Suggestions on improving atmosphere

[dicetosser1]

It might not be the worst idea to have a few people, whose opinions you trust/respect, be involved in discussing issues that either occur in game or spill out.

 

@Verbal - you prob could maintain all the actual power, but use the group to attain a diverse view of the issue and make it more likely that the view of all parties in an issue are fairly represented.

 

This would also lighten your load of having to be the bad guy in these instances.

 

the problem with this is if one of the voices verb listens too has a beef  or just doesnt like the person being talked about. That needs to be identified  which isnt always easy.

 

Also how does the person being talked about feed into that discussion?  and not after with a synopsis   the actual discussion because they may have answers to whats raised.

 

 

 

The title of the thread says it all.

 

This isn't really a discussion about violating ToS. Obviously that should be handled at a higher level and I don't believe that has ever not been the case.

 

It's also not a discussion about playstyles or the viability of certain strategies. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and yes, arguments are a part of the game based on its nature.

 

The point of this discussion as I see it is to curb a behavior that has made for bad game states. Game play is game play but personal attacks being unacceptable has always been the standard. Accuse, argue and point fingers to your delight but when your response is to say "screw all of you I hate this forum" that's a different story.

 

Context is everything. What it boils down to is just not being nasty to each other.

 

Problem is theres no one definition of whats acceptable to a mod. Sooh threatened to modkill me for calling someone stupid for eg. But in my current game i have called eldrick an idiot  zander stupid (probably a number of times) and not a word from the mod.

 

Also what is perceived as a personal attack by the "victim" can vary.  i might be in a mood where just being called a idiot makes me blow up and feel all butthurt   but normally it wouldnt.  that can be the difference between there even BEING an issue or not.

[Calder]

@Dice - The point of having a few people weighing in on the issue rather than one helps in situations where 1 person just has an issue with the person in question. That way the group can go nah that doesnt make sense.

 

Imo it is also super easy to tell when someone is making decisions based on personal gripes. If they cant give a good explanation for giving a harsh decision then there you have it.

[John Snow]

@Dice - The point of having a few people weighing in on the issue rather than one helps in situations where 1 person just has an issue with the person in question. That way the group can go nah that doesnt make sense.

 

Imo it is also super easy to tell when someone is making decisions based on personal gripes. If they cant give a good explanation for giving a harsh decision then there you have it.

 

It's not that hard. You just take a stricter view of the rules when it's someone you don't like, and a looser view when you do like them. 

 

I mean, we are talking about a forum where we actively practice manipulation and deception. 

[Verbal32]

The fact we're talking about having a disciplinary council is kind of sad in itself.

 

IMO the mod of the game should be the first line of defense in this sort of thing and if they feel over their head they can go higher. We as a community need to make it apparent that the tantrums and meltdowns are neither appreciated or (shouldn't be) tolerated. I totally get that the games can get intense and emotional responses are inherent in all of us but at the end of the day it's a game based on lying and murdering to win. Once the dust settles we should all be able to laugh about it and not take things so personally.

 

I do agree that if this is the solution that having a small group of people to discuss and weigh in on the situation at hand is the best method since each instance is case by case. Hallia's idea of mediation is good as well. I doubt more than a taking to will ever really be needed save for repeated offenders and then the "timeout" thing could be implemented.

 

Really it's more about being a grown up and controlling your actions/words.

 

The bold is essentially what I was thinking, yeah.

 

 

 

I think council/mediate it only if it can't be handled by the mod or goes outside the game.

 

Other than that, we should just be self aware and not play with people we can't get along with.

 

Yes, that's also my point.  Sometimes this bleeds into other games and becomes a grudge-type thing.  Or just collateral damage to other people, or even people acting like the peanut gallery and making the situation worse.  I agree that many times this can & will be handled within the game.  I'm cool with that.

 

But sometimes it extends further, and often people don't know when to stop.  My solution answers that question for them - if I removed you from the board, you clearly didn't know when to stop.  (not you specifically here, just a general "you")

[Calder]

I've said before that we need to be more aware of what we're saying and the effect it has. Personally for me, I'm affected easily when there is a negative atmosphere whether it's directed at me or not. Sometimes I think we don't realize how the words we use are interpreted. "Interpretation is by the listener not the speaker"

I don't agree with this. Sure everyone interprets statememts and actions their own way. But that doesnt make the "listeners" view or feelings correct.

 

If someone acts reasonably and says something that for some reason offends 1 party, the offended party's interpretation doesnt automatically hold sway. The main reason this thread is up is bc in numerous games on here an offended party flipped out. They have not always (by a large margin) had grounds to do so.

[Verbal32]

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

[Verbal32]

 

I've said before that we need to be more aware of what we're saying and the effect it has. Personally for me, I'm affected easily when there is a negative atmosphere whether it's directed at me or not. Sometimes I think we don't realize how the words we use are interpreted. "Interpretation is by the listener not the speaker"

I don't agree with this. Sure everyone interprets statememts and actions their own way. But that doesnt make the "listeners" view or feelings correct.

 

If someone acts reasonably and says something that for some reason offends 1 party, the offended party's interpretation doesnt automatically hold sway. The main reason this thread is up is bc in numerous games on here an offended party flipped out. They have not always (by a large margin) had grounds to do so.

 

 

Yes. 

[Calder]

 

@Dice - The point of having a few people weighing in on the issue rather than one helps in situations where 1 person just has an issue with the person in question. That way the group can go nah that doesnt make sense.

Imo it is also super easy to tell when someone is making decisions based on personal gripes. If they cant give a good explanation for giving a harsh decision then there you have it.

 

 

It's not that hard. You just take a stricter view of the rules when it's someone you don't like, and a looser view when you do like them. 

 

I mean, we are talking about a forum where we actively practice manipulation and deception.

Actively practice does not equal succeed.

 

Also the comparison is apples to oranges. The reason deception is hard to spot in mafia games is bc there is an unknown factor (target's alignment).

 

In this case every factor would be known. Someone's action that is being discussed and the mod's decided penalty. If the penalty is unnecessarily harsh then you can push the mod for more information bc they should be able to defend it. If not then a bias is present.

[Andrej]

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

Completely agree.

[Calder]

 

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

Completely agree.

Agree

[John Snow]

 

 

@Dice - The point of having a few people weighing in on the issue rather than one helps in situations where 1 person just has an issue with the person in question. That way the group can go nah that doesnt make sense.

Imo it is also super easy to tell when someone is making decisions based on personal gripes. If they cant give a good explanation for giving a harsh decision then there you have it.

 

It's not that hard. You just take a stricter view of the rules when it's someone you don't like, and a looser view when you do like them. 

 

I mean, we are talking about a forum where we actively practice manipulation and deception.

Actively practice does not equal succeed.

 

Also the comparison is apples to oranges. The reason deception is hard to spot in mafia games is bc there is an unknown factor (target's alignment).

 

In this case every factor would be known. Someone's action that is being discussed and the mod's decided penalty. If the penalty is unnecessarily harsh then you can push the mod for more information bc they should be able to defend it. If not then a bias is present.

 

 

Bias is, imo, always going to be present. Not to a total degree, but it's not like this is a community of 100 people. We've got ~20 active players, and everyone has an opinion about someone else, and that will influence their decision. 

 

And people will be quick to blame bias for decisions, even when it's not present. If the person gets tbanned, they'll blame it on xxx have a grudge against them. If they don't, whoever is pushing for their tban will blame it on yyy liking them. 

 

Further, people will ask who voted/pushed for/against them, and that will lead to more hurt feelings.

 

I just don't think we're a big enough community to need/justify/afford a council/jury of peers. 

[John Snow]

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

 

Verbal considering it, sure.

[Calder]

 

 

 

@Dice - The point of having a few people weighing in on the issue rather than one helps in situations where 1 person just has an issue with the person in question. That way the group can go nah that doesnt make sense.

Imo it is also super easy to tell when someone is making decisions based on personal gripes. If they cant give a good explanation for giving a harsh decision then there you have it.

 

 

It's not that hard. You just take a stricter view of the rules when it's someone you don't like, and a looser view when you do like them. 

 

I mean, we are talking about a forum where we actively practice manipulation and deception.

Actively practice does not equal succeed.

Also the comparison is apples to oranges. The reason deception is hard to spot in mafia games is bc there is an unknown factor (target's alignment).

In this case every factor would be known. Someone's action that is being discussed and the mod's decided penalty. If the penalty is unnecessarily harsh then you can push the mod for more information bc they should be able to defend it. If not then a bias is present.

 

Bias is, imo, always going to be present. Not to a total degree, but it's not like this is a community of 100 people. We've got ~20 active players, and everyone has an opinion about someone else, and that will influence their decision. 

 

And people will be quick to blame bias for decisions, even when it's not present. If the person gets tbanned, they'll blame it on xxx have a grudge against them. If they don't, whoever is pushing for their tban will blame it on yyy liking them. 

 

Further, people will ask who voted/pushed for/against them, and that will lead to more hurt feelings.

 

I just don't think we're a big enough community to need/justify/afford a council/jury of peers.

Your last point I get. If you think the community doesnt need it then fine.

 

But, if bias is your concern as you are citing then you should want a few voices to weight in rather than one. The more people in on decision the less chance that it is swayed by someone's bias.

[Verbal32]

 

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

 

Verbal considering it, sure.

 

 

Not sure I get what you mean.  You mean I should consider it alone?

 

 

Like, Verbal Czar Mode: ACTIVATE?

 

???

[Andrej]

Verbal32 for Czar.

[Verbal32]

lol

[John Snow]

 

 

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

 

Verbal considering it, sure.

 

 

Not sure I get what you mean.  You mean I should consider it alone?

 

 

Like, Verbal Czar Mode: ACTIVATE?

 

???

 

 

Yeah. Per my above I don't think it would be healthy for a community this small to have a jury of peers. 

[Verbal32]

 

 

 

Like, without calling people out, there is a certain player who clearly stepped outside the bounds of a mafia game, and attacked another player with some pretty nasty insults.

 

And there are people before who essentially forced a modkill because they were upset or whatever, and that negatively affected the game (and some future ones).

 

 

 

Point is, in BOTH of the above cases, I'd be willing to discuss with a council and decide on whether those players need a temp ban from the mafia board.  Agree or disagree? 

 

Verbal considering it, sure.

 

 

Not sure I get what you mean.  You mean I should consider it alone?

 

 

Like, Verbal Czar Mode: ACTIVATE?

 

???

 

 

Yeah. Per my above I don't think it would be healthy for a community this small to have a jury of peers. 

 

 

What if it was just 2 other people?  Like 2 people weigh in with their thoughts and concerns on an issue I bring to them, and then I take their advice into consideration?

 

The decision still comes from me, so people can have me be the bad guy if they want, but I'll have a better perspective if I choose the right people to be the council.

 

None of this is concrete, btw - just fishing for ideas and thoughts.  :-)

[Lenlo]

 

Verbal32 for Czar.

 

Agree with the talking bout it and Verbal for Czar. First step towards Verbal 2020

[Verbal32]

But really, I just want a legit way to ban Leelou.  Hate that chick.

 

 

 

 

*looks around*

 

 

*hides*

 

 

[Verbal32]

 

 

Verbal32 for Czar.

 

Agree with the talking bout it and Verbal for Czar. First step towards Verbal 2020

 

 

1.  True story:  I wrote myself in on the ballot for Prez.

 

2.  My reasoning:  I'll suck, but less than them = a win?

[Zander?]

 

It might not be the worst idea to have a few people, whose opinions you trust/respect, be involved in discussing issues that either occur in game or spill out.

 

@Verbal - you prob could maintain all the actual power, but use the group to attain a diverse view of the issue and make it more likely that the view of all parties in an issue are fairly represented.

 

This would also lighten your load of having to be the bad guy in these instances.

A secret high council of mafia. I like it. They can get monogrammed bath robes and everything

 

 

[v] Lenlolololololololo [/v] FOR TIMEOUT

 

 

VERB GIVE ME POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Calder]

For the most part though I would say the atmosphere is good here. I think alot of this stuff is overblown.

[Zander?]

But really, I just want a legit way to ban Leelou.  Hate that chick.

 

 

 

 

*looks around*

 

 

*hides*

 

 

 

You animal!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Calder]

But can we add the following to the banning list:

 

1. Player 1 gives scum read.

 

Player 2 - Nah I played a game with him 2 1/2 yrs ago and he did the same thing. Go read that game and tell me what you think.

 

Player 1 - forget it. I dont have all weekend.

 

2. See 1. Ban this lol.