[QUOTE=Helz;1009088]
Where would you guys land on the subject and what other issues do you feel like cross that boundary? I could probably rattle off quite a few other concepts I struggled with this line but at the end of the day I even question where community management should land on the issue. Should we focus on individuals creating a good experience for themselves or should we focus on a larger amount of people having a good experience? Basic function of hedonism vs utilitarianism there but as an approach for moderators and community managers its an interesting concept..[/QUOTE]
My personal life philosophy, which I tend to apply to a lot of things nowadays internally, is to live as meaningfully as I can. Without diving into it, its basically a principle that sometimes has forever-shifting objectives [SIZE=1](sidenote: this is also its biggest flaw -- something that is contrary/contrarian has meaning and this can easily be extended is a very meta way)[/SIZE] but in practice for me has often followed thoughts that I think people would say are aligned with utilitarianism but isn't married to it.
[QUOTE=Helz;1017268]For giggles; other questionable strats:
Crunching other game history data to identify idiosyncratic patterns in a current game [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Never really felt there was any ethical "wrongness" with it.[/COLOR]
Breaking down sociometric patterns to identify interaction patterns in a current game [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Same as above.[/COLOR]
Eliciting emotions to draw reads [COLOR="#FFA07A"]grey area -- what emotions to elicit and how are they elicited? The "what" could be okay but not the "how" and vice versa and etc.[/COLOR]
Leveraging empathy in oog claims (like your grandma is sick or w/e) for in game reasons [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Don't think its questionable unless you're talking about situations where you're not safe IRL.[/COLOR]
Pushing false reads based on unverifiable info (like meta reads) to push a view you can’t justify [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Fair game in like 99% of cases I see of this. I can imagine a 1% where its not okay but I don't think I'll ever see it more than once in my career.[/COLOR]
Going ad hominem / attacking a players credibility in order to hinder them from pushing their reads [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Fair game so long as its not a personal attack (i.e. saying they're a bad player in general). Might be more acceptable if you attack via amplifying someone else's creditability instead or do a comparative.[/COLOR]
Misrepresenting a hosts rules / statements to shift how players will play [COLOR="#FFA07A"]Not okay imo but hard to prove someone intentionally doing that[/COLOR]
Off the top of my head those are some other concepts I would question if they should be acceptable. Kinda draws back to sociology where there are laws, norms, and taboos. What’s is ‘cheating’ or acting against the spirit of the game? What other behaviors have I not included that you would call out as questionable?[/QUOTE]
Added comments in salmon. Separately I often think extreme ATE is bad but I have a hard time drawing where the specific line is wrt my life philosophy. So I generally default to the thinking that ff its momentary (like 1-2 not-wall-post max) and doesn't discuss/suggest breaking rules I'll brush it off but if someone seems stuck in it then that's bad for the game in general even if faked.
[QUOTE=powerofdeath;1017778]Was this a reference to the S-FM I recently hosted? I had so many complaints from both Town and Mafia side that they felt the game was unbalanced against their favors. Town thought they were in a huge disadvantage, and Mafia thought they were in a huge disadvantage. Despite being a balanced game, the mafia was very discouraged to play, ended up missing deadlines, and surrendered to town before game was actually over. It was a little hard to watch on my side. I wonder how the game would be played differently if mafia had different attitude and approach. I clearly remember both side arguing the game was not favored on their side and called bullshit to the other side after the game ended.[/QUOTE]
Went back to skim its end to refresh my memory. Honestly I think its more that we got a group of players who just didn't like the setup rather than something going wrong. I mean, the ghost went horribly wrong but it felt like the complaints were a lot more opinionated rather than based on something mechanical and I felt there wasn't a cohesive theme (such as, hypothetically, player agency) between all of the complaints.
You can make a great game but at some point there will be people who genuinely dislike it.
THAT SAID though, I've noticed these sort of situations tend to pop up when players don't know the whole setup and/or don't trust the host to run a balanced setup. In the past when I did a whole bunch of effort into "proper" compensation that one game, the complaints started showing up as soon as people didn't really know what I did. Inevitably I got a very similar situation where people thought what I did was either extremely pro-town or pro-mafia even after the game ended. It could just be a matter of secrecy reducing the ability of people to self-select-out, when they have differing views, for example.
My personal life philosophy, which I tend to apply to a lot of things nowadays internally, is to live as meaningfully as I can. Without diving into it, its basically a principle that sometimes has forever-shifting objectives (sidenote: this is also its biggest flaw -- something that is contrary/contrarian has meaning and this can easily be extended is a very meta way) but in practice for me has often followed thoughts that I think people would say are aligned with utilitarianism but isn't married to it.Where would you guys land on the subject and what other issues do you feel like cross that boundary? I could probably rattle off quite a few other concepts I struggled with this line but at the end of the day I even question where community management should land on the issue. Should we focus on individuals creating a good experience for themselves or should we focus on a larger amount of people having a good experience? Basic function of hedonism vs utilitarianism there but as an approach for moderators and community managers its an interesting concept..
Added comments in salmon. Separately I often think extreme ATE is bad but I have a hard time drawing where the specific line is wrt my life philosophy. So I generally default to the thinking that ff its momentary (like 1-2 not-wall-post max) and doesn't discuss/suggest breaking rules I'll brush it off but if someone seems stuck in it then that's bad for the game in general even if faked.For giggles; other questionable strats:
Crunching other game history data to identify idiosyncratic patterns in a current game Never really felt there was any ethical "wrongness" with it.
Breaking down sociometric patterns to identify interaction patterns in a current game Same as above.
Eliciting emotions to draw reads grey area -- what emotions to elicit and how are they elicited? The "what" could be okay but not the "how" and vice versa and etc.
Leveraging empathy in oog claims (like your grandma is sick or w/e) for in game reasons Don't think its questionable unless you're talking about situations where you're not safe IRL.
Pushing false reads based on unverifiable info (like meta reads) to push a view you can’t justify Fair game in like 99% of cases I see of this. I can imagine a 1% where its not okay but I don't think I'll ever see it more than once in my career.
Going ad hominem / attacking a players credibility in order to hinder them from pushing their reads Fair game so long as its not a personal attack (i.e. saying they're a bad player in general). Might be more acceptable if you attack via amplifying someone else's creditability instead or do a comparative.
Misrepresenting a hosts rules / statements to shift how players will play Not okay imo but hard to prove someone intentionally doing that
Off the top of my head those are some other concepts I would question if they should be acceptable. Kinda draws back to sociology where there are laws, norms, and taboos. What’s is ‘cheating’ or acting against the spirit of the game? What other behaviors have I not included that you would call out as questionable?
Went back to skim its end to refresh my memory. Honestly I think its more that we got a group of players who just didn't like the setup rather than something going wrong. I mean, the ghost went horribly wrong but it felt like the complaints were a lot more opinionated rather than based on something mechanical and I felt there wasn't a cohesive theme (such as, hypothetically, player agency) between all of the complaints.Was this a reference to the S-FM I recently hosted? I had so many complaints from both Town and Mafia side that they felt the game was unbalanced against their favors. Town thought they were in a huge disadvantage, and Mafia thought they were in a huge disadvantage. Despite being a balanced game, the mafia was very discouraged to play, ended up missing deadlines, and surrendered to town before game was actually over. It was a little hard to watch on my side. I wonder how the game would be played differently if mafia had different attitude and approach. I clearly remember both side arguing the game was not favored on their side and called bullshit to the other side after the game ended.
You can make a great game but at some point there will be people who genuinely dislike it.
THAT SAID though, I've noticed these sort of situations tend to pop up when players don't know the whole setup and/or don't trust the host to run a balanced setup. In the past when I did a whole bunch of effort into "proper" compensation that one game, the complaints started showing up as soon as people didn't really know what I did. Inevitably I got a very similar situation where people thought what I did was either extremely pro-town or pro-mafia even after the game ended. It could just be a matter of secrecy reducing the ability of people to self-select-out, when they have differing views, for example.