Host/Moderator Responsibility And Threats

[BananaCucho]

Lmao wtf

[Yukitaka Oni]

If it's not true, explain this:

It's illuminati don't spolier it ^)O.o)> v(O.o(v

[ThePaladin]

If we can back to serious discussion on the issue.

This is not CircleJerk Orange.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Why do people keep saying this when its not true!!

^)o.o)^ ^(o.o(^

[Yukitaka Oni]

If we can back to serious discussion on the issue.

This is not CircleJerk Orange.

Seriously the mod responsibility right now is still fine so far.

[ThePaladin]

Also How should we solve the problems of players believing that host is not taking action against possible offenses without the host confirming/denying/or being too involved in the game.

Spoiler : My Opinion :

Personally, I think if we had some sort of indicator at the top of the page that said a host and/or mod had viewed and read the game up to a certain post which the host could check off without making a post. The indicator then has a post number next to it in some non-gray/white/black colour(such as green), assuring players that the host is monitoring the game. I do not know if it is possible to implement such a thing without the host having to post with how this site is set up.

Also opinions on this part people?

[BananaCucho]

Also opinions on this part people?

Fucking communicate with/acknowledge the players in your game.

Thread over.

[secondpassing]

Also opinions on this part people?

Also How should we solve the problems of players believing that host is not taking action against possible offenses without the host confirming/denying/or being too involved in the game.

It's fine.

Spoiler : Longer Answer that says about the same thing. :

Actually requiring hosts to do that would make it harder for them to host games, and I would like to see more hosts wanting to host games without feeling tired. Pinning how far the host has read up on the thread shines unnecessary spotlight on the host, and hosts already get enough flak from players in-game.

Just by having that indicator would get people to check it more often, and people shouldn't be focusing on that aspect of the game. They should be reading.

If there really is a problem, players shouldn't be wondering if the action should be punished, they should be continuing play. If need be, they can send a PM. Kinda like how hosts handle personal attacks already.

[Quick]

There is a report post function. I can't help but wonder if this isn't used enough.

[BananaCucho]

There is a report post function. I can't help but wonder if this isn't used enough.

Its used too much according to the admins. Try it, you'll most likely get infracted for using it.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

A game of deception still has some rules. Threatening to ruin the game is breaking the four walls of the game. If it's a game of deception, why do we have OGC rules or personal attack rules or quoting host communications / role card rules? Anything should go if we're dealing with deception, right?

OGC/rolecards gives information that the other players do not have access though. What would be the point if everyone just screenshotted them as town. Faking gamethrow to force a vote is using player reactions to get what you want done, and not information that players have no access to. It is completely different. If I was vigi and not consig, and said I will shoot BCD if they don't vote shifty, is that gamethrowing then?

[ThePaladin]

OGC/rolecards gives information that the other players do not have access though. What would be the point if everyone just screenshotted them as town. Faking gamethrow to force a vote is using player reactions to get what you want done, and not information that players have no access to. It is completely different. If I was vigi and not consig, and said I will shoot BCD if they don't vote shifty, is that gamethrowing then?

If you don't know a persons role 100% you can shoot them and not be gamethrowing.
Even if you know it 100%, there are some wifom gambits where it can still not be considered intentional gamethrowing.
As such, I do not believe this would fall under the "don't threaten/fake gamethrowing" rule as an official thing, since it would be mostly up to hosts discression since that enters into a gray area of whether such an action(if you followed through) would be considered playing against your win condition, for example if you had some crazy strategy. Generally most hosts would consider voting a confirmed town as town gamethrowing unless trying to get yourself lynched to reveal information, so if BCD was 100% confirmed then you may be punished even if you didn't go through with it for example. It's a really loose area even within the current site rules of not gamethrowing. Also it almost feels like you are arguing that we should make gamethrowing legal with how the ending of that post is worded...... yes we have multiple rules.... yes we need multiple rules even if they may not seem equal.... but i mean playing against your win con is sorta defying the point of why you play any game, same thing as not staying within the boundaries of a game(like swaping 5 pawns for queens in chess) is against the point of playing a game.

Threatening to shoot a player is very different from saying If _____ doesn't happen, I will gamethrow.


The rules are given a somewhat broad definition it seems. This is mostly about on either establishing a rule site-wide and/or standardizing this rule for most hosts. I think we can get into the specifics later since that is mostly up to the host's view.

Also If I can get feedback from Mattzed whenever he comes on about how a site-wide FM rule such as this gets added (FM mod vote/decision, Staff vote/decision, active community players vote by majority/supermajority) [majority=Over 50% supermajority=Over 66.666%]

[BananaCucho]

Paladin just ignore him.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

If you don't know a persons role 100% you can shoot them and not be gamethrowing.
Even if you know it 100%, there are some wifom gambits where it can still not be considered intentional gamethrowing.
As such, I do not believe this would fall under the "don't threaten/fake gamethrowing" rule as an official thing, since it would be mostly up to hosts discression since that enters into a gray area of whether such an action(if you followed through) would be considered playing against your win condition, for example if you had some crazy strategy. Generally most hosts would consider voting a confirmed town as town gamethrowing unless trying to get yourself lynched to reveal information, so if BCD was 100% confirmed then you may be punished even if you didn't go through with it for example. It's a really loose area even within the current site rules of not gamethrowing. Also it almost feels like you are arguing that we should make gamethrowing legal with how the ending of that post is worded...... yes we have multiple rules.... yes we need multiple rules even if they may not seem equal.... but i mean playing against your win con is sorta defying the point of why you play any game, same thing as not staying within the boundaries of a game(like swaping 5 pawns for queens in chess) is against the point of playing a game.

Threatening to shoot a player is very different from saying If _____ doesn't happen, I will gamethrow.


The rules are given a somewhat broad definition it seems. This is mostly about on either establishing a rule site-wide and/or standardizing this rule for most hosts. I think we can get into the specifics later since that is mostly up to the host's view.

Also If I can get feedback from Mattzed whenever he comes on about how a site-wide FM rule such as this gets added (FM mod vote/decision, Staff vote/decision, active community players vote by majority/supermajority) [majority=Over 50% supermajority=Over 66.666%]

So how is voting BCD if they don't vote with me gamethrowing if I don't know their alignment? From my POV if they don't vote who the most likely mafia is, they are probably mafia.

[ThePaladin]

It's fine.

Spoiler : Longer Answer that says about the same thing. :

Actually requiring hosts to do that would make it harder for them to host games, and I would like to see more hosts wanting to host games without feeling tired. Pinning how far the host has read up on the thread shines unnecessary spotlight on the host, and hosts already get enough flak from players in-game.

Just by having that indicator would get people to check it more often, and people shouldn't be focusing on that aspect of the game. They should be reading.

If there really is a problem, players shouldn't be wondering if the action should be punished, they should be continuing play. If need be, they can send a PM. Kinda like how hosts handle personal attacks already.

This is mostly the secondary point of this thread but I also want comments on it(maybe should've started 2 seperate threads).

I don't see players checking the indicator unless we had a player who they thought was rulebreaking because then it sorta gets pointless. aren't hosts already required to moderate their games so making something to just click doesn't seem like adding much or making it any more difficult to me? A host could even falsely click the thing without reading everything, but I do see your point of too much pressure being put on the host from players. (Note: Paladin Has Never Hosted Before)

[ThePaladin]

So how is voting BCD if they don't vote with me gamethrowing if I don't know their alignment? From my POV if they don't vote who the most likely mafia is, they are probably mafia.

A= Didn't I Already Say.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MAFIA WARS 2 KEEP IT IN THAT THREAD NOT THIS ONE.

B=You directly said "gamethrow", yay semantics.

C=THIS THREAD IS IN GENERAL ABOUT SITE CONDUCT/RULES NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ACTIONS TAKEN IN MAFIA WARS 2

[BananaCucho]

A= Didn't I Already Say.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MAFIA WARS 2 KEEP IT IN THAT THREAD NOT THIS ONE.

B=You directly said "gamethrow", yay semantics.

C=THIS THREAD IS IN GENERAL ABOUT SITE CONDUCT/RULES NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ACTIONS TAKEN IN MAFIA WARS 2

Stop feeding the troll. If you ignore him he'll go away.

[SuperJack]

I agree that threatening to game throwing is one of the lowest and bad tasting tactics to be used. And it shouldn't need a rule to stop it, and players should use their judgement instead to realise its the wrong choice. But it seems like its inevitable that a rule has to be inplaced.

I just responded that players keep any complaints in game private with the host, discuss them with the host. And do not make anything public [Even if your not in the game] because it will leak in game information.

But would the host let players actually game throw?

[Cryptonic]

It's up to the Hosts of the game to take action against this. FM Staff will not control what people can/can't say or do in games, as long as all players are legitimately playing towards their win condition. Exception to this rule is that we reserve the right to infract people for non-game related personal attacks, and/or excessive insults.