[Important] New TL Mafia Behavior Rules - Page 5
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change | ||
justanothertownie
16236 Posts
| ||
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:07 DarthPunk wrote: 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. So are you suggesting then that we should have let rayns behaviour slide because he's a good player? | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10818 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:12 WaveofShadow wrote: So are you suggesting then that we should have let rayns behaviour slide because he's a good player? No. A two week break to cool off would have been fine. He played several games off site with no issue. Further he was a very active part of the community. Now he is playing off site and people are not playing here to join him. At the moment he will have to sit out 3 games which is ridiculous, will probably take months and the community has lost a good active engaged player. If that is the goal of rules and bans then that makes no fucking sense to me. These rules will directly effect me and the way I play. I post a lot, post in all caps, call people retarded etc. etc. I will no doubt get banned and move on to 2+2 or some other site. Is that a good thing for mafia here? Because that is the argument that is being presented. That people who play the game the way that I do are bad for the community. I think that is ludicrous. | ||
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Anyways, my point is I that I do think there is a problem there. Here's a quote from you: On February 04 2014 20:08 DarthPunk wrote: Maybe because you were insulting me the entire time and being a dick about something from a previous game. Like I am a dick in games sure. But I don't bring personal shit from outside the actual game into it. You did and the game is not fun for me right now for that reason. Nor do I particularly want to interact with you right now for obvious reasons. So If someone else wants to talk to me about rayn that is fine. But I'm not going to talk to you about anything. Basically what I'm saying is that anytime someone gets frustrated from repeated attacks to the point where the game isn't fun anymore, then that is WAY too far. It should have been moderated before it got that far. But I think that's up to the hosts, not some glorious rule change for the sake of rule change. Those kinds of confrontations have been against the "rules" forever. They just need to be enforced better. | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10818 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:28 Keirathi wrote: I *do* think the way you play is a problem. Not that I'm picking on you or anything. Rayn, marv, and I'm sure there are plenty of others I could name (and even myself on occasion, although I've tried to tone it back a lot when I realized I was getting a bit out of control). Anyways, my point is I that I do think there is a problem there. Here's a quote from you: Basically what I'm saying is that anytime someone gets frustrated from repeated attacks to the point where the game isn't fun anymore, then that is WAY too far. It should have been moderated before it got that far. But I think that's up to the hosts, not some glorious rule change for the sake of rule change. Those kinds of confrontations have been against the "rules" forever. They just need to be enforced better. That quote is from a game in which I was scum and used that as an excuse to not engage with marv all game. So that is a terrible example. | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35817 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10818 Posts
This is not a game in which everyone holds hands and makes sure no one gets their feelings hurt. this is a game about lying, manipulation, breaking down your opponents. It's not nice. Don't try and turn it into it something it is not. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
Use common sense and treat others like you would want to be treated. This doesn't mean you can't argue or even flame someone. However, flames are largely discouraged and we expect people to have a good reason to resort to harsh language. Gratuitous swearing, insults, or trolling will get you banned. If you must flame, be smart or creative about it, and make sure the flame was deserved. In general, you'll never go wrong by being nice, polite, and mature. There is a general etiquette that is followed on the forums that you can only learn through reading and posting, but here are a few important examples: Jokes at the expense of someone's race, gender, or sexual orientation are not acceptable DO NOT POST IN ALL CAPS. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE SCREAMING Do not spam There are two versions of behavior rules I use, one for newbie games and one for non-newbie games. Here's the one I use for non-newbie games: Spam: Try not to spam. If I think you're spamming I'll tell you to stop. Not stopping is strictly prohibited. If more than 10 posts on a page are yours, you're definitely spamming. Inappropriate posts: 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 a host, Flamewheel, or Mig before involving the TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can appeal to the TL staff normally. As a general guideline: Stuff like "this argument is dumb because XYZ" is fine. Stuff like "you are doing ABC, which is dumb" or "you're dumb because you do ABC, and ABC is dumb" is fine. Stuff like "you're dumb. lolooloooo" is not fine. Insults and abrasive play happen, but it must all be oriented towards trying to win the game. Don't be that guy. The main thing is: don't insult for the purpose of insulting only. I'm very verbal about people getting out of line, so if you cross the line I will let you know. I am not afraid to ruin a game of mafia for 10 people and 4 hosts just to modkill someone. ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ PUT YOUR FAITH IN THE LIGHT ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ I don't view the new rule changes as THAT different from what I use. I understand that some people might use looser, chiller behavior guidelines than I do, but those people just aren't as good as me kek kek seriously though I know I won't have to change too much to be in compliance with these rules. If you actually read them, the language is pretty similar to what we already use. The all caps thing is whatever, but when it comes down to it, I anticipate we won't really be banning more people than before. The goal for these rules isn't to ban players like me (yes, I'm the kind of guy who plays on the border of what's acceptable), but to create a chilling effect. Sure, we'll ban people if we have to, but I'm pretty sure people will just step a bit more carefully and things won't change. It's also worth noting that we do preserve some of the important parts of TL Mafia's autonomy here. You're still allowed to flame (it explicitly says so in the new rules!) and you're still allowed to be aggressive. That's part of the game. That's part of the rules. Also, moderation is still handled here, in this forum, by the hosts and the banlist. That's the line in the sand, imo. That's the schelling fence we need to erect. That being said, I get why this is an issue for people, even for people who are not at all in violation of any existing or proposed rules. Here's an example of what I'm thinking about. Slate Star Codex wrote: Let's talk about the US missile defense shield. Right now it can only shoot down a few missiles some of the time. But maybe one day it will be able to shoot down many missiles all of the time. The balance of power between the United States and Russia depends on mutually assured destruction. For either country to gain the ability to shoot down many missiles all of the time would upset this balance. Therefore, Russia opposes the US missile defense shield. The United States tries to reassure Russia. "We're just building this shield to protect ourselves from Iran and North Korea", they say. This is super reasonable. The United States really does face a serious threat from Iran and North Korea. Building a missile defense shield is a great idea for reasons that have nothing to do with Russia. If Russia starts threatening to attack the United States if they don't stop building their shield, Russia looks like an aggressive jerk meddling in matters that don't concern it. But say the United States finishes its defense shield, and then happens to disagree with Russia over some minor issue like the Syria conflict. "I think you better do what we say," says America. "We could crush you like a bug." And Russia says "But you told us your shield had nothing to do with us!". And the US answers "And we were telling the truth. We didn't intend it against you. But here we are, disagreeing with you and having a spare superweapon. It wasn't our original intent. But now, we own you." Now let's talk about anti-Semitism. Suppose you were a Jew in old-timey Eastern Europe. The big news story is about a Jewish man who killed a Christian child. As far as you can tell the story is true. It's just disappointing that everyone who tells it is describing it as "A Jew killed a Christian kid today". You don't want to make a big deal over this, because no one is saying anything objectionable like "And so all Jews are evil". Besides you'd hate to inject identity politics into this obvious tragedy. It just sort of makes you uncomfortable. The next day you hear that the local priest is giving a sermon on how the Jews killed Christ. This statement seems historically plausible, and it's part of the Christian religion, and no one is implying it says anything about the Jews today. You'd hate to be the guy who barges in and tries to tell the Christians what Biblical facts they can and can't include in their sermons just because they offend you. It would make you an annoying busybody. So again you just get uncomfortable. The next day you hear people complain about the greedy Jewish bankers who are ruining the world economy. And really a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish, and bankers really do seem to be the source of a lot of economic problems. It seems kind of pedantic to interrupt every conversation with "But also some bankers are Christian, or Muslim, and even though a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish that doesn't mean the Jewish bankers are disproportionately active in ruining the world economy compared to their numbers." So again you stay uncomfortable. Then the next day you hear people complain about Israeli atrocities in Palestine, which is of course terribly anachronistic if you're in old-timey Eastern Europe but let's roll with it. You understand that the Israelis really do commit some terrible acts. On the other hand, when people start talking about "Jewish atrocities" and "the need to protect Gentiles from Jewish rapacity" and "laws to stop all this horrible stuff the Jews are doing", you just feel worried, even though you personally are not doing any horrible stuff and maybe they even have good reasons for phrasing it that way. Then the next day you get in a business dispute with your neighbor. If it's typical of the sort of thing that happened in this era, you loaned him some money and he doesn't feel like paying you back. He tells you you'd better just give up, admit he is in the right, and apologize to him - because if the conflict escalated everyone would take his side because he is a Christian and you are a Jew. And everyone knows that Jews victimize Christians and are basically child-murdering Christ-killing economy-ruining atrocity-committing scum. He has a point - not about the scum, but about that everyone would take his side. Like the Russians in the missile defense example above, you have allowed your opponents to build a superweapon. Only this time it is a conceptual superweapon rather than a physical one. The superweapon is the memeplex in which Jews are always in the wrong. It's a set of pattern-matching templates, cliches, and applause lights. The Eastern European Christians did not necessarily have evil intent in creating their superweapon, any more than the Americans had evil intent in their missile shield. No particular action of theirs was objectionable - they were genuinely worried about that one murder, they were genuinely worried about Israeli atrocities. But like the Americans, once they have that superweapon they can use it on anyone and so even if you are a good person you are screwed. This rule of "never let anyone build a conceptual superweapon that might get used against you" seems to be the impetus behind a lot of social justice movements. For example, it's eye-rollingly annoying whenever the Council on American - Islamic Relations condemns a news report on the latest terrorist atrocity for making too big a deal that the terrorists were Islamic (what? this bombing just killed however many people, and all you can think of to get upset about is that the newspaper mentioned the guy screamed 'Allahu akbar' first?), but I interpret their actions as trying to prevent the construction of a conceptual superweapon against Islam (or possibly to dismantle one that already exists). Like the Jew whose best option would have been to attack potentially anti-Jewish statements even when they were reasonable in context, CAIR can't just trust that no one will use the anti-Muslim sentiment against non-threatening Muslims. As long as there are stupid little trivial disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims over anything at all, that giant anti-Muslim superweapon sitting in the corner is just too tempting to refuse. So I suspect that many people are reasonably concerned about the possibilty of a shifting line that gradually pushes out even unobjectionable behavior. I don't think that's going to happen, and I think that as long as moderation is handled by the hosts and with the banlist, rather than through the general moderation ticket queue, we're fine. We're not heading down a slippery slope and these individual changes are reasonable. And if we don't like rayn's ban, we can talk about that in a banlist thread or something too. Rayn was banned on the old system, so implementing or not implementing this is unrelated. Maybe he deserves clemency, but this isn't where we should discuss that. | ||
justanothertownie
16236 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:02 justanothertownie wrote: BH, this changes nothing for your games. Why do we need to introduce the new rules then? This way, people with objectively worse rules have to host games the way I do! :D | ||
DarthPunk
Australia10818 Posts
I don't buy it for a second. | ||
justanothertownie
16236 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:03 Blazinghand wrote: This way, people with objectively worse rules have to host games the way I do! :D That's what I thought. Seriously guys... | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:03 DarthPunk wrote: if it isn't that different from what we already have why change anything? If it is still going to be handled by mods of games and the banlist then what is the point? I don't buy it for a second. I also bring it up to let people know they've already been working under this ruleset without knowing it, which can be helpful to alleviate concerns. But not everyone has as well-written behavior rules as I do. An "official" change in the baseline behavior requirements also sets a point just like an "official" first day of a diet causes you to do better at losing weight even if having one bite of cake on that one day doesn't make a big difference (so why not have another bite?) On May 28 2014 08:04 justanothertownie wrote: That's what I thought. Seriously guys... But, tons of people play in my games with no compaint, and also, my rules are like literally better than not-my-rules. I'm just sayin' | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35817 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:06 marvellosity wrote: lol BH. More people have complained about your hosting than any other host I know. Just sayin' That may be true-- but that's not cause of the rules, they're usually complaining about my actual hosting. So, for what it's worth, it's just that I have... an awful personality? So... I'm right... because I'm an awful host. Hah. | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom35817 Posts
no-one has managed a single coherent argument why whatever people want achieved cannot be achieved by hosts simply applying existing rules and guidelines more strictly/more whatever. nothing more, nothing less. | ||
VayneAuthority
United States8983 Posts
| ||
DarthPunk
Australia10818 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:11 marvellosity wrote: the net of the entire thread is: no-one has managed a single coherent argument why whatever people want achieved cannot be achieved by hosts simply applying existing rules and guidelines more strictly/more whatever. nothing more, nothing less. You forgot the part about me being mad at everyone. | ||
Alakaslam
United States16933 Posts
On May 27 2014 23:04 KadaverBB wrote: I find it quite amusing that you guys are against being a little nicer. THOU HAST COME!!! I am fine with behaving any way you like, and moderating to the same. I am as water, I can talk about the+ Show Spoiler + SHITASS bitch of I swear blue fire upon your FUKKIN POOZY and turn a total blind eye when someone says UOU WORTHLESS PESE OF SHIT YOY ARE A WAST LF FLES GO DIE IN A HOLE YOU MOTERFUKR BORN OF A HELLSPAN BITHC A La angry drunk people I can also be a very strict advocate of a clean-language policy in this forum, and a certain code of ettiquite befitting a dinner party among financially successful individuals- including spelling requirements and corrections, and the abscence of trolling. Of course if we go with the latter I will have to ask Scotty to beam me up or Spock down I would need Spock Frankly I think we tend toward + Show Spoiler + SHITASS bitch Because Spock is victory, and whatever McCoy may say about "you can't do that" is just hot smoke. Spock always right 1966-2014 Hey and seriously- I CAN stop trolling. | ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:11 marvellosity wrote: the net of the entire thread is: no-one has managed a single coherent argument why whatever people want achieved cannot be achieved by hosts simply applying existing rules and guidelines more strictly/more whatever. nothing more, nothing less. Well, I have a coherent argument, I want everyone to use my own standards for behavior rules. I think if you look at the rules suggested in the OP you'll find nothing actually objectionable about them, just about things that you think are there but aren't. We're not saying "no flaming" or anything like that, just to not be awful people. Now, maybe in theory this is not different than what we have, but if we have a grand opening in 2 weeks where we are now and then things will be good/different | ||
| ||