|
Remember to post respectfully, but feel free to voice how you actually feel about the change |
I think it goes without saying the word that describes the people who voted no.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On May 28 2014 08:59 Palmar wrote:The main problem is that someone presented an idea that can be argued to a forum of people who get off on arguing. Maybe GM just did that on purpose just to see what would happen.
What's interesting is that it seems like many people agree (I think?) that this wouldn't be a real change to the rules, but at the same time there's tons of contention about this non-rule-change. I love us <3
|
On May 28 2014 08:46 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 08:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 08:21 Blazinghand wrote: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 that's not a coherent argument, that's a self-centred argument that holds no water with anyone but you. The point is, with my stance, I don't even have to *have* a stance on whether flaming/arguing is a problem. Is there a problem? No? Then let hosts do what they like Is there a problem? Yes? Then hosts already have more than ample tools to deal with it. Whichever way you look at it, you think behaviour is fine, behaviour is too aggressive, the hosts already have all the tools necessary at their disposal. All these new "rules" are doing is creating conflict where no conflict is necessary, because, at the risk of repeating myself, hosts already have all the tools at their disposal they need to moderate games. Do you believe games are being moderated effectively right now? If not, then just having the tools doesn't seem to be doing the trick, right?
Yes, generally games are being moderated effectively right now (please provide evidence if you disagree). The tools are already there and stricter rules add nothing to that.
What are you even arguing right now?
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On May 28 2014 09:45 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 08:46 Blazinghand wrote:On May 28 2014 08:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 08:21 Blazinghand wrote: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 that's not a coherent argument, that's a self-centred argument that holds no water with anyone but you. The point is, with my stance, I don't even have to *have* a stance on whether flaming/arguing is a problem. Is there a problem? No? Then let hosts do what they like Is there a problem? Yes? Then hosts already have more than ample tools to deal with it. Whichever way you look at it, you think behaviour is fine, behaviour is too aggressive, the hosts already have all the tools necessary at their disposal. All these new "rules" are doing is creating conflict where no conflict is necessary, because, at the risk of repeating myself, hosts already have all the tools at their disposal they need to moderate games. Do you believe games are being moderated effectively right now? If not, then just having the tools doesn't seem to be doing the trick, right? Yes, generally games are being moderated effectively right now (please provide evidence if you disagree). The tools are already there and stricter rules add nothing to that. What are you even arguing right now?
Well, if you think games are already being moderated effectively, we shouldn't even be arguing whether or not these changes will be useful, the question is whether or not we want changes at all. Does that sound reasonable?
|
So I'm all for people playing nicer in general. I know of some people who stopped because of the personal attacks directed against them, though the games recently haven't seemed to be that bad (but I haven't really kept up with the threads so I could be wrong). Even though I agree with the whole playing nicer in general, I think in essence it is just a lack of enforcement of current rules. Personal attacks are already against the rules, they just need to be enforced better. Spam is a completely different argument altogether which I think can just be addressed by hosts instituting a post restriction if they want it. The all caps stuff is stupid. Like austinmcc wouldn't be as awesome as he is if he couldn't post in all caps to SHOW HIS DEVOTION TO ABBA.
Like BH, I put a section on playing nice which I personally like. It just highlights the existing rules but still gives room for people to play aggressively because one mistake isn't a modkill or anything.
I expect two things from everybody who plays this game:
1. Play in such a way that everybody can have fun.
2. Play to win.
I view the second rule as a part of the first.
This means that you shouldn’t personally attack a player. Attack the argument, not the player. I know that mafia is an emotional game, and I am not going to modkill you for slipping up as long as you apologize for it and stop doing it. Continual, unrepentant, personal attacks are a big no no. Basically, play nice and be considerate of other people and realize that they aren’t you and can take things differently than you as well as be offended by things you wouldn’t be offended by.
Honestly, I think bringing this issue up and just telling hosts to be more aggressive in enforcing the current rules, specifically the personal attacks part, is enough.
|
On May 28 2014 09:02 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 08:59 Palmar wrote:On May 28 2014 08:45 Alakaslam wrote:
Hey
What is even the problem again? The main problem is that someone presented an idea that can be argued to a forum of people who get off on arguing. Maybe GM just did that on purpose just to see what would happen. What's interesting is that it seems like many people agree (I think?) that this wouldn't be a real change to the rules, but at the same time there's tons of contention about this non-rule-change. I love us <3
It may not change much for your games but why would you force everyone to obey those rules if people clearly disagree with them? The fact that this discussion is even needed is so stupid.
|
On May 28 2014 09:46 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 09:45 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 08:46 Blazinghand wrote:On May 28 2014 08:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 08:21 Blazinghand wrote: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 that's not a coherent argument, that's a self-centred argument that holds no water with anyone but you. The point is, with my stance, I don't even have to *have* a stance on whether flaming/arguing is a problem. Is there a problem? No? Then let hosts do what they like Is there a problem? Yes? Then hosts already have more than ample tools to deal with it. Whichever way you look at it, you think behaviour is fine, behaviour is too aggressive, the hosts already have all the tools necessary at their disposal. All these new "rules" are doing is creating conflict where no conflict is necessary, because, at the risk of repeating myself, hosts already have all the tools at their disposal they need to moderate games. Do you believe games are being moderated effectively right now? If not, then just having the tools doesn't seem to be doing the trick, right? Yes, generally games are being moderated effectively right now (please provide evidence if you disagree). The tools are already there and stricter rules add nothing to that. What are you even arguing right now? Well, if you think games are already being moderated effectively, we shouldn't even be arguing whether or not these changes will be useful, the question is whether or not we want changes at all. Does that sound reasonable?
Explain to me: why would we want changes that aren't useful. I am all ears.
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
On May 28 2014 09:46 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 09:45 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 08:46 Blazinghand wrote:On May 28 2014 08:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 08:21 Blazinghand wrote: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 that's not a coherent argument, that's a self-centred argument that holds no water with anyone but you. The point is, with my stance, I don't even have to *have* a stance on whether flaming/arguing is a problem. Is there a problem? No? Then let hosts do what they like Is there a problem? Yes? Then hosts already have more than ample tools to deal with it. Whichever way you look at it, you think behaviour is fine, behaviour is too aggressive, the hosts already have all the tools necessary at their disposal. All these new "rules" are doing is creating conflict where no conflict is necessary, because, at the risk of repeating myself, hosts already have all the tools at their disposal they need to moderate games. Do you believe games are being moderated effectively right now? If not, then just having the tools doesn't seem to be doing the trick, right? Yes, generally games are being moderated effectively right now (please provide evidence if you disagree). The tools are already there and stricter rules add nothing to that. What are you even arguing right now? Well, if you think games are already being moderated effectively, we shouldn't even be arguing whether or not these changes will be useful, the question is whether or not we want changes at all. Does that sound reasonable?
isn't that what we're all arguing....? i think it's pretty overwhelmingly a no to the changes
|
On May 28 2014 09:53 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 09:46 Blazinghand wrote:On May 28 2014 09:45 justanothertownie wrote:On May 28 2014 08:46 Blazinghand wrote:On May 28 2014 08:44 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2014 08:21 Blazinghand wrote: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 that's not a coherent argument, that's a self-centred argument that holds no water with anyone but you. The point is, with my stance, I don't even have to *have* a stance on whether flaming/arguing is a problem. Is there a problem? No? Then let hosts do what they like Is there a problem? Yes? Then hosts already have more than ample tools to deal with it. Whichever way you look at it, you think behaviour is fine, behaviour is too aggressive, the hosts already have all the tools necessary at their disposal. All these new "rules" are doing is creating conflict where no conflict is necessary, because, at the risk of repeating myself, hosts already have all the tools at their disposal they need to moderate games. Do you believe games are being moderated effectively right now? If not, then just having the tools doesn't seem to be doing the trick, right? Yes, generally games are being moderated effectively right now (please provide evidence if you disagree). The tools are already there and stricter rules add nothing to that. What are you even arguing right now? Well, if you think games are already being moderated effectively, we shouldn't even be arguing whether or not these changes will be useful, the question is whether or not we want changes at all. Does that sound reasonable? isn't that what we're all arguing....? i think it's pretty overwhelmingly a no to the changes
Exactly.
|
I will respectfully voice that I consider this completely useless.
|
if you take away the ability to be rude to each other you lose almost every member of this community
TL commandments would ruin mafia
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post
|
On May 28 2014 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post
I am pro change.
|
On May 28 2014 10:34 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post I am pro change.
When was the last time you played a game here again?
|
On May 28 2014 10:16 Dandel Ion wrote:
I will respectfully voice that I consider this completely useless.
I was waiting for you to enter this thread
|
On May 28 2014 10:37 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 10:34 Qatol wrote:On May 28 2014 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post I am pro change. When was the last time you played a game here again?
I'll let you speculate on a big reason for that.
|
On May 28 2014 10:44 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 10:37 DarthPunk wrote:On May 28 2014 10:34 Qatol wrote:On May 28 2014 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post I am pro change. When was the last time you played a game here again? I'll let you speculate on a big reason for that.
Did something happen in PYP: Redux? Cause that was two years ago and back then people were not complaining about behavior issues as far as I remember.
If you can find a specific example of a problem behavior in that game that apparently caused you to stop playing that would be great.
|
On May 28 2014 10:49 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 10:44 Qatol wrote:On May 28 2014 10:37 DarthPunk wrote:On May 28 2014 10:34 Qatol wrote:On May 28 2014 10:23 Blazinghand wrote:
I'd like people who have no opinion on this, or people who are silently in support of this, to feel comfortable just +1ing it and posting in the thread. Typically with this kind of thing you mostly hear from people who don't like it. if you are a pro change person you should post I am pro change. When was the last time you played a game here again? I'll let you speculate on a big reason for that. Did something happen in PYP: Redux? Cause that was two years ago and back then people were not complaining about behavior issues as far as I remember. If you can find a specific example of a problem behavior in that game that apparently caused you to stop playing that would be great.
It had nothing to do with that game. I read parts of a few recent games to get up on the meta (Ver pushed me pretty hard to join You Only Shoot Once) and I didn't like what I saw.
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument here. Blazinghand asked if there are people who are pro change. I'm pro change. That's all I'm trying to say.
|
I would rather people having input actually be an active part of the current community that's all.
It bothers me that someone who hasn't played a game in two years could influence the way the game is played for those who actually play games.
Nothing personal.
|
From what I understand they just want to bring TL Mafia more inline with the general site behavior requirements. You're still allowed to be funny when insulting people and post gifs. They are just trying to make it explicit in terms of obvious personal attacks and behavior that would scare new players away.
I don't post much on other forums on the site but I'm pretty sure you only get banned when you go really overboard on the insults which is what I assume the point of all this discussion is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
