-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
MafiEra Season 14 Review |OT| No, really. Can anyone name this character?
- Thread starter Sawneeks
- Start date
Same, pls. I'm horrible at checking Discord, but I'll check in every once in a while and if a ping goes out.
OP
OP
We could add in a rule that says 'if a player asks you to stop a behavior because it makes them uncomfortable' we can. Don't want to put all the onus on the players to call out aggression but it's another step than can be added here.
We have a numbered system in place right now that takes how many games a person played + how long they lived during those games to determine their priority. We're thinking the penalty would be to add in a full game against their priority. So if they only played in 3 games the priority system would count them as having played 4.
Ya'll forgetting we have both the current and old rules in OM.
smh man
It may have been on the old old rules back during the Spider years, I'll look.
We send out a ping every time a game opens for sign ups. :>
OP
OP
Looking over a couple of older games it looks like we never had a rule against backseat modding. It may have been in some of the GAF rules we had but it looks like they never transferred here to Era if we did.
A rule against backseat modding can easily be added.
Hi.
I noticed you were all on a new review thread and checked in to see how it was going. It seems you're stuck, so I had an idea and figured I'd share it:
Consider using a testing framework similar to the Miller test. This is the test used by the US Supreme Court to define obscenity in First Amendment cases.
The test has three conditions which all have to be met to qualify something as obscenity (or rather, disqualify it as protected speech under the First Amendment). So rather than try to list every literal offensive example, they looked more towards general characteristics of offensive material.
This is relevant, not because you should start talking about player aggression as 'obscenity', but because it's an example of a framework used to reconcile community differences in how to define problem behavior.
Better yet, you can adapt this framework as a way to have a benchmark for player aggression in your games.
I'm going to give you a simple adaptation of the Miller test, customized for Mafia with three questions, and I'll explain the reasoning for each one so you can consider other ways to formulate the criteria.
Consider the three following questions:
Part 1: Would the average ResetEra user find the statement to be more antagonistic than normal towards another user?
Part 2: Does the statement being made include obviously rude, demeaning, insulting, or otherwise foul language?
The gist of it being that you want two questions that gauge the tolerance of the community to certain problem behaviors, and then a third question that checks whether or not the statement in question has some significant value that's worth ignoring the other two criteria for (and that last one has the highest bar to meet). This way you can isolate the problem into its basic characteristics and not get sidetracked with tangents.
Anyway, I'm doing okay but I miss the gang, hope this works out for you. Have fun.
I noticed you were all on a new review thread and checked in to see how it was going. It seems you're stuck, so I had an idea and figured I'd share it:
Consider using a testing framework similar to the Miller test. This is the test used by the US Supreme Court to define obscenity in First Amendment cases.
The test has three conditions which all have to be met to qualify something as obscenity (or rather, disqualify it as protected speech under the First Amendment). So rather than try to list every literal offensive example, they looked more towards general characteristics of offensive material.
This is relevant, not because you should start talking about player aggression as 'obscenity', but because it's an example of a framework used to reconcile community differences in how to define problem behavior.
Better yet, you can adapt this framework as a way to have a benchmark for player aggression in your games.
I'm going to give you a simple adaptation of the Miller test, customized for Mafia with three questions, and I'll explain the reasoning for each one so you can consider other ways to formulate the criteria.
Consider the three following questions:
Part 1: Would the average ResetEra user find the statement to be more antagonistic than normal towards another user?
- Consider that antagonizing moves are natural parts of any game, but they also create pressure, which is a factor that exacerbates other issues, as tested in questions 2 and 3.
- Think about what 'normal' is for the forum; consider the ResetEra community as a whole. You are drawing users who have been filtered through a specific site culture, ideology and TOS.
Part 2: Does the statement being made include obviously rude, demeaning, insulting, or otherwise foul language?
- Contrary to what you might think, you don't need a word list to parse this one, unless it's some very subtle language being used (and I'd toss misgendering into this category, easily). Generally speaking, 'you know it when you see it'.
- Example 1: "This fucking game sucks" would meet Part 2's criteria as 'foul language', but not Part 1, and therefore pass the test.
- Example 2: "That fucking player sucks" would meet Part 2 and Part 1 (since it's directed at another user and is more antagonistic than normal for this site/community/etc). If it then also meets Part 3 (spoiler, it wont), it wouldn't pass the test and should be deemed aggressive.
- This is the hardest question on the test, because people lose sight of what "constructive" means. What you're trying to determine is if the statement has any merit to the game discussion as it is seen by the players, despite it being rude AND overly antagonistic, and that's a high bar to clear.
The gist of it being that you want two questions that gauge the tolerance of the community to certain problem behaviors, and then a third question that checks whether or not the statement in question has some significant value that's worth ignoring the other two criteria for (and that last one has the highest bar to meet). This way you can isolate the problem into its basic characteristics and not get sidetracked with tangents.
Anyway, I'm doing okay but I miss the gang, hope this works out for you. Have fun.
I had a longer post that I was working on, but I'm just going to respond to this instead:
I think some kind of framework similar to this would be a pretty good idea. I really think what we mainly need are just some guidelines down for the game runners and watchers to discuss if an issue with aggression does arise. Something like this would at least give a consistent way for them to discuss the situation and try to decide whether or not someone has crossed a line.
At least on the hostility issue, "Aggressive behavior includes, but is not limited to, the following;" is a phrasing that could get to specific indicators - adding more than the "name calling" and "use of slurs" that currently leave a lot of space to gamerunner's discretion - without ruling out unexpected stuff.
But Rover's idea looks way better in my opinion. Let's say everyone agrees on adopting it, should it be part of the rules or a different body of short guidelines to be consulted when the situation requires it?
Agreed with adding the "stop it" mention Fanto and Sawneeks suggested. The rule on replacing sounds good too.
But Rover's idea looks way better in my opinion. Let's say everyone agrees on adopting it, should it be part of the rules or a different body of short guidelines to be consulted when the situation requires it?
Agreed with adding the "stop it" mention Fanto and Sawneeks suggested. The rule on replacing sounds good too.
Last edited:
Okay, finally going to respond more - wall of text incoming:
I would agree that baiting for reactions would be more an attempt to weaponize the rule, and ideally it would never occur but it has already which is why I mention it. If we err towards always side with the offended, how do you combat this? And keep in mind I'm not saying it's happening strictly in the sense of someone attempting to abuse the rules. What more frequently happens is a player will push things and start an argument, it will get heated, and then one of them will start trying to provoke the other forward and will run to the gamerunner behind the scenes to argue for a heavier penalty for the other despite both being at fault. They aren't doing it to try and weaponize it, they're just riled up and naturally view the other's transgressions as worse than their own. It's situations like this where the subjective nature of it makes it hard to codify a standard set of actions to always take.
Well there's a few different things to respond to here. In regards to firming up our approach to messaging for infractions - yes, I'll agree there's no reason to not do better about that. It'll never be perfect because game runners don't even always have the time to closely read everything, but we can and should improve. That's not really the issue in the hypothetical I provided though. I'm referring more to the punishment side of things. If we try and implement more stringent guidelines around when and how to punish for hostility - what does one do when numerous players are involved but not all are offended?
I would agree that baiting for reactions would be more an attempt to weaponize the rule, and ideally it would never occur but it has already which is why I mention it. If we err towards always side with the offended, how do you combat this? And keep in mind I'm not saying it's happening strictly in the sense of someone attempting to abuse the rules. What more frequently happens is a player will push things and start an argument, it will get heated, and then one of them will start trying to provoke the other forward and will run to the gamerunner behind the scenes to argue for a heavier penalty for the other despite both being at fault. They aren't doing it to try and weaponize it, they're just riled up and naturally view the other's transgressions as worse than their own. It's situations like this where the subjective nature of it makes it hard to codify a standard set of actions to always take.
Let me put it this way - I agree that a majority of communication should occur in the thread so all players are aware. I don't think it needs to start out in PM or anything, but there will be some situations in which it has to occur at least in PM some - especially when players are arguing about the outcomes.
I like the idea, but it would be difficult to enforce.
I like this idea, though it would probably taking some adjusting for people to not naturally want to share.
I don't know that we have a written rule against it, but even if we did there's some level of it that will always occur. As a gamerunner you have to moderate arguments and disagreements and people won't always agree with your decision. Do you speak with that player in private to try and alleviate things or just ignore them and replace them if they continue to message you?
You definitely had at least one private conversation in LiS that I recall being uncomfortable and it was mild compared to some of the things I've seen even. I don't think you would have been better served with that entire exchange occurring within the confines of the thread, do you?
This is a good suggestion in that it gives a clear procedure with which to define the transgressions. An additional issue though is that some of the examples people are pointing towards would fail the bar set by question three which brings about the question is that okay or would we just be relitigating this all again in the future?
As a person who has been accused of trying to weaponize rules, I question whether it has in fact happened, or whether the aggrieved party has run out of patience getting response from game runners/mod team.
The fact that the group consistently blames the offended party is not a good look. People need to be assured that they will be protected from abuse that goes beyond a certain point. After they lose Trust in the mod to do it, that is when they get much worse themselves.
I have no knowledge of your instance, but I can assure you it has.
Everyone in the modchats when these few instances occurred agreed they had happened in the way Nat described. But I strongly disagree we are consistently blaming the offended players when this has happened, at most, 3 times since we came to Era; there have been many more examples of players who were being hostile and were warned and/or modkilled due to that, and ignoring that is not fair to the discussion.
I wasn't only talking about since moving to era. The recurring discussion has existed longer than that. Since I have never assisted with modding, I will have to take y'alls word that it has happened that way, then. I don't believe I've read or observed a game on era with modkills due to hostility, although I have seen warnings.
There was the one example from Love Boat 3 that I pointed out earlier in the thread just from this last season, though that was about as clear cut as they come in terms of making decisions, it was an extremely hostile and personal attack.
Also, just to use this as a jumping off point, for those who haven't experienced being in a modchat, is that something people can request just to see how things work? Monkey privately offered to let me join her's for SU, though that was also in part because I was going to be running LiS next and that gave me a chance to see what things were like from that side before I ran my own game. I know some others expressed interest in taking a peek behind the scenes as well before making their own games, so is that something anyone can request or do they need to have their own game on the schedule, or in development, in order to join one? I know for me personally, that experience gave me a lot of new insight and appreciation for the kinds of discussions that are had with the veterans and community leaders who are present in there and how much work goes into running and moderating a game, and I'm sure others would probably think the same as well.
I am 100% answering this question off the cuff with 0 authority but I'd personally be fine with veterans of the community to peek behind the scenes. I definitely liked the idea of you getting a window in before running your own game but even if no new mods are on the docket I think it would work well with only one or two "observers" in there at a time.
I don't think there's any official method of getting into one, but I'm confident it would be okay in most situations. I want to say there was another fresh face in one very recently too.
OP
OP
Like the other's have said I also really like this as a framework to help judge posts and whether or not they are deemed aggressive.
Glad you're doing okay, Rover. I definitely miss you in discord chat hanging out with everyone. :<
Pretty much what Sorian and Nat said. There's no real official thing or rule around it but I doubt we'd turn someone down if they were really interested in hoping into a chat.
I do like that framework on its own, only i think its will be something pretty cumbersome for game runners to readily apply it to the typically hectic ongoing mafia arguments.
Similarly its not something that players will be able to easily apply to themselves as they play, and i think having something players can readily measure themselves by even in the heat of the moment is just as important to keeping hostile posting from going overboard.
Still definitelyalready feels better than what we gad before.
Similarly its not something that players will be able to easily apply to themselves as they play, and i think having something players can readily measure themselves by even in the heat of the moment is just as important to keeping hostile posting from going overboard.
Still definitelyalready feels better than what we gad before.
I think that this is a good framework to build off of and it targets things for moderators in a fairly straight forward way. My main concerns surrounding it are two things really though. The idea that moderators will "Know it when they see it" and Part 3.
When we base issues off of what the average person will find antagonistic, then we can run into issues where we have a situation where the moderators say that something isn't a big deal to them or the majority of people in the game and dismiss the concerns of the person who is the target or insulted in some way. As an example of that, I posted 2 posts from Stan earlier in the thread and despite the overwhelming hostility in them, only a small part of it that directly called Stuart a name was considered to be the issue. I think that the framework surrounding these two parts is fine, but I want to discuss specific examples as well because I don't really feel that this wording on it's own will inspire confidence that the moderators will understand where the line is for a lot of users.
When it comes to Part 3, I can understand the distinction between hostility on it's own and hostility within constructive criticism, but is this suggesting that if someone is overtly hostile while also contributing to the game in the same sentiment that it would be fine with no issues? I could see being a bit stricter on the former, but having it within constructive criticism can still be a bit of an issue as well.
I would also like to suggest that while we're going to add rules about backseat modding, that we specifically add something about where people should be looking to when they have an issue with another player in the game. While people are able to PM the gamerunner about any issues that are going on, it would probably be beneficial to have a specific guideline that directs people to gamerunners, game watchers, or anyone who is helping to moderate the game when an issue pops up. Some of these games are incredibly long, and realistically the odds that issues will be noticed and taken care of is much higher if it's passed on through a proper channel and not in the game thread.
While I prefer to not really participate in this discussion, I wanted to try and clarify this, because you do bring up some good points.
The idea of a community standard, at least in this framework, isn't really about a group of moderators in a room having the discretion to say something is wrong or right. They don't set these standards or values; they are things the community at large sets by example.
One of the cases in the Wikipedia article illustrates this pretty well:
Basically, a group of people in a room can't just claim what a community standard is, it is demonstrated by the actual community.
We know that as a ResetEra member, you are here because at the very least you haven't been banned - in other words, you abide by the rules of conduct. But beyond rules, a forum is made up of many people, and there are certain social norms here that people don't just follow, but actively value and demonstrate. People self-select to post here, and they behave a certain way towards others to stay here. So it follows that if you're joining a ResetEra Mafia game, you are very likely carrying the same set of values and expectations that you would anywhere else on the forum.
There is evidence (that I've seen on this forum, since the Old Place) that people post here because it's more civil than other places. Most of the hostile tactics that have been made examples of in this thread would probably get you a warning or a ban in any given thread. As strict as it sounds, I definitely wouldn't gamble my account in an argument about Animal Crossing by calling someone stupid.
The question is, do you then try to accommodate a special standard unique to this subcommunity? Maybe yes and no. As a game, you have to be aware that people are self-selecting to enter into some sort of conflict with other people, albeit for fun because it's a game. But the game is driven by people and they don't just leave their other standards at the door. I've played Mafia style games in real life settings, and every social norm of socializing with strangers or hanging with friends still applied - actually my memories of the times these were too hostile are really bad.
You're reading it right.
If someone is being aggressive, foul-mouthed, but also contributing to the game, they would pass the test. But I admit that's counter-intuitive. My assumption is that wouldn't happen, if your definition of 'constructive dialogue' works out.
But you have to think about what to consider "constructive dialogue." I generally meant it as the act of adding something into the game conversation that moves the game along in a positive way. I don't see insults as moving the game forward, so I assume those statements would automatically fail Part 3. I understand some might not agree with that, but maybe certain tactics like gaslighting might need to be reconsidered as constructive. I assume people come here to have fun, not get tortured.
OP
OP
This has been a great and highly productive review thread! Thank you everyone who has participated in this is any way. It's how we learn and grow as a community and, moving forward, that's the kind of conversation we want to always have open to everyone.
We've taken notes, discussed a bit, fixed my bad grammar, and come to the below rules. We're still fixing them up and making sure they're solid in what they represent but we wanted to share what we have here before we finalize it. Let us know what you think! Unless something drastic happens we hope to have the OT up within this week and get these rules rolling out for the new slate of games by then.
Updated rules on pronouns and the rules surrounding it
Backseat Modding
Requests on stopping behaviors
An update to the rules on aggression
We are also adding UTC as the default for player lists/sign ups and allowing the 30-minute extra tie time if a gamerunner wants it.
We've taken notes, discussed a bit, fixed my bad grammar, and come to the below rules. We're still fixing them up and making sure they're solid in what they represent but we wanted to share what we have here before we finalize it. Let us know what you think! Unless something drastic happens we hope to have the OT up within this week and get these rules rolling out for the new slate of games by then.
Updated rules on pronouns and the rules surrounding it
Backseat Modding
Requests on stopping behaviors
An update to the rules on aggression
We are also adding UTC as the default for player lists/sign ups and allowing the 30-minute extra tie time if a gamerunner wants it.
I followed the discussion and agree with most parts of the additions and changes.
Disagree on the quantity of pronoun warnings though. There were dozens preferring the stricter one warning solution. A vote could settle this issue, if you want to reopen discussion about it. I see the similarity towards the two warnings in aggression, but I don't think that's necessary.
Requests on stopping behaviours is very vague. What's reasonable? This is a can of worms, we probably don't want to open? I don't recall where the idea originated, but what exactly should a player stop doing that wouldn't hinder this player's MO?
Do you have some examples of this? As both mod and player I wouldn't be able to gather anything from this rule.
Disagree on the quantity of pronoun warnings though. There were dozens preferring the stricter one warning solution. A vote could settle this issue, if you want to reopen discussion about it. I see the similarity towards the two warnings in aggression, but I don't think that's necessary.
Requests on stopping behaviours is very vague. What's reasonable? This is a can of worms, we probably don't want to open? I don't recall where the idea originated, but what exactly should a player stop doing that wouldn't hinder this player's MO?
Do you have some examples of this? As both mod and player I wouldn't be able to gather anything from this rule.
Last edited:
More of a style thing, but for pronouns you separated the rule from the punishment. Shouldn't it be the same for aggression? Anyways, thank you for your work!
The second warning includes a priority hit, so the offender is already being punished. Although plenty here asked for thougher handling of the issue than what we currently have, I'm not sure it was really that one-sided in terms of the 2v3 thing? Bear in mind the initial talk was about the suggestion of using just a priority penalty.
It came from reading the MU guidelines - in fact the phrasing is pretty similar - and some here really liked it. Of course I can only talk for myself, but I believe it could help with situations like someone posting an... "unfortunate" gif in LB3 before flipping Pirate Bae.
Basically, if you're making someone feel so uncomfortable - let's say because you're constantly tagging them for answers, for example - that they ask you to stop, you really should. There's some level of pressure that will always be present in a mafia game, but that shouldn't come at the expense of everyone having fun.
The second warning includes a priority hit, so the offender is already being punished. Although plenty here asked for thougher handling of the issue than what we currently have, I'm not sure it was really that one-sided in terms of the 2v3 thing? Bear in mind the initial talk was about the suggestion of using just a priority penalty.
It came from reading the MU guidelines - in fact the phrasing is pretty similar - and some here really liked it. Of course I can only talk for myself, but I believe it could help with situations like someone posting an... "unfortunate" gif in LB3 before flipping Pirate Bae.
Basically, if you're making someone feel so uncomfortable - let's say because you're constantly tagging them for answers, for example - that they ask you to stop, you really should. There's some level of pressure that will always be present in a mafia game, but that shouldn't come at the expense of everyone having fun.
Last edited:
Yeah, I feel like I was being really annoying and not helping a whole lot in here during this review thread, so I'm sorry about that. I feel like things I was saying ended up being added to the rules when they probably shouldn't have been.
I don't really know how to put how I'm feeling into words I guess, but I just think others should have been discussing this and not me, I just feel embarrassed at this point I guess.
I don't really know how to put how I'm feeling into words I guess, but I just think others should have been discussing this and not me, I just feel embarrassed at this point I guess.
Yeah this is my bad.
My example is having told people in a game what nicknames are fine to call me, and having people violate that request After I told them.
Then there's the making fun of my ability to process speech when my health issues flare up. I've also told people to back off on discussion of it, only on that one, they did.
I support that rule when it's about personal things, is probably what I'm saying. In-game stuff like Stu's experience during Hvv2 would be .....also a possibility?
That was a suggestion to highlight just how important and seriously the pronoun stuff should be taken. Normally everything is put into one rule like the aggression one.
I wouldn't feel that way. Your input was valuable and that last rule got added because it felt like a lot of people liked the MU rule that uses basically the same wording. It's a bit of a fluid rule because it's there to take into account feelings of being uncomfortable when no other actual rule is being broken.
I'm sorry I haven't been posting - I am drowning, I have way too much to do, and I'm very overwhelmed right now - but I am reading and I have been helping to work on developing the new rules. I'm trying to do as much as I can and I want to say I really appreciate everyone's contributions here. We need these perspectives and we need to do this together.
I don't think you have any reason to feel this way. I think I'm probably one of the more outspoken critics of some of these changes, but my concern is not at all with the rule you're pointing out for instance. I think that one actually makes sense as sort of a 'catch all' when needed since some of these issues are hard to define.
To be honest, I'm not really a fan of a lot of these rules and how they interact with each other. Name calling, using slurs, or aggressive behavior in general is determined solely by the gamerunner and if someone wants to speak up about it or disagrees in some way they're told that they have to accept the gamerunner's decision as final.
The other side of that is the request to stop behaviors which tries to account for how the people who are actually being insulted feel, but it comes with the caveat of "Failure to do so in some cases, will result in gamerunner intervention" which again actually puts the weight of the impact on how much it bothers the gamerunner and not the people who are bothered by people ignoring requests or aggression.
Past that, the escalation pattern for aggression is actually even more lenient than it was in the old rules. This is the current aggression rule that has been posted in games for some time :
In this case the aggressive behaviors are again determined by the gamerunner, but people are supposed to get only 1 warning before a modkill is used with no exceptions. This has almost never actually been followed through as the subjective nature of how the gamerunner feels about the issue and not the people insulted would allow many things to just pass right by despite how much it bothered people. And the nature of private warnings that are still going to be used creates an issue where users have no way of seeing gamerunners actually have their back when someone is far too aggressive.
These rules are far too vague about what constitutes aggressive behavior, how things will actually improve, and they're too lenient on behaviors that have been rampant for years.
The other side of that is the request to stop behaviors which tries to account for how the people who are actually being insulted feel, but it comes with the caveat of "Failure to do so in some cases, will result in gamerunner intervention" which again actually puts the weight of the impact on how much it bothers the gamerunner and not the people who are bothered by people ignoring requests or aggression.
Past that, the escalation pattern for aggression is actually even more lenient than it was in the old rules. This is the current aggression rule that has been posted in games for some time :
In this case the aggressive behaviors are again determined by the gamerunner, but people are supposed to get only 1 warning before a modkill is used with no exceptions. This has almost never actually been followed through as the subjective nature of how the gamerunner feels about the issue and not the people insulted would allow many things to just pass right by despite how much it bothered people. And the nature of private warnings that are still going to be used creates an issue where users have no way of seeing gamerunners actually have their back when someone is far too aggressive.
These rules are far too vague about what constitutes aggressive behavior, how things will actually improve, and they're too lenient on behaviors that have been rampant for years.
How would you phrase the rule in a manner that can be enforced?
I'm still failing to see who would be making the decision aside from the gamerunner (also, the rule probably could be more specific if it would make people feel better that "gamerunner" is referring to the actual game creator/mod AND whoever their mod team is for that game) but yes, someone in the game still can't be deciding who is getting warnings/penalties/mod kills and being offended isn't a good enough indicator of aggressive behavior.
I wrote this before :
And while this is very rough and does not cover all the situations that I think should be covered, there need to be actual realistic lines drawn in the sand both for player expectations and so that gamerunners know what they should be looking for. As it is, when the sole responsibility falls on a gamerunner, it's going to be entirely up to their own subjective experiences surrounding the people involved. As an example of that, I think that Stan and Sorian's posts that I quoted earlier in the thread went too far, and Dr. Monkey felt that they were largely fine with one small issue within Stan's. She has also talked about how there are many times that people will bring up issues with Stan's posts and she just can't see it as she feels she talks in a similar way to him.
If both of us are moderating our own games, then players are going to receive entirely different experiences outside of game design through where our own personal thresholds are for aggression, name calling, or slurs. It can not be entirely up to the gamerunner to both determine what aggression is and enforce it as that just has not been working for us.
Really, these rules have added a section for pronouns, but have otherwise largely silenced the people who might have issues during a game while creating an even more lenient system for aggression. And I don't understand how this is supposed to alleviate any concerns surrounding it when nothing else surrounding it was changed within the rules.
How is this any different from saying that people will receive entirely different experiences if they are in a game that has a group with a very high threshold for aggression vs. being in a game with a very low threshold? Short of having a dedicated group who never plays in any of the games but reads all of them and is responsible for making all rules related calls, it's impossible to have an exact experience from game to game. The point is to have a guideline skeleton that all gamerunners are aware of and adhere to but past that someone still has to make the judgement call.
The difference between those two scenarios is who is actually being impacted by the aggression. The people within the game have to constantly interact with each other throughout the course of a game, and if someone is consistently insulting them, it can turn them off the game. This is something that has happened to quite a few members here and why some people have stopped playing. If a gamerunner is the one to receive the sole deciding power on that interaction, then our games will remain the same as they always have where things are overlooked or given a pass. If anything, it will continue further than it has in the past as people now have three strikes instead of two.
The people being impacted or made uncomfortable deserve to have a voice as well and I really don't like just how often the people on that end have been dismissed throughout these conversations. You directly said that being offended is not a good indicator of aggressive behavior, and I'm not sure how you're measuring it or expect to moderate it if that doesn't indicate anything to you.
Can't that be easily abused? A person can say they feel uncomfortable with the simplest of things just to avoid certain situations, the gamerunner must have the final say on what happens I feel.
I did directly say that and I stand by it, you don't need to look any further than your example of Monkey and Stan. Monkey wouldn't be offended by what Stan said if he had said it to her but it still seems to fall into the definition we are forming for aggression regardless of her offense (or lack of). No one said they can't have a voice but if you want actual repercussions on people then a chain of some sort has to be followed in terms of who is handling punishments and the punishments aren't going to be doled out by another player in the game.
Just think of it as you putting in work for the both of us and you'll be fine.
On topic, for pronoun misuse I kind of feel that in general, 3 strikes are fine but the gamerunner should be able to commute that to 2 if they feel it's a serious enough infraction. Also, what is considered aggressive posting really? The human quality would change that from game to game, no?
I agree on backseat modding unless you're Samuel L Jackson.
At the end of the day it will always be gamerunner's call, but we can provide them with some guidance. That's what the rules are for.
But I'm a bit confused. I thought Rover's suggestion of an extra body of guidelines had good reception. Are you considering it?
Also Ketkat noted that modkilling for aggressive behavior changed from two to three strikes. May I ask why?
But I'm a bit confused. I thought Rover's suggestion of an extra body of guidelines had good reception. Are you considering it?
Also Ketkat noted that modkilling for aggressive behavior changed from two to three strikes. May I ask why?
My understanding is that the guidelines suggestion is going to be translated over to a new resource that gamerunners will have access to on their end. It was also talked about to make sure gamerunners are always pointed to those resources again even if they've run a game before.
The two to three strikes read more like a more concrete listing of steps to me. The first version of the rule wasn't really a two strikes and you're out type deal. It was more a "we can't mod kill you until you've received a warning" Whether intentionally or not, the rule was acting more as lip service than an actual guideline. The new rule also specifically notes that the gamerunner can escalate that as they see fit depending on the severity of the rule, something the current version of the rules doesn't allow on its own.
OP
OP
We settled on the current priority rule to account for mistypes and honest accidents. It's also why the second warning comes with the priority penalty since the first warning should be efficient to have the player keep an eye out for future mistakes. If they don't, well, that's why there is a punishment involved.
The rule comes from one that MU has in a very similar fashion. It's essentially to account for things such as using small text, flashing gifs, or anything that might make a player feel uncomfortable. We also added in 'aggression' as another way to hopefully stop that kind of behavior but still allow for intervention if needed.
Cleared it up below but many instances in the past would follow privately warning someone before any other action was given so we opted to make that official in the chain of events.
Sorian put it much better than I could but the core of this conversation is around what we can define aggressive behavior and how we can handle it. The problem is that you can't fully define what aggressive behavior is in a game like this given that each instance is different, some players are fine in certain scenarios and others are not, plus the fluid nature of trying to define a social interaction. That's why we are trying to make these rules more as an outline or a skeleton for what to do in the future and not an all-encompassing rulebook. If we were to try and fully define what aggression is in a mafia game we would be here for days and still not come up with every scenario possible.
The 'as determined by the gamerunner' is going to be true in each case. If anything we can make it more definite that slurs and bigoted language is never accepted here but I feel that our community, and our gamerunners, would never accept that type of language in our games. The remaining instances of these rules would still have to be judged as warranting action or not, hence the wording of 'as determined by gamerunner'.
That's why it's a reasonable request. Something related to the game itself like throwing multiple votes around, a gambit, etc. would be fine to continue. But if a person asks someone else to please not use small text, post flashing gifs, or something in the same vein would be an example of something we hope people accommodate.
It does which is what makes it hard to moderate. The obvious answer such as slurs and namecalling fall under that but the other instances of just being mean towards someone also counts. But even then it's hard to define what 'mean' is.
We are. We plan on creating a document to help gamerunners asses different instances of aggression and what can be done. Rover's suggestion will likely be the backbone of it.
The unofficial rule for a long time was to warn a player privately before taking any other action. Instead of eliminating that we added it in officially with the caveat that punishment can be escalated if needed.
Alright, promise this is going to be my last post. Sorry to keep intruding, but what you're saying suggests that I need to clarify what I posted .
You can define what aggressive behavior is. You can draw a line. This forum already has a line, see the Posting Guidelines. I generally can't go into a thread anywhere on this forum and namecall or tell people they're stupid, not even using the mildest of words. When those people sign up for these games, many of them are expecting the same level of respect in the discourse, but are instead finding a much more hostile environment. Swimming upstream is hard.
I don't intend for you to look at the question of aggression as some broad philosophical debate. You don't need to find those answers. You only need to abide by what the ResetEra community has set as the norm.
However this community has gotten into the habit of breaking those norms and guidelines. Either because the hostility is supposedly "a part of the game", or because people just don't want to enforce the rules when it actually comes time to do so. I ask you to question both of those notions.
The community has up to this point gone out of its way to accommodate hostility, point blank. Giving this much slack to hostile behavior will generally favor the outliers of the community, not the "average person". As far as I can tell, a very small minority of people in these games are hostile players, but because the norms of this forum get bent for them, it makes it seem like their point of view is being reinforced.
The example of the 3 part framework I posted was to try to put the problem into clearer focus, with distinct parts. ResetEra already has a standard on conduct which is pretty clear. Parts 1 and 2 are easy to answer. The real question is Part 3, which is about what really is acceptable tactics in the game (as they relate to hostility).
I know that it's not simple to sit here and outline every instance of potential aggressive behavior that can exist, which is why I've tried to bring in actual examples from the most recent game of HvV2 as a basic starting point. But, I still think that this rule does not actually change anything surrounding the lack of clearly setting expectations for how players should act while also showing what moderators/gamerunners will actually be warning until they receive one. We can define what aggression is and we all know that as there are situations where we've all agreed something has gone too far. It might not be a full definition that works 100% of the time, but we all liked Rover's outline because it's a starting point that shows us where to begin.
You clarify here that under the old rule system that people would always receive a private warning before any other action. However, the old rule system was as explicit as could be that someone should receive one warning, and then be removed from the game as this is an issue that has been impossible to actually manage. Despite how clear the punishment line was in the old rule system, the issue was still undermoderated and continues in most games.
All that has changed in this new rule is that the system has changed from Warning -> Modkill, to Private Warning -> Public Warning/Priority Penalty -> Replacement, and I am struggling to understand how this system is better by providing more opportunities for people to be aggressive when even under the old system it was rare that any of the steps would be enforced as it feels as though gamerunner's aren't sure what they're looking for.
I know that I'm being rather insistent here, but I am honestly extremely tired of aggression in most games and having conversations about this season after season which amount to small changes in the rules that aren't actually enforced. These games get so toxic so fast and it never really feels like it's going to get better as we're just eager to start the next one.
The problem comes in the examples people are providing. In the case of a clear insult "you're stupid" then that's obvious. In the case of it being housed in the context of the game it's less clear. For instance, one of the examples provided is of telling a player they're bad at playing Mafia due to the strategy they were using. That's not a clear insult, and it has game relevance. In fact I would bet there are plenty of unmoderated examples on Era where someone says someone else is playing poorly or wrong (in terms of a videogame).
Is there a reason you trimmed out the portion of Sawneeks' post that explicitly speaks to our intention to create a document for gamerunners to help ensure the rules are being applied more appropriately than they have been previously?
I generally can't go into a thread anywhere on this forum and accuse posters of being liars either. The premise here starts from a shaky ground if we are going to pretend mafia threads are normal.
We're not really going to seriously sit here and start defending calling people bad at the game to their face in the middle of a game, are we? That's not constructive criticism, or telling them where else to look, that's just telling them that they're bad because you want to be a jerk. To go back to the MOBA analogy, that's literally something that would get you actioned in a game like League of Legends.
I quoted the parts that were directly aimed at me. And while there is an intention to create that document, we're being told that the next set of games are going to launch as soon as possible, so it likely won't be used there. And this does not resolve the issue between what's expected of players and the disconnect between how these games are moderated and what bothers players as that document is both created and going to be used entirely behind the scenes.
There isn't some behind the scenes conspiracy. Every person here has access to the same resource database: https://www.outermafia.com/index.php?forums/26/
A player's strategy and approach is a large part of what Mafia is about. Figuring out if someone is lying or being disingenuous in that approach matters. A player shifting strategy vs. remaining steadfast matters. If you aren't allowed to call out said strategies then how do those conversations unfold? No, you don't have to insult a player, but their approach to the game is absolutely important. In the example of Stu - he was spamming the game with his opinion in a manner that made his opinion go largely ignored. Should no one comment on that and just ignore Stu entirely?
How do you think the document should be used if not by the gamerunners? Being a gamerunner isn't some exclusive club, all of the materials provided to them can be viewed by anyone. Anyone can run a game - you don't even have to design it nowadays due to the adopt-a-design program.
There's a difference between calling out a strategy and saying :
Not including the rest of the aggressive comments, there are countless other ways to tell someone that their strategy isn't working that isn't designed to antagonize them further or for taking out your frustration on them. It doesn't have to be "Stuart you're bad at this" or complete silence, there's a world of middle ground.
Yes, I have seen the guides over there and the one's designed for gamerunners. None of it goes into moderation at all outside of just listing the rules, and presumably you already have something that talks about this in some way. So, I had no real reason to believe that it would be posted in there.