First, the no-aggression rule at MU has been references a few times in this thread and y'all, I said it once and I'll say it again: that forum has some really terrible behaviors and not all games are moderated at all or at the same level. I never saw anyone replaced or killed or banned for in-game aggression there, though I did see people voluntarily leave games over it or put other players on ignore mid-game because there was no dealing with it otherwise. Where I did see people banned/actioned was for out of game behavior, including in the discord. So I don't think it's really the model we want to follow - at least I wouldn't. I met several great people there but I wouldn't hang out there regularly. Maybe it's changed since then. I don't know because I had no interest in going back to play.
You mentioned here at the start that MU is not a community that we should look up to, and I don't think that we largely need to. I haven't really experienced any games over there, but whether or not the community is overly toxic or not does not really factor in the way that their rule systems are written and how it can directly account for issues that a lot of us have in these games. I don't feel that it should be acceptable to just tell someone that they're bad at the game in an attempt to antagonize them, and that's something that could be covered by a similar rule for sportsmanlike conduct.
This to me seems to be a major site of disagreement - and maybe first because it's not a 1-1 comparison. What I find antagonizing on Resetera when I am just being a person is not what I find antagonizing in a game about lying and manipulation and detective work. Those, for me, are not the same realm, and in reading some of the replies here, I think that's an unstated or less stated point of argument, so let me state it (or ask questions):
-Is there a difference in how we act while playing vs not playing? I think for some there is. I can't speak for everyone though.
-Is competitiveness or other outside factors a consideration? I really wonder if we couldn't figure out a way to occasionally run concurrent minis or something that are played in different "modes."
These ideas may have to be resolved before we can harmoniously compromise on how that aggression rule looks.
For me, I don't believe that I act differently within a game or outside of it. I might have to lie or be a little more deceptive, but I'm not going to suddenly become someone who doesn't try to be aware of how others are impacted by a game. My experiences in MOBA's made me keenly aware of how important it can be for people to focus on the game and not take out frustrations on each other. That's not to say that I'm perfect, or that I don't get annoyed at times, but that largely I don't switch gears.
As for what bothers me within a game and what's outside of it is largely the same. The largest difference for me is that if there's a general thread on Era that does not surround one of a few key topics that are important to me, I don't have this level of investment that keeps me tied to it. I can just close it out and not care about Epic Game Store stuff or people bashing a game, but these mafia games carry a larger commitment and responsibility so I end up feeling more drained as I read more aggression and not really getting the breather that I need.
Rover, as a moderator on this site, I'm going to tell you that this simply isn't always true. It isn't the firm line you paint here. Incidents are discussed, sometimes for extended periods, while people argue the same lines we are arguing here - context, instigation, etc. - as well as other factors like history and intent that are difficult to weigh. It's challenging. But there are plenty of times we have argued whether or not someone is being called stupid or if their ideas are and where lines are drawn around that - much as we are doing right now. And what may come as a surprise is that I'm usually an outlier in other directions there. I believe in the integrity of this forum. But I believe the game space is a variation on that and the rules shift. It's why we are allowed to internally moderate our own community for the most part.
I want to briefly address this as well. Like Rover, my partner was a moderator on this site and only recently resigned so I do keenly understand how difficult it can be to tackle these situations on the larger forum and trying to balance the myriad factors involved. And on a personal level, I have helped run and moderate some communities in the past that directly tied into games that surround deception. For those of you who know Trouble in Terrorist Town, I actually designed and helped run the direct precursor to that which led to a community that wasn't used to that kind of gameplay being thrust into it and having to manage all the new scenarios that pop up much like this one. I know it's not easy to manage this stuff, but I'm just saying this to illustrate that I'm not coming at this from no perspective of the moderation side and the complex nature of moderating something like aggression or unsportsmanlike behavior.
Okay, these are the rule drafts that seem to be at issue (bolded sections in particular):
X. Failure to adhere to a player's personal pronoun will result in a public warning. On the second offense another public warning will be given and a penalty will be applied to the offender's game priority. On a third offense that player will be removed from the game.
X. Please treat others as you would like to be treated: if someone makes a reasonable request to you, please comply with it. Failure to do so in some cases, such as aggressive posting, will result in gamerunner intervention.
X. Mafia can be an intense and stressful game at times with situations becoming heated. Despite this, being overly hostile towards your fellow players is not allowed. If a player is caught name calling, using slurs, and/or other aggressive behaviors determined by the gamerunner then action will be taken. First a private warning via PM will be given. Failure to stop the behavior will then result in a public warning and the offender will be given a priority penalty. If these behaviors continue despite the warning that player will be removed from the game. Gamerunners reserve the right to escalate punishment if needed.
As I understand it, the questions are - reduce the pronoun penalty to two and continue to clarify aggressive behaviors determined by the gamerunner.
Here's what Ket suggested. I'll take it piece by piece, with her original in italics and my comment below.
Player Behavior
Treat your other players and gamerunner with respect. If someone tells or shows you that something is bothering them within the game, believe them. And treat them how they wanted to be treated. Everyone has different thresholds and they deserve to have that respected.
If someone tells you something is bothering them = yes
If someone shows = that is untenable in a mafia game. For some people who are more straightforward it's totally fine and doable - but again, this is a game about manipulation and sometimes people will put on an act for various reasons. It's also part of what makes "different thresholds" difficult and why we want mod intervention there. I get where this is coming from and in other contexts I absolutely support it! But in some ways, I liken the social aspects of mafia to say... LARPing. And someone may scream and cry and yell in a LARP but there has to be a way to determine if it's real or drama. We can't have code words here outside of talking to mods, so we negotiate context as best we can, as I said in a previous post. So I might suggest this:
Treat players and gamerunners/watchers with respect. Players who are bothered by behavior they perceive as targeted aggression should make their positions clear in game, as everyone has a different threshold. If a player feels another player or players has crossed a line, they should contact the game mod team, who will be listed in the game's first post.
Do not use slurs or bigoted language.
I like the addition of "bigoted language" here. Reduces room for pushback.
Do not belittle others for playing the game in a different manner than you. Some people might be new or have unorthodox methods of playing, but they do not need to be mocked for this.
I actually think this increases gray areas and I would suggest something like:
Please understand that different players have different play styles. Not everyone approaches mafia in the same way or wants the same things out of a game. If a player feels other participants are mocking their style or approach in a hostile or aggressive fashion, they should contact the game mod team, who will be listed in the first post.
In these cases, I have adjusted the language to the impacted player reporting, for two reasons:
1. It reduces opportunities for backseat modding and assumptions about player interactions.
2. We have at times asked players who have been impacted by things if they want action taken and they have said no. I do feel like that's something we should respect in line with respecting play style. This preserves the hard line on things like misgendering and bigotry but allows negotiation in other areas.
While the nature of the game means that disagreements will happen, these disagreements should be made as polite as possible. Mafia can be a stressful game and it's okay to get upset at the game, but do not take it out on others. If someone is breaking the rules, alert the gamerunner or staff, but try and take a brief break before diving back in if you are feeling heated.
I want to add here a little something about what will happen, and adjust the language a bit.
While the nature of mafia means that disagreements will happen, and play may get intense, please try to keep action as congenial as possible. Take a break if you feel heated. If someone is breaking a rule, you are encouraged to alert the game mod team. Reports about in-game action and behavior will be handled by the mod team, and the gamerunner will issue final rulings in the event of disagreements.
And then I very much support the creation of a more specific guide for watchers/runners as has been suggested - and an ongoing OM thread might help build that as long as we can avoid discussing ongoing games. I think too including game watchers in this and making them a formal aspect of a mod TEAM means discussions are distributed and maybe if one mod is more "hardcore" there are other voices weighing in with different perspectives, which may help.
But I want to stress I'm not speaking for the entire facilitator team here - these are my personal suggestions toward compromise.
Now, on to the meat.
"Treat players and gamerunners/watchers with respect. Players who are bothered by behavior they perceive as targeted aggression should make their positions clear in game, as everyone has a different threshold. If a player feels another player or players has crossed a line, they should contact the game mod team, who will be listed in the game's first post.
Do not use slurs or bigoted language.
Please understand that different players have different play styles. Not everyone approaches mafia in the same way or wants the same things out of a game. If a player feels other participants are mocking their style or approach in a hostile or aggressive fashion, they should contact the game mod team, who will be listed in the first post.
While the nature of mafia means that disagreements will happen, and play may get intense, please try to keep action as congenial as possible. Take a break if you feel heated. If someone is breaking a rule, you are encouraged to alert the game mod team. Reports about in-game action and behavior will be handled by the mod team, and the gamerunner will issue final rulings in the event of disagreements."
This is the current list of how you've revised and improved on the very rough rules that I brought up. Looking through these rules and the wording that surrounds them, I feel that it creates a much stronger guideline for players to raise concerns, both in a thread and outside of it in an appropriate way. While it does not guarantee that action will be taken in the event that something is bothering other players, it does create the best compromise that can exist which allows people who are affected to ask for others to stop in the thread or to make their case directly to the people in charge of that decision.
I'm aware that these rules aren't 'that' different from the current on in the sense that they don't outline every possible sign of aggression, but I would feel a lot better if something that used this as a framework was visible to users while something from Rover's framework was visible in a guideline for moderation to use. The main goal that I have when I see these issues arise is for the people affected to be directly taken into consideration, and for us to realize that we're all capable of mistakes, whether that's in the middle of a game or from a moderation standpoint, and I think that these rules or something like them can help resolve some of those issues.
I'm still not confident in how these rules will be enforced, or whether we'll just run into the same issue during this next season though as Natiko's post does concern me surrounding this.
To the bolded - I actually don't think this was said at all? I'm fairly certain we've said numerous times if a player is making you feel uncomfortable to state that to them. It's speaking on behalf of other players that should be avoided or trying to hand out warnings/imply punitive measures (e.g. "If you keep it up I'm going to get you modkilled").
As for the portion at the end, I also don't think we housed any of the concerns with backseat modding as being a concern due to gamerunners bitterly complaining, nor is it about the extent to which a player complains or doesn't. The crux of it is that when a decision is made by the gamerunner and game watchers that additional lobbying is not apt to do anything. That was true before, and it will be true in the future. What we're discussing is steps to ensure gamerunners and game watchers are better prepared to address these concerns and providing more documentation to ensure it's done in as close to a consistent manner as possible. That way the initial response is more often appropriate, thus eliminating the need for continued lobbying.
That being said there will always be instances of disagreement. Player A may send a PM to a gamerunner about Player B. Upon investigation it might be clear that both players acted out, and thus a punishment could be handed to both. Player A will almost certainly not be happy with that outcome, but sending a sentence, let alone a novel, of text disagreeing isn't apt to change that.
---
For those of you that have expressed uncertainty about how the process works and spoke to your lack of clarity - perhaps you should consider running some games to learn more. Even if you don't feel like designing a game we have games up for adoption as well. That will allow you to have not only full insight, but hands on experience with the other side of things.
I will say that I agree with Rover on most things that have been said, and that it does often feel like the integrity of the game is valued more highly than the value of the players within it. This has been demonstrated through the questioning nature of whether aggression should be pushed back on as it can serve a purpose for both proving someone's innocence in a game while also becoming a weapon that can be used to antagonize someone into self-destructing.
And I also agree on the sentiment that a lot of these concerns surrounding backseat modding have felt like it depends on the extent of the player complaining or to what level they're annoying the people making these decisions. It has felt somewhat bitter towards users who raise concerns whether in a game or in private.
I also strongly disagree with the sentiment that once a gamerunner or gamewatchers have settled on a decision that nothing else will actually be able to change their minds, unless they aren't truly listening. As evidenced by this thread and the ones that we've had before, there are going to be times where the people in charge believe that something is one way, while the people within a game have a different perspective and there has to be room available for both someone to make a decision and for people who are affected to be listened to and not shut out once a decision is made.
What I'm getting at here is that while new rules and a proper moderation guide will hopefully go a long way towards reducing issues like this from popping up, it won't ever be a sure thing and there's potential for people to feel shut out or ignored if a decision is made and nothing further is allowed to be said from then on. People can't really expect to argue something forever (Hello, it's me) as that's just not realistic, but I just want the door to be kept open at the very least until things move in a more positive direction.
As for running a game, I'm slowly but surely working on a Twin Peaks Mafia that will hopefully be good and capture some of the essence of the show. But, that is still quite a ways out as I get sidetracked by a lot of stuff
