|
Hi,
Just so we do not clutter up the ban list thread and devolve into a bickering mess. I decided to start up a new thread where we could discuss and hopefully implement something that could make the hosting process easier in that we eliminate a lot of gray areas between hosts and maybe the ban list actions in themselves.
Here are some topics i would like to consider
1) Different rules about non voting, this is one of the pet peeves of mine that I want all mods to homogenize on. Rayn says this is the most important part of mafia is voting. I would agree but there are to often times where there is grey area because of how active some people are caught away at lynch time etc.
And mod killing for this probably eliminates some of the strategy scum and some town can use to draw out scum or try to hold there motivation. So I personally would like to see it eliminated from modkill territory and the ban list actions personally. We can punish people in game just as easily as in the ban list for non votes, especially when we see motivation in there actions. So whats the point of it besides to try to moderate how people play to an invisible standard we set ourselves?
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Basically we are almost to the point in some games where people are almost modkilling themselves to confirm themselves and its bullcrap.
We need to crack down on such behaviors even more no warnings, it doesn't matter how emotional mafia is we can still treat each other with respect even if we disagree with arguments. Other sites do it and we can as well.
Thats probably my biggest two things. But I do think we need to change several things to become a viable community again instead of dropping people like we currently are.
Well get to discussing
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On June 25 2016 23:10 Damdred wrote:
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
![[image loading]](https://images.hellogiggles.com/uploads/2016/05/31034733/burn.jpg)
|
We have a thread on omgus called the tlmafia hostility showcase where we discuss the sickest asshole posts of the week.
true story.
|
Thank you so much Damdred, I 1000% agree with what you're doing. I've been told time and again I have been a strict host and I know modding alongside Greymist I found his style of hosting (IMO I thought he was stricter than I was) VERY refreshing.
To me, playing TL mafia should be this: Play the game, play to win as the alignment assigned and don't make people's lives miserable doing so, end of.
So to keep on point with what Damdred said
(1) Non voting. I personally have no preference and I have tinkered with both warning and then modkill and then immediate modkill.
If we want to stay consistent as all hosts on this matter, I would propose adopting warning for first offence and modkill for second. The reason being that in newbies, newbies may not know any better. I know that might sound shite, and yes said newbie might have a coach but....eh. Between that and EoDs that might be problematic for North American players, the standard TL deadline is roughly evening rush hour for them - I would agree with Damdred to standardise that rule to not modkill on the first go.
For themed games where voting occurs at night for whatever reason, I think there needs to be separate explanations by the host and penalities need to be explicitly stated, but absolutely no modkills for any issues at night because players just aren't used to doing voting at night.
Also this should be obvious but aimed at the newer hosts just in case - if there is a situation in themed games where premature no lynches end the day early, you obviously don't touch the people who haven't voted. Obvious I would hope for most, but there it is.
(2) Behaviour. This is where I've gotten some of pushback from certain people I won't name - some who have hosted and others who have been around mostly/exclusively as players - and I remember having a long conversation with Greymist about the pushback against the stricter hosts when we were setting up PYP Intriguing and at that time he strongly disagreed with players' behaviour...the way he ran PYP a few months ago I thought was solid and he addressed the BM/controversial actions in that game in a way that was constructive for everyone involved. Additionally, the decision to remove a certain player in pre-game who was disruptive in another game (and was modkilled) also was a positive thing he did.
I bring him up because (1) he's experienced and knows his stuff (2) he's respected around here AFAIK and (3) he appears to me one of the stricter hosts compared to the vast majority I've seen on this site.
Obviously across the board there's been an issue with consistency, myself included - swear words that can get you warned/modkilled by one host doesn't get you touched by someone else.
Here's the way I see it. Insults meant to hurt people, threaten them (topics such as suicide, mental health issues), excessive swearing where insults are directed at people (i.e. you are a fucking motherfucker), expressing in any way you don't want to play with a certain player are examples of things that I think need to be stopped dead in its tracks.
Using swears to describe an argument (i.e. that is such a bullshit argument, your case is shit, etc) are okay. because you can always attack arguments but not people.
Racism/homophobia/sexism should always be a modkill. Yes I am saying this because I have dealt with people who disagree with this. I forget who it was but I caught someone in one game using "faggot" to describe how someone was playing - it wasn't a direct attack, but it was still unacceptable when there's a million other ways you can push someone. Thankfully the host in question modkilled him.
I know there are also certain people around here who don't care for the PC end of things either - well one way or another we have to get around it for the betterment of the community here, I realise different cultures/backgrounds treat things different. If the majority don't care for it around here, then do what's best for the majority. That's how I see it and from my understanding, if the majority prefer to be PC, then let it roll that way.
I know geript also did something like pre-warning people when he ran games and that I liked, you could just tap someone on the shoulder so they knew where the line was. Again super subjective but it was a way for people to keep themselves in check.
The other issue I can potentially see as people treat differently - some hosts prefer public warnings and others private. The argument for private is that it reduces WIFOM in some cases but the problem is that if other players see or think behaviour is going unpunished, then it STILL affects their thinking or gives them the impression they can push it behaviourwise too. IDK. People complain about host interference but there's a downside to that, last few games I've been fortunate enough to not have serious behaviour issues in my games, but recently I look at insults in question and decide on a case by case basis what to do so as to reduce the impact an action has on players.
I'll probably post more, but off the top of my head, that's kinda more or less how I feel.
(edited for readability)
|
though I have cohosted but never have I actually led a game. I do not have enough experience to conclude what I would do to no voters, I think they are disruptive from a voting analysis/gameplay standpoint though, and I think hosts need to deal with them one way or another. I don't have the magic formula though.
as for bm, I'll just say this much, it took hts and bh both upwards of six months to get me to play my first game here one year ago, the bm on this site was enough and what made me hesitant to start playing here to begin with.
there have been a few games where bm have ruined the game I think and I think hosts/bans need to be stricter with situations where it's clear players are ruining the game for other people.
excellent example - I was excited to be testing myself against people in rayn's invite game but the bm in that game really ruined the experience for everyone. I personally ignored it, which was a poor decision gameplay wise and it got me vigshot, which I can understand. but it was also extremely unpleasant to be even reading and I wanted to continue playing the game as if the two sparring players didn't exist.
if I remember correctly, ace even went as far to say that such behaviour was grounds for a policy lynch in that game. even as mafia, I can understand you want to fuck around with town and disrupt town and keep them from being productive...but even I think there's a limit to how much bm you can use before you go overboard.
as the playerbase gets older - this is an sc2 site after all, isn't it - I think people not only have lesser time for playing these games but it becomes ever more important their experience here is a good one, regardless of outcome.
|
On June 25 2016 23:10 Damdred wrote:
Hi,
Just so we do not clutter up the ban list thread and devolve into a bickering mess. I decided to start up a new thread where we could discuss and hopefully implement something that could make the hosting process easier in that we eliminate a lot of gray areas between hosts and maybe the ban list actions in themselves.
Here are some topics i would like to consider
1) Different rules about non voting, this is one of the pet peeves of mine that I want all mods to homogenize on. Rayn says this is the most important part of mafia is voting. I would agree but there are to often times where there is grey area because of how active some people are caught away at lynch time etc.
And mod killing for this probably eliminates some of the strategy scum and some town can use to draw out scum or try to hold there motivation. So I personally would like to see it eliminated from modkill territory and the ban list actions personally. We can punish people in game just as easily as in the ban list for non votes, especially when we see motivation in there actions. So whats the point of it besides to try to moderate how people play to an invisible standard we set ourselves?
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Basically we are almost to the point in some games where people are almost modkilling themselves to confirm themselves and its bullcrap.
We need to crack down on such behaviors even more no warnings, it doesn't matter how emotional mafia is we can still treat each other with respect even if we disagree with arguments. Other sites do it and we can as well.
Thats probably my biggest two things. But I do think we need to change several things to become a viable community again instead of dropping people like we currently are.
Well get to discussing
1) Just to clarify - you don't want to punish not voting at all? I 100 % disagree. We had this discussion not long ago and the conclusion was to warn ingame and ban afterwards and in my opinion that's the only correct thing to do. Not voting as town is cancerous and you have no way of preventing it ingame.
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
|
I disagree that you cannot punish people for non voting in a game. There is the lynch option after all if they cannot shoe themselves to be town.
There's also another option, make mods do away with a weak make 2-3 posts a day etc. Rule and enforce a much stronger 10-15 posts a day. Missing that would give a warning and then a modkill. At least in that situation you would have the information to determine alignments and if not you lynch Scum any way.
As for the second point jat, there are more than just onegu. Shining, Rels myself, rayn even koshi are people who can go off and be determined town by it because of meta and a lot of time people subtly do push to see those things.
And you are wrong I believe that people do leave because of bm in the thread. Other things might influence but there are a lot of times things go well over the line. And things should be taken out of the gray area instead of one host modkilling for an insult and another not doing a thing.
|
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
|
On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote:
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote.
Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
|
On June 26 2016 07:34 Damdred wrote:
I disagree that you cannot punish people for non voting in a game. There is the lynch option after all if they cannot shoe themselves to be town.
There's also another option, make mods do away with a weak make 2-3 posts a day etc. Rule and enforce a much stronger 10-15 posts a day. Missing that would give a warning and then a modkill. At least in that situation you would have the information to determine alignments and if not you lynch Scum any way.
As for the second point jat, there are more than just onegu. Shining, Rels myself, rayn even koshi are people who can go off and be determined town by it because of meta and a lot of time people subtly do push to see those things.
And you are wrong I believe that people do leave because of bm in the thread. Other things might influence but there are a lot of times things go well over the line. And things should be taken out of the gray area instead of one host modkilling for an insult and another not doing a thing.
You don't lynch someone for not voting alone if you want to win a game. If you want harsher activity rules - go for it. But I don't see what it has to do with the voting thing.
I don't doubt that behaviour made some people leave. But it is not the reason for the recent decline of TL mafia. If you want people to stop "confirming themselves" by raging talk to them to stop it. Don't change rules.
To your examples:
Onegu and rayn - bad examples. Both rage as either alignment. Rels probably too.
Koshi is somewhat true but also pretty irrelevant since he can confirm himself by just playing his normal towngame. I also think he just got modkilled for being an asshole so where exactly is the problem here?
Shining I don't know well enough and you (damdred) could just stop doing that instead of demanding a rulechange to prevent yourself from doing something you think ruins the community.
Edit:
In essence - if you can confirm yourself as town due to behaviour without violating the existing rules then you don't value your mafia game enough and that's nothing stricter rules are able to fix.
|
On June 26 2016 07:53 Half the Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote:
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them. This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote. Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
That's why you should warn at the first offense. And it really shouldn't happen - you generally have 48 hours to place a vote. Just cast a placeholder vote if you don't know if you will be available.
And yeah, there obviously is a huge difference between last second off wagon votes and not voting.
|
On June 26 2016 07:53 Half the Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote:
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them. This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote. Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
I disagree I think if you go back and look a majority of mafia will be on either the wagon and counter wagon with maybe one mafia on the outside looking in from being afk or many other things.
And the consolidation is a dream we all have but most generally don't care to the extent where only scum vote on the off wagon etc.
Honestly not voting and voting on an off wagon are basically the same principal almost no responsibility and 0 information.
|
On June 26 2016 08:03 Damdred wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 07:53 Half the Sky wrote:On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote:
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them. This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote. Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment. I disagree I think if you go back and look a majority of mafia will be on either the wagon and counter wagon with maybe one mafia on the outside looking in from being afk or many other things. And the consolidation is a dream we all have but most generally don't care to the extent where only scum vote on the off wagon etc. Honestly not voting and voting on an off wagon are basically the same principal almost no responsibility and 0 information.
Absolutely not.
You have the information that the person in question obviously did not care about the lynch which you can use to determine their alignment like any other information. And it is something you do not have if there are no votes.
|
Yes JAT, you get just as much information from a vote on an off wagon which is they don't care as you do with a non vote. Which is they do not care.
If you absolutely need someone to place a vote to be able to determine alignments then that person is not playing mafia any way and is a detriment to the team.
And as for the asshoke meta I've totally stopped doing everything that looks emotional. It has gone way to far in numerous games lately. If you can look at games and see all the modkills now and in the past and still say no problem with how we are playing the game.
We have an issue with behavior and just a general toxic atmosphere in a lot of games now.
|
On June 26 2016 08:13 Damdred wrote:
Yes JAT, you get just as much information from a vote on an off wagon which is they don't care as you do with a non vote. Which is they do not care.
If you absolutely need someone to place a vote to be able to determine alignments then that person is not playing mafia any way and is a detriment to the team.
And as for the asshoke meta I've totally stopped doing everything that looks emotional. It has gone way to far in numerous games lately. If you can look at games and see all the modkills now and in the past and still say no problem with how we are playing the game.
We have an issue with behavior and just a general toxic atmosphere in a lot of games now.
No, if someone doesn't vote you get 0 information since they could just be afk for whatever reason. If they do vote someone they have to justify that decision. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this.
Getting rid of emotion in mafia is impossible and not even desirable. There are behaviour rules and usually if someone goes way overboard he is modkilled. Changing the rules will not result in less modkills or nicer players.
|
Alright, I'm not going to comment further on the voting issue, personally I'd like to see where a few other hosts stand on the issue - I know BH modkills almost as much as possible, I know Artanis has/had taught me he prefers warnings for first offences, modkill for second, for example.
To comment further on behaviour, emotion is impossible to get rid of but the issue is where it goes overboard and where people draw the line. Even being on tilt isn't always bad provided how and to whom, if anyone the player is channeling at.
Where I disagree with JAT is how warnings/modkills are applied for behaviour - what is acceptable to one host in certain circumstances may not be acceptable to another. I tried to give a few examples in my initial post and I can think of two games (Tropical Storm and one of the Noir games) where the host(s) in question admitted in the end they would have been a bit more strict on behaviour given events in their games. IDK.
|
Then I should probably just look for a new community tbh that don't treat each other like shit in games then birch when people get hit with bans. We shouldn't be in the category where people see personal attacks as a legitimate means to gauge someone's alignment, or the inverse mafia attacks ! someone Enough to get that person mod killed or so checked out of the game they might of not even signed up.
Both things are true, he'll we would put robik up to lynch to see how he reacts.
And I'm not even saying mafia shouldn't have no emotion I'm saying that we should act like adults, none of us would even have an account if tl decided to,moderate us to any degree
|
And honestly I just want all the rules to line up between hosts and the community to work it out so that there aren't many grey areas left rather than pages of debate about player x here and player y there.
|
I'm hoping more will comment, I largely agree with you Damdred, and I think I've basically said all I could on the issue from my end/experience.
|
On June 26 2016 08:48 Half the Sky wrote:
Where I disagree with JAT is how warnings/modkills are applied for behaviour - what is acceptable to one host in certain circumstances may not be acceptable to another. I tried to give a few examples in my initial post and I can think of two games (Tropical Storm and one of the Noir games) where the host(s) in question admitted in the end they would have been a bit more strict on behaviour given events in their games. IDK.
So what is your solution/proposed change exactly? Where do we even disagree? Because nothing in this post disagrees with what I said.
My stance is that each host should decide for themselves what kind of behaviour he is willing to tolerate and what not.
On June 26 2016 08:58 Damdred wrote:
Then I should probably just look for a new community tbh that don't treat each other like shit in games then birch when people get hit with bans. We shouldn't be in the category where people see personal attacks as a legitimate means to gauge someone's alignment, or the inverse mafia attacks ! someone Enough to get that person mod killed or so checked out of the game they might of not even signed up.
Both things are true, he'll we would put robik up to lynch to see how he reacts.
And I'm not even saying mafia shouldn't have no emotion I'm saying that we should act like adults, none of us would even have an account if tl decided to,moderate us to any degree
I don't even know where this reactions comes from. Nowhere did I say any of the things you list in this post are ok. Yes, people should not treat each other like shit. That's why we have behaviour rules.
I don't understand what exactly you think should be done. A general "let's all be nice!" probably won't work. And you also said you want fewer modkills...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
