Originally Posted by
Exeter350
For these clans to stop certain behaviours disruptive to the spirit of the game, specifically but not limited to:
1. Excessive spamming, whether strategic or not.
E.g. Spamming to get lynched as Jester, or spamming to bait as Veteran.
2. Vocalising troll-ish statements, even as a joke or strategy.
E.g. "CHOO CHOO" with no intention to actually leave train or lynch train.
3. Picking names that will allow players to be easily identified.
E.g. Squirrel, CHOO CHOO THE LYNCH TRAIN, etc.
4. Voting in tandem due to player identity, or giving the impression of doing so.
E.g. "#9 is Distorted and he plays well, so I'll vote with him" but may or may not end up voting together with the player.
* * * * *
I am fully aware of existing counter arguments to the points above, such as, but not limited to:
1. Spamming can be a strategy, and there is a -mute function in-game.
2. Trolling can be a strategy.
3. Custom names were implemented for a reason, and the option to turn off custom names is there.
4. Meta trust is part of the game.
* * * * *
While those are valid points, I firmly believe that the cons outweigh the pros, namely:
1. Spamming drowns out day chat, preventing any meaningful conversation from taking place. Even if the Veteran successfully baits, or Jester successfully gets lynched - i.e. a working strategy - it kills the fun of the game and frustrates many players into quitting mid-way or not playing afterwards.
Even if the spammers win, so what? The game was no fun for anybody except for the spammers themselves, who completely miss the point of the game in their ecstatic smugness.
Additionally, -mute is not a viable option, since it blocks potential valuable feedback from the muted player. For instance, if a muted player is trialed, players will not hear his defense nor be willing to unmute him, and may end up mislynching him.
Also, asking the numerous unhappy players to -mute spammers is to punish the player base instead of the spammers. Instead of getting the majority to make the extra effort to -mute and -unmute the spammers, get the spammers to stop spamming.
2. Trolling statements can kill the vibe of the game, even as a joke, especially when the majority of the players not involved in the "joke" take it seriously and believe that the game is about to be derailed by disruptive trolls.
Unless the rules have changed, I believe saying "CHOO CHOO" constitutes as inciting a leave-train, regardless of whether it was a joke or not. This is also why pretending to rolehack and call out random players as scum ("#6 is GF, #9 is Consigliere, #12 is Kidnapper") is also treated as hacking, joking/strategy or not.
I believe under these rules, many members of certain clans would already be banlisted if reports had been filed.
Thus, regardless of strategic implications, making trolling statements is already against the rules.
3. Custom names ARE part of the game, but I believe using them in certain ways is harmful to the game flow. Additionally, certain specific cases, while not deliberately used in a harmful way, nonetheless have a negative influence on the game flow, and are thus included as well.
This is why the "name abuse" offense exists, and also why players have been punished for similar offenses in the past.
Turning off custom names is not a viable option, since players are likely to be unwilling to play such a save, even if it is a fairly standard setup, resulting in a leave train.
It is the same with other settings like Secret Ballot, the existence of Citizens and Coroners, etc.
A more realistic approach is to simply get the disruptive players to stop their behaviours - Again, instead of punishing the player base by getting them to make the extra effort to circumvent such behaviour.
4. Collaboration with no visible reason (meta trust) used to be punished as Skyping, and targeting specific players due to their identities (meta distrust) used to be punished as Griefing.
Both excessive meta trust and meta distrust hurts the spirit of the game, because it is no longer a clean slate where every player is anonymous and starts off free from bias. Rather, the game devolves to revolve around players' true identities and their interrelationships, and will sometimes degenerate into popularity contests.
"He is Efekann. I dislike him, so I'm going to hardcore push to trial him. His defense is poor, I'm getting to hardcore push a lynch on him. Yes! I got him lynched, time to laugh about it in his face. Wait, it was a mislynch? Too bad Efe."
"This is Distorted! All the evidence points to him being the crook, and he has a shitty Sheriff claim, but I like him and believe him due to my bias, so I will not vote to trial or lynch him, and I will continue protecting him at night as BG."
The problem is that, while this elite inner circle of regular players are busy swaggering around feeling smug about knowing who everybody is, the newcomers and not-so-regular players are left out of the loop. It's all fun and games to the inner circle, but not much fun to everybody else.
Not only is the game diverted from being played properly, players outside of these clans and inner circles are also driven off by the intimate web of interrelationships that they have no wish to be part of.
I'm not sure at what point the rules became more relaxed about these issues, but since there have been numerous precedents for such cases, it wouldn't be far-fetched to demand for such behaviour to stop or be punished.
I have been offered the job before, but turned it down due to real life commitments. Playing the game is easy, takes little commitment, and allows me to multi-task and do my work. Constantly reviewing reports, however, is a whole different matter.
Nonetheless, I believe there are other productive ways for me to contribute to the community, such as speaking up about issues like this.