[Important] New TL Mafia Behavior Rules - Page 5

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

On May 28 2014 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:


This way, people with objectively worse rules have to host games the way I do! :D

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.

On May 28 2014 08:04 justanothertownie wrote:

That's what I thought.
Seriously guys...

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'

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.

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.