Search:

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;879100]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]

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;879101]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]

[QUOTE=Voss;879102]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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

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.

[QUOTE=Voss;876741]"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]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Voss;876703]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.[/QUOTE]
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=rumox;876706]I think basing a read entirely on activity is bad, but supplementing reads with it is fair.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=secondpassing;876698]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.