve that problem. I wish I had a more helpful opinion than that but I don't.
I don't think this thread will ever provide a good representation of what the majority of players want. So I think giving hosts some freedom to make their own behavior rules within reason, and encouraging them to be more explicit about what is and isn't allowed in their game would be better than a site wide set of rules. Hosts already have all the rights they could ever want regarding that. then I don't understand this discussionI don't really care too much because my own preferences won't ever accomodate everyone else's so I'll just have to play along with whatever ends up happening.
precisely.
|
On May 28 2014 05:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:48 thrawn2112 wrote:On May 28 2014 05:42 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 05:42 thrawn2112 wrote:
I'd prefer people to be nice without needing strict behavior rules but there is no way that TLMafia is going to solve that problem. I wish I had a more helpful opinion than that but I don't.
I don't think this thread will ever provide a good representation of what the majority of players want. So I think giving hosts some freedom to make their own behavior rules within reason, and encouraging them to be more explicit about what is and isn't allowed in their game would be better than a site wide set of rules. Hosts already have all the rights they could ever want regarding that. then I don't understand this discussionI don't really care too much because my own preferences won't ever accomodate everyone else's so I'll just have to play along with whatever ends up happening. precisely.
|
I definitely think the atmosphere gets a bit out of hand sometimes. Like, there have been quite a few times where there are arguments between people, and someone says something along the lines of "I'm tired of this. This game isn't even fun anymore". That means there's a problem there to some degree.
But, I don't think completely changing to rules is necessary at all. Hosts just need to be willing to read their games and step in when people are crossing the line. Or hell, step in before they even get to the line.
|
On May 28 2014 05:39 justanothertownie wrote:
Rules don't make people nicer.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On May 28 2014 01:51 sandroba wrote:
I feel like there is no need to change, besides the hosts themselves making use of the freedom they were given and running the games the way they feel would be best. Better hosts will have their games fill up and worse hosts will eventually model the better ones to fit into the demand of the comunity.
Generally I have been pretty relaxed when it comes to thread moderation, as I don't like having to tell grown adults how to behave. That's something your Mom should have taught you, not me.
However, as a result of this freedom, I have received multiple PMs (5+) from players who have expressed that they are not enjoying the game due to the way they are being treated by others. Thus, I've tried to be a more proactive at warning players in game, even if I'm not bothered by it personally.
Something to consider is whether catering to the majority of individuals who may prefer a more lenient set of restrictions is more important than doing the best we can to ensure a smaller group of more sensitive individuals aren't having their experience ruined by behavior.
Even if rules can't make people nicer, if we all agree to at least try our best to never put another player in a position where they feel like crap, then I don't see any issue here.
|
On May 28 2014 06:29 kitaman27 wrote:
Even if rules can't make people nicer, if we all agree to at least try our best to never put another player in a position where they feel like crap, then I don't see any issue here.
That is hard to do if the person who is offended doesn't state it publicly or reaches out to the offender. How is he even ever going to know that he did something wrong?
Edit: Otherwise you are right obviously.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
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.
|
On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You mean there are 5-6 people who aren't disagreeing hardcore. I don't see that many people who really think this is neccessary.
Edit: Wait 5-6 who disagree with the new rules? Dude, like almost everyone in this thread does.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Can I also request that any behavioral restrictions not apply to posts directed at VE?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:36 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
I agree as well, but I am opting out of discourse as I've argued this point enough in the past.
|
The fact that rayn will not play games here for months despite being one of the better players on the site and someone who played a ton of games should tell you what more moderation and more silly rules will get you.
Rayn has been playing on other sites and people from here have been going off site to play with him. Rather than play games without him on TL.
People need to get the hell off this banlist/rules trip and focusing on playing/hosting games of mafia. period. Or people who actually just want to play mafia will leave. period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
