Ok, not really, but I've been looking for an excuse to use this image for ages
Before anyone flips out, this is not a fait accompli, this is a thread to discuss these changes and see how the community feels about them as we go forward with them. Given the agreement of the majority of the hosts, this is probably going to go forward, but feel free to voice your arguments, opinions and general thoughts.
There has been much discussion among hosts, and foolishness, about how to address the declining number of players. Two of the issues that were identified were the massive amount of spam, and the relatively toxic atmosphere in games. The first has very few reasonable solutions, but the second has an easy fix.
As most of you might know, this forum is moderated with a certain amount of leniency, and in order to keep games running smoothly, that will continue to be the case. However its obvious that "leniency" has been interpreted as "complete freedom from the rules" by many, many people. Many players have expressed feelings that the current allowed behavior makes games not fun to play and for some this prevents them from joining games they otherwise would. It also puts a damper on the mood during the games and makes some people demotivated to play.It also means newbies are just not interested in joining to get flamed over and over.
This will also apply to places where there has been some unacceptable but ignored behavior, like in the mafia ban list. For the most part, we are mature, well adjusted adults, we should be able to manage basic interpersonal interaction, without insulting each other, just fine.
We will refer to Section 2 of the Ten Commandments thread as our baseline for allowed behavior. This essentially means:
"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"
What does this mean, for hosts and players exactly?
Players: Don't post something you wouldn't be comfortable with Plexa reading in the ukraine thread. Don't post things you know would be banned elsewhere on tl. In general, attack arguments, not people, and remember that the person on the other side of the screen is a person.
Basically, hold the TL Mafia forum to the same high standards you'd hold the rest of TL. You wouldn't go to your favorite bar and yell at the barkeeper about how he's a "monumental pile of dogshit". Don't do that here.
Hosts, I'll just quote Foolishness
A result of this change is that you, the host, are responsible for enforcing the new etiquette rules in games. Many of you are aware that my philosophy about hosting is that the host should be an active role and enforcer instead of just someone there to passively move the game along. This type of rule change highly demands that as if you, the host, don't enforce the new behavior rules then the players will not change and the games will not change.
This means taking an active role in telling a player that their behavior is out of line. Of course, modkilling in a game should always be a last resort so make sure you reach out to players and let them know they have crossed a line and need to stop. I know that some hosts/players are more lenient when it comes to what is acceptable for in-game behavior and if you are one of them I am asking you to abide by the new changes because clearly the current system is creating problems and scaring players away.
The hosts are the primary instigator for setting the example for the future. And obviously it is up to GMarshal how he wants to dish out the final punishments (in terms of Mafia bans or temp-bans since he has the authority to do so).
This means that as a host or cohost, you aren't just a votecount bot, or a daypost bot. You need to read the thread, and be ready to take preemptive and reactive action. One of the reasons I have stopped hosting is that being an active host is a time commitment. Be aware of this, and what is expected of you. Hosts are one half of what makes TL Mafia work, if you aren't willing to make an effort, then neither will the players.
Finally, a point of discussion and contention among the people asked, there is a possibility of adding TL temp bans as a punishment for violation of commandment #2. Delayed in other not to disrupt the game, but very much the reasonable and appropriate consequence for violating the rules of TL. I'm not sure this is a thing we want to implement, but its certainly a point worth considering.
These rules will likely go into effect within the next two weeks, as the current batch of games ends.
Players: Don't post something you wouldn't be comfortable with Plexa reading in the ukraine thread. Don't post things you know would be banned elsewhere on tl. In general, attack arguments, not people, and remember that the person on the other side of the screen is a person.
Basically, hold the TL Mafia forum to the same high standards you'd hold the rest of TL. You wouldn't go to your favorite bar and yell at the barkeeper about how he's a "monumental pile of dogshit". Don't do that here.
Something missing from your whole post is a nod to the fact that mafia is an adversarial game, largely predicated on lying and calling other people liars and trying to forcibly remove people from the game at hand for being untrustworthy, malicious (in the game sense) assholes who are trying to kill you.
In this sense, the mafia forum is not quite like the other forums. Anywhere else you assume that people are telling the truth. Indeed if they're basically lying/bullshitting for no reason, they'll get banned for it. Lying/bullshitting is the raison d'etre of one of the two main alignments in mafia, and a legit tactic is to rile up a townie to make emotional/bad decisions...
None of this is to say that cleaning up mafia isn't a noble goal blablabla, but the mafia forum *is* unique.
So we can discuss this here I take it? I am against this and I don't even see the reason for it. People always say "players leave because of too much bm, flaming etc." but very rarely you see someone show us a case where this really happened or the bm that caused it. Why do we need stricter general regulations if it would be perfectly possible for hosts who want to be less lenient on this to implement it in their games? They totally had the freedom to do so at any time. Why are we getting restrictions if there is no need to? Tbh I don't see that many cases where behaviour was a problem and the best solution for this is to speak to the concerned people and solve this case by case. Just TALK TO EACH OTHER and refrain from reducing the freedom we enjoy in this subforum. People are making mountains out of molehills...
On May 27 2014 21:55 justanothertownie wrote: So we can discuss this here I take it? I am against this and I don't even see the reason for it. People always say "players leave because of too much bm, flaming etc." but very rarely you see someone show us a case where this really happened or the bm that caused it. Why do we need stricter general regulations if it would be perfectly possible for hosts who want to be less lenient on this to implement it in their games? They totally had the freedom to do so at any time. Why are we getting restrictions if there is no need to? Tbh I don't see that many cases where behaviour was a problem and the best solution for this is to speak to the concerned people and solve this case by case. Just TALK TO EACH OTHER and refrain from reducing the freedom we enjoy in this subforum. People are making mountains out of molehills...
I can think of a few examples, actually, jampidampi being one of them I believe? I had at least a couple people from my game complain about it too.
On May 27 2014 21:55 justanothertownie wrote: So we can discuss this here I take it? I am against this and I don't even see the reason for it. People always say "players leave because of too much bm, flaming etc." but very rarely you see someone show us a case where this really happened or the bm that caused it. Why do we need stricter general regulations if it would be perfectly possible for hosts who want to be less lenient on this to implement it in their games? They totally had the freedom to do so at any time. Why are we getting restrictions if there is no need to? Tbh I don't see that many cases where behaviour was a problem and the best solution for this is to speak to the concerned people and solve this case by case. Just TALK TO EACH OTHER and refrain from reducing the freedom we enjoy in this subforum. People are making mountains out of molehills...
I can think of a few examples, actually, jampidampi being one of them I believe? I had at least a couple people from my game complain about it too.
My point is that it would be perfectly possible to address this issue using the current ruleset. We don't need to invent new rules. Hosts either provide stricter rules for their games AND ALSO ENFORCE THEM. Or we have to accept that some people may just not be suited for playing mafia.
On May 27 2014 21:55 justanothertownie wrote: So we can discuss this here I take it? I am against this and I don't even see the reason for it. People always say "players leave because of too much bm, flaming etc." but very rarely you see someone show us a case where this really happened or the bm that caused it. Why do we need stricter general regulations if it would be perfectly possible for hosts who want to be less lenient on this to implement it in their games? They totally had the freedom to do so at any time. Why are we getting restrictions if there is no need to? Tbh I don't see that many cases where behaviour was a problem and the best solution for this is to speak to the concerned people and solve this case by case. Just TALK TO EACH OTHER and refrain from reducing the freedom we enjoy in this subforum. People are making mountains out of molehills...
I can think of a few examples, actually, jampidampi being one of them I believe? I had at least a couple people from my game complain about it too.
My point is that it would be perfectly possible to address this issue using the current ruleset. We don't need to invent new rules. Hosts either provide stricter rules for their games AND ALSO ENFORCE THEM. Or we have to accept that some people may just not be suited for playing mafia.
Mmm. I hosted what I view as a very successful normal - no hosting mistakes (yay me) but primarily people played pretty fair (and hard), i think i warned once or twice, and people stopped whatever it was they were doing. I'd have had to pull up people many many times under this particular guidance, and frankly I wouldn't do so and I don't deem it necessary, and importantly I wouldn't view it as an improvement to my game
I'm very sure I can keep order in any game I host, and I'm also very sure that nonetheless my line would be quite a bit more lenient than "the same as the rest of TL".
On May 27 2014 21:55 justanothertownie wrote: So we can discuss this here I take it? I am against this and I don't even see the reason for it. People always say "players leave because of too much bm, flaming etc." but very rarely you see someone show us a case where this really happened or the bm that caused it. Why do we need stricter general regulations if it would be perfectly possible for hosts who want to be less lenient on this to implement it in their games? They totally had the freedom to do so at any time. Why are we getting restrictions if there is no need to? Tbh I don't see that many cases where behaviour was a problem and the best solution for this is to speak to the concerned people and solve this case by case. Just TALK TO EACH OTHER and refrain from reducing the freedom we enjoy in this subforum. People are making mountains out of molehills...
I can think of a few examples, actually, jampidampi being one of them I believe? I had at least a couple people from my game complain about it too.
My point is that it would be perfectly possible to address this issue using the current ruleset. We don't need to invent new rules. Hosts either provide stricter rules for their games AND ALSO ENFORCE THEM. Or we have to accept that some people may just not be suited for playing mafia.
Mmm. I hosted what I view as a very successful normal - no hosting mistakes (yay me) but primarily people played pretty fair (and hard), i think i warned once or twice, and people stopped whatever it was they were doing. I'd have had to pull up people many many times under this particular guidance, and frankly I wouldn't do so and I don't deem it necessary, and importantly I wouldn't view it as an improvement to my game
I'm very sure I can keep order in any game I host, and I'm also very sure that nonetheless my line would be quite a bit more lenient than "the same as the rest of TL".
Exactly. If there is too much bm in a game the host has to interfere. If he doesn't do so then he 1) doesn't think it is over the line -> why stricter rules? or 2) he doesn't do it for whatever other reason that has nothing to do with too lenient rules (fault of the host).
I don't understand why people keep thinking their is a behavior problem in games.
Like very occasionally some people rage quit. Other than that, what? What is happening that makes people think there are behavior issues?
Granted I rarely read games that I am not in. But still.
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.
Like the ban list has been quiet recently, Why does this post exist all of a sudden?
Marv is right. Mafia is NOT the same as posting anywhere else in this forum and it shouldn't be treated as such. It is a game in which breaking people down using any means is a fundamental part of playing as both alignments.
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.
Also the more people go on about banning people and PREVENTING people from playing mafia the worse this forum will be for it.
The mafia forum is clearly already in a state of decline. Coming up with new methods and reasons to prevent people from playing mafia is just ludicrous.
And one more thing. Nothing against GMarsh personally or as a mod but I think this subforum needs a moderator who is more active and engaged/relevant to our community.
AFAIK Gmarsh is an intensely busy guy who rarely hosts games and plays even more rarely.
TL Mafia Deserves a mod that is a current, active, engaged part of the community.
I don't think the problem is as bad as it once was, but I also think that stricter enforcement of acceptable post standards and player interaction etiquette is not something I am going to argue against.
As far as spam goes, my suggestion is a D1-only post count restriction. The majority of useless spam happens D1. Force players to be more frugal with their posts and you'll cut down page numbers by a significant margin.
On May 27 2014 22:20 DarthPunk wrote: Also the more people go on about banning people and PREVENTING people from playing mafia the worse this forum will be for it.
The mafia forum is clearly already in a state of decline. Coming up with new methods and reasons to prevent people from playing mafia is just ludicrous.
On May 27 2014 22:33 WaveofShadow wrote: Lol not for this to turn into some sort of impeachment thread, but having BH in charge of some modding-type stuff is a great idea imo.
Ya.
Like I said it's nothing against Gmarsh.
But this community deserves a mod that is actually like very involved in the community.
On May 27 2014 23:04 KadaverBB wrote: I find it quite amusing that you guys are against being a little nicer.
its hard to catch scum and convince others that someone is scum if we are all holding hands and singing kumbaya my lord all day.
Im not really convinced that the reason we are losing members is because of the "toxic" Atmosphere. Like who said they weren't signing up because of the atmosphere 2 to 3 people? I know a lot of people are like me as to why they dont play as much in that they started when they were in school with lots of free time on their hands and then lose that free time once school ends and work/graduate school begins.
I would be very interested to see if the overall growth of tl itself in both active and new members is slowing down. I think that would be a more likely explanation for the decline.
I've already had this discussion with Foolishness. My position on the issue is clear to him. In short, I disagree with the new ruleset and I very strongly disagree with handing out TL-wide bans because of the disproportionate impact they have on players.
But it looks like I'm in the minority, so I will of course accept the new rules and play by them.
I'm sort of conflicted on what to post here. On one had the decision has been made and I don't want to start a debate, on the other I feel like due to the private nature of the initial discussion, opposing viewpoints haven't gotten any exposure to those not involved in the original discussion. So I feel like I should at least leave something here, but keep it in a spoiler so it can be easily skipped.
Disproportionate punishment. A site-wide ban from TL will have literally no effect on the people who don't use TL for other purposes than playing mafia. So to half the population you're taking away one of their social outlets, and for the other half you're doing nothing. A player who is involved in TL outside of mafia thus gets punished harder than one who is not. That's just bad for the TL community in general and unfair to the people who participate in it.
How big of a problem do we have? I receive almost no complaints when I host games. Maybe it's because I don't host enough, maybe it's because I'm one of those hosts who actually just modkills people. I have no problem ruining my own game by modkilling people.
I'm all for hosts stopping being hesitant on that modkill hammer. Just do it already. If someone is acting like a dick in your game, make your game better by removing him.
The sports argument. I come from a competitive background. To me it's nothing but normal that people yell at each other in the heat of the game. I think emotions are a part of this game and should be embraced. And just like in sports, if someone steps over the line, he gets removed from the game, similar to a player on a football (not handegg) team who is getting too mad and possibly starting to play recklessly can be taken out and told to jog while he cools off.
I yell at my friends in dota and they yell at me, I did it for 15 years in football, I did it in counterstrike, hell I will stand up and rant during games of risk. And it's not just me, almost every "group of guys" (I know we have a few girls as well) I've ever been involved in always digs into each other. To me it's part of the enjoyment, to others it's name calling and bullying.
Now we have different backgrounds here on this forum. But for the most part, our humor, our competitiveness is something we acquired as a group. At what point do we start taking care of our culture and ask people to adapt a bit.
Strategy concerns. Mafia is inherently a game of lies and deception. It is a game of emotion and human nature. I don't think getting under someone's skin in order to gain an in-game advantage should be taken off the board. Now I've known this is a "problem" for many years, and if you were to go and look I've probably talked about this before. People need to stop taking things said in mafia games personally, they're agendas being pushed. It just feels wrong to limit your options in a mafia game.
I'm not suggesting we run around and call each other fucking trash all the time. But I think we've done an excellent job of controlling our line in the past. Apparently people mostly do not agree with me, so what do I know, but I feel like we are perfectly capable of stopping things before they get out of hand.
These are the ones I remembered right now, I'm sure there are more.
I am not sure you are actually in the minority palmar.
Also why are private conversations being held to determine these rules? Why are they not being broached first with the people who actually play here, rather than with people like Gmarsh and foolishness who rarely do?
This whole thing is just silly.
I will continue to play the way I have played for 2+ years.
On May 27 2014 22:48 kushm4sta wrote: no, gmarsh is better because his detachment makes him less biased.
I don't think Blazinghand is biased or would ever be biased.
lol
All bans shall now be determined by RNG.
On May 27 2014 21:43 GMarshal wrote:
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"
I think banning caps just because some people hear loud noises when they see them would be pretty silly. It's no different than bold or red text in my opinion and would completely neuter austin.
As far as I'm aware, the "Do Not Spam" issue is being saved for another day and won't change from how it is currently enforced?
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.
Oh yeah, I totally agree with warning people early and often about the BM behavior. Usually around the time when I get the 3rd warning from the mod, I come to the realization that I'm probably a tad out of line.
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.
I think these are the same ideas most people aim for anyway. But it does slip. And imo it always will.
Per previous arguments, just the nature of this game will get people heated. It will happen. There isn't any avoiding it. I do agree that timely host action can make a huge difference though. (Not always with great results as I'll explain below.)
So, using myself as a reference, I'll give an example of fantastic hosting. My PYP LoL Game. WoS did exactly what you are implying here. My posting was out of line a few times. Himself or his co-host pmed me, several times, to cool off. I eventually lost all interest to even try to figure out the game...So I just stopped playing. WoS msged me himself a few times for our discussion. Over the course of a few hours, we exchanged. He was trying to prod me into putting a vote down. To play the game and to make the (circumstance) hard decisions on who to play against. Our little chat is really the only reason I came back to playing in general. Ye, I'll probably be trash at this game forever. But that's not the point of it right? It's to have fun. WoS did everything in his power, as a host, to explain this to me. In the end he modkilled me. and I deserved it. But the way he went about it is the only reason I ever signed up for another game regardless.
If our host step up their standards things will change. If it's toxic attitude, a short pm (or a few) can usually get people to cool off. If it's inactivity (or less than your standard. And yes, I think this is a problem.) then trying to prod people to play can honestly make a difference. If it's spamming, our host can make post restrictions, or simply pm, or suggest to stay on topic.
But a lot of our issues, trying to draw new players, aren't really ground rules at fault. It's underlying problems. People bring them up every few moths, and then drop them. Only to bring them up again later. It's not only that though. I honestly think a lower base of people coming to the site is contributing aswell. I mean, most that come here aren't looking for mafia ye? So it's sort of to be expected that our numbers will go down (as a whole). I also mean, in 2014, we have more players than 2013. We spike with the new guys trying out. Then we sink a bit when most of the new guys don't go for round two. You have a few people, that play a few newbies, and stick around [Like me]. But we also have a lot of people that don't stay. This isn't a problem with rules imo. It's just personal taste. And a dwindling draw from people to find people who have it.
Anyway, this post is kind of wordy. I'm not sure if it will make any sense. I'm, generally, pretty bad at explaining my thoughts. Hopefully you can read it at least.
I haven't had time to read through all the comments, so I'll post some stuff I wrote in PMs with foolishness. I'll be able to get more engaged in this discussion later; feel free to respond to what I have written.
1. Are you in favor of tightening the rules? I am in favor of tighting the etiquette rules. We had a chance to try to self-regulate, and ultimately we're having trouble attracting and retaining new players. It's time for a bigger change, which could help. 2. Are you put off by the current behavior? I'm not put off, but I get that people have different opinions. Ultimately, it's not about my opinion. It's about the opinions of most players in the forum and any potential new players we get. 3. Are you willing to enforce the new rules? I am willing to enforce the new rules and set an example for upcoming games. 4. Any other comments or concerns? Let's see how these new changes work out. Just adding the community thread alone seems to have some good, but until we have a better inflow of new players and retention of existing ones, we need to keep trying new ideas.
I like the idea of having behavior violations result in forum-wide ramifications. I think this would be good for us in general. I still think though we shouldn't have people reporting posts using the report button, though-- ultimately this would be way too disruptive to the game. I think that anything that requires a ban (rather than a warning) should also give a 2 day temp ban. Anything that doesn't merit a TL Mafia ban imo shouldn't result in TL Forum moderation. The best way to process this would also be through GM imo.
Our goal should be to have real ramifications for bad behavior, but also not disrupt a game by having a non-Mafia mod, or even someone other than a host, initiating a ban on an active player. TL Ban can coincide with TL Mafia Ban and get approved by GM in the same thread.
I wouldn't mind some kind of other way of handling TL Bans, but the one thing I don't want is the possibility of someone getting randomly TL Banned without the game's host knowing beforehand. As a host you usually want to have a replacement ready or something rather than just modkilling someone. This is much more difficult if people get banned without you knowing-- this is why I don't want us to use the report button.
We have less people simply because the number of people that come in are dropping more and more, hence why we're going to start up a newsletter thingymabob. The rate of people playing and then staying to later games seems pretty consistent and isn't really based on behaviour at all from what i've seen. Newbie games are pretty friendly after all.
I don't think behaviour is a problem with the current warning system. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand when people start attacking the players rather than the stuff they've done in the game but in my experience that is dealt with rather swiftly in most cases with a warning in pm's/thread. I also don't think spam is a problem at all. You can literally skip over the one liners in half a second and you have wasted minimal time.
I also agree with Palmars post a lot and I don't think we are a minority here at all.
I don't think the lack of new players has much to do with the "toxic" atmosphere.
I don't believe that many players stopped playing because of it.
I don't even think I ever experienced a really bad atmosphere in any game I played here.
People who want stricter behaviour rules are already able to play this way since hosts can do whatever they want in that regard. Why are we about to give up the freedom that is granted to us in this subforum again?
On May 28 2014 02:19 Holyflare wrote: We have less people simply because the number of people that come in are dropping more and more, hence why we're going to start up a newsletter thingymabob. The rate of people playing and then staying to later games seems pretty consistent and isn't really based on behaviour at all from what i've seen. Newbie games are pretty friendly after all.
I don't think behaviour is a problem with the current warning system. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand when people start attacking the players rather than the stuff they've done in the game but in my experience that is dealt with rather swiftly in most cases with a warning in pm's/thread. I also don't think spam is a problem at all. You can literally skip over the one liners in half a second and you have wasted minimal time.
But the problem is you can't. If you do this sort of thing, and you end up with between 5-20 pages of a filter missing from a game, people look down on you. You can't pass over these post. The risk of loosing any info is really small, but unless you are scum, you don't know if it's there/not there. I mean you can say it's not a problem or w/e. But I have read several games that people mention as evidence to the opposite.
On May 28 2014 02:41 kushm4sta wrote: bh I don't know why you are connecting inappropriate behavior with a decline in population. do you have anything to back that up?
I do not have anything to back that up. It could be for a different reason, like spam, or overzealous moderation. I don't know.
I think restricting people to a certain style of play is absolutely absurd. Some people are able to make long, well-thought-out posts and are able to deduce things in a grand scheme of things kinda way. Other people are better at figuring out the game based off of real-time conversations, having a back-and-forth with another player or two or whatever the case may be. Restricting a persons play style to a certain way just because you don't play that way is absolutely bonkers.
Having said that, all the posts of reactionary youtube clips and .jpegs and "lol" 1 liners should be abolished as far as I'm concerned. You know...stuff that's ACTUALLY spam/unrelated to the game
Having said that, all the posts of reactionary youtube clips and .jpegs and "lol" 1 liners should be abolished as far as I'm concerned. You know...stuff that's ACTUALLY spam/unrelated to the game
This is similar to what I think about it. Even those posts are ok from time to time but if big parts of someones filter consist of them then the host probaby should tell the guy in question to stop that. Like Sevelings filter in the djinn game. That is what I consider spam. If someone has a large filter of small posts that are game relevant then I don't see a big problem with that as long as the player doesn't spam up a whole page with consecutive posts by himself.
On May 28 2014 02:41 kushm4sta wrote: bh I don't know why you are connecting inappropriate behavior with a decline in population. do you have anything to back that up?
I do not have anything to back that up. It could be for a different reason, like spam, or overzealous moderation. I don't know.
It's from TL.net's views declining. That should be pretty obvious.
On May 28 2014 02:19 Holyflare wrote: We have less people simply because the number of people that come in are dropping more and more, hence why we're going to start up a newsletter thingymabob. The rate of people playing and then staying to later games seems pretty consistent and isn't really based on behaviour at all from what i've seen. Newbie games are pretty friendly after all.
I don't think behaviour is a problem with the current warning system. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand when people start attacking the players rather than the stuff they've done in the game but in my experience that is dealt with rather swiftly in most cases with a warning in pm's/thread. I also don't think spam is a problem at all. You can literally skip over the one liners in half a second and you have wasted minimal time.
But the problem is you can't. If you do this sort of thing, and you end up with between 5-20 pages of a filter missing from a game, people look down on you. You can't pass over these post. The risk of loosing any info is really small, but unless you are scum, you don't know if it's there/not there. I mean you can say it's not a problem or w/e. But I have read several games that people mention as evidence to the opposite.
I'll tell you a secret, you don't really have to read normal posts properly either skimming is essential mafia reading skillz!
On May 28 2014 02:19 Holyflare wrote: We have less people simply because the number of people that come in are dropping more and more, hence why we're going to start up a newsletter thingymabob. The rate of people playing and then staying to later games seems pretty consistent and isn't really based on behaviour at all from what i've seen. Newbie games are pretty friendly after all.
I don't think behaviour is a problem with the current warning system. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand when people start attacking the players rather than the stuff they've done in the game but in my experience that is dealt with rather swiftly in most cases with a warning in pm's/thread. I also don't think spam is a problem at all. You can literally skip over the one liners in half a second and you have wasted minimal time.
But the problem is you can't. If you do this sort of thing, and you end up with between 5-20 pages of a filter missing from a game, people look down on you. You can't pass over these post. The risk of loosing any info is really small, but unless you are scum, you don't know if it's there/not there. I mean you can say it's not a problem or w/e. But I have read several games that people mention as evidence to the opposite.
I'll tell you a secret, you don't really have to read normal posts properly either skimming is essential mafia reading skillz!
Aww, I feel so humbled getting advice from based mafia god HF <3
(But seriously, I don't think you should need to do that. That's a personal opinion. I don't care if it happens or not, because the only person it will affect is me. I'm obviously more than willing to deal with it. But I also skip games in which I don't like the player list.)
the decline in people playing mafia is from the ban list vilifying and publicly humiliating anyone that makes a mistake. all your gonna do by banning more people is make less people here. pretty dumb idea.
If you guys spent as much effort creating a more enjoyable community based atmosphere here as you did banning anyone and everyone for sport and amusement than this place would be growing like it used to be.
omgus has played around 100 games and I have never banned a single player. Instead I built a system that rewards players for playing well and contributing and guided everyone to play to their best abilities through encouragement and community bonding.
@tlmafia the only tangible thing handed out by the people who run it is bans.
You can also try to go and recruit people you think you'd enjoy playing with from other communities (like twoplustwo is doing), but I'm not sure if the goal is to figure out how to grow or to figure out how to make people nicer
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.
This mirrors my thoughts pretty well. I haven't been reading games much recently to know if people are going all "FUCK FUCK DICK NIPPLES" on eachother but if hosts want to modkill / ban for that (as GMarshal chooses to do) then that's entirely within their rights as host.
The TL Mafia Model OP isn't just something we're supposed to paste into the OP of a game thread. Hosts can cut / add / rewrite entirely and even hold a discussion about whether or not those rules should be maintained (like Ver's 20-post limit mafia, there was discussion before the game even started about how to implement the rule IIRC)
I think it would be a good idea to encourage and remind players to attack the arguments, not the players, with a heavier hand. "Your argument sounds like something an orangutan hopped up on E and jet fuel would come up with" is still a personal attack in my book.
On May 27 2014 23:04 KadaverBB wrote: I find it quite amusing that you guys are against being a little nicer.
its hard to catch scum and convince others that someone is scum if we are all holding hands and singing kumbaya my lord all day.
Im not really convinced that the reason we are losing members is because of the "toxic" Atmosphere. Like who said they weren't signing up because of the atmosphere 2 to 3 people? I know a lot of people are like me as to why they dont play as much in that they started when they were in school with lots of free time on their hands and then lose that free time once school ends and work/graduate school begins.
I would be very interested to see if the overall growth of tl itself in both active and new members is slowing down. I think that would be a more likely explanation for the decline.
For me i know I choose to not play much recently because of my own emotional / mental fluctuations, and how it disproportionately negatively effects my team when I'm mafia compared to how I can just step back from the game until it passes when I'm town.
The only person I remember quitting because of how they were treated was GoodKarma in Catch 22 Mafia.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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
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.
The thing is: even if there were many people who think there is a problem at all (I doubt it) - noone is preventing them from playing games with stricter rules. It has been claimed most hosts agree with the OP - fine even less problems then - just enforce your believes in your games. Why do you need the new rules for that? It makes zero sense. Zero.
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?
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?
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 *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.
On February 04 2014 20:04 marvellosity wrote: thing is, DP, you refuse to discuss rayn with me for no particular reason, even though I keep trying to bring him up.
*shrug*
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.
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.
On February 04 2014 20:04 marvellosity wrote: thing is, DP, you refuse to discuss rayn with me for no particular reason, even though I keep trying to bring him up.
*shrug*
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.
That quote is from a game in which I was scum and used that as an excuse to not engage with marv all game.
Also if you think that banning marv and rayn and holyflare and VE and palmar and VE and Bugs and whole bunch of other people whose playstyle is being targeted by these rules is a good thing then I fundamentally disagree.
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.
I do think this would be a change in how we roll. If we take a look at the new rules we're incorporating, it is:
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.
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?
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 08:06 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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"
I think banning caps just because some people hear loud noises when they see them would be pretty silly. It's no different than bold or red text in my opinion and would completely neuter austin.
As far as I'm aware, the "Do Not Spam" issue is being saved for another day and won't change from how it is currently enforced?
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.
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
What the fuck? Most of this thread is people objecting to the rules in the op.
WHY CAN"T WE USE ALL CAPS SELECTIVELY TO HIGHLIGHT A POINT?
Why can't we post a lot?
I agree with not making jokes about race/sexuality
but if someone is acting retarded blazinghand, I want to be able to call both them and their argument retarded.
Did anyone forget this threads behavioural changes were because tl wasn't getting enough people in? It somehow devolved to general rule talk. The problem really isn't so much behaviour imo and tl bans shouldn't be used at all.
On May 28 2014 02:42 IAmRobik wrote: Regarding spam:
I think restricting people to a certain style of play is absolutely absurd. Some people are able to make long, well-thought-out posts and are able to deduce things in a grand scheme of things kinda way. Other people are better at figuring out the game based off of real-time conversations, having a back-and-forth with another player or two or whatever the case may be. Restricting a persons play style to a certain way just because you don't play that way is absolutely bonkers.
Having said that, all the posts of reactionary youtube clips and .jpegs and "lol" 1 liners should be abolished as far as I'm concerned. You know...stuff that's ACTUALLY spam/unrelated to the game
On May 28 2014 08:26 Holyflare wrote: Did anyone forget this threads behavioural changes were because tl wasn't getting enough people in? It somehow devolved to general rule talk. The problem really isn't so much behaviour imo and tl bans shouldn't be used at all.
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 Alakaslam- Could care less, would stick around if atmosphere became truly hostile in either direction
On May 28 2014 08:25 DarthPunk wrote: but if someone is acting retarded blazinghand, I want to be able to call both them and their argument retarded.
That's *ALREADY* against the rules. It's just that no one enforces it.
And I think a "rule reform", even if only in name (which like, why oppose it if that's the case) would totes cause enforcement amirite
Yep. Let's ban people more because fewer and fewer people play here. Seems legit.
The fact that hearthstone and Dota have their own sites with no mafia presence and the decline of SC2 has nothing to do with the reduction in new players.
No it has to be some non-existent behavior problem. So let's make rules that will alienate the people who already play here and Ban them from playing.
That will increase the size of our community. Right guys? Right?
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.
On May 28 2014 08:25 DarthPunk wrote: but if someone is acting retarded blazinghand, I want to be able to call both them and their argument retarded.
That's *ALREADY* against the rules. It's just that no one enforces it.
And I think a "rule reform", even if only in name (which like, why oppose it if that's the case) would totes cause enforcement amirite
Yep. Let's ban people more because fewer and fewer people play here. Seems legit.
The fact that hearthstone and Dota have their own sites with no mafia presence and the decline of SC2 has nothing to do with the reduction in new players.
No it has to be some non-existent behavior problem. So let's make rules that will alienate the people who already play here and Ban them from playing.
That will increase the size of our community. Right guys? Right?
I've pushed behind the scenes for tl mafia because I know the fragmentation of community is bad for our new recruits, especially dota 2. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/450319-sharing-some-thoughts?page=3#57 is just a tiny example of this. In any case, calling people retarded maybe isn't the way we should be rolling anyways right
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?
On May 28 2014 08:25 DarthPunk wrote: but if someone is acting retarded blazinghand, I want to be able to call both them and their argument retarded.
Poll: Should it be allowed to call a player retarded?
No, this crosses the line and should not be acceptable. (24)
57%
Yes, I support the freedom to inform a player of their retardedness. (12)
29%
I am actually retarded so I'm a bit biased on this issue. (6)
14%
42 total votes
Your vote: Should it be allowed to call a player retarded?
(Vote): Yes, I support the freedom to inform a player of their retardedness. (Vote): No, this crosses the line and should not be acceptable. (Vote): I am actually retarded so I'm a bit biased on this issue.
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 08:11 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?
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.
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 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.
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 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
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
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 10:23 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 10:23 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 10:23 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.
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.
shiaopi <are you serious? cannot find anything offensive directed against a player specifically in there..>
me <What does the "fuck your mother" part mean according to you?>
shiaopi <That was not directed at anyone. It was bad language yes, but as he did not direct it at anyone I see it as a random explanation that slam decided to share. If you wish to be replaced, fine but I do not see this as valid reason and will seek an appropiate sanction in the banlist afterwards. I can talk slam to reduce posta like these but that is all I will do. >
Random explanation that he decided to share, )))))). Gotta love this hosting.
me <So if I quote his post and similarly use a heavy curse towards no one that would be fine as well? Cause I'd like to do that.>
shiaopi <he was explaining hijole and used an example to say what is offensive and what is not(hijole is not) I saw hijole as a comment to one of your posts not the fuck your mother part. So if you wish to explain a specific term with heavy cursing feel free to do so.>
me <Are you playing dumb or? I don't understand you. Thanks for hosting. I'll keep playing.>
shiaopi <Look I am not playing dumb, this is my point of view and I assume it is shared by many others since you are the only one out of all players/hosts to have an issue with this post. I don't understand what your problem is and I don't have to put up with this tone from you. If you have an issue with my hosting, feel free to get out of the game any time you want to.>
Yeah I'll feel free to get out of the game after you threatened to temp me in the previous pm. Smooth.
##bote: shiaopi
This mentality is gangrenous and needs to be cauterised.
Also the whole "IM A VET AND YOU SHOULD LICK MY BALLS" thing, pls cut this crap.
Let's be honest, I'm at points one of the worst offenders. Hell when foolishness sent me the pm I started out with a caveat that I'm probably not the right person to ask (for multiple reasons).
To some extent, the enforcement needs to be tightened up. I think we also need to find more "creative" ways to ban/warn players and to moderate behavior. I think we also need to find a way to try and standardize enforcement of the rules.
For example, if Shiaopi had "spammer", "obscenity", "lurker", "ad homenim", etc vigs, then that game would've been more balanced and likely been more fun since both Steveling and myself wouldn't have lived past D1 for the health of the town. If Shiaopi were BH, then likely both Steveling and myself would be banned for a game or two and rightly so. Perhaps instead of bans, we should require the offending player to host and/or cohost some games.
So basically yes, I think we need to find ways to be less of an asshole to each other and find ways to promote being nice to each other. To some extent we can moderate to help curb the former; not amount of moderation would help the latter. I don't think the warning/ban system works well in the current environment. I think we should consider keeping parts of it because sometimes people just need a ban. But I think many times people forget how much shit hosts go through sometimes that they forget that their shit fights don't just affect themselves and the other player; they affect the host, cohorts, and surrounding players.
I'm pro change. Frankly, I don't care if someone calls me a retard, and even I wish to call someone a retard at times, but is it really necessary? Does screaming FUCK YOU, YOU SUCK somehow enhance the gameplay?
I don't feel that it brings anything that is needed to the games. Whereas, there are players that do not enjoy coming in, voicing their opinion, and being shat on because their opinion is considered bad or invalid by someone else. Instead of being "HOHO, I PRO LEET HAX BEST EVUR, YOU SHITPIECE CASE GET OUT", why not just be constructive? Such as "I think your case sucked/is bad because of reasons X, Y & Z. You should do A & B if you want to be taken seriously."
If there are players that deliberately feel the need to diss others to feel superior (or just plain dissing others, whether it's for their amusement or not), they can do so in their free time elsewhere.
In short, I don't see why not. I wouldn't mind even if things stayed as there are, but I believe (even with many contradictory opinions in this thread), that the change would shift the community towards a more enjoyable environment in general. You can always host a game of "Supah Rude Mafia" monthly where those that cannot hold back their urges of expressing their opinion about others in the crudest way possible can gather and have fun. :p
im pro change for the sole reason that the more rules we change, the easier it will be to overcome resistance to eliminating the real reason the mafia forum is declining in player base - games are too long now, people with non-computer-based jobs can't play anymore
I play less because games are incredibly shitty and the players all yell at each other for no discernible reason. Anything that ends this stupidity is fine with me.
I say hijole & stuff but the point is that this forum is in english and most people won't understand that so it is randomness. Besides, it means "son of" not "Fuck your mother" That would be "Chinga su madre" which I almost never say. I say "Chinga la madre" which means "Fuck the mother" a different significance entirely.
Steveling you remind me of CDGcorazon who is now Corazon who took things personally on a level that was not correct.
I just realized, if you do not actually know English or Spanish and are using google translate. Google translate falls for false cognates, and you should be aware of that and stop using it. It will cause you to misunderstand everyone.
I never had any feeling toward you that was hostile, simple annoyance when you got me to claim BH & My role was the worst it got.
Dude stop using google translate. The whole point of that post is me noticing your reaction to something and telling you I was not talking about you, I was expressing disgust with BH's overboard behavior toward you.
To make understand easy for google translate
Blazinghand speak "steveling stupid, or steveling make this mistake, and is not good steveling should be quiet"
Alakaslam QUOTE/ Blazinghand, speak "Hijole" or "Oh, shit."
Steveling speak Alakaslam and Blazinghand are team up to insult steveling
Alakaslam is confused
Alakaslam speaks what "Hijole" Significance. And then say what word would speak significance Steveling speak what alakaslam speak was speaking.
On May 28 2014 13:06 VayneAuthority wrote: can't wait until the new rules are enforced, specifically the one about english only on teamliquid
Yeah, it makes sense. But until then...
I get to use my Mexican exclusive Spanish slang and explain it whenever.
Also if I must Spock my activity will take a dive (which may grow the community) because I must watch a lot of Spock. Even now the Spock wears thin, and the juices carry CHUPAZI through my system.
Otherwise my +1 would be here as requested by Blazinghand
While I'm not bothered by them, neither do I think the insults add anything to the game. It seems likely that a better atmosphere in games is more likely to attract players than push the current ones away. I would at least hope that to be the case; it would be sad if someone decides to quit because they've lost their license to be rude. The end result should not be having to constantly ban regulars. That would be detrimental to the goal of the proposed changes.
Having said that, I don't think the changes will have any meaningful impact in terms of increasing the playerbase.
I haven't played a game in a while so maybe I'm not the person with the most insight in recent games.
I'm all for people playing nicer. Yes, mafia is an emotional game about lying and deceiving but I don't see how you can't properly play the game without calling someone a retard. Personally, I would probably fall into foolishness "sensitive" categorie
I'm not sure about the TL bans as a punishment but I agree that hosts should take a more active role in moderating games and that it wouldn't hurt to adjust the Mafia rules to the TL rules. Right now it depends on a host's leniency on whether something would be punished, so maybe updating the standard OP would be a good move (and also result in less discussions in the ban thread with a new uniform stance on banworthy behaviour). I'm not saying that we should use the exact same rules as TL (posting THEREFORE XY IS SCUM AND HAS TO BE LYNCHED after a huge paragraph of case against him is barely worthy of punishment) but I like the direction BH is going with his OP.
I was avoiding this thread and then BH went to all the trouble to PM me and ask me to weigh in and because it made me feel important I guess I shall.
From the gist of everything that's been said, none of the current active players seem to have that big of an issue with the current atmosphere in regards to language. Sure every few months someone leaves in a huff but in my opinion that's the price to pay for the game we play. And I may be showing my "vet status" (whatever that phrase means) here but good god things are behaviorally better now than when I started imo. For starters there is actually a mafia "community" that didn't exist to the same degree and at the same time the number of gigantic forum halting ban list discussions has fallen as well (anyone remember the debate to perm BM?). So in my opinion, drastic change is not needed. If someone is being an asshat and other players feel victimized, it's within their power to go to the host and if there's enough merit to the complaints the host can just modkill and move on. I'll be the first one to admit I'm not the greatest host but if the environment in one of my games got to the point where people were complaining then I'd modkill in a heartbeat. Moderation is fine as it is, the system is in place to deal with out of line behavior, imo the hosts have simply not exercised enough authority over their games.
Now to the real point, I know GM had wanted to keep the discussion of spam out of this thread, however the problem that I believe he is attempting to address with stricter rules actually stems from spam as well as factors outside of our control. In terms of factors outside our control, let's face it, we were all younger when we started playing mafia and part of the problem is that the core demographic burst that came along with WoL is growing up and doesn't have as much time anymore. HoTs didn't bring in any real new blood and TL certainly isn't seeing the same growth it used to. That means two things, 1) the number of possible new recruits has fallen and 2) the amount of time vets spend here has fallen as well.
On to the actual point of spam, as one person said, they don't have time to play mafia anymore because in part of the spam. This compounds the problem of having a life that I talked about earlier. I'm not really sure when the meta changed (iirc it was somewhere around late 2012) but for some reason games now have double the posts with half the people as games then did. Spam just means mafia takes a shitton of time to actually play right. But before I go proposing any crazy rule changes, imo this should fall on the hosts as well. Steveling with a 25 page filter by the end of N1 should have been modkilled in golden sun imo and I'm honestly surprised ShaioPi didn't.
Ultimately, it's up to hosts to keep order in their game as they see fit, however they should not be deaf to player opinions. Rather than attempting to codify a new set of rules to make people behave better, I think the hosts all need to personally step it up and not be afraid of modkilling someone. Yes it has the potential to alter the game, but if someone is really acting as poorly as GM suggests they are then their behavior is more ruinous than modkilling them would be.
Phew did not intend for that to get as long as it did...
Since the busiest time we had on TLMafia (2012) was also they heydays of being a dick, I don't see why you think severe behavior moderation would make the community healthier. wherebugsgo's self admitted modus operandi was to piss people off but the community has never been healthier than when he played.
I think there's a gap between what the self appointed largely anonymous seemingly mostly non-playing TLMafia Junta intends with this change and what the doomsayers think will happen. I think the Junta should explain exactly what the difference is going to be. Saying that there's not going to be a difference is obviously a lie and a cover up. What has happened that will be punished differently under the new rules than under the old rules?
Also, will the Junta use site bans to enforce hosts to enforce the Junta rules or will hosts still be able to make their own OPs and enforce them as they see fit?
If I'm the problem I'd like you to tell me instead of making new rules, having me play in a game and then site banning me. If I'm the problem then I'll leave voluntarily. I think most people feel like this and that's why I think we should just talk this through and agree on something. The purpose of rules, the purpose of laws, isn't to punish people but to prevent infractions from happening in the first place but you can't prevent infractions if people don't know what constitutes an infraction and what does not.
I think that a better way to do all this would be to just host single games where these rules are enforced and see what happens. Do people join these games, is this something people want? Some people (including me) liked Ver and Hapahaulis's post restriction game, lets have more of those, maybe they'll become the norm. Some people might like games where you can't make any ad homines, host some of those games and they might become so popular that current style games are simply choked out. If that happens, the community has spoken. If some of the grizzled Junta veterans don't want to play with the new kids then host invite games. No amount of rules will make Qatol want to play a game with REDACTED anyway.
Who would play in a Blazinghand hosted game where ad homines are punished with a 2 day site ban? I might, if I liked the setup. If it filled up in 25 minutes, if the demand is there, then great. The community is now what the Junta wanted it to be and you guys can pat yourself on the back for having educating the uncouth barbarians. But I'm very much against making all games of this type overnight without really asking the community. Very objectionable.
shiaopi <are you serious? cannot find anything offensive directed against a player specifically in there..>
me <What does the "fuck your mother" part mean according to you?>
shiaopi <That was not directed at anyone. It was bad language yes, but as he did not direct it at anyone I see it as a random explanation that slam decided to share. If you wish to be replaced, fine but I do not see this as valid reason and will seek an appropiate sanction in the banlist afterwards. I can talk slam to reduce posta like these but that is all I will do. >
Random explanation that he decided to share, )))))). Gotta love this hosting.
me <So if I quote his post and similarly use a heavy curse towards no one that would be fine as well? Cause I'd like to do that.>
shiaopi <he was explaining hijole and used an example to say what is offensive and what is not(hijole is not) I saw hijole as a comment to one of your posts not the fuck your mother part. So if you wish to explain a specific term with heavy cursing feel free to do so.>
me <Are you playing dumb or? I don't understand you. Thanks for hosting. I'll keep playing.>
shiaopi <Look I am not playing dumb, this is my point of view and I assume it is shared by many others since you are the only one out of all players/hosts to have an issue with this post. I don't understand what your problem is and I don't have to put up with this tone from you. If you have an issue with my hosting, feel free to get out of the game any time you want to.>
Yeah I'll feel free to get out of the game after you threatened to temp me in the previous pm. Smooth.
##bote: shiaopi
This mentality is gangrenous and needs to be cauterised.
Also the whole "IM A VET AND YOU SHOULD LICK MY BALLS" thing, pls cut this crap.
lol
and this is basically why no rules should be changed. thx for providing a great example.
On May 28 2014 18:36 marvellosity wrote: The people's revolution is coming...
I have never been more in agreement with marv. Feels weird as shit.
Let me clear up one thing right now. I'm here because the community wants me. If you want to find another banlist moderator, make a thread, get a majority of the population of tl mafia to vote to get rid of me, and find someone to take over the responsibilities. Regardless, stop behaving as if I'm some kind of authoritarian dictator in my tower, feasting while the masses starve. I check tl mafia daily, and skim most of the active games. PMs almost always reach me, and I'm actively involved with helping people balance setups, so saying I'm uninvolved is disingenuous.
A few other point of note the bear mentioning. this wasn't my decision. Foolishness came to me and said this was something that might be good for tl mafia. I agreed. He then spoke with the hosts, who as a group decided that they wanted to enforce these standards more in their games. As you guys should be aware, because I've only said it about 100000000 times, I generally don't make rules on tl mafia, I enforce the rules of tl and the will of the hosts. You know, the people who are running the games you're in. This wasn't some unilateral decision by foolishness and I, where we decided to do this because "why the fuck not!". This is basically a PSA saying "the hosts have agreed to enforce this". If I wanted to shove this change down your throats, I would have simply told the moderation staff that TLMafia needed to be held to the same standards as the rest of TL, and let Kadaver run rampant. Since we *are* a community, I thought some level of communication, where everyone knows what was decided is best.
Finally, behavior *does* have to change. Players don't leave from a single post, like DP was suggesting, its rather a constant wear that results in them just not wanting to put up with it anymore, its a constant abrasion. You can also look at all the newbie games where newbies were excited to play in "real" games, played in one, and never came back. There's also a problem of image. I want to promote TLMafia more, using TL resources, like twitter, crossposting to LD etc. If I start doing that, and the first thing newcomers see is someone calling someone else a retard, how likely are they to stay? Is that holding this subforum to the standards the rest of tl has? TL has thrived by being a selective community.This means that people who aren't willing to follow the rules are out. Yes, it means fewer members sometimes, but it means people we want to be members. This isn't new, zorkmid got banned because we don't want people ruining games, other people have been banned because we don't want them smurfing into newbies. So saying "rules exclude people" isn't an actual argument, its exactly what rules do, they force people to adapt to them or make them leave. The argument that you can't make people nice doesn't hold any water either, the goal isn't to make people better human beings, its to stop them being dicks to other people. It works, its what makes LR threads readable, its what makes the TL Strategy section actually good.
The bottom line is this, nothing is going to change insofar as I'm not going to be going into threads pruning for bad posts, I'm not going to hang out waiting to swoop down and ban people. Hosts will continue to request bans, and I'll continue to moderate them, the difference is hosts will be more active about behavioral issues, and generally saying on top of ad hominem.
Another nice thing would be to give more fun roles to newbies. scum/blues/3rd party etc, let the best veterans be vanilla since this is actually both the hardest and the most boring role which requires commitment.
I think if hosts want to modkill for spam / caps / ad hom that's great if they choose to do so. However I don't think we need to go all ban list for slips in a game where those rules are going to be highly enforced since people tend to fall back on their habits or lose their cool in the heat of the moment.
Therefore I propose we separate the concept of bans and modkills in our minds. Modkilling someone who wants to play is probably punishment enough when their grievous fault is posting too much or using "SHOUTING TEXT!" or a clever joke picture / video. Disrupting the game after being modkilled is another issue entirely, of course. Not every offense of the nature of these newly-reaffirmed rules needs to result in a ban.
If When marv calls me a fucking retard (probably rightly so) I don't expect him to get banned for a game unless he's really laying it on thick. If the rules say he gets modkilled, I guess that's what's going down.
Guys you really have zero legs to stand on bashing gmarshal and foolishness. If they don't play as much as they used to, it's only because they like the rest of us have gotten older and more responsible. They do a great job moderating this forum under the guidelines we (the community) laid out for them.
Not to put words in either of their mouths, but to me it seems that despite both of their being displeased and partly pushed out by the meta and pace trends of the game they've stuck to principles of broad host autonomy and minimal mod intervention, and calling them a "junta" or a dictatorship is absurd. They haven't even implemented these rules unilaterally yet despite having good justification to do so. All they've done is exactly what we have asked them to - run the banlist and game queue, and for gmarshal be the tlmafia community's liaison to the site admins. Like, imagine if gmarshal wasn't involved with tlmafia - you'd have site bans any time someone got offended and hit the report button, or whenever an other mod happened to click on one of our threads.
On May 28 2014 23:27 ObviousOne wrote: I think if hosts want to modkill for spam / caps / ad hom that's great if they choose to do so. However I don't think we need to go all ban list for slips in a game where those rules are going to be highly enforced since people tend to fall back on their habits or lose their cool in the heat of the moment.
Therefore I propose we separate the concept of bans and modkills in our minds. Modkilling someone who wants to play is probably punishment enough when their grievous fault is posting too much or using "SHOUTING TEXT!" or a clever joke picture / video. Disrupting the game after being modkilled is another issue entirely, of course. Not every offense of the nature of these newly-reaffirmed rules needs to result in a ban.
If When marv calls me a fucking retard (probably rightly so) I don't expect him to get banned for a game unless he's really laying it on thick. If the rules say he gets modkilled, I guess that's what's going down.
Host puts up a list of rules in their OP. if you don't follow them and get modkilled, then there should be consequences.
All the banlist is is a list of people who haven't followed rules. Hosts can choose whether or not to follow the banlist. But it exists to give players an incentive to follow the rules the hosts lay out.
On May 28 2014 23:27 ObviousOne wrote: I think if hosts want to modkill for spam / caps / ad hom that's great if they choose to do so. However I don't think we need to go all ban list for slips in a game where those rules are going to be highly enforced since people tend to fall back on their habits or lose their cool in the heat of the moment.
Therefore I propose we separate the concept of bans and modkills in our minds. Modkilling someone who wants to play is probably punishment enough when their grievous fault is posting too much or using "SHOUTING TEXT!" or a clever joke picture / video. Disrupting the game after being modkilled is another issue entirely, of course. Not every offense of the nature of these newly-reaffirmed rules needs to result in a ban.
If When marv calls me a fucking retard (probably rightly so) I don't expect him to get banned for a game unless he's really laying it on thick. If the rules say he gets modkilled, I guess that's what's going down.
Host puts up a list of rules in their OP. if you don't follow them and get modkilled, then there should be consequences.
All the banlist is is a list of people who haven't followed rules. Hosts can choose whether or not to follow the banlist. But it exists to give players an incentive to follow the rules the hosts lay out.
You must understand that this is not new set of rules per se, it is more like a new guideline for hosts and players. Like a big PSA: your behaviour, which was tolerated before might be bannable now. We are going to moderate our games stricter and modkill people more often. That is all. If you do not go over the line you are fine. If you get warned and play less abrasive, you are fine. If you get warned and still keep going at it - you are going to get banned. Respect others and it is going to be all good.
On May 28 2014 23:27 ObviousOne wrote: I think if hosts want to modkill for spam / caps / ad hom that's great if they choose to do so. However I don't think we need to go all ban list for slips in a game where those rules are going to be highly enforced since people tend to fall back on their habits or lose their cool in the heat of the moment.
Therefore I propose we separate the concept of bans and modkills in our minds. Modkilling someone who wants to play is probably punishment enough when their grievous fault is posting too much or using "SHOUTING TEXT!" or a clever joke picture / video. Disrupting the game after being modkilled is another issue entirely, of course. Not every offense of the nature of these newly-reaffirmed rules needs to result in a ban.
If When marv calls me a fucking retard (probably rightly so) I don't expect him to get banned for a game unless he's really laying it on thick. If the rules say he gets modkilled, I guess that's what's going down.
Host puts up a list of rules in their OP. if you don't follow them and get modkilled, then there should be consequences.
All the banlist is is a list of people who haven't followed rules. Hosts can choose whether or not to follow the banlist. But it exists to give players an incentive to follow the rules the hosts lay out.
Look, this whole post could have just been worded like:
"In light of recent behaviour i've asked the hosts to be a little bit stricter in terms of aggression and spam! They will warn you first and then if it continues you will be modkilled. Everything is at the hosts discretion but I have told them to be a little less leniant. We'd like more people to join and we want to start posting games to show off the fun we can have. In order for them to do that our games need to look a little more refined than current standings."
Nobody would have many problems with that ^ but the OP was worded so that every bit of aggression and caps lock and anger would not be tolerated at all. Even contemplating about TL bans...? So pretty much NOTHING is changing but the hosts being a little more pro-active in behaviour warning and that's it.
On May 29 2014 02:58 kushm4sta wrote: if you dont tell them they suck at life, how will they know to stop sucking?
This is precision but you word it differently
"You need to reconsider the thinking behind your actions. I am suspicious that the root of your problem is internal, and you need to address this because currently I suspect you experience failure everywhere.
Most of the people who are disagreeing don't bash Foolishness or GM. Don't paint it like that. It is good that they think about how to improve our community but in this case they are just wrong.
Fact is that most of the people who are in favor of this change are rarely or never playing games.
Fact is also that NOONE has brought even a single argument to the table as to why hosts couldn't just be more strict if they really want to without having to introduce general rules.
Fact is that people who complain don't show any evidence of how games are filled with bad behaviour right now. They just claim they are while there are people who say behaviour was worse in past years.
There is no reason to assume that it's the behaviour that keeps newbies from joining many normal games. Newbie games are really really different from normal games in many regards. Also it is in general way more likely that a newbie stops playing than established players.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is that most of the people who are in favor of this change are rarely or never playing games.
Isn't the fact that they stopped playing actually evidence in favor of the change, rather than against it? Like, if they were still actively playing you could just say "Well, clearly it's not that much of a problem if it's not driving people away". The fact that lots of people who aren't playing any more showed up to this thread and noted that they don't like how things have gone is actually evidence things are bad, isn't it?
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is also that NOONE has brought even a single argument to the table as to why hosts couldn't just be more strict if they really want to without having to introduce general rules.
Hosts COULD be more strict. We tried that. We suggested, last time around, changing nothing and asking hosts to be more strict. It didn't work. The fact of the matter is, COULD be more strict is not the same as ACTUALLY be more strict.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is that people who complain don't show any evidence of how games are filled with bad behaviour right now. They just claim they are while there are people who say behaviour was worse in past years.
Valid point, but people who say behavior was worse in past years aren't showing evidence either.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: There is no reason to assume that it's the behaviour that keeps newbies from joining many normal games. Newbie games are really really different from normal games in many regards. Also it is in general way more likely that a newbie stops playing than established players.
You can just ask Steveling how a newbie might not feel great on his first foray into a non-newbie game.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is that most of the people who are in favor of this change are rarely or never playing games.
Isn't the fact that they stopped playing actually evidence in favor of the change, rather than against it? Like, if they were still actively playing you could just say "Well, clearly it's not that much of a problem if it's not driving people away". The fact that lots of people who aren't playing any more showed up to this thread and noted that they don't like how things have gone is actually evidence things are bad, isn't it?
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is also that NOONE has brought even a single argument to the table as to why hosts couldn't just be more strict if they really want to without having to introduce general rules.
Hosts COULD be more strict. We tried that. We suggested, last time around, changing nothing and asking hosts to be more strict. It didn't work. The fact of the matter is, COULD be more strict is not the same as ACTUALLY be more strict.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: Fact is that people who complain don't show any evidence of how games are filled with bad behaviour right now. They just claim they are while there are people who say behaviour was worse in past years.
Valid point, but people who say behavior was worse in past years aren't showing evidence either.
On May 29 2014 03:19 justanothertownie wrote: There is no reason to assume that it's the behaviour that keeps newbies from joining many normal games. Newbie games are really really different from normal games in many regards. Also it is in general way more likely that a newbie stops playing than established players.
You can just ask Steveling how a newbie might not feel great on his first foray into a non-newbie game.
1) The people in question are mostly mafia abstinent for a loooong time already. Also I highly doubt that behaviour would be the only reason for this since there were opportunities to join strictly moderated games or to host such.
2) So hosts are either too lazy to enforce the rules or they don't think they are too lenient. What is the point of new rules then?
3) Bad bad example. Do you actually think that shiaopi wasn't totally right in how he moderated there?
like 80% of the newbies that don't play a second game are because they don't realise it's so time consuming, the remaining 20% that play a second game are overwhelmed by the amount of content difference between a newbie game and a normal game, probably like 5% of those people don't like the aggression.
There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
On May 29 2014 03:33 Holyflare wrote: like 80% of the newbies that don't play a second game are because they don't realise it's so time consuming, the remaining 20% that play a second game are overwhelmed by the amount of content difference between a newbie game and a normal game, probably like 5% of those people don't like the aggression.
before I decided to join a game again and talked to 3 people I think and all of them told me that they did not wanna put up with the spamming and yelling anymore and that I should not even try to play lol.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Yes, it kinda is since nobody is preventing anybody from hosting stricter moderated games. There even were some of those and the people in question did NOT join them. Anyone already is free to host/join such games. Why do you have to force everybody to do so if there clearly is a majority of people against that?
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Nobody is really arguing that being stricter is a problem at all? They are arguing that:
a) tl bans shouldn't be used at all b) the op was worded like some thing from a dictatorship where nothing would stand ever c) this was out of the blue and decided in secret rather than together
people don't care if hosts become a bit stricter and enforce the rules slightly more as long as they get warned first and then modkilled after
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Nobody is really arguing that being stricter is a problem at all? They are arguing that:
a) tl bans shouldn't be used at all b) the op was worded like some thing from a dictatorship where nothing would stand ever c) this was out of the blue and decided in secret rather than together
people don't care if hosts become a bit stricter and enforce the rules slightly more as long as they get warned first and then modkilled after
which is exactly what is happening so why are you still talking about it ?
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Nobody is really arguing that being stricter is a problem at all? They are arguing that:
a) tl bans shouldn't be used at all b) the op was worded like some thing from a dictatorship where nothing would stand ever c) this was out of the blue and decided in secret rather than together
people don't care if hosts become a bit stricter and enforce the rules slightly more as long as they get warned first and then modkilled after
which is exactly what is happening so why are you still talking about it ?
huh...? people are still arguing about it that's why and they don't know the reasons why people are arguing at all
On May 29 2014 03:33 Holyflare wrote: like 80% of the newbies that don't play a second game are because they don't realise it's so time consuming, the remaining 20% that play a second game are overwhelmed by the amount of content difference between a newbie game and a normal game, probably like 5% of those people don't like the aggression.
I'm actually looking to put together a short survey for people that complete their first newbie game, so maybe that will help give us a better idea of why players do not return or things that could be improved. I'm guessing you're probably right though, as time commitment and availability is likely the biggest factor. The overall newbie return rate is around 50%, which isn't too bad in my opinion. I think the bigger challenge right now is filling the newbie games at a faster pace with new players.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
On May 29 2014 03:33 Holyflare wrote: like 80% of the newbies that don't play a second game are because they don't realise it's so time consuming, the remaining 20% that play a second game are overwhelmed by the amount of content difference between a newbie game and a normal game, probably like 5% of those people don't like the aggression.
I'm actually looking to put together a short survey for people that complete their first newbie game, so maybe that will help give us a better idea of why players do not return or things that could be improved. I'm guessing you're probably right though, as time commitment and availability is likely the biggest factor. The overall newbie return rate is around 50%, which isn't too bad in my opinion. I think the bigger challenge right now is filling the newbie games at a faster pace with new players.
This is an awesome idea.
In this thread everyone has whatever little theory of what will work and what will not work but this is hard data. We go out and find the bastards and ask them why they don't like us anymore. That's the only way we can possibly know why they don't like us anymore, not by just sitting around and making stuff up. And when we know this we can reasonably make changes, we can't make changes just because someone has a theory that it might work (when nothing but isolated anecdotal evidence supports their claims).
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread
On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote: So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^
We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it.
I didn't read Back to Basics so I don't know what happened, but what do people think is not being punished harshly enough? Can someone post me a single ad hominem from a recent game that wasn't punished but that should have been punished? I only remember raynpelikoneet getting drunk and embarassing himself and he's banned now (and I believe most people supported that ban, including himself).
One of the many reasons I don't understand this is because I don't remember a single incident of someone saying something he or she should have been punished for that he or she was not punished for. I really have no idea what's going to change now but claiming that nothing is going to change is ridiculous.
There should be TL bans for done of the behavior I've seen on this forum. Adversarial game or not, to many people take this way beyond a game.
Having some of the games more strictly moderated does no good if they are the minority. I haven't seen one in a long time, largely because the active player base refused to play in them. Instead, they played in other games without stringent rules. Now, none of those games are hosted anymore. Obviously you people don't want reform, but other players do and you guys refuse to listen at all.
As a host I approve, as I've been instituting a lot of these policies on a strict basis in my games.
These changes won't make me a more active player, however. My inactivity is mostly being unable to make the time commitment. In fact, the pressure/vitriol was what actually inspired me to post more, since it was both easier to defend myself against less logical, less inclusive arguments, and more incentive to post or else the wagon of hate would lynch me.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
As usual, you fail to understand what I'm saying. I was making a mockery of the argument you just made in your post, because it is terrible. It is a complicated issue and many people are refusing at all to listen to other people's opinions.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread
On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote: So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^
We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it.
And yet, here we are.
that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules.
You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language
People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill.
People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them.
What's going wrong (if something is going wrong) is certain hosts who are unable to maintain whatever standards that you feel should be reached. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason?
On May 29 2014 04:33 prplhz wrote: I didn't read Back to Basics so I don't know what happened, but what do people think is not being punished harshly enough? Can someone post me a single ad hominem from a recent game that wasn't punished but that should have been punished? I only remember raynpelikoneet getting drunk and embarassing himself and he's banned now (and I believe most people supported that ban, including himself).
One of the many reasons I don't understand this is because I don't remember a single incident of someone saying something he or she should have been punished for that he or she was not punished for. I really have no idea what's going to change now but claiming that nothing is going to change is ridiculous.
This exactly this.
If hosts didn't punish hard enough since the last time we had this discussion then it is on them and not on the rules. And I sincerely doubt that they didn't. It seems to me that certain people somehow WANT this to be a problem when there actually really isn't one.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
As usual, you fail to understand what I'm saying. I was making a mockery of the argument you just made in your post, because it is terrible. It is a complicated issue and many people are refusing at all to listen to other people's opinions.
Except that other than Steveling, who IMO is a separate case entirely, most of said "quitters" and newbies haven't spoken up. Thus the point of my argument.
On May 29 2014 04:39 yamato77 wrote: There should be TL bans for done of the behavior I've seen on this forum. Adversarial game or not, to many people take this way beyond a game.
Having some of the games more strictly moderated does no good if they are the minority. I haven't seen one in a long time, largely because the active player base refused to play in them. Instead, they played in other games without stringent rules. Now, none of those games are hosted anymore. Obviously you people don't want reform, but other players do and you guys refuse to listen at all.
Well, maybe my memory is horrible but I just don't remember that beyond what raynpelikoneet just did, but he was punished for it. Can you direct me at a game or anything? Does anybody remember anything beyond "It's definitely happened"?
Well, actually I remember LSB making a horrible post at getmoript in that game we just played. Really poor style but geript was a champ about it.
On April 03 2014 12:51 LSB wrote: [...] Do you shit up tl forums because you find it fun to be a troll? Or are you just a disgusting human being? Please leave
Is this the kind of thing you're going to ban for now? Can anyone from the Junta answer this?
Why will it do no good if strictly moderated games are in the minority? Make a Junta game, send out PM invites (Koshi style, worked awesome for Golden Sun, 32 players in like 1-2 days), play and enjoy. Why is that no good? Does the community have to be that homogenous? Maybe we can even have a special queue category for them (or a queue category for leniently modded games)?
Anyway, I was never actually against this change, it might work and at worst I don't think it will have a big impact anyway. I was just against the way it's being implemented (globally enforced by Junta).
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread
On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote: So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^
We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it.
And yet, here we are.
that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules.
You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language
People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill.
People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them.
What's going wrong is certain hosts who are unable to maintain standards. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason?
This is a good point. I haven't had problems for the most part in my games because I tend to be a proactive host. Hell, I've pre-warned players just to help ensure that shit doesn't get close to overboard. This is one of the things I mean by "more consistency in enforcing moderation." Some people are Good Guy Gregs; some are Scumbag Steves; some are Asshole Andys. For the hosts that tend to be more lax, it would help if we paired them with a Greg or an Andy. Kinda like how we don't let DP host alone (he accidentally fucks up) and often needs help with the meticulous details. Hosts like Wave or Shaiopi IMO could use a strong personality to focus on moderating their games because those two are less willing to be a jerk in order to maintain etiquette in their games.
Edit: to clarify, not trying to snipe at anyone. Kinda how we tend to let hosting vets pick their own setup etc where as newer hosts require pre-approval of set ups.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
This may be the worst argument I've seen yet. The reverse is equally true. The "quitters" who showed up to voice their opinions are ignoring the opinions of those that stayed. Plus, the "quitter so shouldn't have a say in community matters because they're biased AND they excised themselves from the community so they shouldn't have any voice.
Let's be honest. Both sides have good and valid points. Both sides have their benefits and detriments. It's complicated to help solve it.
That is the point - IT ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL. Let the people who want stricter rules host games with stricter rules without forcing those rules down everyones throat. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
We already tried that. We tried that 6 months ago in this thread
On December 18 2013 04:20 GMarshal wrote: So, what seems to be the consensus is that hosts need to be more proactive about regulating behavior, maybe trying WotC in some more games, and nothing more for now. Lets have this talk again in a month or so and see if things have improved ^_^
We TRIED that. We TRIED just chilling and having hosts improving behavior standards. So our options aren't "try something new, or try a wide ranging rule change", our options are "don't change anything, or try a wide ranging rule change". Your suggested solution is already being implemented for the past 6 months. It's a totally reasonable solution, and it is what I agreed with 6 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it.
And yet, here we are.
that's a failure on the hosts part, not from a wideranging problem with the rules.
You see people fucking up in your games? No? Because you're mega-strict on language
People taking the piss when Palmar hosts? No? Because he will modkill.
People take the piss when I host? No? Because if they carry on when I warn them i'll crucify them.
What's going wrong is certain hosts who are unable to maintain standards. I don't see why these hosts will suddenly magically be able to maintain control of games because the underlying ruleset became a bit more stupid for no reason?
This is a good point. I haven't had problems for the most part in my games because I tend to be a proactive host. Hell, I've pre-warned players just to help ensure that shit doesn't get close to overboard. This is one of the things I mean by "more consistency in enforcing moderation." Some people are Good Guy Gregs; some are Scumbag Steves; some are Asshole Andys. For the hosts that tend to be more lax, it would help if we paired them with a Greg or an Andy. Kinda like how we don't let DP host alone (he accidentally fucks up) and often needs help with the meticulous details. Hosts like Wave or Shaiopi IMO could use a strong personality to focus on moderating their games because those two are less willing to be a jerk in order to maintain etiquette in their games.
On May 29 2014 04:33 prplhz wrote: I didn't read Back to Basics so I don't know what happened, but what do people think is not being punished harshly enough? Can someone post me a single ad hominem from a recent game that wasn't punished but that should have been punished? I only remember raynpelikoneet getting drunk and embarassing himself and he's banned now (and I believe most people supported that ban, including himself).
I don't see how this has anything to do with this because in my opinion i got an appropriate punishment and there is nothing wrong with that. The discussion topic is pretty much the opposite.
And yes i could post at least some examples (even though i haven't followed a single game except for one) after my ban.
If there is a game where the other team's purpose is to tear down the other one with lies and bullshit, people who can't stand getting called bad or let that go away after the game should not play mafia. In competitive "scene" that's a fact. I agree that ad hom's should not happen but it's hard to draw a line between what's "wrong" and what's "right" because pf the nature of the game.
If the power to decide is given to hosts that's okay, but as a player i would expect them to clearly outline what's within the rules and what's not before the game, so i (and other players) can decide if the game in question is a child's game or adult's game and either play or not. Also all people should be treated equally within the rules.
If the above stands then there is no problem for me.
Also someone brought up the spamming, all caps posting and gifs and stuff, that's something that is impossible to control and why should it be controlled? Post restrictions (limiting posts) are one way and it makes people think what they say but it also limits some people's capabilities of playing regarding their playstyle. Imo mafia nowadays is not what it used to be ~5yr ago, big cases and defences and stuff. Newer people tend to play with more interactive playstyle, they use more time to play the game, and want to have "direct conversations" to push their agenda. Who is to say that's wrong if that accumulates into 10 page, 20 page, or 50 page filter?
If someone makes the thread unreadable, lynch them. Mafia agenda - also perfecly valid mafia strategy if not lynched. Ask Blazinghand.
srsly TL is not even close to the worst places of spamming or "spamming" in what i have seen on other forums. We should be glad if/as/when we only have ~1000 posts on D1. Go play on some other forum (where people actually play mafia) and you get x2 of that post count, at least...
I for one fully support the change in the OP. Maybe I am part of the "sensitive" people but I know that I did not sign up for a long while because I just did not enjoy being in games with bad atmosphere flying around. Also while this is strictly subjective feeling from my point of view the tone did get rougher and worse from back when I played my newbies.
I think most of the protesters here are overestimating the impact this rulechange will have on the games. I mean after all it will just make it more acceptable for hosts to deal out strict punishment and measures to keep games civil. Having it announced like this gives hosts simply said a better position to argue from when/if protest against a measure of his arises. Also I think some players would just dodge games where heavy moderation is mentioned before the start as they think it subtracts from the mafia experience. This makes it more difficult for hosts to fill up their games, especially for newer ones, which are not yet established as "good" hosts (I count myself very much part of the newer host-group).
If all games will be held by the same standard dodging hosts which are more strict will not be viable.
After all most of the things will remain the same anyway, it just gives host more room to maneuver.
On another slightly unrelated note, do I have to understand why steveling brought those PMs up again?
Perfectly valid argument but i don't really get what's the change?
To the last bit, no you should not. To be perfectly honest I would not put much weigh on his arguments based on what i have seen and how he has acted before.
The change is more within the tone of the subforum in general. Changing the rules like this makes it more "official" and "accepted" for players, who might be unhappy with this if it were just brought in by some hosts. At least I as host feel more empowered to actually moderate more heavily and not suffer the backlash of being a "nazi mod/fascist host or whatever" for trying to keep games civil
On May 29 2014 07:02 ShiaoPi wrote: The change is more within the tone of the subforum in general. Changing the rules like this makes it more "official" and "accepted" for players, who might be unhappy with this if it were just brought in by some hosts. At least I as host feel more empowered to actually moderate more heavily and not suffer the backlash of being a "nazi mod/fascist host or whatever" for trying to keep games civil
Do you really think there would be people protesting if you moderated bad behaviour right now? If so then THAT is the problem - not the rules. Because if you put it in your OP that behaviour will be moderated strictly then noone has the right to go against that and I am pretty sure that noone will.
I do think that if I started to do that before this discussion I would have gotten some kind of backlash, either in form of banlistthread drama or just by people not joining my games.
On May 29 2014 07:07 ShiaoPi wrote: I do think that if I started to do that before this discussion I would have gotten some kind of backlash, either in form of banlistthread drama or just by people not joining my games.
I don't think so. Why don't you try and see if that is the case before changing the rules? And if you feel confident enough to do your job like you should after this discussion then fine - this thread did its job. But the rulechange still is not needed and should not be made.
On May 29 2014 07:07 ShiaoPi wrote: I do think that if I started to do that before this discussion I would have gotten some kind of backlash, either in form of banlistthread drama or just by people not joining my games.
The last two banlist drama's have nothing to do with this and you should not be "afraid" of you doing something turning into another one. Also reasonble people join reasonable people's games. There is no way you can please everyone (for real). You just have to choose what you do and what you do not do regarding that.
Please do not be afraid to enforce something in your games, some people will always disagree for some reason. Hosting games is what keeps mafia alive because without hosts there are no games.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
On May 29 2014 07:21 Blazinghand wrote: Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
imo this is the reason why this particular thread exists..... I agree with what you are saying but still..
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
The thing is pretty much everything was allowed for the players since very few hosts actually enforced the rules like it is planned to now.
If you were a new host who already has trouble filling up his games (see for example golden sun before koshi invited everyone) since nobody knows about your setups and how you handle games a message saying you will be strict on manners can just be the nail in the coffin for your game.
On May 29 2014 07:27 justanothertownie wrote: And I still would like you to point out why you think things haven't worked out in the past 6 months cause frankly I don't see that.
Well this is true. If people are are all against something, give examples of which we should cut off. (I am so bad at saying anything to this because i am a badmouth myself and i don't really care).
Like if hosts were afraid they couldn't push through their believes for whatever weird reason then they now KNOW that this is baseless. After this discussion it should be clear that they can and should do that. We don't need the change for this.
I am just bringing it up as example for new hosts, who have trouble filling up games. There is already a lot of issues you have with trying to host large themed games and if you make the entrybarrier harder for the games in questions it will be worse.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
well some people don't feel comfortable getting into hotpants because they're too tight. some of us are born naturals.
the answer is not to make hotpants roomier, the answer is just to squeeze yo ass in.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
Then this discussion has done what it should. We as a community should show the hosts that they can and should enforce their rules in their games. There is no doubt about that and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But the fact that the new rules are not needed for that still remains.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
well some people don't feel comfortable getting into hotpants because they're too tight. some of us are born naturals.
the answer is not to make hotpants roomier, the answer is just to squeeze yo ass in.
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
well some people don't feel comfortable getting into hotpants because they're too tight. some of us are born naturals.
the answer is not to make hotpants roomier, the answer is just to squeeze yo ass in.
Don't worry, we have a new change to encourage all hosts to squeeze yo ass into hotpants coming into effect
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
they already can
lol
Well obviously not since steveling got off with nothing
On May 29 2014 07:21 Holyflare wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:19 Blazinghand wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:
On May 29 2014 07:11 justanothertownie wrote: If more hosts think like you then that is the problem we are facing here. Don't be afraid of backlash and host the way you intent to.
+1 totally
Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" is easy for someone like you or me who fears no-one. If a host, especially a new or inexperienced host, can point to official TL Mafia rules, then s/he will feel safer meting out punishment.
you mean like the ones that already exist? :O
Even if the change is entirely symbolic (which people argue it is, but hten also argue it's bad for some reason) the symbolic change is meaningful for hosts to actually crack down. Just saying "don't be afraid of backlash" or "crack down on bad behavior" doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the past 6 months.
Wtf is up with this steveling stuff? Your last paragraph is just total bs. There already are rules against bad behaviour and host can refer to them as well as they could refer to the new ones.
but they DON'T. They CAN refer to them, but they DON'T, and at least one host has come in and said that he didn't feel comfortable, and now he does.
well some people don't feel comfortable getting into hotpants because they're too tight. some of us are born naturals.
the answer is not to make hotpants roomier, the answer is just to squeeze yo ass in.
Surely the answer is to encourage those who are worried to try it, they'll look good
On May 29 2014 08:14 kushm4sta wrote: ya i mean just as long as i dont get banned for stupid shit i dont care
Don't do stupid shit then. God you're such a whiny whore Koshi. It's like Rayn hasn't been there to give it to you like you like it and Marv isn't picking up the slack.
I'd write more but I'm not even quite sure that I haven't gone over the line already.
I'm just stunned. Like I thought it was pretty obvious by how over the top it was that I was being exceptionally sarcastic. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this; like my sheer stupidity of not being able to recognize the difference between Koshi and Kustm4sta or the fact that someone took it seriously.
Like is it now not allowed to say, "Last I knew, barring some recent conversion therapy, you happen to like pricks." To Marv.
Personally, I would like to know how much ad revenue the TL mafia forum makes for teamliquid then make certain demands or threaten to strike. I want a better pm system. And I want a better filter system like they have at mafiascum.
if the community is deeply divided about this, which it clearly is, then the status quo should continue.
not to mention that the majority of active regular's are vehemently against the changes.
like prplhz, I am more concerned about the secretive manner this was 'decided' with, the way it was presented as inevitable in the op and the 'junta' that seems to be making broad based policy changes without consultation of the active player base.
If it is so broad, why are people like Marv arguing that they aren't even effective changes?
I'd like to know what people are so afraid of. If you don't think you can treat other mafia players like human beings in the game, I think you should be punished for it. Is that really so ridiculous? And yes, it shouldn't be just a slap on the wrist like the current "bans". This forum should be held to a higher standard than it is now. Obviously many of you disagree, but you aren't exactly being articulate, you're just fear mongering with wording like "junta" and "secretive" while undermining the entire point of these changes.
Like seriously i don't understand what people are posting anymore this shouldn't be a post about player rule changes because the rules that need to be enforced are already there. This post should be a post to get hosts to enforce the rules and do their job.
Hosts have my support to host how they want to host. If hosts want to host with an iron fist, they can host with an iron fist. If they want a more relaxed, flippant game under their belt as a host, that is also their prerogative. Hosts can host how they want to host.
As someone that played his first newbie game a month ago, I can say it finished with a fairly decent experience. It was overall pretty fun to play in as everyone was cordial and nobody was really bad mannered at all, which is why I signed up for the next mini mafia available after Golden Sun finished (which I didn't join because it looked too confusing).
For me, I could easily see my experience being ruined by people resorting to insulting other players in-game. If that had happened in my newbie game, I'm not too sure I would have signed up for another. Idk how often that's actually a problem, but I really don't have a problem with people being nicer to each other.
I'd support this, as little as my opinion probably matters.
On May 29 2014 11:45 ObviousOne wrote: Hosts have my support to host how they want to host. If hosts want to host with an iron fist, they can host with an iron fist. If they want a more relaxed, flippant game under their belt as a host, that is also their prerogative. Hosts can host how they want to host.
I haven't played Mafia in a while, but still enjoy following the games. I think that if hosts do make an effort to be an active part of the solution, especially by maintaining good communication, this seems like a great policy moving forward.
I'll try to post further thoughts later, but just got done with a 15 hour driving day so that will have to wait.
Why not create a "low priority" list a la doto2, meaning, put in there every person that misbehaves and let them only play between them. Let the "russians" and the flamers of tlmafia play in their vitriolic games as much as they want.
This way we also avoid the tl-wide-ban whining and if someone asks Gmarshal why there are some threads so inappropriate for tl standards, he can say that it's just our "lowprio" games. Every lowprio dude will have to play 3 lowprio games before being able to join legit games again, granted he wasn't warned in these 3 games. Apart from few veterans who enjoy this kind of thing, I guarantee everyone else will strive to keep their names off from this list. Especially newbies. And even these people will improve their behavior after seeing what's like to be playing with 12 other dudes like themselves.
On May 29 2014 11:05 yamato77 wrote: If it is so broad, why are people like Marv arguing that they aren't even effective changes?
I'd like to know what people are so afraid of. If you don't think you can treat other mafia players like human beings in the game, I think you should be punished for it. Is that really so ridiculous? And yes, it shouldn't be just a slap on the wrist like the current "bans". This forum should be held to a higher standard than it is now. Obviously many of you disagree, but you aren't exactly being articulate, you're just fear mongering with wording like "junta" and "secretive" while undermining the entire point of these changes.
Well, I think this is directed at me since I'm the one who keeps going on about "Junta" and "secretive" so I'm going to respond.
I don't think it's ridiculous that you get punished for not treating other people like human beings. But isn't this already happening? Literally no one has come up with a concrete example of someone going too far without getting punished. If anything is fear mongering it's saying "if this isn't implemented people will continue to treat each other like shit" when you cannot produce a single example of that even happening without being punished accordingly under the current rules.
Foolishness is even saying that everything is okay when he says "No one will have to change their behavior or playstyle". Do you, yamato77, want this to affect someone's behavior or playstyle? Well you're not going to get what you want then, at least according to Foolishness.
Also, this is a complete Junta move. They're not even in here participating in a dialogue, or maybe they are because we largely don't know who they are. What I see here is GMarshall informing people that he will site ban them if they don't comply with something decided by a minority. Maybe I misunderstood all of this but that's just what I see and no one is telling me that I'm horrendously wrong and what's intended is for something entierly else. There is no compromise or middle ground here, there is no trying to make people understand these changes, there is no addressing concerns, there is only an OP and a few more posts and then the rest of the thread is full of unanswered "What?"s and "Why?"s.
I don't even know if I'm going to get site banned under the new rules. Maybe I am? If I am, then I'd really like to know so I don't end up joining a game and ruining it for everybody else by getting site banned. But again, the Junta does not seem to pay attention to this thread. It seems like they're saying "Just accept this, nothing will happen" and then they're going to start site banning people.
On May 29 2014 14:04 Blazinghand wrote: I think LPQ is a terrible idea and will only cause division and strife.
Why is that? What do you even care if there's a subset of people on this forum who would rather play unmoderated games? There are Caller games right now and from what I know, they're more leniently modded but still popular. I have no idea why on earth you people want to banhammer people into conformity when there is room enough for almost everybody.
On May 29 2014 11:05 yamato77 wrote: If it is so broad, why are people like Marv arguing that they aren't even effective changes?
I'd like to know what people are so afraid of. If you don't think you can treat other mafia players like human beings in the game, I think you should be punished for it. Is that really so ridiculous? And yes, it shouldn't be just a slap on the wrist like the current "bans". This forum should be held to a higher standard than it is now. Obviously many of you disagree, but you aren't exactly being articulate, you're just fear mongering with wording like "junta" and "secretive" while undermining the entire point of these changes.
Well, I think this is directed at me since I'm the one who keeps going on about "Junta" and "secretive" so I'm going to respond.
I don't think it's ridiculous that you get punished for not treating other people like human beings. But isn't this already happening? Literally no one has come up with a concrete example of someone going too far without getting punished. If anything is fear mongering it's saying "if this isn't implemented people will continue to treat each other like shit" when you cannot produce a single example of that even happening without being punished accordingly under the current rules.
Foolishness is even saying that everything is okay when he says "No one will have to change their behavior or playstyle". Do you, yamato77, want this to affect someone's behavior or playstyle? Well you're not going to get what you want then, at least according to Foolishness.
Also, this is a complete Junta move. They're not even in here participating in a dialogue, or maybe they are because we largely don't know who they are. What I see here is GMarshall informing people that he will site ban them if they don't comply with something decided by a minority. Maybe I misunderstood all of this but that's just what I see and no one is telling me that I'm horrendously wrong and what's intended is for something entierly else. There is no compromise or middle ground here, there is no trying to make people understand these changes, there is no addressing concerns, there is only an OP and a few more posts and then the rest of the thread is full of unanswered "What?"s and "Why?"s.
I don't even know if I'm going to get site banned under the new rules. Maybe I am? If I am, then I'd really like to know so I don't end up joining a game and ruining it for everybody else by getting site banned. But again, the Junta does not seem to pay attention to this thread. It seems like they're saying "Just accept this, nothing will happen" and then they're going to start site banning people.
On May 29 2014 14:04 Blazinghand wrote: I think LPQ is a terrible idea and will only cause division and strife.
Why is that? What do you even care if there's a subset of people on this forum who would rather play unmoderated games? There are Caller games right now and from what I know, they're more leniently modded but still popular. I have no idea why on earth you people want to banhammer people into conformity when there is room enough for almost everybody.
I'm actively reading the thread, and answering relevant questions. Its a little hard to reply to a bunch of posts basically asking things I've already addressed, completely misinterpreting the thread, or stating that "nothing is wrong", when a number of people have posted to say that don't play because of the atmosphere. No one has actually replied to my point that if we're going to promote tl mafia actively we can't look like a bunch of battlenet forum posters to any newcomers.
No one is getting TL banned, I floated that as an idea because it was discussed, there was no vehement agreement, so its probably not happening. Are people actually reading my posts? because it sure doesn't feel like it. I said "this is an idea I'm floating" not: "BTW TL bans!"
I'll reiterate. This was not some decision I just woke up and made, foolishness suggested tightening up the rules, then talked with the hosts, the hosts agreed, I made a thread instead of keeping it on the down low and not informing anyone.
If this were really some kind of "junta" move, I assure you I wouldn't have made a thread about it. If I wanted to siteban people for bad behavior, I also wouldn't have to post a thread. Everyone is saying "why wasn't the community consulted?", when that's the entire point of me posting this, and of foolishness talking with people. I already brought this up after the last game I hosted, and nothing changed, so this is an attempt at more proactive action. I'm not going to be reading threads looking for people to ban, getting people banned is still *entirely* in the hands of the hosts.
Seriously, let me reiterate for the 20th time, this is not an unilateral decision, I did not just decide to do this, foolishness discussed this with people hosting games, including people he thought would disagree.
On May 29 2014 08:44 geript wrote: I'm just stunned. Like I thought it was pretty obvious by how over the top it was that I was being exceptionally sarcastic.
It's the internet; sarcasm doesn't translate well. At first glance, and since I don't know you, I thought you were being a total asshole. I think it would be more sensible to not talk like that, lest people miscontrue what you say and consider you to be an asshole and not want to play with you. I have barely played in a long time so my opinion shouldn't be considered important imo, just some thoughts on this.
I think the small amounts of Foolishness/GM/"Junta" + Show Spoiler +
(wtf? why the us vs. them mentality)
flame is weird. Maybe things have changed since I played, but there is a reason why those ppl became leaders of TL Mafia. Foolishness/GM games were always the best hosted / most fun games. In my opinion, they understand how to host good games of Mafia, they talk about it a lot, and come to decisions after thinking and working through this crap for a long time. It's not like they are shadowy observers who don't understand the community.
prplhz are you serious? unless you've changed a lot you're not going to be banned. seriously, you're not a flaming asshole, I have no idea why you're even a little worried. I guess I could say why I stopped playing. It was partially because of getting busy / personal issues, and partially because of getting flamed like crazy and it making me disillusioned with the game. Namely, FourFace flaming a bunch in some game (I forgot what game, he got TL banned), and Coagulation flaming me when I was on his scum team in Space Station Mafia + Show Spoiler +
I forgot that was a nonbanlist game, so that was my fault for joining
. Would stricter rules have prevented those instances? I don't know, but I would like it if some steps were taken to prevent things like that.
Yes, mafia is a game based on emotion, digging at people who are against you. But acting like a fucking asshole doesn't make you better at the game. It just makes you an asshole. The best people at Mafia, imo, don't need to resort to that. People cite WBG, but honestly his flames were controlled, clever. Not just haphazard vitriol. from what I can tell the changes aren't going to take away any of the useful tools people already use. honestly though, I think the people who actively play should have more say, since the changes will affect them the most.
haven't played in forever, but I want to throw my support in for this. For those questioning whether people stop playing due to the atmosphere, I am one of those people. Those that say that somehow enforcing the rules of the game limits your ability to play the game, then I feel sorry for you.
there is a reason I auto joined any game hosted by Gmashal and Ver, and thats because I trusted in them as host to keep things in line when need be, and you know what, those are always the best games on this forum. they have the highest level of play, and result in the most enjoyment from its players. many of the people arguing against this change also play in these games, yet they dont put 2+2 together to realize that simply enforcing the rules that are laid out results in higher level of play. their argument about how it limits the game goes against there own reasoning.
I also highly agree with what yamato, strongandbig, and Ace have all said.
guys comparing the people who put time and effort into running our little corner of the internet is really unfair imo, at the same time I am a little sad to see gerript get warned for his post on the previous page.
I guess given subsequent posts from foolishness which basically say what I was trying to get at, I see no reason not to let this fly for a little while. If it honestly turns out to be that big of a deal and a significant portion doesn't think the change is working out then we can have another drama thread like we're all so fond of and change it back.
On May 29 2014 08:14 kushm4sta wrote: ya i mean just as long as i dont get banned for stupid shit i dont care
Don't do stupid shit then. God you're such a whiny whore Koshi. It's like Rayn hasn't been there to give it to you like you like it and Marv isn't picking up the slack.
I'd write more but I'm not even quite sure that I haven't gone over the line already.
look who is hosting the game you join. If you want I be loose and you know they run a tight ship don't join. If you want a tightly run game don't join that thing being hosted by a swinger.
look who is hosting the game you join. If you want I be loose and you know they run a tight ship don't join. If you want a tightly run game don't join that thing being hosted by a swinger.
Do I want players to be more respectful to others/themselves? Yes
Do I think having a more rigorous rule set for etiquette would be beneficial? Yes
Do I think this will foster more growth in the TL mafia community or help stint its decay? No
There are three main reasons why I am not actively involved anymore: 1. I enjoy video mafia more. It is faster paced, more personal and more rewarding. 2. Inconsistent player activity. In many games I have played, players go MIA, lurk, etc... I understand that we all have lives, but this really detours me from wanting to stay active myself. 3. The community. I enjoy playing with a lot of people on this site, but there are some players on this site that will ruin a game for me. It is not their etiquette that ruins games for me. I have a thick skin and don't care what anyone says about me.
I have talked with Phil a bunch in the past about rule sets, etiquette, etc... We see eye to eye on everything. Whatever he wants to implement I support.
I will say though that the age old debate of having "the mod" = GOD or "a common rule set" = GOD isn't going to disappear and is a trap. Having both seems reasonable.
On May 29 2014 07:28 ShiaoPi wrote: The thing is pretty much everything was allowed for the players since very few hosts actually enforced the rules like it is planned to now.
If you were a new host who already has trouble filling up his games (see for example golden sun before koshi invited everyone) since nobody knows about your setups and how you handle games a message saying you will be strict on manners can just be the nail in the coffin for your game.
So what you're saying is "hosts may want to make stricter games, but if they make stricter games they're afraid no one will join the game."
I'd say that speaks volumes about the popularity of these new rules then.
On May 29 2014 22:04 yamato77 wrote: Which speaks volumes about the playerbase we currently have, and their attitude toward acting like respectable people.
If TL were only made up of the people who are against these changes, I would probably play here more than once every three months. I always begin a game, read a 1000 word post about someone hurting someone elses feelings and why I should be outraged that someone got called 'dumb' on the internet. The lightbulb goes on and I remember why I don't like it here.
This is a game. Where the object is to discredit your opponent and establish yourself and your agenda as the one people should be listening to. As Marv says, "inherently adversarial." It's possible to survive in an environment when things get heated.
Avoid spam. Don't flame. Keep it burg. Only fools take things said in-game to have significance beyond it.
-is my favorite rule on OMGUS.
What I'm seeing amongst the "for" crowd's arguments are that these changes are so small that no-one will even have to change their playing style. If it's not going to change playstyle whatsoever, how will it affect in-game atmosphere? It cant. So the changes will be made broader and more extreme and so on.
Why don't you host a game under the new rules. At first only the teary-eyed children will join but if these rule changes are as great as you say, and they require as little adjustment as you say, everyone should come around right?
Whatever. I really like this community, I think it's the only community on the interwebs that's ever held my attention for so long. Now some secret minority wants to force changes down everybody's throats. This thread is ridiculous because everything has already been decided so there's only token interest in dialogue and apparently no interest in compromise. I hope this is going to work out great but I fear you're going to ruin everything for no reason.
As someone who has been inactive for a long time and just happened on this thread, I just wanted to point out that the reason that I don't play mafia very often is because it's just too much of a time commitment for me. It has nothing to do with a "toxic atmosphere". Hell, angry people on the internet is probably the most fun part of this game.
On May 28 2014 11:28 Ace wrote: 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.
And this one as well:
On May 29 2014 03:02 Holyflare wrote: Look, this whole post could have just been worded like:
"In light of recent behaviour i've asked the hosts to be a little bit stricter in terms of aggression and spam! They will warn you first and then if it continues you will be modkilled. Everything is at the hosts discretion but I have told them to be a little less leniant. We'd like more people to join and we want to start posting games to show off the fun we can have. In order for them to do that our games need to look a little more refined than current standings."
Nobody would have many problems with that ^ but the OP was worded so that every bit of aggression and caps lock and anger would not be tolerated at all. Even contemplating about TL bans...? So pretty much NOTHING is changing but the hosts being a little more pro-active in behaviour warning and that's it.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Nobody is really arguing that being stricter is a problem at all? They are arguing that:
a) tl bans shouldn't be used at all b) the op was worded like some thing from a dictatorship where nothing would stand ever c) this was out of the blue and decided in secret rather than together
people don't care if hosts become a bit stricter and enforce the rules slightly more as long as they get warned first and then modkilled after
a) As GM already said in a previous post, nobody is getting TL banned. And as he already said this was an idea that was discussed and proposed. And personally, I'll admit I was the main proponent of that because I am in favor of such a thing. But as many people have already pointed out it's not a good idea because it doesn't address or solve the issue(s) at hand. So even though I disagree on the issue it's not going to happen.
b) I quoted the two posts by Ace and HolyFlare at the start to reemphasize what's going on. If the OP sounded like this then yes, it's GM's and my fault for that happening. It wasn't our intention and we didn't think people would interpret it that way.
c) It wasn't out of the blue because I talked to a lot of people in private first before making this thread. This was done to see if people agreed with this and if hosts would be willing to step up and enforce and reward good behavior.
The list of hosts that I personally asked before hand were: + Show Spoiler +
I choose these players by looking at the games that occurred in the past 6 months or so and picking the names of hosts/cohosts whose name appeared a lot. Obviously I wanted to ask the hosts who have been the most frequent hosts as of late. Besides the people here I also asked a few people who have been around on the forum for a long time even if they don't host/play much anymore. Even though the primary goal was to ask hosts I didn't strictly go by that rule and asked players who were frequent cohosts as well.
I think most of the people I listed have already voiced their opinion in the thread so there's not much more to say about that issue.
So if hosts (whoever they are) agreed with what you guys are proposing in the first place why is it not happening already? I mean, this has been talked before and people were in on that then. Why don't hosts act like it then?
Honestly the topic in itself is good but the way it was presented felt like it's somehow player's "fault" that we need this sort of "change" when in fact nothing changes except for hosts using their banhammer more fairly to keep up good atmosphere.
On May 30 2014 03:49 raynpelikoneet wrote: So if hosts (whoever they are) agreed with what you guys are proposing in the first place why is it not happening already? I mean, this has been talked before and people were in on that then. Why don't hosts act like it then?
Honestly the topic in itself is good but the way it was presented felt like it's somehow player's "fault" that we need this sort of "change" when in fact nothing changes except for hosts using their banhammer more fairly to keep up good atmosphere.
We wouldn't just change the subforum rules without community input. This kind of change needs a thread imo
On May 30 2014 04:05 raynpelikoneet wrote: But there is no change in anything except for what i just said, is there?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I suspect I will not have to change much about my own moderation. Guys like ShiaoPi will have to shape up though
On May 30 2014 03:49 raynpelikoneet wrote: So if hosts (whoever they are) agreed with what you guys are proposing in the first place why is it not happening already? I mean, this has been talked before and people were in on that then. Why don't hosts act like it then?
Honestly the topic in itself is good but the way it was presented felt like it's somehow player's "fault" that we need this sort of "change" when in fact nothing changes except for hosts using their banhammer more fairly to keep up good atmosphere.
Precise, it's already happening in my area I just haven't got anything running yet.
You will not know what you are in for in my games. But, no matter what if you are needlessly a jerk I ban you pretty fast just like any other host
Before I was like whatever and even waived my own rules in Yuma because I felt I had been unclear.
Stay CHUPAZI my friends no need for hijole
Unless you want to say stuff like "u suk @ lyfe" then go away
On May 30 2014 05:08 Palmar wrote: We should all be in politics.
We ARE a forum full of people who like to hang out and argue.
Yes but ideally we would be discussing on this forum and trying to get a consensus that leads results. We are like the corrupt parliament that lost track of what is important and runs around in circles
On May 30 2014 05:08 Palmar wrote: We should all be in politics.
We ARE a forum full of people who like to hang out and argue.
Yes but ideally we would be discussing on this forum and trying to get a consensus that leads results. We are like the corrupt parliament that lost track of what is important and runs around in circles
You wouldn't happen to live in America, would you?
On May 30 2014 05:08 Palmar wrote: We should all be in politics.
We ARE a forum full of people who like to hang out and argue.
Yes but ideally we would be discussing on this forum and trying to get a consensus that leads results. We are like the corrupt parliament that lost track of what is important and runs around in circles
yes.
On May 30 2014 05:30 Erandorr wrote: Also its adorable how many people seem to be stuck in the "I WONT ACCEPT ANY KIND OF AUTHORITY ITS NOT SELFISH ITS MY FREEDOM" phase
So, the reason why I haven't put my thoughts into the thread yet is because I felt I didn't really have any real opinions either way on the matter. I didn't stop playing because of the attitudes of people, or any extra responsibilities. I simply stopped because a number of those who I enjoyed playing games with didn't play as much (Wiggles, VE, Eran, Draz, Toad to name a few)
I genuinely don't feel like it's much of a change, just that maybe the OP was worded a bit wrongly. In my eyes, it means people just have to look again before they post, which is what you should be doing anyways? If you take a step back for a second and make sure your post isn't unnecessarily offensive, wouldn't that also let you make sure your post doesn't have some unintentional indication of your role/alignment?
I think that mafia on TL would benefit from these changes. It's a pain to play here, or at least it was when I stopped playing. The spam, the insults, the attacks... it was just brutal. What was it, one of the TL Mafia games in the forties or fifties, featured two of the scum making pages of posts against each other of just absolute shit. It was miserable to play through. It's just not fun to play in those kinds of environments.
You read some of the older games, the mind games that went on behind the scenes, and it just looks so exciting. Building cases, fighting constructively to prove your point, applying analysis instead of lynching the people who aren't spamming... I want TL Mafia to look like that. Instead, we get games that are just painful to even read, much less think about what's really going on.
I think that TL should strive to run a tighter ship. I really don't give a shit about "this is my play style" or "this is the current meta". The current meta is fucking stupid. Forum mafia should be a game about wits and outsmarting your opponent, rather than just making yourself the loudest. I fully support anything that allows the host to clean up the game and make it more engaging to the players and the observers.
Given these changes, I would definitely think about coming back and hosting, if not playing.
e: It was TL Mafia LI aka the one that Mattchew (the cohost) accidentally ended by revealing the entire scum team in the day post flip (nuttin but love for mattchew <3) Day 2 started on Page 54. Night 2 started on Page 114. Compare that to Aperture Mafia, which had roughly the same number of pages, and went on for another 8 days total.
THis change will rip the heart out of the com munity
as much as i have loved TL for the last 4 years, TL moderation is anal to an extent that is borderline embarrassing and a little pathetic.Our abiltily to be rude to each other in a way that we all should know isn't serious is something i very much appreiciate. The fact that emotions run so high is testament to how important and impactful these games can become and is a large part of why people continue to come back even after starcraft (numerically speaking) died.
It's also not am overreaction the shit that gets said here is so much worse than tons of post that get warnings and bans elsewhere on tl and enforcement of the site wide rules as a whole would gut this community
On May 30 2014 08:51 ghost_403 wrote: I think that mafia on TL would benefit from these changes. It's a pain to play here, or at least it was when I stopped playing. The spam, the insults, the attacks... it was just brutal. What was it, one of the TL Mafia games in the forties or fifties, featured two of the scum making pages of posts against each other of just absolute shit. It was miserable to play through. It's just not fun to play in those kinds of environments.
You read some of the older games, the mind games that went on behind the scenes, and it just looks so exciting. Building cases, fighting constructively to prove your point, applying analysis instead of lynching the people who aren't spamming... I want TL Mafia to look like that. Instead, we get games that are just painful to even read, much less think about what's really going on.
I think that TL should strive to run a tighter ship. I really don't give a shit about "this is my play style" or "this is the current meta". The current meta is fucking stupid. Forum mafia should be a game about wits and outsmarting your opponent, rather than just making yourself the loudest. I fully support anything that allows the host to clean up the game and make it more engaging to the players and the observers.
I fully endorse this post.
The argument that "X's opinion shouldn't count because he doesn't play anymore" is a bad principle here since it biases your vote in favor of the people who haven't yet left because of the toxic atmosphere.
"Mafia is a game about deception lies and getting under people's skin" is not a very good principle because allowing some people to act like jerks causes people who do not like this atmosphere to remove themselves from the community. In the end, you will get a community that drifts more toward being jerks.
A lot of people are coming from the FREEDOM point of view. Usually the freedom point of view is that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impose on other people. I.E. you can do anything that doesn't impose negative externalities on other people. Unfortunately being a jerk does harm the community by driving away people who do not enjoy the toxic atmosphere.
Basically we have externalities and unstable equilibrum as reasons why we should not allow people to do whatever they want.
As ghost alludes to in his post, older games used to be more intellectual. Games now are more emotional and less intellectual. This is a bad trend since emotional games just lead to an atmosphere that will be unappealing for a significant group of potential players. Sure, it can sometimes be effective to play an emotional style, but you have some pretty nasty side effects that come out of it. First, it drives away players. Second, it encourages more spam since people are speaking a lot and thinking little. This leads to poorer game quality and a less healthy community.
I don't have an opinion on the specific proposals made here, but I do think that the old games provide a good model for a healthy community and how this game should be played. The games were fun, funny, and lighthearted. Deceptions and manipulations were largely intellectual rather than emotional, which allowed for wide strategic options without the side effect of creating a toxic atmosphere. Behavioral discussions didn't come up since it wasn't an issue. But now behavioral issues are an issue, and I don't think continuing with a wild-west philosophy is appropriate here.
After reading the thread I should elaborate a bit. I'm a little surprised this has created so much controversy...
The way that TL Mafia operates right now you have a bunch of people who go into a pool of games. These people are all exposed to the same atmosphere. There's definitely a fair bit of name-calling/dick-wagging/"toxicity" presently. So what comes out, then, are ONLY the people who have thick enough skins to deal with this remain actively involved in games.
But what's more, games are INCREDIBLY long. Having the stamina to go through 100+ page games takes a very special type of person. This weeds out EVEN MORE people from what's a already small pool of people.
So if you remove "toxicity" to deal with issue #1 and spamming to help with issue #2 then you're going to appeal to a WIDER AUDIENCE. As such, I don't understand why anyone here is so strongly against these rules. Implementing these should help create a larger player pool. And yes, GAMES WILL FEEL DIFFERENT. But I can't understand why so many people here feel that being an ass to other people is inherently necessary to playing a good game of mafia. If you're the type of person who's okay with the current player base and the current community atmosphere, keep in mind not everyone thinks like you or behaves like you. Should you have rules that make everyone more civil, you'll attract people that like games that are more civil. It seriously blows my mind that there seems to be a consensus on these forums that numbers are declining, but then there's a perfectly viable solution presented and there's so much resistance.
But if ch-changes are too hard for this forum, here's an alternative suggestion:
Test-drive these rules on a special game. Call it "Nicety Mafia" or whatever. See how it feels. I'm wholely confident you'll find that it's entirely possible to play without being complete dicks to each other.
And another suggestion a bit unrelated to the rule changes: And as for my situation, while I would certainly like to come back and play here again in the future, I've got my own real life stuff going on right now. I would probably fall in category #2. Games are too large for me to commit to keeping up with presently... I think another thing that the mafia thread could do is to work on the formats for games a bit more. It may be unpopular with many of the more active members but having a few games that are heavily spam-free, as in like 5-10 posts max/day ("Mafia-lite" if you will) might bring more people in. The games may not be as high-quality as the more intense normal ones we have here, but anything you can do to get more people involved is a good thing, right? If you're dead serious about attracting more people, then you should try some new things... Imho the absolute biggest barrier to forum mafia is just how much posting is expected. I would say most people when active here float around from time to time through all the formats (normal/themed/etc), the real trick is JUST GETTING THEM HERE. And less time-intensive games would be another way of accomplishing that.
On May 30 2014 16:54 goodkarma wrote: After reading the thread I should elaborate a bit. I'm a little surprised this has created so much controversy...
The way that TL Mafia operates right now you have a bunch of people who go into a pool of games. These people are all exposed to the same atmosphere. There's definitely a fair bit of name-calling/dick-wagging/"toxicity" presently. So what comes out, then, are ONLY the people who have thick enough skins to deal with this remain actively involved in games.
But what's more, games are INCREDIBLY long. Having the stamina to go through 100+ post games takes a very special type of person. This weeds out EVEN MORE people from what's a already small pool of people.
So if you remove "toxicity" to deal with issue #1 and spamming to help with issue #2 then you're going to appeal to a WIDER AUDIENCE. As such, I don't understand why anyone here is so strongly against these rules. Implementing these should help create a larger player pool. And yes, GAMES WILL FEEL DIFFERENT. But I can't understand why so many people here feel that being an ass to other people is inherently necessary to playing a good game of mafia. If you're the type of person who's okay with the current player base and the current community atmosphere, keep in mind not everyone thinks like you or behaves like you. Should you have rules that make everyone more civil, you'll attract people that like games that are more civil. It seriously blows my mind that there seems to be a consensus on these forums that numbers are declining, but then there's a perfectly viable solution presented and there's so much resistance.
But if ch-changes are too hard for this forum, here's an alternative suggestion: Test-drive these rules on a special game. Call it "Nicety Mafia" or whatever. See how it feels. I'm wholely confident you'll find that it's entirely possible to play without being complete dicks to each other.
And another suggestion a bit unrelated to the rule changes: And as for my situation, while I would certainly like to come back and play here again in the future, I've got my own real life stuff going on right now. I would probably fall in category #2. Games are too large for me to commit to keeping up with presently... I think another thing that the mafia thread could do is to work on the formats for games a bit more. It may be unpopular with many of the more active members but having a few games that are heavily spam-free, as in like 5-10 posts max/day ("Mafia-lite" if you will) might bring more people in. The games may not be as high-quality as the more intense normal ones we have here, but anything you can do to get more people involved is a good thing, right? If you're dead serious about attracting more people, then you should try some new things... Imho the absolute biggest barrier to forum mafia is just how much posting is expected. I would say most people when active here float around from time to time through all the formats (normal/themed/etc), the real trick is JUST GETTING THEM HERE. And less time-intensive games would be another way of accomplishing that.
Yes to bold
"Basically, hold the TL Mafia forum to the same high standards you'd hold the rest of TL. " <-- scary+ Show Spoiler +
Bold Scary
On May 30 2014 03:40 Foolishness wrote: Going to repost this because it's true:
On May 28 2014 11:28 Ace wrote: 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.
On May 29 2014 03:02 Holyflare wrote: Look, this whole post could have just been worded like:
"In light of recent behaviour i've asked the hosts to be a little bit stricter in terms of aggression and spam! They will warn you first and then if it continues you will be modkilled. Everything is at the hosts discretion but I have told them to be a little less leniant. We'd like more people to join and we want to start posting games to show off the fun we can have. In order for them to do that our games need to look a little more refined than current standings."
Nobody would have many problems with that ^ but the OP was worded so that every bit of aggression and caps lock and anger would not be tolerated at all. Even contemplating about TL bans...? So pretty much NOTHING is changing but the hosts being a little more pro-active in behaviour warning and that's it.
On May 29 2014 04:03 yamato77 wrote: There seem to be quite a few people here intent on ignoring the complaints of mafia players about the quality of games and the state of behavior enforcement on this forum. No surprise, they happen to be the ones still actively playing, so they obviously don't see any problem with the state of the game. They shouldn't have any say in changing this forum, because they are biased.
See how stupid and reductive that argument is? Stop being obstinate and realize that there are valid complaints from players who have largely stopped playing. They are telling you why they stopped, and asking you to fix it. Is it really so ridiculous as to accept stricter moderation in order to make playing on this forum more palatable?
Nobody is really arguing that being stricter is a problem at all? They are arguing that:
a) tl bans shouldn't be used at all b) the op was worded like some thing from a dictatorship where nothing would stand ever c) this was out of the blue and decided in secret rather than together
people don't care if hosts become a bit stricter and enforce the rules slightly more as long as they get warned first and then modkilled after
*phew* agreed
On May 29 2014 15:18 GMarshal wrote: Are people actually reading my posts?
On May 30 2014 15:29 Incognito wrote: As ghost alludes to in his post, older games used to be more intellectual. Games now are more emotional and less intellectual. This is a bad trend since emotional games just lead to an atmosphere that will be unappealing for a significant group of potential players. Sure, it can sometimes be effective to play an emotional style, but you have some pretty nasty side effects that come out of it. First, it drives away players. Second, it encourages more spam since people are speaking a lot and thinking little. This leads to poorer game quality and a less healthy community.Behavioral discussions didn't come up since it wasn't an issue. But now behavioral issues are an issue, and I don't think continuing with a wild-west philosophy is appropriate here.
On May 28 2014 18:16 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: And I may be showing my "vet status" (whatever that phrase means) here but good god things are behaviorally better now than when I started imo.For starters there is actually a mafia "community" that didn't exist to the same degree and at the same time the number of gigantic forum halting ban list discussions has fallen as well (anyone remember the debate to perm BM?). So in my opinion, drastic change is not needed.
Green + red comparisons: funny.
To the blue alone: we have far more active players and games than we used to in your oh-so-wonderful heydey.
On May 30 2014 16:54 goodkarma wrote: [...] Test-drive these rules on a special game. Call it "Nicety Mafia" or whatever. See how it feels. I'm wholely confident you'll find that it's entirely possible to play without being complete dicks to each other. [...]
Can we please do this? And not just one special game, lets try out like 3-5 special games and talk things over between each game. Maybe after the 5th game it will be such a succes that old style games will have completely fallen out of favor with most of the community. Problem solved without forcing anything on anyone.
Also @goodkarma Ver and Hapahauli just hosted a post restriction game which was pretty good. Actually, I didn't count but I think that just as many players quit because of time as because of manners. Maybe we should have more post restriction games as well?
On May 30 2014 15:29 Incognito wrote: As ghost alludes to in his post, older games used to be more intellectual. Games now are more emotional and less intellectual. This is a bad trend since emotional games just lead to an atmosphere that will be unappealing for a significant group of potential players. Sure, it can sometimes be effective to play an emotional style, but you have some pretty nasty side effects that come out of it. First, it drives away players. Second, it encourages more spam since people are speaking a lot and thinking little. This leads to poorer game quality and a less healthy community.Behavioral discussions didn't come up since it wasn't an issue. But now behavioral issues are an issue, and I don't think continuing with a wild-west philosophy is appropriate here.
On May 28 2014 18:16 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: And I may be showing my "vet status" (whatever that phrase means) here but good god things are behaviorally better now than when I started imo.For starters there is actually a mafia "community" that didn't exist to the same degree and at the same time the number of gigantic forum halting ban list discussions has fallen as well (anyone remember the debate to perm BM?). So in my opinion, drastic change is not needed.
Green + red comparisons: funny.
To the blue alone: we have far more active players and games than we used to in your oh-so-wonderful heydey.
I don't think his point was that it drives away more players than it attracts, just that it drives away players.
On May 30 2014 23:22 iamperfection wrote: i dont understand why people are shitting on high activity games some of my favorite moments happened in them. (mario and rockband stand out to me)
mm. The one that ghost pointed out (LI) I subbed into as a total newb (like my 1st or 2nd game after my newbie game) and it was pretty amazing actually.
I just think it would be helpful to have a queue type to appeal to those who have less time to play per day than some of us more enthusiastic players and what better way to get new players involved than to have that type of game broadcast in-your-face with a game type and available at-a-glance? Foolishness; get on it, brotherman.
Like, I'm not saying that all other games won't have the limit, just have a sort of semi-hardcore category with posting limits so that people can't say/think "I don't think I'll have time to read 40 pages per day". Or at least something leading in that direction? What do you guys think about that?
you can even have an inbetween were there are no restrictions but something like silent nights were everyone gets a breather for a day/ can catch up on reading. Game of thrones somewhat acted like that where you could only pm a few people that were in your house and that was a pretty fun game i felt.
Oh that's a nice touch. Maybe silent nights with a slightly higher post limit, some kind of balance there, as an option. I really just like the idea of having the game type always available if we're going to be expecting more newer / returning players to have somewhere to jump back in. I don't even really think this needs to be an option queue type forever, just have it so that when games are posted for a bit that it's easily-accessible information either at the top of the OP or in the thread title somehow.
I approve of that idea. One of the reasons I join newbie/mini games is because there are less people posting so I don't have to waste so much time catching up and investing into the game. Silent nights would certainly help with that problem and I wouldn't mind seeing that implemented more often by hosts.
fwiw I stopped trying, and eventually playing, because most people in games put forth a miserable, miserable amount of effort and I'm not interested in putting effort into a game myself if nobody else is. Shit's pointless.
From the responses I've seen most people actually want games infested by lurkers though. So it will never get better either.
Not gonna go on a rant here just stating that this is largely why I stopped playing in the first place And also why I'm most likely not going to play games here again. Not that anybody cares.
On May 31 2014 03:40 Dandel Ion wrote: fwiw I stopped trying, and eventually playing, because most people in games put forth a miserable, miserable amount of effort and I'm not interested in putting effort into a game myself if nobody else is. Shit's pointless.
From the responses I've seen most people actually want games infested by lurkers though. So it will never get better either.
Not gonna go on a rant here just stating that this is largely why I stopped playing in the first place And also why I'm most likely not going to play games here again. Not that anybody cares.
On May 31 2014 03:40 Dandel Ion wrote: fwiw I stopped trying, and eventually playing, because most people in games put forth a miserable, miserable amount of effort and I'm not interested in putting effort into a game myself if nobody else is. Shit's pointless.
From the responses I've seen most people actually want games infested by lurkers though. So it will never get better either.
Not gonna go on a rant here just stating that this is largely why I stopped playing in the first place And also why I'm most likely not going to play games here again. Not that anybody cares.
Says the lurkiest scum who ever lurked
Don't be a little bitch and play some games. I hate inactivity way more than you and I still stick it out.
On May 31 2014 03:40 Dandel Ion wrote: fwiw I stopped trying, and eventually playing, because most people in games put forth a miserable, miserable amount of effort and I'm not interested in putting effort into a game myself if nobody else is. Shit's pointless.
From the responses I've seen most people actually want games infested by lurkers though. So it will never get better either.
Not gonna go on a rant here just stating that this is largely why I stopped playing in the first place And also why I'm most likely not going to play games here again. Not that anybody cares.
There is one possible way I see to remove mass lurkers from games. Expand the newbie games requirement to something like 5 games. In some ways this is especially good since newbie games sometimes can take quite a while to fill... And further, there's always been this philosophy (which is mostly true) that 3 games isn't really enough time to get into the full swing of things and really know what's going on. Like you'll have newbies coming out of their 3 games with no idea about playing scum, since about 1/4 the time they'll be scum in a typical setup. Wouldn't it be nice if there was in fact a very good chance they came out with at least one scum game? Also, newbies that aren't going to be super-interested in really giving normal games a good try will be more likely to be weeded out, which might improve game quality a bit. Bored super-stars could be graduated early etc. etc. just something to think about...
Tbh, the newbie thing might be a bit much (although I do believe the 3-game ceiling should be removed and if players want to they should be allowed to stay there a bit longer), but there are other ways of dealing with this. The way I see this thread, they wouldn't have called so many inactive players from the dead just to spout how things are gonna be. So any suggestions you might have on how TL Mafia can create a better environment you'd like to play in are very likely to be heard in this space. Maybe fewer, more choosey/higher quality games would be a good change? Or perhaps have more games of the flavor of "championship games," where only the active dedicated pool of players is hand-picked for a super high-caliber game on a semi-frequent basis (like once a month)? Just saying that now is probably your best chance to brainstorm these things so if there's changes that would encourage you to come back please do share.
It turned into "I like mafia this certain way, and everyone should like it that way."
Honestly, though, Phil's argument is the best one. We should cater to people with the lowest tolerances for bad manner, because that will naturally include all of the players who have higher tolerances. It shouldn't affect anyone's strategy, because good play doesn't revolve around being a fucking asshole to people in the game, at least not to the extent that it makes others players want to stop playing. Anyone saying otherwise is just being ridiculous.
Splitting types of games up doesn't work; we have too small of a playerbase to cater to minorities. We need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, or we're going to continue to stagnate.
Yes Foolishness has a fair point. I actually talked with this in PM's with someone the other night. This is my opinion and the conclusion i have come to when i got more experienced in playing mafia:
Be nicer - yes, i agree, if people feel like that's somehow making people disppear.
But i personally think that's not the case. I think the case is the people who do not play anymore (i mean have quit because of "this") are mostly people who are not really suited for playing mafia. If they can't handle pressure and/or will take it personally when someone calls them bad or idiot i don't think they should play mafia.
For example i know one person nearly stopped playing after a game we played because on the final day i shot down all of their cases and lynched them (as is my job, as scum). They took it personally (and i was not even rude, i just won all the arguments against them). In another game i made someone feel really bad and they messaged the hosts something like "what to do, i don't know if i can keep playing" when i shot down their cases repeatedly.
Like, obviously i don't want to make anyone feel bad and quit because my playstyle is aggressive and after the host from the example above told me about what happened i have actually been very sensitive and careful in what to say towards people i know "can't take it".
But i see no reason why people who actually are (imo) "suited" for playing mafia are not allowed to play like we do towards each other, because i consider that a hectic battle and nothing more. And everyone of us understands this is a game and what happens in a game stays there and "attacks" are not personal.
imo some people are just too sensitive and that's not a good talent toi have in a mafia game.
After all this is a game where you are supposed to wear down your opponent, some people consider that as the best strategy and they are not wrong nor right. It's as good as any other strategy if it works. I just played a game ~a month ago where someone just threw shit on me as scum all D1. Obviously i got mad and the only case i could make was "noone starts a game like this as town, this dude has to be scum". I was thrown off my game and noone believed me. gg.. fuck, that guy played me because he knew how to play me so that other people don't know what's going on. Was it wrong? Hell no, it was a perfectly legit strategy. After game who cares? noone, i told him well played and maybe next time he tries that i'll keep my shit together and lynch him.
Playing with people's emotions is as good of a strategy as is writing big analytical posts, in case you can read / distract (as scum) the players that way. It's a fact. People just take things too personally in games. Yes, i agree sometimes someone goes over the line and that's wrong, i know i do that, maybe the most here. But still people should not take the game so seriously they have some vendetta's against other people for something that happened in another game, that's dumb. I think most people are capable of saying "gg, damn i was bad / this went wrong" after the game and just realize it's a game, a highly emotional game (at least for me, because i am highly competitive person - as i know at least some other people are aswell).
In case you are town and someone is being a dick lynch them if they are scum, or ignore them if they are town, it's quite easy. Well, it's not. But you guys make it sound like easy so maybe you can do it.
I also don't agree about the "quality of games being better before" comment. The quality of games nowadays is really really high here, hell TL towns lynched mafia on D1 ~50% of the games for like 6 months a while ago. Has that ever happened before? Or did scum just suck here at that point? I don't think the latter is the case, nor do i think the former can be proven aswell. The playstyle is just different. marv can have 50 page filter and there is really no spam. His posts are always easy to read and they contribute, even if he says "lol". That's a fact. If you can't comprehend those posts and think they are spam then it's your fault. But it does not make the game spammy, you just need to use more time, that's how the game has evolved. Deal with it or host an invite game where you play with people who play "oldschool" (yes i know what i am talking about, i have read ~300 mafia games 2006 -> so...) or host games with post restrictions. The people who will join will join, people who won't they won't. Simple. There is no need to tell "oh this was so so so better and all of this sucks".
Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
omg i'm too much of a flower for this abuse
pls T.T
I am so sorry, from now on I will behave in a way that makes you feel loved just the way you are
On May 31 2014 09:43 Alakaslam wrote: Kyle man. Starting <Blazinghand WHO ARE YOU> all up giving Phil's name out & junk, make this Justin go all HIJOLE up in here
Justin lost his marbles again...
You are aware Foolishness' name is not in fact "Phil R Monique" and that is a name I made up entirely because it is funny right
Whoever blames GMarshal for anything i tell you i am purposefully getting drunk and getting myself (and hopefully you) banned from here forever. This is real, not a fantasy.
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
omg i'm too much of a flower for this abuse
pls T.T
I am so sorry, from now on I will behave in a way that makes you feel loved just the way you are
you can only talk to me that way if you're gonna sex me after.
On May 31 2014 09:48 raynpelikoneet wrote: Whoever blames GMarshal for anything i tell you i am purposefully getting drunk and getting myself (and hopefully you) banned from here forever. This is real, not a fantasy.
Just start a thread on transsexual starcraft players, works out 100 percent of the time
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
omg i'm too much of a flower for this abuse
pls T.T
I am so sorry, from now on I will behave in a way that makes you feel loved just the way you are
you can only talk to me that way if you're gonna sex me after.
well do you have anything to contribute to the topic?
EDIT: Seriously, click on your filter and tell me what the fuck you have said on this topic. This is not a "yadda yadda" thread. Say something, your posts are everything i hate in mafia because they are full of shit. SAY SOMETHING or gtfo!
On May 31 2014 09:43 Alakaslam wrote: Kyle man. Starting <Blazinghand WHO ARE YOU> all up giving Phil's name out & junk, make this Justin go all HIJOLE up in here
Justin lost his marbles again...
You are aware Foolishness' name is not in fact "Phil R Monique" and that is a name I made up entirely because it is funny right
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
omg i'm too much of a flower for this abuse
pls T.T
I am so sorry, from now on I will behave in a way that makes you feel loved just the way you are
you can only talk to me that way if you're gonna sex me after.
On May 31 2014 09:42 Erandorr wrote: Guys can we all just agree that GMarsh took himself way to seriously again with the [Important] tag making it a much bigger deal than it really is? BLAME THE NAZI MOD And that the proposed rulechanges will not get the older players who do not want to play here anymore back anyway because there are more issues that revolve around playstyle and not people being spammy dckheads?
no, it's definitely all your fault.
shut the fuck up u worthless piece of shit get the fuck out of these forums u cant take this game go away
omg i'm too much of a flower for this abuse
pls T.T
I am so sorry, from now on I will behave in a way that makes you feel loved just the way you are
you can only talk to me that way if you're gonna sex me after.
I dont do sex i only make love
ugh. you're not my sort of man at all.
eh i thought that would work with a flower like you. mislynch
On May 31 2014 10:19 Blazinghand wrote: could we try to stay on-topic guys? especially Slam, I feel like you're talking about something completely unrelated.
On May 31 2014 10:05 raynpelikoneet wrote: well do you have anything to contribute to the topic?
EDIT: Seriously, click on your filter and tell me what the fuck you have said on this topic. This is not a "yadda yadda" thread. Say something, your posts are everything i hate in mafia because they are full of shit. SAY SOMETHING or gtfo!
Maybe I should make a new thread where we can discuss how to moderate this thread. I'm in favor of a stricter ruleset.
Can we try expanding our market segment before shifting it? And if there's not enough people to fill up games we'll deal with it when it happens. At the very least it's worth a try.
On May 30 2014 15:29 Incognito wrote: As ghost alludes to in his post, older games used to be more intellectual. Games now are more emotional and less intellectual. This is a bad trend since emotional games just lead to an atmosphere that will be unappealing for a significant group of potential players. Sure, it can sometimes be effective to play an emotional style, but you have some pretty nasty side effects that come out of it. First, it drives away players. Second, it encourages more spam since people are speaking a lot and thinking little. This leads to poorer game quality and a less healthy community.Behavioral discussions didn't come up since it wasn't an issue. But now behavioral issues are an issue, and I don't think continuing with a wild-west philosophy is appropriate here.
On May 28 2014 18:16 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: And I may be showing my "vet status" (whatever that phrase means) here but good god things are behaviorally better now than when I started imo.For starters there is actually a mafia "community" that didn't exist to the same degree and at the same time the number of gigantic forum halting ban list discussions has fallen as well (anyone remember the debate to perm BM?). So in my opinion, drastic change is not needed.
Green + red comparisons: funny.
To the blue alone: we have far more active players and games than we used to in your oh-so-wonderful heydey.
When you take my post out of context by merging two unrelated sentences its obvious you're trying to misconstrue what I was trying to say. I am also not Meapak_Ziphh so I don't know what you're getting at there.
As for the blue statement, quantity of active players and games is only one metric to measure the forum's success. I disagree that it is the best measure of success. But if you want to have a rational discussion on the direction of this forum without twisted arguments like this one then you guys first need to answer the question of how you define success for the forum and how you will measure it. Is it playerbase growth? Style diversity? Quality of games? Quantity of games?
I still can't believe Foolishness/GMarshal or whoever is in charge of this thread hasn't yet pulled up a vote count (or delegated the task to someone) so that we can at least see some numbers here. It seems like if you're trying to push change you should at least gather some data on public opinion rather than just use phrases like "most hosts say blah blah"/"far more active players"/"a majority of players" without any backing. It seems that most of the democratic efforts/transparency/accountability here is just in name only.
TL Mafia is currently the wild west, and that the only reason it is this way is that the TL staff originally gave us its blessing in letting us self-moderate. It seems rather arrogant and entitled to be complaining about the fact that you don't want to follow the actual site rules. The tone I am seeing in this thread is not a simple "looser behavior control is better for the game", but is more along the lines of "these dictators are trying to impose their will against the demands of the population". As if this is your property and not TeamLiquid's.
Given that it seems that this thread is going nowhere, the following compromise seems reasonable:
Different hosts already have different moderation policies, some more strict on behavior than others. All you have to do is create two classes of games so that people who signup know exactly what they're getting into when they signup. One class has limited behavior restrictions (we can call it the anarchy/wild west moderation), and the other follows the rest of the site rules (standard moderation). That way we can restrict the people who want to play rough to one section of the forum and still allow the people who want to play a more moderated game to play games without being badgered. Obviously, this proposal would mean that we would crank up moderation on the standard games, but as long as people know what they're getting into when they sign up for each category of games, that isn't a problem, is it?
I've asked that question at least twice but no one has answered. I even came up with the worst unpunished recent example I could remember but still no comment.
It's a problem that this thing has already been decided on by one group of people (who didn't really have the authority to just decide that anyway) and now there's no other group who believe they have the authority to undecide this and compromise instead. This thread has existed for a while and everybody has had a chance to voice in, I think it would be great if GMarshal just announced a compromise and then we roll with that for now and see how it goes.
On May 31 2014 18:26 Palmar wrote: Out of curiosity, does anyone have examples of bad behavior that wasn't dealt with and would be dealt with under the new ruleset?
TL Mafia is currently the wild west, and that the only reason it is this way is that the TL staff originally gave us its blessing in letting us self-moderate. It seems rather arrogant and entitled to be complaining about the fact that you don't want to follow the actual site rules. The tone I am seeing in this thread is not a simple "looser behavior control is better for the game", but is more along the lines of "these dictators are trying to impose their will against the demands of the population". As if this is your property and not TeamLiquid's.
Quoting for emphasis. TL Mafia actually has a very long rope compared to the rest of the site. Somehow people aren't understanding this. First it was Plexa, now it's GMarshal - the "main" mod responsible for the forum actually goes to bat for you guys. Other people on the forum look at this place and wonder how we get away with so much wayward behavior. GM and Foolishness just propose cleaning it up not only for the sake of making it look like the rest of the place, but because they want to start promoting TL Mafia on the main page. Hurrr durr when newbies show up we don't want them to see bickering and arguing between "vets"(lol). This move to clean the place up via hosts enforcing some agreed upon rules would actually lead to getting rid of the Ban List. One of the very things some of you rail against could be phased out by this move. New players won't see anything but games and a well moderated community that can be easily promoted. You can still flame and insult people in thread as long as it doesn't go overboard. Everyone wins.
I hate having to think one step ahead for some of you jub jubs (dat insult!) - please don't make me have to state the obvious again.
This is so fucking silly its amazing. I hope that this creates such a rift that people leave the site for the newly created RealTLMafia.net where everyone can behave just the way they want it
On May 31 2014 22:22 Erandorr wrote: This is so fucking silly its amazing. I hope that this creates such a rift that people leave the site for the newly created RealTLMafia.net where everyone can behave just the way they want it
On May 31 2014 06:34 raynpelikoneet wrote: So this turned into "oh i remember the old times and they were so much better" sorta thread?
Yup. Obviously there was no bm in the old times. The old times...
Did the people who say they don't play because of bad behaviour join the most strictly moderated games that were hosted some time ago? NOPE.
Did anyone present an example of incorrectly moderated bad behaviour since the last discussion about this? NOPE. (Actually rayn said something but didn't follow up on it.)
This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Over 20 pages of thread and still not one argument that shows why we need this as a general rule when hosts already can host anyway they want in this regard was presented.
On May 31 2014 06:34 raynpelikoneet wrote: So this turned into "oh i remember the old times and they were so much better" sorta thread?
Yup. Obviously there was no bm in the old times. The old times...
Did the people who say they don't play because of bad behaviour join the most strictly moderated games that were hosted some time ago? NOPE.
Did anyone present an example of incorrectly moderated bad behaviour since the last discussion about this? NOPE. (Actually rayn said something but didn't follow up on it.)
This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Over 20 pages of thread and still not one argument that shows why we need this as a general rule when hosts already can host anyway they want in this regard was presented.
On May 31 2014 18:26 Palmar wrote: Out of curiosity, does anyone have examples of bad behavior that wasn't dealt with and would be dealt with under the new ruleset?
I'm not sure it will be that big of a change, but this would help more timid hosts crack down on things and do stuff like warn Steveling in Golden Sun Djinn Edition
On May 31 2014 18:26 Palmar wrote: Out of curiosity, does anyone have examples of bad behavior that wasn't dealt with and would be dealt with under the new ruleset?
I'm not sure it will be that big of a change, but this would help more timid hosts crack down on things and do stuff like warn Steveling in Golden Sun Djinn Edition
PSA: it will make me "INTOLERABLE"! Consider yourself on your best behavior in any game I host. I have very different morals than most people. When the time comes, I am probably going to be the strictest host. This post is bold because it is the most sincere; I really enjoy lampshading and light sarcasm, the sort that almost isn't sarcasm.
I literally will censor my games. I know that means a lot of vets won't come, but I want it out there as an experiment and it would be most honest. If you look at NMM LXIII, LXIV, and LXV (I think) you will see I actually tried to censor other players.
Believe it or not I think I could fill a game this way. This seems to be the direction TLM is headed, people who see me on OMGUS may think I am not serious, but I am. OMGUS provides the loose atmosphere, so, here I can provide the tight atmosphere.
On June 01 2014 04:44 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Yo so real talk, can we ban the word "vet" from in-game discussion?
I'm in favor of a community norm against referring to people as vets for reasons like saying "we can't lynch him cause he's a vet" or "there's a massive vet conspiracy out to get Steveling" but there are useful times to say something like "Palmar is an experienced player who has played a lot on TL Mafia" in a more compressed way. So: Vet
On June 01 2014 04:44 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Yo so real talk, can we ban the word "vet" from in-game discussion?
I'm in favor of a community norm against referring to people as vets for reasons like saying "we can't lynch him cause he's a vet" or "there's a massive vet conspiracy out to get Steveling" but there are useful times to say something like "Palmar is an experienced player who has played a lot on TL Mafia" in a more compressed way. So: Vet
This makes sense, but I don't know how I would enforce it.
TL Mafia is currently the wild west, and that the only reason it is this way is that the TL staff originally gave us its blessing in letting us self-moderate. It seems rather arrogant and entitled to be complaining about the fact that you don't want to follow the actual site rules. The tone I am seeing in this thread is not a simple "looser behavior control is better for the game", but is more along the lines of "these dictators are trying to impose their will against the demands of the population". As if this is your property and not TeamLiquid's.
Quoting for emphasis. TL Mafia actually has a very long rope compared to the rest of the site. Somehow people aren't understanding this. First it was Plexa, now it's GMarshal - the "main" mod responsible for the forum actually goes to bat for you guys. Other people on the forum look at this place and wonder how we get away with so much wayward behavior. GM and Foolishness just propose cleaning it up not only for the sake of making it look like the rest of the place, but because they want to start promoting TL Mafia on the main page. Hurrr durr when newbies show up we don't want them to see bickering and arguing between "vets"(lol). This move to clean the place up via hosts enforcing some agreed upon rules would actually lead to getting rid of the Ban List. One of the very things some of you rail against could be phased out by this move. New players won't see anything but games and a well moderated community that can be easily promoted. You can still flame and insult people in thread as long as it doesn't go overboard. Everyone wins.
I hate having to think one step ahead for some of you jub jubs (dat insult!) - please don't make me have to state the obvious again.
I'm not sure if getting rid of the banlist would come as a result of all that; it's probably easier for us to handle our own affairs on a case-by-case basis like we already do.
Regardless everyone should reread what Ace just said here.
If something is decided then it's decided. I don't really know who are against what has been said here?
The change is good, at least partially, in my opinion. Everyone can decide if they want to join certain games or not. People can host invite-only games if they want to play with "different rules" or whatever (i guess that's still possible in case there is a "problem" for some people?). In general if people think there is too much personal bm then there probably is. It also means something needs to change. Quite simple.
On May 31 2014 06:34 raynpelikoneet wrote: So this turned into "oh i remember the old times and they were so much better" sorta thread?
Yup. Obviously there was no bm in the old times. The old times...
Did the people who say they don't play because of bad behaviour join the most strictly moderated games that were hosted some time ago? NOPE.
Did anyone present an example of incorrectly moderated bad behaviour since the last discussion about this? NOPE. (Actually rayn said something but didn't follow up on it.)
This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Over 20 pages of thread and still not one argument that shows why we need this as a general rule when hosts already can host anyway they want in this regard was presented.
This is just wrong. Not that I'm a great or active player anymore but I kind of stopped playing games and when I do occasionally join one it's usually because of a specific rule set that limits posting and has a stricter host, usually when Ver hosts a game.
Well, lately games have certainly been a little hard to read.
What about invite-only games, with players known to not shit things up, and slowly including more players into said "invite-list" as they are shown to play in a civil manner (or whatever), until eventually you get games where almost everybody can join and will be played in a way that everybody enjoys it (or at least it's bearable to read). Shadow game comes to mind as an example
Also, you know, let's all be friendly and stuff, or at the very least TRY being friendly and stuff if you haven't in a long time and see if your play actually gets super terrible and people politely tell you that, or if you maybe still feel like you play alright and don't need to be unfriendly to anyone.
On June 02 2014 11:16 austinmcc wrote: Also, you know, let's all be friendly and stuff, or at the very least TRY being friendly and stuff if you haven't in a long time and see if your play actually gets super terrible and people politely tell you that, or if you maybe still feel like you play alright and don't need to be unfriendly to anyone.
On June 02 2014 23:38 strongandbig wrote: Actually, does anyone have a different mafia site to recommend if I want a less spammy / more analytical playstyle?
You can't have both.
I've played on a few different sites. TL is the most spammy and the most analytical one I know of.
On June 02 2014 23:38 strongandbig wrote: Actually, does anyone have a different mafia site to recommend if I want a less spammy / more analytical playstyle?
snb, i think you are looking for mafia scum. games are 2 weeks so naturally things move slower.
I received a PM from the old man Foolishness on this and I saw it today, figured I'd been invited to drop my 2 cents.
Three things that I just wanna touch upon, all of which I think are equally important. They kind of tie into each other a bit as well.
1. I think aside from hard and fast rules about the obvious (no racism/hate speech/completely baseless flaming etc.) the rules on behaviour should mostly be created and enforced on a per-game basis by the host and participating players. I've never known a host to ignore a complaint from a player about in-game behaviour, and I've never really known players to willfully ignore host-specific game-rules when they are clearly and plainly stated. In my own experience as a host (of maybe a half dozen games or so? Maybe a few more/less) and in my own limited memory, I recall that I had to issue a warning for behaviour only once-I did so by request of a player who PMed me a concern, and I thought it was valid.
2. To tie in with the above, I believe that hosts should take as much of a hands-off approach to moderation as possible. This is just my personal belief and obviously to each their own, but I'll justify myself so that others can perhaps understand my perspective, as I anticipate this opinion might be controversial. Aside from violations of official rules stated in the OP of a game and responses to valid player concerns, hosts should not, IMO, be moderating. This is because host intervention (in)directly influences the game itself. If players do not seem to have a problem with how the game is playing out, it is not in the host's prerogative to moderate.
3. Lastly, and again this ties in with the above, all parties involved are inherently biased. Ideally behavioural issues could be dealt with by third parties, but this requires too much of a time investment and it's easier and often fairer to relegate discussion on banworthy offenses to postgame. For this reason I think modkills and replacements should occur if and only if the stated rules of the game have been violated or if there is a serious issue that occurred that certain players have raised concerns about. In the latter case I would also question why the game doesn't have rules that cover such a serious incident (I personally have never seen such a case on TLMafia; almost any such serious occurrence is covered under the rules already). This requires the rules to be clearly and loudly stated pregame, especially those particular to the game at hand. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the host, I have seen many hosts give warnings or threats of replacement to townies who rage/act out, whereas for mafia it is often considered a strategy and the same warnings are either not given out or are only given after much more serious or prolonged outbursts. I myself have experienced this; it's pretty easy for me to tell during the course of a game that as scum I will get praised for doing something, where if I were to do it as town I'd risk getting host warnings.
To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the players, plenty of players will request host action for things they personally don't like on a very inconsistent basis, e.g. modkills or replacements for certain inactive players while overlooking others, or crying for modkills for certain types of "antifaction" (usually "antitown") behaviour. Obviously this is less of a problem as the action comes down to the host, but if we are going to start banning the types of play that certain groups don't like, then this could potentially be a consequence.
So, I think the issue primarily lies with players needing to be more vocal about what they dislike, and not necessarily hosts bringing down the hammer, so to speak. I actually think hosts should do the opposite and back off, rather letting their playerbase decide what's best for their games. Host the games that players want, host the way that players want, and leave the game and the players to play themselves out. Host intervention should be rare and should only occur when absolutely necessary, and I think that this idea would be the opposite of that.
Again, to reiterate for one final time, all of the above is a statement of my opinion only.
On June 05 2014 12:26 wherebugsgo wrote: Hello all,
I received a PM from the old man Foolishness on this and I saw it today, figured I'd been invited to drop my 2 cents.
Three things that I just wanna touch upon, all of which I think are equally important. They kind of tie into each other a bit as well.
1. I think aside from hard and fast rules about the obvious (no racism/hate speech/completely baseless flaming etc.) the rules on behaviour should mostly be created and enforced on a per-game basis by the host and participating players. I've never known a host to ignore a complaint from a player about in-game behaviour, and I've never really known players to willfully ignore host-specific game-rules when they are clearly and plainly stated. In my own experience as a host (of maybe a half dozen games or so? Maybe a few more/less) and in my own limited memory, I recall that I had to issue a warning for behaviour only once-I did so by request of a player who PMed me a concern, and I thought it was valid.
2. To tie in with the above, I believe that hosts should take as much of a hands-off approach to moderation as possible. This is just my personal belief and obviously to each their own, but I'll justify myself so that others can perhaps understand my perspective, as I anticipate this opinion might be controversial. Aside from violations of official rules stated in the OP of a game and responses to valid player concerns, hosts should not, IMO, be moderating. This is because host intervention (in)directly influences the game itself. If players do not seem to have a problem with how the game is playing out, it is not in the host's prerogative to moderate.
3. Lastly, and again this ties in with the above, all parties involved are inherently biased. Ideally behavioural issues could be dealt with by third parties, but this requires too much of a time investment and it's easier and often fairer to relegate discussion on banworthy offenses to postgame. For this reason I think modkills and replacements should occur if and only if the stated rules of the game have been violated or if there is a serious issue that occurred that certain players have raised concerns about. In the latter case I would also question why the game doesn't have rules that cover such a serious incident (I personally have never seen such a case on TLMafia; almost any such serious occurrence is covered under the rules already). This requires the rules to be clearly and loudly stated pregame, especially those particular to the game at hand. To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the host, I have seen many hosts give warnings or threats of replacement to townies who rage/act out, whereas for mafia it is often considered a strategy and the same warnings are either not given out or are only given after much more serious or prolonged outbursts. I myself have experienced this; it's pretty easy for me to tell during the course of a game that as scum I will get praised for doing something, where if I were to do it as town I'd risk getting host warnings.
To give an idea of what I mean with inherent bias of the players, plenty of players will request host action for things they personally don't like on a very inconsistent basis, e.g. modkills or replacements for certain inactive players while overlooking others, or crying for modkills for certain types of "antifaction" (usually "antitown") behaviour. Obviously this is less of a problem as the action comes down to the host, but if we are going to start banning the types of play that certain groups don't like, then this could potentially be a consequence.
So, I think the issue primarily lies with players needing to be more vocal about what they dislike, and not necessarily hosts bringing down the hammer, so to speak. I actually think hosts should do the opposite and back off, rather letting their playerbase decide what's best for their games. Host the games that players want, host the way that players want, and leave the game and the players to play themselves out. Host intervention should be rare and should only occur when absolutely necessary, and I think that this idea would be the opposite of that.
Again, to reiterate for one final time, all of the above is a statement of my opinion only.
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
BlazingHand has incurred an unofficial Warning of Justice for this post
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response.
It's entirely your call as a person, but here's my philosophy: if the host tells me to listen to someone, even if I think the concept of a morale officer is monumentally hilariously stupid, I either listen or I /out. I wouldn't /in and ignore the instructions of the host. I either follow the rules and instructions of the host or I leave. There is no reasonable third option. I wouldn't even /in in the first place to such a game. When you /in you agree to follow the rules, even the ones you think are bad.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
Strangely enough, I agree with ivkoskli, even if he didn't state his case particularly well. I can imagine few things more annoying than a "morale officer" in a game. If you want that, just grab your co-host and tell him to warn people unofficially and liberally.
I stated it just fine. I just disagreed with you by putting the word 'problem' in quotation marks and you couldn't express whole-hearted agreement with that.
Actually, it's the last sentence of your post that was the issue. I don't mind that people disagree about the presence of a problem, but if a host designated a co-host or morale officer or whatever, you either /out or you abide by the rules. You don't stay in the game and trash pms from the people running it. +1 point for describing a position I don't hold though.
You might not. Austinmcc already said he's "someone outside the game" with less authority than a host so there's really no reason why I'd be compelled to waste my time reading someone's opinion about my posting when it has no bearing on the game I'm playing. If I'm playing a game that you're not in, and that you're not hosting, and you send me a PM with instructions on how to play, I'm going to put that PM in the trash, it's not a particularly egregious response. If that upsets you then you're the reason why a morality officer wouldn't work. It's just a hall-monitor who's job it is to get butthurt.
The bolded is completely true. I would dare to say even the hosts can't always tell "what's acceptable and what's not" because they are not players in the game. It is all situational and if you are not playing a game yourself you can't possibly read the thread putting yourself into "player's mindset". That's a fact.
The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons
The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons
lol. I tried reading the ongoing game. Have you (or anyone) read it and compared it to what's been said here.
The new changes will go into effect and everyone will realize it's fine. The new changes probably won't go into effect in the next 7 days though cause reasons
lol. I tried reading the ongoing game. Have you (or anyone) read it and compared it to what's been said here.
Why there aren't all that many people arguing for these changes in this thread
1) Many people who feel particularly strongly about it have already left the forum in disgust, by definition 2) They don't want to face up to your harassment and abuse, and I don't blame them
On hosts enforcing their rules unilaterally
Doesn't work. If a host cannot enforce out-of-game consequences for breaking their particular rules then any troll or toxic little turd can just come into their game, break a rule which doesn't break the subforum-wide ruleset, and get away scot-free for ruining the game. If you don't think this subforum has trolls and toxic players who'll do just that you're plain wrong.
Why Mafia bans are necessary to the forum
See above: this community has plenty of people who would ruin games time and time again if there were not measures to prevent them from doing so. Starting with the players from OMGUS - they have their own forum to retreat to after they amuse themselves trolling TL. Anybody who gets banned and doesn't give enough of a damn to sit out a game or two doesn't care enough about the game to be worth playing with.
As far as I'm concerned, Rayn getting banned for multiple games and leaving the site, and people who want to play with Rayn leaving with him, is clear evidence that the system works.
...And why these changes are futile
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
EDIT: The following is directed at the players above. I'm not saying everyone on TL Mafia is toxic.
You might try to hide behind "Well Mafia's just a game, harden up"; but that's bollocks. Look at the personal attacks and ad hominems you've seen fit to use in this thread, out of game, against people who disagree with you.
Besides that, your attempts to derail the thread with irrelevancies and by spamming +1s at one another (JAT, I'm looking at you here) are also disgusting.
You are, quite simply, unpleasant people to share a community with. I'm not talking about you as Mafia players. I'm talking about you as people, or at least as overall internet personas.
I imagine that's why GM and Foolishness aren't being forthcoming about the list of hosts in favour of these changes; they have no wish to subject nice people to your abuse. And if hosts enforce these rules individually, then like vultures you will swoop on them individually and peck them to death. A combined effort like this is the only way to "beat" your clique, if it can be done at all. Which I doubt.
But Aqua your opinion is irrelevant because you're not an active community member anymore
You can take my opinion or leave it; I don't intend to ever again share a community with many of you, so whether you pay any attention to me or not doesn't really affect me. Your community dying is your problem.
In the end, DP and Marv are kind of right - they are arguing for the community and the ruleset they want to play in, same as I am. I don't think their ideal community is pleasant or sustainable; in fact I think it will almost certainly perish for lack of new players who are willing to put up with their clique. And the last question: does that kind of community belong on teamliquid.net?
On June 13 2014 14:42 Aquanim wrote: Why there aren't all that many people arguing for these changes in this thread
1) Many people who feel particularly strongly about it have already left the forum in disgust, by definition 2) They don't want to face up to your harassment and abuse, and I don't blame them
On hosts enforcing their rules unilaterally
Doesn't work. If a host cannot enforce out-of-game consequences for breaking their particular rules then any troll or toxic little turd can just come into their game, break a rule which doesn't break the subforum-wide ruleset, and get away scot-free for ruining the game. If you don't think this subforum has trolls and toxic players who'll do just that you're plain wrong.
Why Mafia bans are necessary to the forum
See above: this community has plenty of people who would ruin games time and time again if there were not measures to prevent them from doing so. Starting with the players from OMGUS - they have their own forum to retreat to after they amuse themselves trolling TL. Anybody who gets banned and doesn't give enough of a damn to sit out a game or two doesn't care enough about the game to be worth playing with.
As far as I'm concerned, Rayn getting banned for multiple games and leaving the site, and people who want to play with Rayn leaving with him, is clear evidence that the system works.
...And why these changes are futile
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
EDIT: The following is directed at the players above. I'm not saying everyone on TL Mafia is toxic.
You might try to hide behind "Well Mafia's just a game, harden up"; but that's bollocks. Look at the personal attacks and ad hominems you've seen fit to use in this thread, out of game, against people who disagree with you.
Besides that, your attempts to derail the thread with irrelevancies and by spamming +1s at one another (JAT, I'm looking at you here) are also disgusting.
You are, quite simply, unpleasant people to share a community with. I'm not talking about you as Mafia players. I'm talking about you as people, or at least as overall internet personas.
I imagine that's why GM and Foolishness aren't being forthcoming about the list of hosts in favour of these changes; they have no wish to subject nice people to your abuse. And if hosts enforce these rules individually, then like vultures you will swoop on them individually and peck them to death. A combined effort like this is the only way to "beat" your clique, if it can be done at all. Which I doubt.
But Aqua your opinion is irrelevant because you're not an active community member anymore
You can take my opinion or leave it; I don't intend to ever again share a community with many of you, so whether you pay any attention to me or not doesn't really affect me. Your community dying is your problem.
In the end, DP and Marv are kind of right - they are arguing for the community and the ruleset they want to play in, same as I am. I don't think their ideal community is pleasant or sustainable; in fact I think it will almost certainly perish for lack of new players who are willing to put up with their clique. And the last question: does that kind of community belong on teamliquid.net?
Well put, Aqua. I agree with pretty much all of this, with the exception of these changes being completely futile. I mean, if you start screening out the most toxic you will make a more welcoming community. Sure, it won't change immediately, but it will over time. This may not be the only measure needed, but I believe it's a giant step in the right direction.
Let me tell you a story: I once played in a game where the host enforced strict behaviour rules which would result in a modkill if they were broken. In the said game another player very clearly and unnecessarily personally insulted myself. After some time i got NK'd. In the obs QT i asked the host why he didn't modkill that player and what do his "strict behavioural rules" in fact mean. I got a response that "yes what they did was out of line but none of the hosts were around until 12h later and the situation was already resolved between the players, there was no harm done to anyone". Fine. Later on the same host modkilled another player for some really ridiculous reason (that was even discussed post-game and i don't know anyone who said they agreed with the host's decision). That said player had called himself modconfirmed town earlier on in the game for reasons. When the modkill happened the host even posted "well now you are modconfirmed town" in the obs QT, which i found out so fucking disgusting and disrespectful. I talked about that modkill with the host in the obs QT. At some point he told me to stop because the discussion would not belong to the obs QT. I agreed and apologized to him. He told me to gtfo of his obs QT....
Guess who that was Aquanim?
Now you can come here and bitch about toxic players or whatever shit as much as you want. But you do not get to tell me what i can do and what i can't do, and insult me here, because you yourself are incapable of following your own rules you have set for YOUR OWN game. Or maybe it's me who is fucking delusional about what's wrong and what's right but i don't live in a world where you can have double-standards based on whether or not you like the people in question.
I consider myself reasonable, as long as people are reasonable towards me. Yes, i sometimes do dumb shit and get myself modkilled because i am a highly emotional person. But i also know when i do something wrong. Then i apologize to people i think i have done wrong against and serve my punishment (in this case my bans). None of the people you just listed have "ran away", i am currently sitting out games. OMGUS people, if banned, sit out their bans. But you, YOU YOURSELF ran away and asked for a ban!!! So what the fuck are you even arguing about here?
I don't force anyone to like me and i know i myself don't like some people. But i can work with them, and if i can't i just don't join the games they are in. However that does not mean you are supposed to bend the rules when it comes to them because that is FAR bigger problem than someone calling another guy a fuckhead or someone ragequitting a game and getting a ban for it.
Also half of your post is pure bullshit and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. So please stop.
On June 13 2014 14:42 Aquanim wrote: You are, quite simply, unpleasant people to share a community with. I'm not talking about you as Mafia players. I'm talking about you as people, or at least as overall internet personas.
Wow, now who is the toxic person here?
On June 13 2014 14:42 Aquanim wrote: I imagine that's why GM and Foolishness aren't being forthcoming about the list of hosts in favour of these changes; they have no wish to subject nice people to your abuse. And if hosts enforce these rules individually, then like vultures you will swoop on them individually and peck them to death. A combined effort like this is the only way to "beat" your clique, if it can be done at all. Which I doubt.
This is completely unfounded and frankly also total bullshit.
Besides Rayn and Geript, every other player from Cultured I talked to agreed that Geript's actions were modkillable and that none of what had come before was... so maybe Rayn you're just going to have to accept that you were wrong. The prime directive of my rules was that "You shall play in such a way that everyone else who follows the rules can have fun", and Geript (and you to a lesser extent) definitely broke that one.
Also, when I said I'd had enough of the subforum and left, I had the balls to do it. I wasn't banned, I left of my own accord. You did something stupid and got banned, said you were quitting, then hung around and whinged. EDIT: I'm only here now as moral support for a few people I respect on the forum.
And JAT, DP and Marv have settled for taking one-liner potshots and completely dodging the point. Unfortunately, I can't say I expected any different.
Marv: I wasn't particularly trying to be nice to you. Sometimes the truth of how other people see you hurts. Deal with it.
JAT: I got the full vulture treatment after Cultured. "Unfounded" my ass.
On June 13 2014 22:23 marvellosity wrote: we're totes a clique, get with the program.
Clique of people with common sense. Current total: 2 and a 1/2
You go on telling yourself that.
But in the end... I don't really care about your opinion. Just as I expect you don't care about mine.
On June 13 2014 16:19 goodkarma wrote: Well put, Aqua. I agree with pretty much all of this, with the exception of these changes being completely futile. I mean, if you start screening out the most toxic you will make a more welcoming community. Sure, it won't change immediately, but it will over time. This may not be the only measure needed, but I believe it's a giant step in the right direction.
On June 13 2014 22:37 Aquanim wrote: But in the end... I don't really care about your opinion. Just as I expect you don't care about mine.
Imagine all people being like that. Wouldn't that be great? /s
I care about the opinion of anyone who's given me reason to respect it and them. And no, that's not only people who agree with me. For instance, I have respect for the opinion for Hapa and BH, despite some pretty serious differences I've had with them in the past.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure anything you lot have to say to me after that will simply derail this thread, so if you feel the need to talk with me some more take it to PMs.
On June 13 2014 22:37 Aquanim wrote: But in the end... I don't really care about your opinion. Just as I expect you don't care about mine.
Imagine all people being like that. Wouldn't that be great? /s
I care about the opinion of anyone who's given me reason to respect it and them.
-> Everyone who shares your opinion. I will stop it now but your behaviour in this thread is much more toxic/creating a bad atmosphere than everything I saw in recent games.
Aqua I find it kind of odd that you would have a go at me for 'personal attacks' in the thread consisting of:
On May 28 2014 09:00 DarthPunk wrote: I think it goes without saying the word that describes the people who voted no.
But then think it is ok to name me as a toxic member of the community and proceed to post at length in a very negative way about those 'toxic' people and I paraphrase "personally not just in games"
I have never been anything but nice to you, so I don't really know why you have a problem with me, but whatever.
I don't think your posts are constructive and you made it very clear that you are done with this community so perhaps it would be for the best if you just leave it at that.
On June 13 2014 22:37 Aquanim wrote: Marv: I wasn't particularly trying to be nice to you. Sometimes the truth of how other people see you hurts. Deal with it.
Absolutely nothing to do with how other people see me, it was only about the nature of your post. You are the rudest person in the thread.
On June 13 2014 22:37 Aquanim wrote: Marv: I wasn't particularly trying to be nice to you. Sometimes the truth of how other people see you hurts. Deal with it.
Absolutely nothing to do with how other people see me, it was only about the nature of your post. You are the rudest person in the thread.
You think that me saying you are an "unpleasant person to share a community with" is ruder than you comparing Yamato to some bible-bashing, evangelical Crusader? I think your perception of how "rude" my post is is entirely warped by the fact that for once you're on the receiving end of some criticism.
Unless you have something new and interesting to say, I'm done talking with you. Feel free to satisfy yourself with the "last word" if you like. EDIT: Whoops, that was meant to be a PM. Never mind. The above stands though. Unless I mess up again, I am now in fact done aiding and abetting this derail.
There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
On June 13 2014 22:37 Aquanim wrote: Marv: I wasn't particularly trying to be nice to you. Sometimes the truth of how other people see you hurts. Deal with it.
Absolutely nothing to do with how other people see me, it was only about the nature of your post. You are the rudest person in the thread.
You think that me saying you are an "unpleasant person to share a community with" is ruder than you comparing Yamato to some bible-bashing, evangelical Crusader? I think your perception of how "rude" my post is is entirely warped by the fact that for once you're on the receiving end of some criticism.
Unless you have something new and interesting to say, I'm done talking with you. Feel free to satisfy yourself with the "last word" if you like.
you don't even know what comparison I was making. If you think Koshi calling someone craycray for being a bit craycray or me making a Crusades reference is anything like you coming in and flaying a whole tonne of people's overall personalities, then you have a truly warped sense of perspective.
Your hypocrisy is disgusting.
P.S. people criticise me all the time, i'm ok with that.
On June 13 2014 23:31 DarthPunk wrote: This thread is basically two sides whom have different ideas about how things should work here.
On the one hand 'pro-change' people are fundamentally espousing an authoritarian philosophy towards moderation
Whilst "anti-change" people hold a libertarian philosophy toward moderation.
Pretty interesting actually.
Wrong. You can just not use the banlist.
Err what is 'wrong' with it? 'It' being an observation on the view points of people in this thread and the interesting way that those viewpoints fit within traditional philosophical ideas.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
On June 13 2014 23:31 DarthPunk wrote: This thread is basically two sides whom have different ideas about how things should work here.
On the one hand 'pro-change' people are fundamentally espousing an authoritarian philosophy towards moderation
Whilst "anti-change" people hold a libertarian philosophy toward moderation.
Pretty interesting actually.
While there are obviously exceptions, I also find it pretty interesting to see that the divide in opinion is largely split between the Americans and non-Americans.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
Bolded: People who are smart in terms of mafia will improve. If someonve complains about "the environment affecting their play" blabla (generally) they are just bad because imo on TL the level of play is the absolute highest i have seen anywhere.
TL Mafia is definitely by far the best mafia platform on the internet (at least for text mafia) and I think that our efforts to ensure a good playing environment will only serve to make things even awesomer.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke
edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot"
someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke
edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot"
someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^
On June 11 2014 10:33 austinmcc wrote: amg ded thred
If this continues to be a recurring problem, I wonder if having some kind of...dedicated morale officer might help? Or a morale officer per game? Seems like if people are getting super pissy at each other, or making games unfun, that perhaps having someone outside the game able to respond to people with concerns/politely check in with the people posting unfun-ly/possibly mediate nonsense could be helpful?
Sometimes concerns might be better voiced outside the thread, but maybe aren't host-actionable or shouldn't be host-actionable, morale officer offers that opportunity. Someone with a little credibility/respect could also tamp down fires as they start/before they start. In terms of recent stuff I've personally witnessed, maybe rayn having someone to spam drunken messages to, or someone to post AT him, could maybe have defused that situation, steveling/geript/BH could have maybe been slightly mediated if someone could step in from outside that wasn't a host, etc.
Just a thought. It probably doesn't help in all cases, and it requires a bunch of extra work from the community, but if this is a giant deal and making things all hand-holdy doesn't seem to lie FULLY with the players or FULLY with the hosts, perhaps the answer is that we need something else that isn't a host or player. If we want to tie bans to actions, respected moderator-y person could also PERHAPS weigh in on that.
Why aren't those host-actionable? Or even cohost-actionable? You've just made a third tier of host whose only job is to annoy players about how they're posting. What this would do is introduce Maslow's Hammer to mafia (If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.) You've got some hoity-toity "morale officer" whose only job is to take offense at what's being said. That would only exacerbate the "problem", not make it any better. As a player, I'd probably tell the officer that any PM's I get from him will be sent straight to the trash.
As always, caps for emphasis and not anger.
Nah, the job isn't just take offense and rail at people for it. He's a kind and smiley morale officer.
There are non-rare situations in which people seem to get super frustrated with each other, games kinda get less good/fun/legible, tempers flare, and that seems to be SOME of what the OP is trying to address. Clean up negative behavior.
Guess it depends on where you're starting from. If you think that's a GOOD idea, and also a lot of people seem to be against more stringent etiquette rules, then ONE way to address behavior and not have hosts banning people is to add another layer. YES, it's just another layer, but if you're pro-change and see a lot of anti-change-from-hosts-end stuff, this is kind of a legitimate option in the middle. I'm fine with things being host actionable and a much more strict warning --> ban for language, insults, nearly WHATEVER that isn't puppy dogs and rainbows, but I don't think that's quite the majority opinion.
In my mind, it's not another hammer-wielder, it's a ... outlet? People get pissed at each other in thread, and at points are essentially told by hosts "no more being pissed in thread," yet they still want to be. This leads to modkills, or to crappy pages of posts, or to hosts feeling like they should modkill folks but don't want to, or to "unfair" enforcement, or whatever. Having someone outside the game that you can actually PM, or that can PM you, but isn't dealing with the modkills during the game's run, POSSIBLY provides a way to release anger/tension that people seem to feel, without having to post at the thing you're angry about. It's not just a panopticon looking into games, it's also for communication OUT.
On June 13 2014 02:32 marvellosity wrote: A dedicated morale officer?
of all the dumb nonsense i've read in this thread
I thoroughly enjoy that you disagree with outside-of-game-stuff too.
AND OF COURSE, that whole stupid thing is basically saying that if some people want stricter hosting/behavior rules and some people think that's a terrible idea, then maybe the discussion should turn to "what else might work/provide a middle ground" rather than I LIKE THIS SIDE AND DON'T LIKE THAT SIDE, which is not 100% of what this thread is, but a decent part is just "nope, still don't like the other side of this disagreement."
austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt"[/i]. I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
I am not trying to say you can't improve, I suppose what i am saying is that I think it's tricky to do, hard to measure and really easy to plateau. the main example i can think of for somebody improving was VE i cant think of too many more
My original point was more that i think a lot of people approach the game with a competitive mindset (this very site is about competitive Brood War) and that i think it's a major contributing factor to the behavior and problems that the proposed changes are trying to fix. For instance i really want to win i am more likely to annoyed by something silly and to a greater degree than i would if i was playing to win but trying to have fun.
BH i know it wasn't a straight "no" it was just easier to type and the more tangents i go off on adding more information to ensure everything i say is completely correct the less likely my posts are to read well or make sense.
On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks.
[/i]I think there have been a number of recent situations where yeah, someone can decide what's right/wrong or just provide a friendly "hey, you might......not want to do what you're doing, what's up?"
Recent examples are always more fresh to me.
You posting drunk in whatever mafia. I'm not in your head, but you seemed frustrated with the game in general, not just certain people, and there were a couple pages where the game devolved into "rayn posts drunk the everyone else says 'hey, go to sleep, this isn't going to end well.'" Maybe someone outside-the-game gives you a rant-outlet, or maybe someone outside the game has a little more pull when saying "you really should stop" because they're not IN the game you're frustrated with.
ANY time people are just flinging shit at each other. steve/geript/BH in ... Whatever Mafia 2. I am bad with names today. Any time where someone thinks they're just getting attacked and decides to more or less give up on the game (whether personal attacks or "I'm getting lynched? Fuck this I'm afk!"). Especially in the latter case, it's not a warning/ban/anything, it's a much more friendly "yo, what's up, what are you specifically frustrated with and you can PM me." When someone INSIDE the game is telling you to stop, or fighting with you, or whatever, they can have alignment-specific motives. Maybe mafia want you to keep flinging shit, maybe you THINK the dude talking to you is mafia so you're not going to listen, etc. Someone outside the game but not hosting gives a voice that you can maybe trust but also isn't running around handing out warnings/bans, and isn't as worried about influencing a game.
The flip side is that for people who don't want hosts influencing games, this is essentially just another person influencing the game, which would be a negative. I assume the problem isn't the HOST meddling, but the MEDDLING.
I'm bad at calling specific examples of just people fighting for pages on end to mind. But in my head, rough estimate, 1/3 of the games I play in often have some kind of argument that builds and controls the thread for a while and might/should/would-under-a-more-strict-system result in warnings/modkills/bans.
In the same way that more heavy-handed hosting and moderation would influence some strategies, like mafia wanting a thread to be a shitflinging festival, or people trying to use FUCK YOU GUYS I'M OUTTA HERE as a way to change minds. I assume that's a downside to some folks, a steep one.
On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks.
[/i] Not that I think a "morale officer" or anything is a great idea, but the point isn't "Does everyone hate that style of posting and think it makes the game unfun?" but more "Does everyone *LIKE* that style of posting and find it enjoyable?"
I'm trying to figure out how to say this.....but to focus more on trying to get everyone to have a positive experience rather than just neglecting the negative experiences because its not a negative experience for everyone.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke
edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot"
someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^
I am unambiguously in favor of these changes. Just because I admit that the people who are against these changes have some good points doesn't mean that I'm not in favor. People can disagree on things and be reasonable.
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against the changes. You claimed there is a majority for the changes.
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes.
Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed!
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes.
Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed!
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
This is enough to justify my statement. If you think we have a majority pro-change count yourself dude.
I seem to recall like roughly a million people coming into the thread, saying "I like this change, this is my one post saying I like this change" and leaving and they're not listed anywhere in this. You can't just count only people who agree with you, based on a count that was made 2 weeks ago, and claim that supports your argument. That post is on like page 15 of this thread. misleading data is worse than no data at all! you should be ashamed.
I claimed there are many people against the changes and showed you a list of many people against this changes. You claimed there is a majority for this changes.
Yup, and then I tasked you with collecting accurate data to support my claim, a task at which you utterly failed!
I am so sorry...
It's okay, man, we all make mistakes. Admitting them and apologising for them is part of becoming a better person. I graciously accept your apology. We can all strive to become better.
On June 14 2014 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: austin can you tell me how someone who is not really "in the game" like players (and hosts) are can decide what's right and what's wrong (in terms of language and stuff)?*
*i mean, i have read one game after i stopped playing / got a ban. That game was/is awful, i would not like to play it (in terms of how people act towards each other <-> the reasoning behind it).
But if i was in the game would i feel so? I probably would not. I would put myself into a mindset "okay, this is how i am supposed to play this game, this is what ppl do, this is how they post. I need to adapt". I would be fine. But as an "outsider" it looked fucking bad, far worse than i have ever done (except for my banstuff ^^).
so plz ppl think before you post here. Get your shit straight and argue if you want to. But don't sell bullshit (not directed to you austin) for no fkn reason.
thanks.
I think there have been a number of recent situations where yeah, someone can decide what's right/wrong or just provide a friendly "hey, you might......not want to do what you're doing, what's up?"
Recent examples are always more fresh to me.
You posting drunk in whatever mafia. I'm not in your head, but you seemed frustrated with the game in general, not just certain people, and there were a couple pages where the game devolved into "rayn posts drunk the everyone else says 'hey, go to sleep, this isn't going to end well.'" Maybe someone outside-the-game gives you a rant-outlet, or maybe someone outside the game has a little more pull when saying "you really should stop" because they're not IN the game you're frustrated with.
ANY time people are just flinging shit at each other. steve/geript/BH in ... Whatever Mafia 2. I am bad with names today. Any time where someone thinks they're just getting attacked and decides to more or less give up on the game (whether personal attacks or "I'm getting lynched? Fuck this I'm afk!"). Especially in the latter case, it's not a warning/ban/anything, it's a much more friendly "yo, what's up, what are you specifically frustrated with and you can PM me." When someone INSIDE the game is telling you to stop, or fighting with you, or whatever, they can have alignment-specific motives. Maybe mafia want you to keep flinging shit, maybe you THINK the dude talking to you is mafia so you're not going to listen, etc. Someone outside the game but not hosting gives a voice that you can maybe trust but also isn't running around handing out warnings/bans, and isn't as worried about influencing a game.
The flip side is that for people who don't want hosts influencing games, this is essentially just another person influencing the game, which would be a negative. I assume the problem isn't the HOST meddling, but the MEDDLING.
I'm bad at calling specific examples of just people fighting for pages on end to mind. But in my head, rough estimate, 1/3 of the games I play in often have some kind of argument that builds and controls the thread for a while and might/should/would-under-a-more-strict-system result in warnings/modkills/bans.
In the same way that more heavy-handed hosting and moderation would influence some strategies, like mafia wanting a thread to be a shitflinging festival, or people trying to use FUCK YOU GUYS I'M OUTTA HERE as a way to change minds. I assume that's a downside to some folks, a steep one.
[/i] The problem is, as i have said in multiple occasions:
You can always give examples where people "behave bad". True. As i have said if a majority of people feel like other people are rude, assholes, or whatever towards them, they should speak here.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong, except some people being "blabla" (nothing that's directly addressed) towards some other people (noone has ever given examples, except for Aquanim). So what? What are we arguing about. "TLMAFIA BEHAVIOUR IS SHIT AND IT'S LETTING US DOWN" but "noone" knows what's up?!?!?!? what the fuck?
Please, people. If you have examples, bring them up. Aquanim (besides me) was the only one who did so. Speak you motherfuckers. Let's talk about what's wrong and not just paint pictures on the wall. Certainly something is wrong and something needs to change but honestly i have no fucking clue about what people who are driving this want to change.
so please, examples. use me if you want to, idgaf. i can tell my pov.
On June 13 2014 23:07 layabout wrote: There is a lot of potential for sillyness if there was a dedicated morale officer
This is mostly speculation but i think a large part of the problem is that people approach the game from a competitive mindset much in the same way you would a vidya game. We all made it to TL and i would say this makes us much more likely to play with improving or winning as the focus. The problem is that, that doesn't really align well with mafia. It seems to me that skill is more or less inherent and improvement is difficult to achieve and hard to measure. As much as i have tried i don't think i have improved a whole lot and most of the things i liked or enjoyed about playing here had nothing to do with winning or losing.
I know i have played in games where i should have just had more fun with it and that is where the problems start.
That's simply untrue. Several people have improved dramatically since starting here.
i know that but several out of dozens if not hundreds isn't a lot
i hadn't realized the rules were going through
THEY ARE BULLSHIT
attitudes need to change and heavy handed moderation isn't going to achieve that, and once we are stuck with these shitty rules there is basically no way of going back. the point about TL bans punishing some people but not punishing mafia only people at all is another example of why the community has to self moderate
Why are the rules going forward when the general consensus was a "no"?
The rules do not include TL bans afaik and the consensus is certainly "no" by "number of posts saying no in the thread" but probably not "no" by "number of people"
This statement is debatable. In any way it is certain that there is a large group of people against this who will be completely ignored if this is introduced like that. Why even let us discuss it then.
To determine who the dissidents to the regime are! Don't be surprised when the junta comes knocking at your door in the middle of the night kekekeke
edit: seriously though if everyone was against it I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but instead of everyone being against it it's "some people are against it and really really really like posting a lot about being against it so it seems like there are a lot"
someone should do a person-by-person tally like the one there was a few pages in. I nominate JAT cause i'm lazy
Do you actually have an opinion on the matter or not? Your filter is two pages long and you are flip-flopping all around (FYI this is mafia man). ^^
I am unambiguously in favor of these changes. Just because I admit that the people who are against these changes have some good points doesn't mean that I'm not in favor. People can disagree on things and be reasonable.
Well this is reasonable. Do you have an idea to actually fix this "shit" or are you one of the people who just say "be nice kthxbye" like other opposers?
all the people who want something. grow a pair and say what's fucked up. if the person is someone who was an asshole i doubt they will get mad because of it, after all they are okay of being called an asshole.
so, examples plz. ppl. especially the ppl who are in this. I don't know what we are are talking about so tell me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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:
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.
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.
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 07:00 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 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.
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.
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.
The fact that the kush ban was even contested is a little silly. Like, I'm a really aggressive and outspoken guy, so I have zero trouble justifying my bans and pushing them through, and when I get pushback I do hilarious things like demand even more bans. I'm the perfect host, in a way, for the current system, because I include things in my personal rules like "I can modkill and/or ban you for any reason, completely arbitrarily. You have only vague guesses to go off of to figure out how not to get modkilled" and then I warn people, then I modkill them, and then I argue a lot. It's really perfect for me. I don't anticipate changing much about my hosting under any new rule.
The issue isn't guys like me, who got it covered. The issue is guys who are afraid to be like me, and need something to point to when people start shitting on them in the ban list thread. They have to be able to say, "hey man, dem's da rulez" cause they lack the intense spinality that I have.
I don't think the specific rule change I've proposed, which is that the standard behavior language which is already in every game be required to be in every game (remember, it's already in every game) and a clarification be added to this language so it's clear what's inside the rules and what isn't.
I think most people won't change their OPs significantly, since everyone already uses this kind of language. I think it'll make meek hosts better though
Yeah so you are like me. Harsh and "unliked" for some ppl. That's okay. I am not contesting the bans you have ensured, i didn't just remember the one you brought up, i was curious.
After the first chapter imo you are 100% right. And that's what i am arguing avout here. Apparently other peopl are not. :/
On June 14 2014 08:32 Blazinghand wrote: The issue isn't guys like me, who got it covered. The issue is guys who are afraid to be like me, and need something to point to when people start shitting on them in the ban list thread. They have to be able to say, "hey man, dem's da rulez" cause they lack the intense spinality that I have.
Then tell those guys to man up. Tell them they have your support and the support of the people in charge of the banlist. Make this clear to them and everyone else and this problem should be solved or if it isn't then it will never be. This does not justify a general rule change IN ANY WAY. Hell, I don't even think the rulechange would help in that regard.
On June 14 2014 08:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: He's agruing "for us", i just dcan't undestand him all the time (because people do not speak Finnish ^^). But yeah there is no problem here.
On June 14 2014 08:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: He's agruing "for us", i just dcan't undestand him all the time (because people do not speak Finnish ^^). But yeah there is no problem here.
On June 14 2014 08:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: He's agruing "for us", i just dcan't undestand him all the time (because people do not speak Finnish ^^). But yeah there is no problem here.
No, he isn't. He wants the change.
This doesn't have to be so oppositional, man
You are right. You could also just admit that I am right ^_^
On June 14 2014 08:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: He's agruing "for us", i just dcan't undestand him all the time (because people do not speak Finnish ^^). But yeah there is no problem here.
No, he isn't. He wants the change.
This doesn't have to be so oppositional, man
You are right. You could also just admit that I am right ^_^
On June 14 2014 08:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: He's agruing "for us", i just dcan't undestand him all the time (because people do not speak Finnish ^^). But yeah there is no problem here.
No, he isn't. He wants the change.
This doesn't have to be so oppositional, man
You are right. You could also just admit that I am right ^_^
Yes, you're right: I'm right.
Excellent. No opposition anymore. On a more serious note: I won't change my opinion on this. I think it's pretty clear that the rulechange is not warranted and if there is a problem then it is not the solution.
On June 14 2014 09:05 justanothertownie wrote: ...I think it's pretty clear that the rulechange is not warranted and if there is a problem then it is not the solution.
I think this is a fact but you can't argue about it here. I am in a same boat but it does not any good for anyone to argue about this here. Let's just support/argue what we CAN change/(or not). It's more productive.
On June 14 2014 06:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: 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.
What do you mean I addressed 10% of your post? I told you that everything you said about the unreasonableness of my actions in Cultured Mini Mafia was wrong (based on the opinions of the other players and my cohosts who I sought the opinion of, which was most of them IIRC), and that the conditions under which I left the forum were considerably different to yours. As far as I could tell, everything else you had to say was contentless ranting. How am I supposed to answer an argument like "half of your post is pure bullshit"? You haven't even said which half... because you don't WANT to argue that point.
Also: I don't necessarily expect anyone here to take up Rayn on his offer of "tell me why you don't like me/whoever".
Why?
Because you can't do something like that in a small community like this, and there not be any consequences. I can do it because I'm perfectly fine with burning my bridges on this forum by antagonising some of the most influential people here. Rayn can do it because a) I'm not playing here again anyway so he has nothing to lose by antagonising me and b) he's a big enough bully that he can just scream at anyone who disagrees with him until they go away.
EDIT: Let me make my position perfectly clear.
In my opinion, if the behavioural state of this subforum is to improve, the banlist must explicitly endorse the behavioural rules which mods intend to enforce to accomplish that improvement. Without out-of-game consequences for breaking behavioural rules, those rules are not enforceable.
Do I think all hosts should be required to uphold stricter behavioural rules? No, not really. If you want to host a more lax game, go for it.
I have my doubts that a change like this can fix this community, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying or that it won't help at least somewhat.
Did this thread just go full circlejerk? Last time I posted we went back to exactly what BH was saying a couple of posts above. And it was agreed as a good change since now "meek" hosts such as myself can be amazing as BH is.
The thread seems to have pretty much run it's purpose imo
Those against it general concept: Hosts don't need special rules to be an amazing host like the great BlazingHand. They can just warn and then modkill if the behavior continues, no need for any changes on the rules side.
Those for it general concept: The new rules feel empowering to hosts who feel more comfortable having a more developed and spelled-out set of guidelines for behavior so they can enforce those rules more consistently without fear of reproach.
Those against the rule change: What those who are pro-change are arguing for is already entirely possible with the current rules.
Those for the rule change: Everybody's equal which puts a nice face on everything we do here in this lovely subforum, so as to make it more welcoming to new guests as well as players who left for personal / time reasons.
repeat circle ad nauseum
I wrote this before but it bears repeating: hosts can host how they want to host and they have my (and hopefully, our) blessing to run their games how they want to up to and including behavioral guidelines and personal attacks and [the nebulous concept of] excessive posting.
My bottom line: The rule change merely formalizes what is already possible/available to hosts so that as few butts can be hurt as possible while maximizing community appeal and accessibility to the game.
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
IMO, the toxic parts of the community are certain people who think they're better than the rest. But I'm just a lowly member of the unwashed masses. You should institute these rules despite our objections because we don't know what's good for the community (us) and you do. By your own admission you'll never play another game here again so your opinion should not matter, not even a little, in this discussion.
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
IMO, the toxic parts of the community are certain people who think they're better than the rest. But I'm just a lowly member of the unwashed masses. You should institute these rules despite our objections because we don't know what's good for the community (us) and you do. By your own admission you'll never play another game here again so your opinion should not matter, not even a little, in this discussion.
Not that I agree with what Aqua is saying entirely, but that statement is just wrong. What does it matter if people play here anymore? More specifically what if the conditions here (Which is obviously the case in this scenario) have dictated said persons choice in NOT playing here? I 100% don't think that person should just be ignored because they no longer play here because they have a problem with something here. They have an issue with something, thus they left, you should totes not ignore their opinion about it. Else what is stopping more people for leaving for the exact same reason?
I am not going to elaborate much more other than ye, BH sums it up ok. The short story of the facts as I see; All these rules really do is lay that framework out over all games. Mods can choose to be super strict on it or not. Obviously TL mafia doesn't have a ton of mods running around threads and just auto banning people based on "their opinion". To be honest these last 10 pages seem pretty silly. All these changes seem to do in my mind is empower "less confidant" host to make request in the ban list thread post game. I honestly can't see what else this will change.
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
IMO, the toxic parts of the community are certain people who think they're better than the rest. But I'm just a lowly member of the unwashed masses. You should institute these rules despite our objections because we don't know what's good for the community (us) and you do. By your own admission you'll never play another game here again so your opinion should not matter, not even a little, in this discussion.
Not that I agree with what Aqua is saying entirely, but that statement is just wrong. What does it matter if people play here anymore? More specifically what if the conditions here (Which is obviously the case in this scenario) have dictated said persons choice in NOT playing here? I 100% don't think that person should just be ignored because they no longer play here because they have a problem with something here. They have an issue with something, thus they left, you should totes not ignore their opinion about it. Else what is stopping more people for leaving for the exact same reason?
I am not going to elaborate much more other than ye, BH sums it up ok. The short story of the facts as I see; All these rules really do is lay that framework out over all games. Mods can choose to be super strict on it or not. Obviously TL mafia doesn't have a ton of mods running around threads and just auto banning people based on "their opinion". To be honest these last 10 pages seem pretty silly. All these changes seem to do in my mind is empower "less confidant" host to make request in the ban list thread post game. I honestly can't see what else this will change.
If you aren't going to play any games here, why do you care what the games look like? It's easy to vote for a rule that you don't have to follow. People with no personal stake in the community shouldn't be making decisions for the community, simple as that. It's the same reason that seniors in the "student council" at my high school didn't get to vote on stuff. "You're not going to be here in 2 months, so why the fuck would we let you vote on how things are run here?" In this case it'd be "You're not going to play any games here, so why the fuck would we let you dictate the rules of our games?"
The problem with the forum isn't the rules enforced by the hosts. The problem is the community. Both the toxic players (Rayn, Geript, most of the OMGUS folks, etc.) and the others who enable them with their approval (Marv, DP, JAT, etc.).
IMO, the toxic parts of the community are certain people who think they're better than the rest. But I'm just a lowly member of the unwashed masses. You should institute these rules despite our objections because we don't know what's good for the community (us) and you do. By your own admission you'll never play another game here again so your opinion should not matter, not even a little, in this discussion.
Not that I agree with what Aqua is saying entirely, but that statement is just wrong. What does it matter if people play here anymore? More specifically what if the conditions here (Which is obviously the case in this scenario) have dictated said persons choice in NOT playing here? I 100% don't think that person should just be ignored because they no longer play here because they have a problem with something here. They have an issue with something, thus they left, you should totes not ignore their opinion about it. Else what is stopping more people for leaving for the exact same reason?
I am not going to elaborate much more other than ye, BH sums it up ok. The short story of the facts as I see; All these rules really do is lay that framework out over all games. Mods can choose to be super strict on it or not. Obviously TL mafia doesn't have a ton of mods running around threads and just auto banning people based on "their opinion". To be honest these last 10 pages seem pretty silly. All these changes seem to do in my mind is empower "less confidant" host to make request in the ban list thread post game. I honestly can't see what else this will change.
If you aren't going to play any games here, why do you care what the games look like? It's easy to vote for a rule that you don't have to follow. People with no personal stake in the community shouldn't be making decisions for the community, simple as that. It's the same reason that seniors in the "student council" at my high school didn't get to vote on stuff. "You're not going to be here in 2 months, so why the fuck would we let you vote on how things are run here?" In this case it'd be "You're not going to play any games here, so why the fuck would we let you dictate the rules of our games?"
No, what I am trying to say is; If you leave our forum for a specific reason, and 6 months (random #) that reason gets addressed, why is your input null? Just because you don't play here doesn't mean you don't play at all. I know, for a fact, many players that stop playing here, revert to other sites. So, lamest terms; if someone left this site for 'something', Why not seriously consider his/her opinions when it gets brought up? Even if it's months down the line, we should not just be "You opinion makes sense, but fuck that, cuz you haven't played a game on this site in the last 8 months."
I don't have much of an opinion on the rule change but I wanted to ask a question- It seems like this is an initiative to try to have more players-
There has been much discussion among hosts, and foolishness, about how to address the declining number of players. Two of the issues that were identified were the massive amount of spam, and the relatively toxic atmosphere in games. The first has very few reasonable solutions, but the second has an easy fix.
I was wondering, does it seem like the problem (compared to prior years) is: - fewer new players are staying? - fewer old players are staying? - fewer new players are joining? To me it really feels like each of those may reflect different problems and maybe different solutions.
For me, I'd prefer if people were more polite (I don't feel like adversarial games require any impolite or rudeness). But for me, I think the tenor of other players is a lesser factor in whether I enjoy a game here.
Well, unless he has an actual objection to my reasons for thinking anything which I've said, I'm going to chalk iVlosK up as "worthless trolling and asking a question I've already answered".
But Aqua your opinion is irrelevant because you're not an active community member anymore
You can take my opinion or leave it; I don't intend to ever again share a community with many of you, so whether you pay any attention to me or not doesn't really affect me. Your community dying is your problem.
He's clearly chosen to leave my opinion. That doesn't mean everyone's obligated to.
EDIT: I can't help but notice that nobody who disagrees with me has actually raised any counter-arguments to my point about the necessity for banlist endorsement of stricter rules. Fancy that.
I'm an advocate of empathy and understanding, before addressing solutions. I find this discussion eerily similar to other types of discussion. It all relates to people's actions and behaviours, and discussions about those. So, you have some people behaving some way, and others disagreeing with said behaviour, while other disagree more. This in turn, creates new discussions about this behavior, but the behavior that was being questioned is actually being used in these same discussions. Because that behaviour is questionable, and in the discussion about said behaviour you are using said behaviour, then there is no possible way to solve the problem, because: -The behaviour is the problem -The place to try and solve this behavioral problem is in the discussions about said behaviour -Yet the behaviour is actually happening in those discussions, making the discussions themselves part of the problem, but you have no place to try and solve these new meta-behaviour problems, thus you can never wither down the "problem behavior" so you can never fully eradicate it.
So, imagine the behavioral problem is that people post "fuck" in games. Now you go to this thread and discuss it. Some agree, some disagree. However, everybody starts throwing out "fuck" around. Now, the people against people saying "fuck" in games, will also be against people saying it in the discussion, or at least subconsciously, making them more aggressive and adversarial towards the other position. The aggressiveness increases until the discussion turns into a shitstorm of clusterfuckbrainorgy proportions.
Recently I found that a lot of discussions turn out this way. No, not discussions, but at times even cultural-wide reactions and actions. It's kind of shitty to be honest.
The solution? Be empathic, and chill So rayn, Aquanim, try having more empathy to each other instead of just fucking around. Then you can get to the core of the problem. Try and understand what the other dude is saying, try to understand why he is getting so fucking angry. Know that you getting fucking angry may also influence him getting fucking angry, so stop being angry and see if he is still shitting all over the place or not. Did you do it? Did you have an actual talk between each other? See? It wasn't that bad was it? Guess what? This is also the solution to this very problem you guys are discussing about. If all players try to be more empathic towards others when playing mafia games, none of this would even happen. However, for us/you/whatever to get there in the first place, you need to get there in these kind of environments (debates,etc ). If the people in here are having shitstorms and shitting around, why should players in mafia games feel like they should act otherwise?
On June 15 2014 06:45 Amiko wrote: I don't have much of an opinion on the rule change but I wanted to ask a question- It seems like this is an initiative to try to have more players-
There has been much discussion among hosts, and foolishness, about how to address the declining number of players. Two of the issues that were identified were the massive amount of spam, and the relatively toxic atmosphere in games. The first has very few reasonable solutions, but the second has an easy fix.
I was wondering, does it seem like the problem (compared to prior years) is: - fewer new players are staying? - fewer old players are staying? - fewer new players are joining? To me it really feels like each of those may reflect different problems and maybe different solutions.
For me, I'd prefer if people were more polite (I don't feel like adversarial games require any impolite or rudeness). But for me, I think the tenor of other players is a lesser factor in whether I enjoy a game here.
I think after I stopped playing, all the sexy smart people stopped playing because they couldn't play with me anymore. Must be the only explanation of course.
Nah, I knew this was coming the moment everybody was acting all smug about it over here already "knowing" we'd beat Costa Rica by like a bajillion goals or something. Our team is like exactly the same one from 2010, obviously we'd get slugish and slow and do shit.
Still, this WC is like the best ever. Like 10 games and not a single draw
On June 15 2014 15:04 gonzaw wrote: Nah, I knew this was coming the moment everybody was acting all smug about it over here already "knowing" we'd beat Costa Rica by like a bajillion goals or something. Our team is like exactly the same one from 2010, obviously we'd get slugish and slow and do shit.
Still, this WC is like the best ever. Like 10 games and not a single draw
At least your team doesn't suck as hard as our team. Although I am ethnically dutch so at least I have a second team to follow.
On June 15 2014 15:36 gonzaw wrote: Why didn't you guys create a "World Cup Mafia" game?
It would be great to have Cristiano Ronaldo lynched on D1, and Messi vig shotted on N1
Yes please. Red cards for lynches, injuries for nk's. Cop could be a referee (preferably not one from brazil match lololol), vig could be a slide tackling mofo! Kick off start of the game, night time could be an elongated foul where a player rolls around and thus injuries happen after the foul and red cards to make the foul.
On June 15 2014 13:33 gonzaw wrote: [...] So rayn, Aquanim, try having more empathy to each other instead of just fucking around. Then you can get to the core of the problem. Try and understand what the other dude is saying, try to understand why he is getting so fucking angry. Know that you getting fucking angry may also influence him getting fucking angry, so stop being angry and see if he is still shitting all over the place or not. Did you do it? Did you have an actual talk between each other? See? It wasn't that bad was it? [...]
Yes i did. We certainly have a different opinion of what's right and what's wrong. Here are some discussions we have had, on three different matters: + Show Spoiler +
(1) The Blazinghand incident from LXIV - where he posted his mason logs after being told not to do so by the hosts:
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 02:39 AM ET (US) lol whatever. I also remember you telling i did something wrong when Blazinghand broke the rules in LXIV so maybe it's better i don't sign up for your games because that was delusional.
Aquanim 03-07-2014 02:55 AM ET (US) /m168 that thing with Blazinghand wasn't that you did anything against the rules, just that your actions put Blazinghand in a position where he had to either break the rules or get policy lynched.
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 03:22 AM ET (US) That is completely not true. As mafia, if you have enough time, you can fake the logs to match your actions in thread and it becomes harder to figure out if they are legit or not. I pressuresd BH to give the logs to confirmed town marv immediately. Instead of doing so BH decided to fuck around for 5 hours and not give the logs to marv. When my thought that BH is mafia because he needs time to fake the logs (as there is no reason to refuse to give them) gathered support BH went "shit i did an anti-town thing and now it's too late to prove my towniness with this so hey, i'll intentionally break the rules and modconfirm my mason group as town". That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with me and i DEFINITELY didn't put BH in that position, he did it himself.
Aquanim 03-07-2014 03:34 AM ET (US) I don't remember and I'm not interested in the details of whatever happened in LXIV. Irrelevant here anyway.
(2) geript getting modkilled in Cultured game:
raynpelikoneet 03-06-2014 09:42 PM ET (US) None of the things geript said was a threat.
Aquanim 03-06-2014 09:52 PM ET (US) Care to explain that?
Aquanim 03-06-2014 09:53 PM ET (US) 'cos saying that you will policy lynch/shoot someone in any game you meet them after this one sounds a lot like a threat to me.
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 01:54 AM ET (US) Okay so you are arguing that people thinking someone is bad as town and wanting to enforce a policy that they should be lynched is against the rules. You should probably modkil la lot of people. What about those guys in this game who refuse to lynch the mafia because of policy?
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 01:58 AM ET (US) But Toad geript isn't insulting anyone, he is saying Holyflare is playing so badly he can't believe he is town. Which ironically is correct. So Aquanim modkilled geript for being right and expressing that in a frustrated way (which again is not a threat).
Aquanim 03-07-2014 02:03 AM ET (US) Not at all. If somebody had come into this game and said "I think we should lynch so-and-so because their town game is so bad", that's not against my rule on threats - though I might well be unimpressed, and might not welcome them to play next time.
However, somebody saying that they will policy lynch X in future games, based on their play in this game, is against my rules. Basically, there's two options: 1) Geript is saying this to try to make Holyflare behave differently, which is an unreasonable threat based on out-of-game consequences and is thus against my rules. 2) Geript is saying this for no purpose at all. Being an asshole for no reason is against my rules. *
And as for Geript saying that he's willing to abuse his position as a host to satisfy his personal disagreements with Holyflare... well I have no idea why you think that is in any way acceptable.
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 02:42 AM ET (US) "And as for Geript saying that he's willing to abuse his position as a host to satisfy his personal disagreements with Holyflare... well I have no idea why you think that is in any way acceptable. "
BECAUS HOLYFLARE IS NOT IN THAT GAME SO GERIPT CAN'T POSSIBLY ABUSE HIS POSITION AS A HOST!?!?!
(2) gumshoe very clearly personally insulting me in Cultured game:
raynpelikoneet 03-07-2014 03:22 AM ET (US) For the record this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/4440...-mafia?page=55#1093 ..is far worse than anything anyone else has said in the game. Now i don't give a fuck about personal attacks against me because in my opinion if you can't deal with being called bad in a mafia game then you should be playing tic-tac-toe where you can't be bad unless you actullay are really dumb instead of mafia.
03-07-2014 03:34 AM ET (US) Gumshoe's post was indeed insulting and whatever towards you but he was making a valid point about the current game (namely, that you were wrong about Mocsta and that your massive ego was blinding you to that). *
Now my problem is not, and has never been, the modkill on geript. I strongly disagree with the "threat" part of the decision, but if that's Aquanim's decision fine. What i did, and do, have a problem with is that Aquanim in his game was enforcing STRICT BEHAVIOURAL RULES. However he let gumshoe slip by for no reason but modkilled geript. Now it's known for everyone that Aquanim does not like me and geript - i don't have a problem with that. But look at the bolded parts inside the spoilers:
I ask you all this; Look at the following spoilers and compare it to this, which is the exchange between me and gumshoe: + Show Spoiler +
On February 27 2014 11:41 gumshoe wrote: 1: Find me an exact quote where he renounces specifically his initial suspicion of her post.
On February 26 2014 17:29 Mocsta wrote:
On February 26 2014 17:14 raynpelikoneet wrote: So Mocsta why does your read on suki end up in null after a reread and then boombadaboom it's suddenly top 2 town?
I like her attitude after my callout. I dont think a scum Suki had any need to maintain thread presence after I was getting hammered.
Also, on a reread, I agreed with JJD that Suki was actually relatively light hearted. I completely misread that her dig on Toad was a retort to Toad calling her out, for example.
There one or two other minor things, but I dont think its important to discuss them right now.
There is a difference between conceding that someone isn't scum because of one post, and believing so firmly in their townieness as a result of that null at best opening, that one is willing to literally orient their play around that person alignment.
I am going to answer this. What the fuck are you doing?
Fuck you man, I dont wanna hear shit from you, your so fucking blind it scares me, how the fuck can you believe that Moc is scum after the game that you just hydrad with him!? The two play styles are totally different. You should be the one defending him honestly, yet your so caught up in your own massive ego that even when you realize how scummy suki is, you still wont give up on Moc, cause that would mean you were wrong wouldnt it? And we cant have that now can we, cause thats never happened before right?
On February 27 2014 12:04 raynpelikoneet wrote: Take a break gumshoe.
On February 27 2014 12:04 raynpelikoneet wrote: Take a break gumshoe.
Take a shit, cause your full of it.
Now again, look at what Aquanim said about geript's behaviour. Here, i'll quote it to you:
1) Geript is saying this to try to make Holyflare behave differently, which is an unreasonable threat based on out-of-game consequences and is thus against my rules. 2) Geript is saying this for no purpose at all. Being an asshole for no reason is against my rules.
Now if compare gumshoe's actions to this.
First of all Aquanim himself said what gumshoe did was (behaviourally) out of the line -> by his rules that's a modkillable offence.
Second, the second quote of gumshoe clearly falls into category (2) -> by his rules that's a modkillable offence.
Third, the first quote from gumshoe. Aquanim is trying to paint that as "reasonable response based on what's going on in-game". This is debatable, but it's not true. Here's what another town player said about the exchange in thread:
On February 27 2014 11:41 gumshoe wrote: 1: Find me an exact quote where he renounces specifically his initial suspicion of her post.
On February 26 2014 17:29 Mocsta wrote:
On February 26 2014 17:14 raynpelikoneet wrote: So Mocsta why does your read on suki end up in null after a reread and then boombadaboom it's suddenly top 2 town?
I like her attitude after my callout. I dont think a scum Suki had any need to maintain thread presence after I was getting hammered.
Also, on a reread, I agreed with JJD that Suki was actually relatively light hearted. I completely misread that her dig on Toad was a retort to Toad calling her out, for example.
There one or two other minor things, but I dont think its important to discuss them right now.
There is a difference between conceding that someone isn't scum because of one post, and believing so firmly in their townieness as a result of that null at best opening, that one is willing to literally orient their play around that person alignment.
I am going to answer this. What the fuck are you doing?
Fuck you man, I dont wanna hear shit from you, your so fucking blind it scares me, how the fuck can you believe that Moc is scum after the game that you just hydrad with him!? The two play styles are totally different. You should be the one defending him honestly, yet your so caught up in your own massive ego that even when you realize how scummy suki is, you still wont give up on Moc, cause that would mean you were wrong wouldnt it? And we cant have that now can we, cause thats never happened before right?
I agree with rayn saying take a break. This is completely unwarranted---like...I've seen Rayn go all ego. This isn't it. Like not even close.
Now this is from a player who actually READS THE THREAD and knows what's going on. So gumshoe's first post clearly falls into category (1) (except for the "threat" part) and (2) -> by his rules that's a modkillable offence.
So, what does this all have to do with this thread?
This thread is about hosts enforcing stricter behavioural rules because people have felt unpleasant to play in games here and therefore will not play. I do not think Aquanim is qualified to say anything to this matter because he treats people differently based on whather or not he likes them. gumshoe got away with shit he should not have gotten away with as per Aquanim's rules. Just because Aquanim thinks i am an egoistic dick does not mean in HIS opinion anyone can act as a dick towards me, as per his rules. gumshoe was a dick, so was geript. One of them got modkilled without a warnig, the other one didn't. That's bullshit and shows that Aquanim as a host favours some people over others.
Now THIS is what i think is wrong here on TL Mafia and not so the "toxic atmospheres". People favour certain people over others for whatever reasons. Some people get away with same shit others get punished for. This is not the only instance and it seems like noone gives a fuck about this.
For the people arguing pro-change: I agree with you guys, as i have said before. If there are people who quit/don't wanna join games because of toxic atmosphere something needs to change. Apparently Foolishness (i think?) has recieved PM's from people regarding this. My questions, however, are these: 1) What are those instances that should have been modkilled and were not based on the rule change? Could someone show some examples, because i have seen none and i really don't know what people are arguing for here. Please, could someone show me what would be modkillable after change that was not before? Even one example.. People are just arguing about generally, "people should be nicer yadda yadda" without telling what sort of posts are the actual problem. 2) If this is, and has been the problem, why has noone who has felt so brought the issue up after relevant game in the banlist thread? That's what the fucking thread is about - to discuss incorrect behaviour and act properly and ensure people get banned for their rule violations. Why are people just whining in PM's and complaining there? Like are you scared you get shut down? Well if you don't voice your opinion you will not be heard, that's for sure.
So get out of your cave and do something if you think something is wrong. Right now this thread is not being helpful because the only people who have actually shown some examples of anything are me, Aquanim and Blazinghand. I definitely do not agree with Aquanim but at least i respect him for being straighforward and telling what's wrong in his opinion.
I'm not debating Cultured Mini Mafia with you again Rayn. You clearly have nothing to say on the subject which you haven't said before and neither do I.
So you do not have any examples of this toxic behaviour you want to have fixed? Well then you clearly have nothing to say on this topic.
It's funny that you are eager to point out names here but you apparently can't actually back up what you say. Not liking someone is one thing but giving shit to them without telling why is another one and i hate people who do that. If you have something to say be a man and back it up properly.
That's not what I said. I said I won't debate my decisions in Cultured Mini Mafia with you.
That aside, I don't see the point in explaining to you exactly why I think you are an unpleasant person. You're never going to agree with me, and anyone else who would agree with me if I explained it already does.
tl;dr No, I don't intend to help you derail this thread any further.
And to that end: I've said some things I left unsaid when I last left, and I've expressed my support for a notion I felt was worth supporting. I don't think my continued presence here is doing anyone any good, except for those who benefit from using arguments with me to spam this thread and stop anything useful from being done. As such... bye.
I don't doubt someone will twist my words and pretend I said something I didn't say for the purposes of advancing their own agenda... but that would happen no matter when I decided enough was enough. So whatever.
On June 15 2014 20:39 Aquanim wrote: That aside, I don't see the point in explaining to you exactly why I think you are an unpleasant person. You're never going to agree with me, and anyone else who would agree with me if I explained it already does.
tl;dr No, I don't intend to help you derail this thread any further.
Rayn is at the moment the only person in here actively trying to figure out what's the problem/how to solve it. He is certainly not derailing the thread. And providing examples of bad behaviour in games has nothing to do with explaining why he is an unpleasant person to you (or with derailing). Literally nothing. Just because you don't like someone that does not mean they are bm or that they were not punished accordingly for being bm which is the point of this thread.
On June 15 2014 20:39 Aquanim wrote: That's not what I said. I said I won't debate my decisions in Cultured Mini Mafia with you.
And i used that game as an example for what i think is wrong here. I know you will not agree with me but that was not directed to you but for everyone else.
I am not asking you to contribute to that matter because i already know your answer. I am asking you to contribute to what YOU think is the problem. Is it too much asked that you back up your statements with examples? I won't take offence, hell i have even said "use me as an example if there is something you think can be used as an example from me". Until you do so i don't know why you bash certain people. I wan't to understand what in YOUR opinion is the problem, what sort of behaviour YOU think is toxic. Until you point out something there is nothing you can contribute towards anyone in this thread and there is nothing to gain to you.
Right now you are just saying you don't like some people and they are toxic. Fine, but noone knows what in your opinion we should do differently. "Be nicer" is not a real answer because mafia games are not for that. You are supposed to find who is talking shit and who is not. If i have ever crossed the line and not get punished for it point out where and then we can discuss if people think you are right or not.
So everyone who posts in this thread, could you please contribute to this:
1) What are those instances that should have been modkilled and were not based on the rule change? Could someone show some examples, because i have seen none and i really don't know what people are arguing for here. Please, could someone show me what would be modkillable after change that was not before? Even one example.. People are just arguing about generally, "people should be nicer yadda yadda" without telling what sort of posts are the actual problem. 2)2) If this is, and has been the problem, why has noone who has felt so brought the issue up after relevant game in the banlist thread? That's what the fucking thread is about - to discuss incorrect behaviour and act properly and ensure people get banned for their rule violations. Why are people just whining in PM's and complaining there? Like are you scared you get shut down? Well if you don't voice your opinion you will not be heard, that's for sure.
The thing I believe is that there are 2 types of problems and discussions going on here.
The first one is about certain specific behaviours in games being modkille-able or not, and hosts going through with said decisions, etc, and arguing in favor or against them. Basically, normal banlist discussion
The 2nd one is the "heavier" one, which was stated in the OP and it's the environment, the style of play, whatever, making people leave TL, have a bad time playing games
On May 27 2014 21:43 GMarshal wrote: There has been much discussion among hosts, and foolishness, about how to address the declining number of players. Two of the issues that were identified were the massive amount of spam, and the relatively toxic atmosphere in games. The first has very few reasonable solutions, but the second has an easy fix.
If your "show me instances that display the problem" thing is about the 2nd one, then I can't be much of help since I don't follow much games. I do have to say some of them that I followed previously were kind of spammy, and not very interesting to "look" at. But since I didnt' play them I don't know what a player might have felt playing in it (or what more attentive people might have felt observing it). Though yeah, people posting concrete examples would help, specially of what the "relatively toxic atmosphere in games" is. There are other more general issues like "number of players declining", which you can't really pinpoint to a specific source, just glance and discuss it generally.
@rayn Here are a few examples of posts from the past couple of games that probably weren't necessary. I'm not really sure what is considered to be crossing the line myself. While I'm not in favor of enforcing harsher punishments or bans, I do think that people should try their best to avoid attacks like these if possible. I'm sure most people aren't bothered by these type of posts 95% of the time, but occasionally there is going to be a guy who is having a rough day or is easily frustrated and things unintentionally escalate. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the hosts to warn people for things like this based on the results of the poll.
Are you retarded?
while I agree with you that x and y have proved themselves two of the worst players on the forum through this game
look like a retard in the process. Almost every game.
It means you are retarded.
Fuck you.
Why are you sucking Marv's dick so hard
Fuck you x Fuck you y and Fuck you most of all z
that person is either scum or retarded
either you're a fucking retard that wants to get killed by mafia, or you're actually mafia.
The retard thing is unfortunate but if the word retard was banned I would just use a synonym. Being called a retard is a bit annoying the first time but you get used to it.
So it's basically cursewords and otherwise strong language? Okay, i can myself cut that out if that needs to be done and if it somehow helps but i doubt. I don't see anything wrong with the last two quote. Based on the quotes you brought up kita i highly doubt this is a "new problem". There has been players with that kind of posting style for forever (at least for the last five years which i have read almost all the games from). Maybe the percentage of people who fall into that category is higher nowadays but people have told each other to fuck off for ages and called each others all sorts of names in ways that could have been expressed in a "more civil manner".
I don't think that's the issue. Basically, (I'm lazy and won't filter for quotes), just look at my last few games. I've been super hostile towards players, to a point where I don't even want to play anymore. Like I requested a modkill, then followed with asking GM to just perma me. I might be the odd man out, but it's this sort of thing imo that causes problems. In my case, it's been me being unable to understand something or trying to ploy for my scum team. Either way though, I went out of my way to give players a hard time. That's not contributing to games. It's only raising hairs for players in said games. The fact that I do it, unintentionally albeit, bothers me to such an extent that I took outside measures to assure that I stop doing it.
That's a problem for me. If the game is so undecidable for me because either spammers/ or lurkers, I get really upset. I always get told "Dude, you have a lynch for that." but to me a lynch isn't something to be wasted on policy. I don't want to waste my vote because player #9, 8, 3, and 12 [EDIT: Or got really aggressive. Because for most people it's not alignment indicative.] decided they didn't actually want to play the game. That being the case, I'm not actually likely to rant at any of those players. I'm very likely to flip my lid and rant at players that are active. That's a issue because most of the time, they are not scum, their points are valid, and I have gotten warned a bunch of times by mods.
Sub ver: I don't think swearing is an issue. In my own opinion it's just being an ass in general. Either my version; 1) Flips top and looses shit for no good reason at people or 2) Lurks to a point induce point 1.
So meh, how we treat one another, and just how we play in general are a factor for me. I honestly won't play anymore until I feel like I can curb my own issues. Not everyone will do this willingly though, and those are the ones you have to forcibly curb.
On June 17 2014 07:28 OdinOfPergo wrote: I don't think that's the issue. Basically, (I'm lazy and won't filter for quotes), just look at my last few games. I've been super hostile towards players, to a point where I don't even want to play anymore. Like I requested a modkill, then followed with asking GM to just perma me. I might be the odd man out, but it's this sort of thing imo that causes problems. In my case, it's been me being unable to understand something or trying to ploy for my scum team.
If you got modkilled and got a punishment for this then it's not the part of the problem. The problem arte actions that should have been modkilled but were not.
People lose their shit all the time and ragequit. If they get a proper punishment for it it does not belong here, if they don't, then it is the part of the problem.
Hmm. I see you're point. I think the way the host responded that game was fine. I didn't directly ask for a modkill. I was just posting in a way that would warrant it. I did get a warning for it iirc, and I hushed up. So ye, I think maby that is a bad example since the host did exactly what they should of done that game.
On June 17 2014 23:02 OdinOfPergo wrote: Hmm. I see you're point. I think the way the host responded that game was fine. I didn't directly ask for a modkill. I was just posting in a way that would warrant it. I did get a warning for it iirc, and I hushed up. So ye, I think maby that is a bad example since the host did exactly what they should of done that game.
On June 17 2014 23:02 OdinOfPergo wrote: Hmm. I see you're point. I think the way the host responded that game was fine. I didn't directly ask for a modkill. I was just posting in a way that would warrant it. I did get a warning for it iirc, and I hushed up. So ye, I think maby that is a bad example since the host did exactly what they should of done that game.
marv+artanis pro hosts.
Ye, I think you guys did a splendid job . Tbh though, I feel like I dun have much left to say about this matter. Out of the games I've played in, I've been fortunate I suppose to have good host. So other than rather subtle PA's that get shut down rather quickly, or the lurking issue (Which appears to be another issue entirely) I can't comment really. So meh, I'll hush and move along swiftly!
Thanks for being a good host though, Marv+Artanis. (Random shout out to WoS aswell for going way far out of his way to try to help me. Totes best host ever.)
On June 19 2014 23:40 marvellosity wrote: Solution = update your important posts.
it's not very complex :p
Yeah. My solution will kick some ass too. Can't wait for its implementation. Not even going to ask people for their opinions. Just gonna push it through. #importantpost #idgaf
On June 19 2014 23:40 marvellosity wrote: Solution = update your important posts.
it's not very complex :p
Yeah. My solution will kick some ass too. Can't wait for its implementation. Not even going to ask people for their opinions. Just gonna push it through. #importantpost #idgaf
On June 19 2014 20:13 marvellosity wrote: Neither ongoing game has their Important Posts with anything in them.
Hosts need to uphold their responsibilities too.
Ha! My game uses the brand new spreadsheet by Gonzaw Industries, get on times dude.
EDIT @DarthPunk I wasn't really enforcing the spam rule in my past games. I believe my rule even said "Do as you feel, just don't go overboard. I am guilty of this myself." but then games imploded in post counts intolerable even by myself. I also matured as a player, which made me revise my playstyle and how the games should look overall. Also, your vulgar language is really not needed to make your point across.
On June 19 2014 20:13 marvellosity wrote: Neither ongoing game has their Important Posts with anything in them.
Hosts need to uphold their responsibilities too.
Ha! My game uses the brand new spreadsheet by Gonzaw Industries, get on times dude.
EDIT @DarthPunk I wasn't really enforcing the spam rule in my past games. I believe my rule even said "Do as you feel, just don't go overboard. I am guilty of this myself." but then games imploded in post counts intolerable even by myself. I also matured as a player, which made me revise my playstyle and how the games should look overall. Also, your vulgar language is really not needed to make your point across.
The games have no particular way they 'should' look.
People should be able to play a game in the way that suits their win condition best.
Alienating players because they post a lot is just bullshit.
and yes I will say bullshit when something is bullshit.
Basically if things keep going the way they are going I won't play here anymore.
If that is the purpose of this 'initiative' to alienate and lose players who have been around and played for years then congratulations it has succeeded.
Also I feel like when I asked a legitimate question from a host and got this:
On June 13 2014 22:58 27ninjabunnies wrote: This is an important question..
Can we troll?
Trolling is a strategy. Thing is, good trolling is done without insults or refusing to play the game, so keep that in mind. If I see you playing against your win-con I will modkill you, plain and simple.
Why is trolling ok but spamming not ok?
Spamming is a legitimate strategy after all.
Legitimate strategy to get modkilled in my game. Trolling in its core definition is not malicious to the game. Trolling nowadays is some mindless spamming, calling people names, creating bad pictures in paint or just plain playing against your win-con. Trolling CAN be done right. You CAN clutter the thread without spamming. Just because you are not skilled enough to do it is not my problem. Want thread to go spinning? Do what Ace did to Kavdragon in PYP:I.
Combative response, that that is just not the way hosts should be answering legitimate questions and it heavily discouraged me from participating.
I've had enough. I just want to play in a fucking mafia game without host/rule bullshit.
I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
We have an open mini right now and VE, Myself, Rayn, and Marv are all playing on Vendetta Strada instead.
Welcome to the current state of mafia here.
On June 20 2014 00:31 Keirathi wrote: I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
On June 20 2014 00:31 Keirathi wrote: I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
On June 20 2014 00:41 DarthPunk wrote: We have an open mini right now and VE, Myself, Rayn, and Marv are all playing on Vendetta Strada instead.
Welcome to the current state of mafia here.
On June 20 2014 00:31 Keirathi wrote: I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
Should come play with us on VS.
Where's my invite
No invites.
just go to the site and join the game if you want to play.
On June 20 2014 00:41 DarthPunk wrote: We have an open mini right now and VE, Myself, Rayn, and Marv are all playing on Vendetta Strada instead.
Welcome to the current state of mafia here.
On June 20 2014 00:31 Keirathi wrote: I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
Should come play with us on VS.
Where's my invite
No invites.
just go to the site and join the game if you want to play.
On June 20 2014 00:41 DarthPunk wrote: We have an open mini right now and VE, Myself, Rayn, and Marv are all playing on Vendetta Strada instead.
Welcome to the current state of mafia here.
On June 20 2014 00:31 Keirathi wrote: I've got to agree with DP. I've been wanting to play another game but won't sign up because they all have some stupid rule that I don't want to play with even if it doesn't necessarily affect me.
Should come play with us on VS.
Where's my invite
No invites.
just go to the site and join the game if you want to play.
One might also note that the new rules are not in effect yet. Those of you who argue that hosts can or should make games stricter on their own, this is in a way your proof of concept. Is not standardized, everyone is doing their own thing.
On June 17 2014 05:29 raynpelikoneet wrote: So it's basically cursewords and otherwise strong language? Okay, i can myself cut that out if that needs to be done and if it somehow helps but i doubt. I don't see anything wrong with the last two quote. Based on the quotes you brought up kita i highly doubt this is a "new problem". There has been players with that kind of posting style for forever (at least for the last five years which i have read almost all the games from). Maybe the percentage of people who fall into that category is higher nowadays but people have told each other to fuck off for ages and called each others all sorts of names in ways that could have been expressed in a "more civil manner".
I don't really think vulgar language is an issue, unless it is used as a personal attack to make a player feel terrible about themselves, which is already against the rules. Like you said, this is probably not a new problem, potentially not a problem at all, and things probably aren't going to change a whole lot. There might be a few hosts at the start that are overzealous in their enforcement and there might be a few players who will overreact to the impact of the changes.
On June 20 2014 00:19 DarthPunk wrote: The games have no particular way they 'should' look.
People should be able to play a game in the way that suits their win condition best.
Alienating players because they post a lot is just bullshit.
and yes I will say bullshit when something is bullshit.
I'll share my perspective, since you seem to be bothered by the occasional spam restricted game. I share your view that it's unfair to ask a player to change their style and I think most people are in agreement, but here are my thoughts on the issue.
Personally, I found the games where the overall postcount was lower to be more enjoyable. While I'm willing to concede that the skill level of recent games is higher than it used to be, I think the amount of time required to have a significant impact on the game is also much higher as a result.
In the end, it comes down to what you're looking to get out of a game and why you play. I prefer a more casual environment where there is still certainly skill involved, but where my focus could be to enjoy the setup, funny posts and entertaining plays.
In the past, I could get away with checking the thread a couple times a day, contribute maybe an hour of my time in the evening or during lunch, and still manage to keep up with the thread, which rarely grew over 100 pages. At no time during this period did I ever consider myself an "inactive player", despite my limited filter size.
These days, I feel like I am expected to check the thread throughout the day, even while I'm at work. Treating the thread as a conversation requires a player to be much more available, in order to interact with other players on a much more frequent basis. Stepping away from the game for an afternoon forces you to return to a gigantic thread, where you spend more time catching up than you do contributing. After you spend a couple hours reading, you still need to put in a couple more hours posting, only to find that you're being attacked for the lack of content compared to other players. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that are plenty of players who are capable of playing large spammy games, while budgeting a limited amount of time. I'm just not one of them.
There are two main ways to reward players.
1) The player who puts in the most effort should be the most successful. 2) The player who does the most given a limited amount of posts should be the most successful.
I understand if you feel that if you don't have time to commit to a game, that you shouldn't be playing to begin with. However, the occasional spam restricted game does allow for players like myself to play when we wouldn't be able to otherwise. We're not trying to tell you how to play for the sake of pretending that our style is better, we're just trying to make it a fair playing field to allow ourselves to play a game that we enjoy.
I don't know how recently the games have transitioned from few content filled posts to more conversation style contribution, but I think that people who want to post content should feel free to do so. I don't think reading entire conversations is necessary to have a grasp on what's going on in the games, and if someone refers to a specific conversation to ask for a read on it, the player can always just go back and read it.
Additionally, the conversation style posts are generally only a few lines long and combined equate to about the amount of space that a long post would take up, so really, it's not that big of a difference other than people being intimidated by the # of pages. I, for one, am intimidated by long posts because there's too much going on in them. People are trying to fit a lot of ideas into one post and it becomes difficult to follow along with the logic on all the different people that are being discussed, as opposed to smaller posts spread apart.
Again, just my perspective on spam vs long content. I know everyone is different.
Ignore all posts with less than 1 full line of text: probably town, call these CAT1 Ignore all posts that take up a full screen to read: probably town, call these CAT2
Add 0 or subtract 1 point for every post that is horseshit. Add 1 point for every unique that is readable but not horseshit
People earning and losing points are CAT3.
Check for any obvious mafia, and lynch them first.
Shoot as many CAT2 as possible because fuck reading all of that horseshit.
Bait as many CAT1 into getting modkilled or entering CAT3 as possible because they stopped reading before you did, and fuck that.
Fewest non-zero points gets lynched, they're not really trying to do anything and wasting your fucking time by posting things you have to fucking read.
Strategic modkill once you've solved the game after you let all of the CATs out of the bag by insulting your hosts' sexual prowess and confidence.