Role Madness Too Many Doctors (Game Thread)
- Thread starter Guillo
- Start date
- Tags alexis is definitely ai lol just ice for mango luka too cute to be scum
- Status
They also have a far less tolerance for toxicity.
They also are able to do proper votecounts, no matter if it's done by a human host or the bot in the automated games.
They have users that don't make screenshots and send them to hosts with the only intention of getting a player modkilled.
Asking for a modkill is a violation of the rules in itself.
It happened on Worstgen! This is very important for context as it's a different board with different rules and there has never been anyone modkilled for such a harmless comment ever before on Worstgen.
There was no warning or anything either.
Modkills are the last resort too, that modkill harmed whole town for nothing. There would have been subs, no need to kill the slot.
They also are able to do proper votecounts, no matter if it's done by a human host or the bot in the automated games.
They have users that don't make screenshots and send them to hosts with the only intention of getting a player modkilled.
Asking for a modkill is a violation of the rules in itself.
It happened on Worstgen! This is very important for context as it's a different board with different rules and there has never been anyone modkilled for such a harmless comment ever before on Worstgen.
There was no warning or anything either.
Modkills are the last resort too, that modkill harmed whole town for nothing. There would have been subs, no need to kill the slot.
No use discussing that further. What happened happened. Certain people‘s behavior was atrocious and the modkill handling was awful hosting and it shouldn’t be sugarcoated. Both even did cost Town the game and there’s no denying that either. There will be no forgiveness on my end and unless we play a game a certain bunch of people will not exist for me from that point forward if they‘re intentionally hurting me where it hurts the most. I have to protect my own well-being and will now avoid contact as best as I can. Good Night.
Disappointed with the reactions here, I did nothing wrong but instead of pointing out how dirty Ekko played and what a horrendous hosting this was I keep getting blamed for nothing, stop justifying this unwarranted modkill! The real reactions from a lot of players I talked with were pretty much everyone calling that modkill atrocious and that it should never have happened!
Just seems only few people have the backbone to dare speaking out what they really think...
Just seems only few people have the backbone to dare speaking out what they really think...
VOTE LYNCH RELOADED
Alright so glad that one is over.
Firstly, @Guillo - thank you for completing the game, hopefully your irl situation gets worked out for you soon. Apologies that this one was so dramatic, hopefully it hasn't turned you off hosting here again.
On the topic of insults - as has been the case for a while now, the issue with insults is when it becomes *personal*. That includes bringing in personal dislike of people and any sort of vendetta. As far as I've seen, anything hostile or vitriolic was kept within the bounds of the game, and when it did threaten to step outside, the host stepped in to diffuse the situation. This is how the system should work, and I don't feel like there needs to be anything in particular to address there. Remember that someone is allowed to call your argument bad, they're not allowed to call you a slur in response to thinking your argument is bad. That's the key here.
In terms of rules, I am considering opening up the "only talk in the game thread rule" to allow hosts to be more flexible and definite about where they're drawing the line. Generally speaking, communication should be within the thread or host-supervised chats, unless stated by the host. But there is room for leniency. In my personal view, the modkill was harsh. I think some hosts, most here actually, would let that go, with at most a word of caution. Because of this level of judgement to eforcing rules, it means players can be blindsided by being punished for it. My thinking is to have a three tier system for out of game communication - and "relaxed" tier, where reactions to in game events that are known info such as the lynches are allowed, a "moderate" tier, where the above isn't allowed but passing reference is, like in Crowned Witch's case here, and lastly a "strict" tier, where there is to be nothing at all.
Now there will still be an element of judgement call in here, because hosts will be deciding what goes in what tier. But my expectation is that if, for example, a host chooses the moderate tier rule, they show some leniency - if they don't then that's going to be a conversation after the game as to whether they require a coach to help them with those decisions more. I would advise hosts that if they're unsure, to choose the strict tier and remove all ambiguity. I'll get that written up over the next few days, as well as a template for games rules to ensure that hosts are actually making this clear in sign ups.
With that being said, Crowned Witch's conduct was not acceptable under any circumstance. For transparency, I was asked by Guillo to intervene first because after she had been modkilled, she was continuing to post in the thread. Because I didn't want to go straight to threadban, I decided to talk to Crowned Witch to see if I could help arbitrate instead. What would happen is that, during our conversation, as in alongside it, after I'd made it clear she shouldn't be posting in the thread and stop, she continued to do so. I had a fair degree of leniency to this, so I considered initially that maybe she was posting before reading what I was saying. But then she kept posting, and after continuing a few times where she would respond to what I was saying and then continue posting anyway, it was clear that she knew she'd been told not to post, but felt entitled to do so anyway.
Let me be very clear on this point: you are not entitled to continue posting in the thread. Whatever your arguments may be, or however just or injust your removal from the game is, once the host has removed you, you are not to post in the thread. You are treated as dead in the game. If you think it's completely unfair, the process is to come and have a word with me. I can then discuss it with the host. Sometimes, if after our discussion I think the host has been too harsh and the host agrees to it, we can maybe get you back in the game. And in situations where we can't, for whatever reason, we can have a talk and look at changing the rules to better suit the community. That might be little consolation in the moment, but these things are judgement calls, and as frustrating as it can be, you have to know when to stop and drop the matter until it can be discussed properly. And, if the host is completely out of line or malicious in any way, they'll be struck and unable to host here again without a coach. And in the really extreme cases, the game can even be cancelled if it's clear that the host is acting in a way designed to hurt someone else.
But when you continue to post in the thread after being asked not to, then we have to start looking at threadbans. And it was even worse in this case, because after her threadban, Crowned Witch continued to interact with the game by liking posts. At which point, the only option left was a site ban. It shouldn't come to this, and it is not acceptable that it did. It doesn't matter how angry you are or how justified you feel you are in your position, if you will not listen when you're told that you can't keep posting in the thread and the host has asked you to stop, and you've even been blocked from posting and you still keep trying, then the whole process isn't going to work with you.
I don't want to start laying out bans. My approach has always been to talk out issues rather than hit people with a mod stick. But if I ever have to thread ban someone again because, after I've asked them to stop posting, they think they're above the rules and continue to post anyway, then I'm not even going to bother with strikes. It will be an instant three month ban from the section. And if that isn't going to be followed, then it'll be a site wide ban. And, for fair warning now, if it ever comes to needing a site ban because someone won't listen when theyre told to stop posting and won't listen after they've received a ban, then they'll be going straight to the permanent ban list and I don't care who you are. This is not up for debate, I will never suffer this sort of behaviour here to happen again.
Now I'm not going to sanction Crowned Witch on the basis of those rules, because they were not outlined beforehand (and they'll be made formal tomorrow). So what I'm going to do is give Crowned Witch one strike for her conduct. I want to make this clear. The strike is not for being modkilled. The strike is for the behaviour after being modkilled. 1 strike, as it stands, serves as a warning. So there is no sign up ban, no further sanction, just a warning. This is not up for discussion and I do not want to see a referendum hosted on whether you think it's harsh enough, too harsh, or whatever. If you have something you would like to discuss about it, you're welcome to do so, in private. Let me say that again for the avoidance of doubt - you can talk about this with me, in private. If you're posting about it here, first I'll delete the posts. And if it keeps being talked about, I'll close the thread. And if you then take that as an invitation to post in the general thread, then I'll delete the posts there too and remove your ability to post in that thread for a week. And if it goes beyond that then it will be section bans and strikes. If you want to talk about it in private with someone, have at it. I just do not want to see it discussed and argued about here. I'm not going to engage with it and I'm not going to respond unless it's done in private.
My last point on this game is that I'm going to suggest if Guillo intends to host here again, he takes a co-host again from the coaches. This is because I think there needs to be some adjustment in terms of the leniency applies to rules. Not just in out of game talk, but also in posting before told. I felt his response was very harsh at one point - while he is in the right that he made it very clear, I think he could have handled it better by asking to not post and then anyone continuing to post after a reasonable length of time would be mod-blocked/subbed/killed. He shoukd then have reported the posts so that they could be deleted.
I *am* open to discussion to the rule change to out of game communication and if anyone has any other ideas on that I'm happy to table them and consider them. And very lastly, congratulations to the mafia team for winning the game - well deserved.
Firstly, @Guillo - thank you for completing the game, hopefully your irl situation gets worked out for you soon. Apologies that this one was so dramatic, hopefully it hasn't turned you off hosting here again.
On the topic of insults - as has been the case for a while now, the issue with insults is when it becomes *personal*. That includes bringing in personal dislike of people and any sort of vendetta. As far as I've seen, anything hostile or vitriolic was kept within the bounds of the game, and when it did threaten to step outside, the host stepped in to diffuse the situation. This is how the system should work, and I don't feel like there needs to be anything in particular to address there. Remember that someone is allowed to call your argument bad, they're not allowed to call you a slur in response to thinking your argument is bad. That's the key here.
In terms of rules, I am considering opening up the "only talk in the game thread rule" to allow hosts to be more flexible and definite about where they're drawing the line. Generally speaking, communication should be within the thread or host-supervised chats, unless stated by the host. But there is room for leniency. In my personal view, the modkill was harsh. I think some hosts, most here actually, would let that go, with at most a word of caution. Because of this level of judgement to eforcing rules, it means players can be blindsided by being punished for it. My thinking is to have a three tier system for out of game communication - and "relaxed" tier, where reactions to in game events that are known info such as the lynches are allowed, a "moderate" tier, where the above isn't allowed but passing reference is, like in Crowned Witch's case here, and lastly a "strict" tier, where there is to be nothing at all.
Now there will still be an element of judgement call in here, because hosts will be deciding what goes in what tier. But my expectation is that if, for example, a host chooses the moderate tier rule, they show some leniency - if they don't then that's going to be a conversation after the game as to whether they require a coach to help them with those decisions more. I would advise hosts that if they're unsure, to choose the strict tier and remove all ambiguity. I'll get that written up over the next few days, as well as a template for games rules to ensure that hosts are actually making this clear in sign ups.
With that being said, Crowned Witch's conduct was not acceptable under any circumstance. For transparency, I was asked by Guillo to intervene first because after she had been modkilled, she was continuing to post in the thread. Because I didn't want to go straight to threadban, I decided to talk to Crowned Witch to see if I could help arbitrate instead. What would happen is that, during our conversation, as in alongside it, after I'd made it clear she shouldn't be posting in the thread and stop, she continued to do so. I had a fair degree of leniency to this, so I considered initially that maybe she was posting before reading what I was saying. But then she kept posting, and after continuing a few times where she would respond to what I was saying and then continue posting anyway, it was clear that she knew she'd been told not to post, but felt entitled to do so anyway.
Let me be very clear on this point: you are not entitled to continue posting in the thread. Whatever your arguments may be, or however just or injust your removal from the game is, once the host has removed you, you are not to post in the thread. You are treated as dead in the game. If you think it's completely unfair, the process is to come and have a word with me. I can then discuss it with the host. Sometimes, if after our discussion I think the host has been too harsh and the host agrees to it, we can maybe get you back in the game. And in situations where we can't, for whatever reason, we can have a talk and look at changing the rules to better suit the community. That might be little consolation in the moment, but these things are judgement calls, and as frustrating as it can be, you have to know when to stop and drop the matter until it can be discussed properly. And, if the host is completely out of line or malicious in any way, they'll be struck and unable to host here again without a coach. And in the really extreme cases, the game can even be cancelled if it's clear that the host is acting in a way designed to hurt someone else.
But when you continue to post in the thread after being asked not to, then we have to start looking at threadbans. And it was even worse in this case, because after her threadban, Crowned Witch continued to interact with the game by liking posts. At which point, the only option left was a site ban. It shouldn't come to this, and it is not acceptable that it did. It doesn't matter how angry you are or how justified you feel you are in your position, if you will not listen when you're told that you can't keep posting in the thread and the host has asked you to stop, and you've even been blocked from posting and you still keep trying, then the whole process isn't going to work with you.
I don't want to start laying out bans. My approach has always been to talk out issues rather than hit people with a mod stick. But if I ever have to thread ban someone again because, after I've asked them to stop posting, they think they're above the rules and continue to post anyway, then I'm not even going to bother with strikes. It will be an instant three month ban from the section. And if that isn't going to be followed, then it'll be a site wide ban. And, for fair warning now, if it ever comes to needing a site ban because someone won't listen when theyre told to stop posting and won't listen after they've received a ban, then they'll be going straight to the permanent ban list and I don't care who you are. This is not up for debate, I will never suffer this sort of behaviour here to happen again.
Now I'm not going to sanction Crowned Witch on the basis of those rules, because they were not outlined beforehand (and they'll be made formal tomorrow). So what I'm going to do is give Crowned Witch one strike for her conduct. I want to make this clear. The strike is not for being modkilled. The strike is for the behaviour after being modkilled. 1 strike, as it stands, serves as a warning. So there is no sign up ban, no further sanction, just a warning. This is not up for discussion and I do not want to see a referendum hosted on whether you think it's harsh enough, too harsh, or whatever. If you have something you would like to discuss about it, you're welcome to do so, in private. Let me say that again for the avoidance of doubt - you can talk about this with me, in private. If you're posting about it here, first I'll delete the posts. And if it keeps being talked about, I'll close the thread. And if you then take that as an invitation to post in the general thread, then I'll delete the posts there too and remove your ability to post in that thread for a week. And if it goes beyond that then it will be section bans and strikes. If you want to talk about it in private with someone, have at it. I just do not want to see it discussed and argued about here. I'm not going to engage with it and I'm not going to respond unless it's done in private.
My last point on this game is that I'm going to suggest if Guillo intends to host here again, he takes a co-host again from the coaches. This is because I think there needs to be some adjustment in terms of the leniency applies to rules. Not just in out of game talk, but also in posting before told. I felt his response was very harsh at one point - while he is in the right that he made it very clear, I think he could have handled it better by asking to not post and then anyone continuing to post after a reasonable length of time would be mod-blocked/subbed/killed. He shoukd then have reported the posts so that they could be deleted.
I *am* open to discussion to the rule change to out of game communication and if anyone has any other ideas on that I'm happy to table them and consider them. And very lastly, congratulations to the mafia team for winning the game - well deserved.
I feel like I wandered into a battlefield 
@Alexis2282AE where are you Dr. Troll?
Someone should check up on him to see if he's okay.
I will always enforce forum rules
But…
I'm very good at detecting problematic players and CW is one of them.
When CWA complained about the votecounts ans publicly threatened to sub out because of it, i knew she is the kind of player that would not hesitate to break forum and game rules to clear herself, and when she was reported by Ekko, it confirmed my worries.
I don't regret modkilling her. I, more than ever, am sure i made the right judgement call for this, specially after finding out she had done it to another host in another game.
My only regret was not making sure I would have moderation permissions to actually enforce the modkill before starting the game, hosts should have this.
But…
I'm very good at detecting problematic players and CW is one of them.
When CWA complained about the votecounts ans publicly threatened to sub out because of it, i knew she is the kind of player that would not hesitate to break forum and game rules to clear herself, and when she was reported by Ekko, it confirmed my worries.
I don't regret modkilling her. I, more than ever, am sure i made the right judgement call for this, specially after finding out she had done it to another host in another game.
My only regret was not making sure I would have moderation permissions to actually enforce the modkill before starting the game, hosts should have this.
- Status