"Who is Online" function and its relation with FM and general forum health

There has been talks, both in the community and among staff, about the "Who is Online" function, mainly because of FM: people being called out because they're on the thread without posting while they simply left the tab open, people being suspected for using invisible mode, people using "activity tells", etc. What do you think should be done about this?

Points that have already been made:

- Removing the function entirely would hurt the forum's activity and "living" feeling.

- Invisible mode being the default would be less damaging for the forum's activity than the complete removal of the function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

There has been talks, both in the community and among staff, about the "Who is Online" function, mainly because of FM: people being called out because they're on the thread without posting while they simply left the tab open, people being suspected for using invisible mode, people using "activity tells", etc. What do you think should be done about this?

---

Hmmm.

First Idea: I think discussion of "Who is Online" activity should be somehow out-ruled.

Firstly, it makes a poor argument or basis for an argument IMO since there's already a tolerance or acceptance in the FM community that people have IRL stuff to deal with and therefore might not post later in a day phase or have to post only early in a day phase. I feel that any argument using "being online" & "viewing this page" activity as a basis conflicts with this tolerance of IRL influences that have nothing to do with the game, such as leaving the tab on.

Also, I feel its an unfair determination that (either intentionally or unintentionally) presents a sort of bias against those who aren't clandestine when they view the forum and those who are. The point being, if you accuse one person based on being "online" and viewing the page; while someone else (that is part of the game) is posing as a guest through (for example) Chrome's Incognito mode and otherwise doing the exact same thing, then you would accuse one person without being aware that you could have or would accused another person of the same if you had knew they were online too.

Secondly, with that information sometimes you can COM hunt in anonymous games by analyzing when certain accounts are online or not at what times over a section of time -- not that matters too much since COM hunting is often (if not always) banned in anonymous games.

I have another idea, though I don't know if its feasible or not since I've never developed a website:

Maybe for FM game pages, you de-facto hide all online accounts / remove the "viewing this page" feature. And on the main/home page, hide all anonymous account online statuses (Because if you did only the previous statement, that wouldn't prevent people in Anon games from looking on the main web page to see which Anon accounts are online).


EDIT: I was typing this reply before MM put up or added the poll to this thread

I doubt forbidding people from using activity as a scumtell is the solution here. That would restrict the players' freedom too much. Plus, there would be grey zones and acceptable behaviors that would be inevitably covered by such a rule, making its application too subjective and restrictive (or making it impossible to apply correctly). For example, if someone replies to a lot of things but ignores a question you've asked them several times, it's perfectly legitimate and correct to scumread them over it (or at least it's perfectly understandable that one would scumread them over it). The solution is to change the meta with the consent of the players, not to create new strongly restrictive rules imo. Hence why there's a poll thread here for the community to speak up on the topic.
As for com-hunting, you're right, but I'd say the disadvantages of adding that rule outmatch the benefits. Plus, those who already do that would just continue com-hunting silently because we can't get in their minds to stop them if they don't want to.

About anonymous accounts, it's true that they could all be invisible mode if the Host wants it. That's a way to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I doubt forbidding people from using activity as a scumtell is the solution here. That would restrict the players' freedom too much. Plus, there would be grey zones and acceptable behaviors that would be inevitably covered by such a rule, making its application too subjective and restrictive (or making it impossible to apply correctly). For example, if someone replies to a lot of things but ignores a question you've asked them several times, it's perfectly legitimate and correct to scumread them over it (or at least it's perfectly understandable that one would scumread them over it). The solution is to change the meta with the consent of the players, not to create new strongly restrictive rules imo. Hence why there's a poll thread here for the community to speak up on the topic.
As for com-hunting, you're right, but I'd say the disadvantages of adding that rule outmatch the benefits. Plus, those who already do that would just continue com-hunting silently because we can't get in their minds to stop them if they don't want to.

About anonymous accounts, it's true that they could all be invisible mode if the Host wants it. That's a way to explore.

---

I agree with everything said here. The who is online feature allows for other interactions that are not FM related, such as for anticipating who might read your thread or who might reply to a post you put in a debate thread. If hosts want more anonymity, I would hope there is a way to make everyone invisible, but otherwise seeing who is online and calling them out for it seems to be part of forum and forum mafia life.

As for invisible mode being the default, no I don't think it would be good. People can opt for invisible mode any time they want, but normally to talk to someone you see them face-to-face anyway. Having everyone be on invisible mode is like signing up for ads to come through the mail. I'm generally against invisible mode.

inb4 Voss calls me out :D

I deleted my long post on this because I didn't want to drag myself into it. But I was called out.

Using "player/host freedom" as an argument for needing to know "Who's currently browsing the thread" to call people out as scum, poisons the freedom principle that the fm staff have prided themselves on maintaining here at sc2mafia.

I guess I can get behind that it's useful if you want to have Real Time conversations. But a line is crossed when you start saying "Oh I saw playerX browsing, but they're not responding to anything. hur dur, they're confirmed scum". If there was some way for our community to turn away from this, I'd be very happy. Like some sort of opposite stance rather than the fm staff defending it "for freedom". Then, I couldn't care less if we had invisible mode on or off.

I did vote for removing it in another poll, but am going to take the "old man, get off my lawn" stance and say that we need a community mentality change, and not a technological change.

Invisible default - big no.
FM section who is online - apparently 'who is reading' cannot be disabled for specific threads/sub-forums so that sucks. my ideal version is having hosts decide if they want it for their game and @ staff to flip it off/on.




Also, I think hosts should specify if they want invisible mode allowed/disallowed in their games. I use invisible mode and I have always supplemented my reads based on thread activity. This is admittingly a unfair advantage I am exploiting.

Example - I said something scummy and wanted to see who reads it and/or calls me out. 3 people read it, only the town person called me out. This complimented my initial read of the 2 other slots who let my scummyness slide in the moment for others to pounce on and draw attention to.

I think basing a read entirely on activity is bad, but supplementing reads with it is fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secondpassing

I agree with everything said here. The who is online feature allows for other interactions that are not FM related, such as for anticipating who might read your thread or who might reply to a post you put in a debate thread. If hosts want more anonymity, I would hope there is a way to make everyone invisible, but otherwise seeing who is online and calling them out for it seems to be part of forum and forum mafia life.

As for invisible mode being the default, no I don't think it would be good. People can opt for invisible mode any time they want, but normally to talk to someone you see them face-to-face anyway. Having everyone be on invisible mode is like signing up for ads to come through the mail. I'm generally against invisible mode.

---

Hmmm, fair point about making invisible mode the default. I think it really needs to be a "site meta change" and not a "technological change", as Voss said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

Using "player/host freedom" as an argument for needing to know "Who's currently browsing the thread" to call people out as scum, poisons the freedom principle that the fm staff have prided themselves on maintaining here at sc2mafia.

I guess I can get behind that it's useful if you want to have Real Time conversations. But a line is crossed when you start saying "Oh I saw playerX browsing, but they're not responding to anything. hur dur, they're confirmed scum". If there was some way for our community to turn away from this, I'd be very happy. Like some sort of opposite stance rather than the fm staff defending it "for freedom". Then, I couldn't care less if we had invisible mode on or off.

---

How does it poison that principle? It's letting people play like they want to play without offending or cheating, which is pretty normal. And I think Secondpassing convinced me: if people thought it were an issue, they would be using invisible mode by themselves. As for your "Oh I saw playerX browsing" argument, well, that's bad play, and pushing such a narrative could very well be seen as scummy by other players (because it 100 % is reaching). That's where the mentality change kicks in.

As for "another point of view than the FM staff's", that's why this thread exists! If anyone has other views on the topic, they are more than welcome to share them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

I think basing a read entirely on activity is bad, but supplementing reads with it is fair.

---

Exactly. It's bad play to base it completely on it, but it's definetly bad to remove the possibility to do it entirely, both for freedom and for game quality. As I said, that's where the mentality change kicks in: if nobody bases reads solely on activity or basically erases everything someone did because they went AFK for a long time anymore, the problem is at least partially solved (and I think it's the biggest part of the problem).

I have added the choice "A mentality change is necessary on the topic of activity in FM games.", but that messed with votes, apparently, so if your vote is in a weird place, that's why. Note that you may pick multiple choices in the poll if you want to.

"Can we add a default on feature that publicly allows a player to see when other players have read their role pms? Or when they pm the host? Not the contents of course, but just the meta data on them pming the host. It's infringing on my player rights to not know this metadata!"

I was struggling to come up with a good example last night on similar features that (I think) we'd all agree that we don't want in our forum mafia games but I think those two would be it. I would love to see the "creative freedom" for hosts and players to not extend into arbitrary forum mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

I deleted my long post on this because I didn't want to drag myself into it. But I was called out.

---

Heh, sorry. Figured you might have said something from seeing a reply whilst I was invisible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

"Can we add a default on feature that publicly allows a player to see when other players have read their role pms? Or when they pm the host? Not the contents of course, but just the meta data on them pming the host. It's infringing on my player rights to not know this metadata!"

I was struggling to come up with a good example last night on similar features that (I think) we'd all agree that we don't want in our forum mafia games but I think those two would be it. I would love to see the "creative freedom" for hosts and players to not extend into arbitrary forum mechanics.

---

Totally agree with this here, though I would understand why someone would say the first one. Players want to be able to scumhunt, which would be impossible to do if the other person didn't read their role card. Easy solution is just to encourage hosts to use the read receipt.. which is between players and their host and not the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secondpassing

Heh, sorry. Figured you might have said something from seeing a reply whilst I was invisible.



Totally agree with this here, though I would understand why someone would say the first one. Players want to be able to scumhunt, which would be impossible to do if the other person didn't read their role card. Easy solution is just to encourage hosts to use the read receipt.. which is between players and their host and not the forum.

---

my example becomes a bit more unreasonable when I clarify it's everytime the rolecard pm is read is logged and public knowledge. not just the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

my example becomes a bit more unreasonable when I clarify it's everytime the rolecard pm is read is logged and public knowledge. not just the first time.

---

even more so when i read my PMs via email and don't need to bother logging in P:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

"Can we add a default on feature that publicly allows a player to see when other players have read their role pms? Or when they pm the host? Not the contents of course, but just the meta data on them pming the host. It's infringing on my player rights to not know this metadata!"

I was struggling to come up with a good example last night on similar features that (I think) we'd all agree that we don't want in our forum mafia games but I think those two would be it. I would love to see the "creative freedom" for hosts and players to not extend into arbitrary forum mechanics.

---

If the "who is online" function didn't exist in our meta and in a lot of other mafia communities', you'd be right, it's not a "player right". But since it has been incorporated in Sc2 Mafia's meta and in playstyles, it cannot simply be taken away, because it has become a right. Calling it a privilege may be more accurate, but the same reasoning applies.

kewl I don't have to do anything :)

Okay, we settled on leaving it as it is, but I had another question now that I'd like to ask:

Should I disable invisible mode? As rumox had mentioned, it seems unfair for some people to be invisible while others are not.

Those players can see when others are online but others cannot see when they are online.

Of course, anybody can log out/go incognito and lurk the thread, but if you're not logged in you cannot post/vote.

The most recent FM (instant mafia) would be an example of where mafia gets a huge advantage if they are both in invisible mode, as they can instant vote after a towny that thinks he's all alone votes.

This kind of advantage was the main reason i was even considering removing the online status feature in the first place. People ultimately like seeing who is on the site so that is staying. So the alternative is to take away invisible mode if you guys agree. Or we can just leave it as it is, IDC i am just offering possible changes!



Edit: i reset the poll as well

Edit 2:
Even if invisible mode was disabled, you could still lurk by opening an incognito window/logging out. But the main difference is you could not lurk whilst also being able to instantly vote somebody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

Okay, we settled on leaving it as it is, but I had another question now that I'd like to ask:

Should I disable invisible mode? As rumox had mentioned, it seems unfair for some people to be invisible while others are not.

Those players can see when others are online but others cannot see when they are online.

Of course, anybody can log out/go incognito and lurk the thread, but if you're not logged in you cannot post/vote.

The most recent FM (instant mafia) would be an example of where mafia gets a huge advantage if they are both in invisible mode, as they can instant vote after a towny that thinks he's all alone votes.

This kind of advantage was the main reason i was even considering removing the online status feature in the first place. People ultimately like seeing who is on the site so that is staying. So the alternative is to take away invisible mode if you guys agree. Or we can just leave it as it is, IDC i am just offering possible changes!



Edit: i reset the poll as well

Edit 2:
Even if invisible mode was disabled, you could still lurk by opening an incognito window/logging out. But the main difference is you could not lurk whilst also being able to instantly vote somebody

---

Anyone can enable invisible mode. Its not an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use it

If it were up to me, invisible mode would be the default for all accounts.

Making a serious argument/read based off of whos online is dumb anyway. What if I wanna read with my posts per page setting which is different from the default but dont have the energy to respond to the thread in the meantime?

Taking away invisible mode would encourage people staying away from the game thread, as some may only choose to catch up when they know they have a lot of time.

Dont fix what isnt broken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

The most recent FM (instant mafia) would be an example of where mafia gets a huge advantage if they are both in invisible mode, as they can instant vote after a towny that thinks he's all alone votes.

---

there are two solutions to this, one even better than the other.

don't play with hammer voting.

use a better vote system like bird vote.

PLAYERS OF SC2MAFIA. DEMAND BETTER OF YOUR HOSTS.

i'll retreat to my white padded room now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

there are two solutions to this, one even better than the other.

don't play with hammer voting.

use a better vote system like bird vote.

PLAYERS OF SC2MAFIA. DEMAND BETTER OF YOUR HOSTS.

---

Or, you know, don't blame a town putting a player at L-2 in a one night LYLO game on invisible mode, but rather on the players? lol

nothing wrong with hammer voting
people just ought to be more careful in LyLo situations
anyway, ‘who is online’ should be disabled by default in FM. I believe this is already the case with anon accounts

Also, on the subject of forbidding discussion of who is online, we should always try to prevent something by making it impossible to do rather than by making it illegal to discuss - even if you were to make it illegal for players to discuss certain things, they can certainly still consider them when making a read.

hence why you’re not completely eliminating it - you are just restricting people’s ability to discuss, which is, in my experience, almost universally a bad idea

Honestly you see this in MU. In MU it is illegal to discuss the reasons for a player’s replacement - which honestly I disagree with. just picture a scenario where someone quits after having been repeatedly insulted - it is very easy to formulate a read on them based off of that quit and to make a case for their towniness (since scum generally have thicker skin when it comes to personal insults). you cannot remove it from gameplay by banning discussion about it - and honestly, why should you?

the only thing I agree with it is the rule against ragequitting, and that’s because it hurts the integrity of the game (it’s toxic - it can cause a leave train or make the game less fun for other players)

TL;DR restricting people’s speech is almost always a bad idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

Okay, we settled on leaving it as it is, but I had another question now that I'd like to ask:

Should I disable invisible mode? As rumox had mentioned, it seems unfair for some people to be invisible while others are not.

Those players can see when others are online but others cannot see when they are online.

Of course, anybody can log out/go incognito and lurk the thread, but if you're not logged in you cannot post/vote.

The most recent FM (instant mafia) would be an example of where mafia gets a huge advantage if they are both in invisible mode, as they can instant vote after a towny that thinks he's all alone votes.

This kind of advantage was the main reason i was even considering removing the online status feature in the first place. People ultimately like seeing who is on the site so that is staying. So the alternative is to take away invisible mode if you guys agree. Or we can just leave it as it is, IDC i am just offering possible changes!



Edit: i reset the poll as well

Edit 2:
Even if invisible mode was disabled, you could still lurk by opening an incognito window/logging out. But the main difference is you could not lurk whilst also being able to instantly vote somebody

---

either enforce it or completely disable it

honestly enforcing invisimode doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea
we could do this by making throwaway special FM accounts that players get to pick names for (like in the mod) and that have invisible mode on by default and making it a rule to keep invisimode on at all times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Invisible default - big no.
FM section who is online - apparently 'who is reading' cannot be disabled for specific threads/sub-forums so that sucks. my ideal version is having hosts decide if they want it for their game and @ staff to flip it off/on.




Also, I think hosts should specify if they want invisible mode allowed/disallowed in their games. I use invisible mode and I have always supplemented my reads based on thread activity. This is admittingly a unfair advantage I am exploiting.

Example - I said something scummy and wanted to see who reads it and/or calls me out. 3 people read it, only the town person called me out. This complimented my initial read of the 2 other slots who let my scummyness slide in the moment for others to pounce on and draw attention to.

---

this is probably much better than enforcing it for all games
let hosts choose if they want to enforce it
tbh personally I will start enforcing it
but lets not force change through yet

As you can no doubt tell, I have no great love for MU and their policies on what constitutes valid gameplay. I think MU is a bad example and that they made many questionable decisions, although I personally agree with the idea of disabling ‘who is online’ in FM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Anyone can enable invisible mode. Its not an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use it

If it were up to me, invisible mode would be the default for all accounts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Making a serious argument/read based off of whos online is dumb anyway. What if I wanna read with my posts per page setting which is different from the default but dont have the energy to respond to the thread in the meantime?

Taking away invisible mode would encourage people staying away from the game thread, as some may only choose to catch up when they know they have a lot of time.

Dont fix what isnt broken

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

there are two solutions to this, one even better than the other.

don't play with hammer voting.

use a better vote system like bird vote.

PLAYERS OF SC2MAFIA. DEMAND BETTER OF YOUR HOSTS.

---

I agree with Banana and Voss here. Let players and hosts choose what they want to choose. Convince them, but don't force them, for there is no need to force them. It doesn't hurt game integrity.