An Update to Player Reports / Clarification

[Etienne]

Report:
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...-1-S2-1-327911

I recently submitted a report in which a player joined my game with the intention of leaving because he didn't like the settings. I had to put "role quitting" as the reason for my report as there is no option for what he did, and I was lead to believe that leaving games because you don't like the save isn't allowed. However, the person submitted a request for an appeal and the appeal was granted on the bases that it wasn't technically a role quit.

In a similar case (listed below), the person appealed the decision but the decision was upheld for the following reason:

If we allowed people to leave every time they dislike the save with impunity then we could go hours and hours without a single game of mafia actually starting. In the precedent we've allowed it when the save is clearly awful. However it appears that you are trying to stretch that limit and leave anything you dislike at all.

Source:
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...1-S2-1-5640160

I strongly feel that the current climate of the mod is such that leaving games simply because you do not like the person's save does real damage. Especially if the person knows they don't like the save and chooses to join the lobby anyway knowing exactly what save the host is planning to use. There are plenty of saves and settings that I am not a fan of, and I opt to repick them, but if that doesn't work I play the save.

I would like some clarification. Is leaving a game that is not a troll save, simply because you don't like the save now acceptable? If not, how should I have labeled my report so that it would have been processed and the appropriate punishment issued without appeal?

[Renegade]

I never entered your game with the intention of leaving. I entered with the hope that other players would recognize your broken save settings and repick.

You Etienne, or your buddy Law, have no right to force people to play your shitty idea of saves. You have no concept of balance when you allow 2 NK and a judge to spawn in your save. I'd argue that this is a troll save. You are not interested in balance, or even a discussion about the balance of your save.

I will continue to stand up for the rights of players and educate them that they have no obligation to stay in a save that is as poorly balanced as yours, or whatever creative trash Law decides to vomit up.

Unfortunately for the player base, people like Etienne and Law are obsessed with forcing their saves on to others. They will leave games early so they can be the first out so that they host a lobby. Tells you a lot!

[Renegade]

Here you go folks:

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...-griefer-saves

I've been documenting the antics folks like Law abuse to get you locked in to their 'saves' for 30 minutes.

I stand with players like Buster Cannon:

I'm with Renegade on this one. The hacked saves have got to stop. I will not play them either just like Renegade. If I see a save I do not like I should not have to be forced to play it.

[Etienne]

I never entered your game with the intention of leaving. I entered with the hope that other players would recognize your broken save settings and repick.

This screenshot speaks for itself:

RenegadeAdmitsHeWillLeave.PNG

[Renegade]

It is not against the rules to leave a save. I stand by that. Especially if the save is unbalanced or hacked.

[DJarJar]

outdated quotes, arguments, etc.

the repick system exists to let people repick shitty saves

there is currently a glitch/exploit that lets host bypass the normal repick time to start their saves early (which you use).

The solution is that frinckles will be patching the glitch soon

[Exeter350]

Source:
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...1-S2-1-5640160

If you read the discussion in this report, you would see that 4 out of 5 replays abused the quick start exploit.
At the time, this exploit was being widely abused. That is why things escalated to the point where I simply left if the exploit is used.

When playing with others, it is inevitable that we will sometimes play setups that we do not wish to.
Most of the time, I respect that.
What I cannot stand are hosts who abuse exploits to force their setups onto others with no respect for others' wishes, and then throw a tantrum when people leave.

...

I have no doubt at all in my mind that if the lobbies had been aware and given time to react, they would've repicked Cult and Chaos.
I reiterate my belief that the hosts know this, that is why they abuse the exploit to push their setups through.

This is still a belief that I stand by.

If we allowed people to leave every time they dislike the save with impunity then we could go hours and hours without a single game of mafia actually starting.

However, I acknowledge the staff's comments about how this behaviour cannot be allowed, as it will be damaging to the community. Which is why I've stopped doing it.

Anyway, I believe that once the quick start exploit gets patched, things should de-escalate.
If a lobby is given sufficient time to repick an unconventional setup, and the majority chooses to play it, then players should abide by the outcome of that vote.
On the flip side, if the majority chooses to play a conventional setup, then the minority should respect the wishes of the lobby.

[Etienne]

outdated quotes, arguments, etc.

the repick system exists to let people repick shitty saves

there is currently a glitch/exploit that lets host bypass the normal repick time to start their saves early (which you use).

The solution is that frinckles will be patching the glitch soon

Could you please provide me with a replay of me using that glitch? Because I have never used it.

I don't understand why you would lie and say I did something I never did?

For anyone interested in the truth, I have provided the replay that I submitted with my report below. I don't understand why an admin is dismissing my inquiry by saying I did something I didn't.


Replay:

RenegadeQuits 001.SC2Replay

Again, I am asking if leaving a game because you don't like someone's save is allowed. If it is allowed, then please make that clear here so that there is no confusion. If it is not allowed then please make that clear, and tell me exactly how a person can go about reporting such behavior.

[Renegade]

If you read the discussion in this report, you would see that 4 out of 5 replays abused the quick start exploit.
At the time, this exploit was being widely abused. That is why things escalated to the point where I simply left if the exploit is used.



This is still a belief that I stand by.



However, I acknowledge the staff's comments about how this behaviour cannot be allowed, as it will be damaging to the community. Which is why I've stopped doing it.

Anyway, I believe that once the quick start exploit gets patched, things should de-escalate.
If a lobby is given sufficient time to repick an unconventional setup, and the majority chooses to play it, then players should abide by the outcome of that vote.
On the flip side, if the majority chooses to play a conventional setup, then the minority should respect the wishes of the lobby.

I mean, it used to be my approach to play saves I didn't like. I still do most of the time. But the fast start glitch is salt in the wound for me. It irrationally pisses me off to a point that I just leave. And I refuse to apologize for that.

[Exeter350]

But the fast start glitch is salt in the wound for me. It irrationally pisses me off to a point that I just leave.

Probably because hosts who do this don't respect the repick system. They know that if they allow the lobby to repick, they would. So they abuse the exploit to get around it.
They prioritize their wishes over those of 14 other players. Extremely self-centered behaviour. It would piss off anyone.

[Renegade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_der_5hRM

[Etienne]

Anyway, I believe that once the quick start exploit gets patched, things should de-escalate.
If a lobby is given sufficient time to repick an unconventional setup, and the majority chooses to play it, then players should abide by the outcome of that vote.
On the flip side, if the majority chooses to play a conventional setup, then the minority should respect the wishes of the lobby.

I agree with you, however I did not use that exploit and I never have. I don't even know how to do it. If you watch the replay you will see that despite Renegade's best efforts to try and get me repicked, he failed. Then he left the game as he said he would do in discord, before he even joined the game.

All I am asking of the admin is if this is acceptable behavior or not.

[Exeter350]

I agree with you, however I did not use that exploit and I never have. I don't even know how to do it. If you watch the replay you will see that despite Renegade's best efforts to try and get me repicked, he failed. Then he left the game as he said he would do in discord, before he even joined the game.

All I am asking of the admin is if this is acceptable behavior or not.

I'm curious to know as well.

Prior to the report on me, the consensus is, it's only an offense if players leave AFTER the setup phase (role quit).
Leaving BEFORE does not constitute an offense as long as they don't try to incite other players to leave with them (leave train).

The reason why I was originally penalized (later removed via appeal) is because I was leaving an abnormally large number of games.
The reason why I left an abnormally large number of games is because of the quick start exploit.

If I understand Djar correctly, once the quick start exploit is fixed, things would go back to normal (i.e. people don't usually leave large number of games ==> leaving not punishable).

I'm interested to hear Djar's comment, but also worried any statement will set things in stone.

[Renegade]

I've agreed to stop leaving saves as long as the host doesn't use the glitch or an otherwise hacked save. That was the armistice.

[Etienne]

I'm curious to know as well.

Prior to the report on me, the consensus is, it's only an offense if players leave AFTER the setup phase (role quit).
Leaving BEFORE does not constitute an offense as long as they don't try to incite other players to leave with them (leave train).

The reason why I was originally penalized (later removed via appeal) is because I was leaving an abnormally large number of games.
The reason why I left an abnormally large number of games is because of the quick start exploit.

If I understand Djar correctly, once the quick start exploit is fixed, things would go back to normal (i.e. people don't usually leave large number of games ==> leaving not punishable).

I'm interested to hear Djar's comment, but also worried any statement will set things in stone.

Yes, the quick start exploit is no good and they were right to grant your appeal on that basis.

I am the type of person who likes when things are set in stone because there can be no wiggle room. It has been my experience, not specifically with this community but with life in general, that when things are not set in stone, we get punishments for one group of people and free passes for others. I want to avoid that if at all possible, and get a clear answer on what is acceptable and what isn't.

That said, I would like for this to be an open discussion where more admins/mods and other players drop their opinions. Maybe I am in the wrong? Maybe people ought to have the right to leave a save they don't like? I want to know what the community thinks.

EDIT: I should mention that Renegade left after the naming phase, a split second before his role was revealed to him. The cut was so close that to anyone else it appeared as if he left the game after his role was revealed. However, his replay ends a split second before.

[Etienne]

I've agreed to stop leaving saves as long as the host doesn't use the glitch or an otherwise hacked save. That was the armistice.

If your appeal was granted on the basis that you will not do it again, then that is something that I can understand. However, your appeal was granted on the basis that I submitted the report for "role quitting", and because you left before your role was revealed to you, you did not role quit. That is not an acceptable basis for an appeal when my intent was clearly to report you for leaving the game because you did not like the save, and I only chose role quitting because there was no other option from the drop down menu that fit.

[Renegade]

If your appeal was granted on the basis that you will not do it again, then that is something that I can understand. However, your appeal was granted on the basis that I submitted the report for "role quitting", and because you left before your role was revealed to you, you did not role quit. That is not an acceptable basis for an appeal when my intent was clearly to report you for leaving the game because you did not like the save, and I only chose role quitting because there was no other option from the drop down menu that fit.

I don't know, you insisted I left after I got my role, and submitted it under role quitting. I didn't role quit.

If ren didn't role quit, you must acquit.

[Renegade]

And the funny thing was, I legitimately was not going to appeal, but you kept running your mouth. So I appealed. Why let someone like Etienne tarnish my impeccable record?

[Exeter350]

I am the type of person who likes when things are set in stone because there can be no wiggle room. It has been my experience, not specifically with this community but with life in general, that when things are not set in stone, we get punishments for one group of people and free passes for others. I want to avoid that if at all possible, and get a clear answer on what is acceptable and what isn't.

I am the same, and feel the same way. Often, I find grey areas exist because people want them to exist. The resulting flexibility is then often abused to give / gain preferential treatment.

However, I think having a clear line is not always possible, especially when there's subjectivity involved. More on that below.

That said, I would like for this to be an open discussion where more admins/mods and other players drop their opinions. Maybe I am in the wrong? Maybe people ought to have the right to leave a save they don't like? I want to know what the community thinks.

I think players should have the right to leave a setup they don't like. They should not be held hostage to setups they don't like, as they are required to spend time and effort on the match.

That being said, if players were to leave en masse every match of their own accord, it would be detrimental to the community.
So if leaving is allowed, it must only be allowed to some extent.

Then the question is, to what extent?
How many games can a person leave before being penalized? 10 games? Why not 20, or 5?
For what reason? Only "shit saves", or any setup at all?
If it's only "shit saves", then what are the objective metrics to determine whether a setup is a "shit save"?
The list of questions can go on and on.

Considering the above subjectivity, I think that the current approach of evaluating on a case-by-case basis is good. It's not perfect but it's realistic.

* * * * *

On the flip side, if it is decided that players do not have the right to leave setups they don't like, then the matter becomes more straightforward.
Quitting is treated the same as role-quitting, and will face the same escalating punishment starting with an "On Hold", then WL and BL with subsequent reports.
This approach certainly eliminates subjectivity and is much easier to enforce.

However, I am rather loath to be forced to play setups that I don't enjoy, lest I face punishment. I would rather play something else, than risk wasting my time.

It also gives too much power to hosts. So if someone were to host a hacked setup with invalid roles (killy/Law style), or obviously skewed setups (Spike style), or downright ridiculous setups like "10 Vigis 5 Witches", players must be forced to play or they will be penalized? Hell no.

And if it's justifiable to leave certain setups, e.g. "10 Vigis 5 Witches", then we go back to the subjective questions above: how do we judge?
The key difference in this case is, players are punished first based on a clearly stated rule, then appeals and discussions follow after.

I'm pretty sure this will mean a lot more workload for both staff and the punished players in question.
From what I understand, staff doesn't have the manpower to process large numbers of appeals, and many players are too lazy to bother with the report / appeal system.
Players may be incorrectly punished, and simply leave the community altogether rather than bother defending themselves.

Setting and enforcing a rule like this is probably lose-lose for most parties involved.

[Etienne]

All good points, Exeter. From the perspective of an individual, it may seem unfair to be forced to play a save that has settings you don’t enjoy. What I am proposing is a solution that benefits the community as a whole, because being allowed to leave a save on that basis only does damage.

I believe that there is a solution that benefits everyone. You’ve made some valid points about hacked saves and the quick-start exploit. First and foremost, there should be no punishment for anyone who leaves a save for those reasons. I think that’s something that we all can agree on and would not result in an excess workload for staff.

Now, I would like to address your point on judgement. Who decides what is a “bad” save? I think that after years of playing this mod there are some saves we can all agree are bad. The example you gave about witches and vigilantes is one. Taking this example, we can sort of create a blueprint for a “bad save”; which I will attempt to define:

A bad save is a save that exists to be chaotic, or exists for the sole purpose of farming for a particular achievement. Any save that relies solely on guesswork, and not teamwork and coordination as facilitated by a variety of roles.

With “bad save” defined, I believe that intent should also be factored. For example, I believe that if a host makes an effort to warn people about their save while in the lobby, and people still choose to stay, and the host was not repicked, that host has a right to test out their save. That said, if a person simply leaves a save and does not provide any indication as to why, no “intent” can be determined and that person should not be penalized because they could be leaving for any number of reasons. In such instances, a number of replays should be required that shows a pattern of leaving games – which is another issue altogether, and not necessarily related to “bad saves”.

Of course, intent wouldn’t be applicable to “illegal saves” such as those that are hacked or forced through via the quick-start exploit.

With “bad” and “illegal” saves defined, processing reports is more streamlined and I don’t believe it will result in “more work” for the staff. I also believe it will be beneficial to the community because it will lower leave trains

[Renegade]

A host warning in the lobby changing anything makes no sense to me. There is this strange notion that lobby leaders are guaranteed the ability to host their own save. Not sure where that comes from. Lobby leaders have the ability to kick, and even being the lobby leader doesn't guarantee you are "slot 1" and have the ability to host.

Hosts have too much power already. Warning people don't join because of my wacky save is a no-go.

As much as you like to drag in what happens in Discord and the lobby into conversations, none of it matters. What matters is what occurs once the game has started.

[Renegade]

Would you say that a save that requires evils to kill evils for town to have a shot at winning is a) chaotic or b) a bad save? For example, if town could lose even if they used impeccable team work in such a save due to things completely out of their control. Is that a bad save?

[Etienne]

A host warning in the lobby changing anything makes no sense to me.

Everyone should be permitted the opportunity to host their own creations, otherwise why give the option to make unique saves in the first place? If a person makes an effort to tell everyone in a lobby that they are planning on hosting an unconventional save, and the people stay, why should one person who doesn't have the "sense" to create their own lobby ruin it for those people?

There is this strange notion that lobby leaders are guaranteed the ability to host their own save. Not sure where that comes from.

Nobody here is saying anyone should have the guaranteed ability to host anything. If people do not want to play an unconventional save, they have the option of leaving that lobby or they have the option of repicking once it starts.

As much as you like to drag in what happens in Discord and the lobby into conversations, none of it matters. What matters is what occurs once the game has started.

Intent matters. That just doesn't go away because you are showing your intent outside of the game. If a person is willing to announce their intent, that information should be admissible and a contributing factor in the determination of any punishment that is issued. This is not a foreign concept as people who have circumvented bans by creating smurfs who have admitted that they are smurfs in lobbies has had that information used against them, and rightfully so.

[Renegade]

Everyone should be permitted the opportunity to host their own creations, otherwise why give the option to make unique saves in the first place? If a person makes an effort to tell everyone in a lobby that they are planning on hosting an unconventional save, and the people stay, why should one person who doesn't have the "sense" to create their own lobby ruin it for those people?

Why? Why is anyone entitled to host a save? Especially folks like you and Law who are so hellbent on constantly hosting your saves and begging to get repicked?

You realize that is part of the problem, right? You and Law and this inflated ego that your saves are something special. 2 NK and a judge is special, but not for the reason you think.

[Etienne]

Why? Why is anyone entitled to host a save? Especially folks like you and Law who are so hellbent on constantly hosting your saves and begging to get repicked?

You realize that is part of the problem, right? You and Law and this inflated ego that your saves are something special. 2 NK and a judge is special, but not for the reason you think.

You're so dead set in your position that you aren't reading what I am saying.

Everyone should be permitted the opportunity to host their own creations

If a person, for example, wants to host a save in which there is the likelihood of becoming a stump, and creates a lobby for that specific purpose, and warns everyone that there will be an excess of bus drivers and auditors, and they agree to stay. That person does have a right to set that up. You seem only to care about yourself and your own wants and needs that you refuse to even entertain anything else.

[Renegade]

You're so dead set in your position that you aren't reading what I am saying.



If a person, for example, wants to host a save in which there is the likelihood of becoming a stump, and creates a lobby for that specific purpose, and warns everyone that there will be an excess of bus drivers and auditors, and they agree to stay. That person does have a right to set that up. You seem only to care about yourself and your own wants and needs that you refuse to even entertain anything else.

Warning people is not sufficient excuse to host your unbalanced saves, Law's hacked saves, or a stump/scumbag save. Most people don't even read the lobby chat.

[Etienne]

Warning people is not sufficient excuse to host your unbalanced saves, Law's hacked saves, or a stump/scumbag save. Most people don't even read the lobby chat.

Again you are so blinded by your desire to disagree that you simply have not read anything I wrote and therefore, I don't see that we can have a constructive conversation until you do.

Of course, intent wouldn’t be applicable to “illegal saves” such as those that are hacked or forced through via the quick-start exploit.

[Exeter350]

I believe that there is a solution that benefits everyone. You’ve made some valid points about hacked saves and the quick-start exploit. First and foremost, there should be no punishment for anyone who leaves a save for those reasons. I think that’s something that we all can agree on and would not result in an excess workload for staff.

Yup, agreed.

Now, I would like to address your point on judgement. Who decides what is a “bad” save? I think that after years of playing this mod there are some saves we can all agree are bad. The example you gave about witches and vigilantes is one. Taking this example, we can sort of create a blueprint for a “bad save”; which I will attempt to define:

A bad save is a save that exists to be chaotic, or exists for the sole purpose of farming for a particular achievement. Any save that relies solely on guesswork, and not teamwork and coordination as facilitated by a variety of roles.

I think this definition is still quite subjective. How do we determine if a setup is chaotic, or that it's intended to be? Furthermore, by the underlined statement, this means that 12 Citizens 3 Mafiosos would constitute as a bad setup, since it relies on guesswork ("reads") without any mechanism for confirmation ("leads"). However, Citizens vs Mafiosos is a valid basic setup in the IRL party game and on FM.

I agree with the intention to define it, but I'm not sure we can realistically come up with a good, all-encompassing definition.

With “bad save” defined, I believe that intent should also be factored. For example, I believe that if a host makes an effort to warn people about their save while in the lobby, and people still choose to stay, and the host was not repicked, that host has a right to test out their save.

Informing and persuading the lobby beforehand is a good approach to hosting unconventional setups. It's a good people management skill.

However, I don't think it should be used as a justification for whether a host has the "right" to host an unconventional setup or not, in the context of reports.

To paraphrase Ren's points:
(1) Lobby leaders are not guaranteed the ability to host their own saves, they can still be repicked in game
(2) Players who stay in a lobby do not necessarily consent to the leader's setup, because of point #1
(3) Reports are usually only processed based on in-game events, so what happens in the lobby cannot be considered in reports (e.g. when establishing intent to host "bad" setups)
There are exceptions to this rule, as you pointed out, but those are quite specific cases (e.g. identifying a smurf).

I also want to add that, realistically:
(4) Players may not see the lobby chat, as they might be alt-tabbed while waiting for a match to start
(5) Players in a lobby come and go. The players that the host informs may not be the players that the match starts with

Let's say lobby chat screenshots are accepted as evidence. How far back must you screenshot? From the start of the lobby? The SC2 chat log cuts off at a certain point, and doesn't include timestamps. Does this mean we need to screenshot every lobby on the off chance that evidence is required later?

I don't think it's realistic. This is one of the reasons why reports are constrained to replays iirc, because they are automatically saved and have all the details from start to end.

That said, if a person simply leaves a save and does not provide any indication as to why, no “intent” can be determined and that person should not be penalized because they could be leaving for any number of reasons. In such instances, a number of replays should be required that shows a pattern of leaving games – which is another issue altogether, and not necessarily related to “bad saves”.

Agreed. I believe this is the current thought process for leaving games halfway and afk-dying. Isolated cases are not punished, established trends are.

[BusterCannon]

Oh yeah. Also, The two triad two mafia saves have GOT to stop. I will leave if someone hosts this save because it is imbalanced and I refuse to play it. I stand together with Renegade against the crap saves.

[Renegade]

Oh yeah. Also, The two triad two mafia saves have GOT to stop. I will leave if someone hosts this save because it is imbalanced and I refuse to play it. I stand together with Renegade against the crap saves.

While I was not initially a fan of the two triad two mafia saves, I have found over time they are actually pretty balanced. Sure both the mafia and triad themselves are weaker than they would be in an 8331, I still find them pretty balanced overall. They tend to run longer than a typical game however. Usually ending around D7 or D8.

[Etienne]

I think this definition is still quite subjective. How do we determine if a setup is chaotic, or that it's intended to be? Furthermore, by the underlined statement, this means that 12 Citizens 3 Mafiosos would constitute as a bad setup, since it relies on guesswork ("reads") without any mechanism for confirmation ("leads"). However, Citizens vs Mafiosos is a valid basic setup in the IRL party game and on FM.

It's subjective in the sense that there might be a handful of people who think “guesswork” is a valid way of playing a game, but I believe it goes against the spirit of the mod. There are roles in the game for a reason. I believe the developer’s intent is for the player to use a variety of different roles to meet the win condition. Otherwise, the game becomes one big random fest, where people are randomed up for lynching based on no evidence at all.

I think most of us can agree that these kinds of saves can be considered a bad save, and if anyone thinks that witches and vigilantes or mafia vs citizens is a good save, they can certainly argue that. I would like to hear their reasoning behind it.

I agree with the intention to define it, but I'm not sure we can realistically come up with a good, all-encompassing definition.

Perhaps not, but we can develop a framework that covers the vast majority of situations. I don’t see many people leaving saves that may have one or two bad settings. I see people leaving saves that has Jesters vs MMs vs Veterans.

Informing and persuading the lobby beforehand is a good approach to hosting unconventional setups. It's a good people management skill.

However, I don't think it should be used as a justification for whether a host has the "right" to host an unconventional setup or not, in the context of reports.

I don’t disagree. I don’t believe anyone has a “right” to host the save they want. Whether that be someone who wants a conventional save or someone who wants to try something a little different. What I said was that everyone should have the “opportunity” to host their own creations.

As for statement on the context of reports, I believe that intent should be heavily considered when making a determination on these reports. People sometimes don’t read what’s in the lobby and might not know. In that case, you can’t fault them just like you can’t fault someone who leaves a game because IRL stuff comes up – there is no “intent”. It would be up to the person filing the report to provide evidence of intent.

For example, if a person joins a lobby and then spams that the save is bad and that the host should be repicked when the game starts and then when the host is not repicked, that person leaves, the host is able to establish intent.

To paraphrase Ren's points:
(3) Reports are usually only processed based on in-game events, so what happens in the lobby cannot be considered in reports (e.g. when establishing intent to host "bad" setups)
There are exceptions to this rule, as you pointed out, but those are quite specific cases (e.g. identifying a smurf).

There are exceptions, and this can be a new one. Why not make exceptions that make the game better?

Let's say lobby chat screenshots are accepted as evidence. How far back must you screenshot? From the start of the lobby? The SC2 chat log cuts off at a certain point, and doesn't include timestamps. Does this mean we need to screenshot every lobby on the off chance that evidence is required later?

As far back as is needed to establish intent. You see, the onus is on the person filing the report, not the person processing the report. If there is no sufficient evidence provided to establish intent, the report can be closed without any effort. The burden is on the person filing the report. This means, only people who have the proven intent to leave a game before they join it will be held accountable.

It's as simple as this:

If someone hosts an unconventional save and make the effort to warn people beforehand, then yes if they intend to report people who leave then it is their responsibility to build a file on that person and collect the evidence. This would significantly reduce the burden of the staff to do any kind of research. All staff would have to do is look at the setup, determine if it is a “bad” or “illegal”. If it is an “illegal” save, then the case is thrown out and the person doing the reporting is the one who is actually punished. If the save is “bad”, but no sufficient evidence is provided to determine “intent” then the case is thrown out. If the case is neither “bad” or “illegal”, but no evidence for “intent” is provided then the case is thrown out unless the reporter can show a pattern by providing several replays in which the person is leaving saves, which I believe is another issue altogether and not necessarily related to “bad” saves.

[Renegade]

It's subjective in the sense that there might be a handful of people who think “guesswork” is a valid way of playing a game, but I believe it goes against the spirit of the mod. There are roles in the game for a reason. I believe the developer’s intent is for the player to use a variety of different roles to meet the win condition. Otherwise, the game becomes one big random fest, where people are randomed up for lynching based on no evidence at all.

I think most of us can agree that these kinds of saves can be considered a bad save, and if anyone thinks that witches and vigilantes or mafia vs citizens is a good save, they can certainly argue that. I would like to hear their reasoning behind it.

Some thoughts:

Sometimes randoming, and seeing how people vote, who voted up who, etc, is a method in and of itself for creating and identifying evidence.

How many times have you seen someone randomed, innod with a handful of guilty votes, then one of the guilty voters immediately voted up? Whether that guilty voter flips town or scum can provide a lot of info alone.

I do appreciate the notion that saves that become casinos of RNG to win are more likely to be bad than not, however it is still not an objective measure.

What about "normal" appearing saves that are actually rotten to the core? Let's take WakWaks save for example. Wakwak has an 8331 but the 3 neutrals are 1 neut killing and 2 neutral randoms. He jacks up the probability that a jester spawns SO HIGH that I've seen it happen several times where 2 if not 3 jesters spawn.

By my standards, this is a terrible save. It hides crucial information and is a "sleeper" shit save. How can town, let alone a gov, manage to do anything when 2 or 3 people are trying their best to get lynched?

This is similar to your own save. You allow up to 2 NK on top of a judge to spawn in your save. That kind of neutral evil domination completely destroys towns. You hide and disguise the nature of your save via settings that players are unlikely to see.

I do not believe there is any way to create a single definition of a bad save, but I'd argue you can apply some tests. One such test I proposed is "can town win on their own merits without evils killing evils?" and Law's infamous 9v3mafv3triad save absolutely fails that test.

[Etienne]

Some thoughts:

Sometimes randoming, and seeing how people vote, who voted up who, etc, is a method in and of itself for creating and identifying evidence.

How many times have you seen someone randomed, innod with a handful of guilty votes, then one of the guilty voters immediately voted up? Whether that guilty voter flips town or scum can provide a lot of info alone.

True but when randoming becomes to sole means by which you obtain information, and achieve your win condition, that is a problem. Or are you arguing in favor of saves full of witches and vigilantes?

I do appreciate the notion that saves that become casinos of RNG to win are more likely to be bad than not, however it is still not an objective measure.

What about "normal" appearing saves that are actually rotten to the core? Let's take WakWaks save for example. Wakwak has an 8331 but the 3 neutrals are 1 neut killing and 2 neutral randoms. He jacks up the probability that a jester spawns SO HIGH that I've seen it happen several times where 2 if not 3 jesters spawn.

By my standards, this is a terrible save. It hides crucial information and is a "sleeper" shit save. How can town, let alone a gov, manage to do anything when 2 or 3 people are trying their best to get lynched?

For those saves, use the tools that are available to you to prevail. Does the save have detectives and investigators and escorts and what not? Use them and adapt your gameplay for the possibility of a few Jesters.

This is similar to your own save. You allow up to 2 NK on top of a judge to spawn in your save. That kind of neutral evil domination completely destroys towns. You hide and disguise the nature of your save via settings that players are unlikely to see.

It has been my experience in the months that I have hosted that save, that when there are 2 NKs (which doesn't happen often), town actually wins more often than not. This could be for a number of different reasons. NKs killing Mafia is one reason. Another reason could be that the confirmed NK slot can only be a delayed killer such as an Arsonist or Poisoner. I like to think though, that the reason is that neutral evils are more dangerous to town than a 2nd neutral killer, because they aren't diametrically opposed to mafia the way neutral killers are, so there is less of an opportunity of evils teaming up to win.

I do not believe there is any way to create a single definition of a bad save, but I'd argue you can apply some tests. One such test I proposed is "can town win on their own merits without evils killing evils?" and Law's infamous 9v3mafv3triad save absolutely fails that test.

I feel the definition I've provided is applicable to the majority of bad saves, without creeping into territory of "subjectivity". Saves with mass jesters or vigilantes or veterans or mass murderers, that relies solely on random voting to get your win condition, OR are set up in such a way that the primary objective is to get an achievement and not your win condition, is something the majority of people can agree are "bad" saves.

[Stealthbomber16]

outdated quotes, arguments, etc.

the repick system exists to let people repick shitty saves

there is currently a glitch/exploit that lets host bypass the normal repick time to start their saves early (which you use).

The solution is that frinckles will be patching the glitch soon

isn’t this malicious bug abuse which falls under griefing

[Drizzt]

When you quit a game that you entered into with 14 other players prematurely, you are saying "My voice and my participation is greater than yours." It is poor sportsmanship, if this was a fencing match I would black card the person, because it is the antithesis of community gaming. Maybe you do not want to play, but maybe some guy/gal who just got off work or is trying to find some happiness for 30 min, maybe they want to play the "shit" save. I don't know, but when you quit, repeatedly and dramatically, you are taking the choice from them, and then its becomes about you, and what you want.

[Renegade]

The antithesis of community gaming is accepting no criticism of a save, serially hosting lobbies, and when you aren't host start begging to get the save, and finally ensuring you can't be repicked by abusing a glitch to get your hacked save through.

The antithesis of community gaming is created saves that have no concept of balance.

I choose to not support glitch abusers and those that spread hacked saves.

[Brendan]

Wow, that’s a lot of text!

[Etienne]

When you quit a game that you entered into with 14 other players prematurely, you are saying "My voice and my participation is greater than yours." It is poor sportsmanship, if this was a fencing match I would black card the person, because it is the antithesis of community gaming. Maybe you do not want to play, but maybe some guy/gal who just got off work or is trying to find some happiness for 30 min, maybe they want to play the "shit" save. I don't know, but when you quit, repeatedly and dramatically, you are taking the choice from them, and then its becomes about you, and what you want.

I completely agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, there are some people who only care about themselves, which is why I made this topic. Still waiting on some actual feedback from anyone in the position to process these reports. So far, one Admin responded with the lie that I abuse the quick-start glitch, but didn't post anything constructive.

[Etienne]

I choose to not support glitch abusers and those that spread hacked saves.

This is irrelevant given the fact that the save at the center of my post was not hacked, or glitched. I, too, spoke out against Hacked and Illegal saves.

Stop trying to mislead people.

[Renegade]

Players are free to stay if they feel the save is balanced. It is the responsibility of the host to demonstrate that their save is balanced. If someone leaves their save it is the host's fault for poor save design or explanation. The further the host strays from the conventional norm, the more likely people are to leave and more likely the host will get reported for griefing.

Hosts have too much power. If they decide to host a save that is so unbalanced that people feel the need to leave, the host should be punished.

[minnorobot]

Players are free to stay if they feel the save is balanced. It is the responsibility of the host to demonstrate that their save is balanced. If someone leaves their save it is the host's fault for poor save design or explanation. The further the host strays from the conventional norm, the more likely people are to leave and more likely the host will get reported for griefing.

Hosts have too much power. If they decide to host a save that is so unbalanced that people feel the need to leave, the host should be punished.

You should not be able to be punished for what people "feel" about your save, unless it is obviously meant to be a troll with no real other possible explanation. 14 cult vs 1 sheriff would obviously count as troll, but a save that is merely different from the norm should not count as griefing. You are free to leave a save if you do not like it, or even just don't feel like playing the match after loading in after all. However, if you try to incite others to leave, now it is you who are breaking the rules by inciting a leave train.

[SuperJack]

Wow, that’s a lot of text!

[Helz]

I see two separate issues here. What happened and how to moderate.

As to what happened Etienne and Renegade both have valid positions. While Etienne can claim Renegade should have stayed in spite of not liking the save Renegade can claim Etienne should use a save the community likes. Both are speaking in terms of being considerate to the community and both appear to have acted in good faith.
What is a balanced save? Its subjective and I would say SC2 has taken a position that we do not balance for what is balanced but instead balance for how a save is used a very long time ago.
What is acceptable behavior for an individual? We also took a stance a long time ago that the intention behind the action defines if it should be punished- so a bad faith attempt to destroy a game by leaving or a bad faith attempt to create a troll save would qualify.
Unless something changed sense I stepped back there is little punishable action in either of these positions past one side left with prior intention to do so and the other side forced a quick start exploiting a glitch to force players to play a setup they may have otherwise democratically voted not to. Both players are right and wrong imo with very limited precedence for punishment.

To moderation a strong standing position has existed that rules get created/modified to ensure the best community experience. A change could be made either way but they are also much more impactful in the community that now exists from the 5-10k or so players we had at one time. In a community of a few hundred active players overall the best solution (imo) would be the patch to prevent the glich and simple human communication to resolve a difference of opinion. With multiple save slots existing I feel like there is something both players could agree to enjoy together in a game this complex.

[Drizzt]

I see two separate issues here. What happened and how to moderate.

As to what happened Etienne and Renegade both have valid positions. While Etienne can claim Renegade should have stayed in spite of not liking the save Renegade can claim Etienne should use a save the community likes. Both are speaking in terms of being considerate to the community and both appear to have acted in good faith.
What is a balanced save? Its subjective and I would say SC2 has taken a position that we do not balance for what is balanced but instead balance for how a save is used a very long time ago.
What is acceptable behavior for an individual? We also took a stance a long time ago that the intention behind the action defines if it should be punished- so a bad faith attempt to destroy a game by leaving or a bad faith attempt to create a troll save would qualify.
Unless something changed sense I stepped back there is little punishable action in either of these positions past one side left with prior intention to do so and the other side forced a quick start exploiting a glitch to force players to play a setup they may have otherwise democratically voted not to. Both players are right and wrong imo with very limited precedence for punishment.

To moderation a strong standing position has existed that rules get created/modified to ensure the best community experience. A change could be made either way but they are also much more impactful in the community that now exists from the 5-10k or so players we had at one time. In a community of a few hundred active players overall the best solution (imo) would be the patch to prevent the glich and simple human communication to resolve a difference of opinion. With multiple save slots existing I feel like there is something both players could agree to enjoy together in a game this complex.

I agree with Helz, but I would like to add something related to quitting. If you have a player routinely using troll saves, troll saves are defined as saves meant to piss people off only, then report the player for griefing, in my opinion. I am not sure we punish pushing troll saves, but simply quitting, and I am not talking about occasionally quitting which we all do, but players who routinely quit games in which they knew the host was likely to use had their chance in the blizzard lobby not to play. Start a new lobby. Otherwise, you have the option to suicide day three, and the expectation is that everyone who joins the lobby and enters the game is agreeing to play mafia. If you have a problem with a host, do not join the lobby, because the rest of the lobby may not have your subjective opinion of the host, and quitting hurts them as much as the host.