Werewolf discussion thread

Baggly

I'll add as well, because reading back it looks like 'forum mod pter' handing down decrees from on high that he must have pulled from his ass...

Its not. Ive checked all these things and I'm saying this to clarify things what didn't need to be clarified before because....well because the issues with discipline and punishments were non existent for most of the time the forum has existed. The rules have always been there...they just didn't need to be enforced because everyone played ball and got on with it.

In the past 12 months or so there have been a few incidents, and so rules have to be enforced. I'd love to leave the game mods to do their thing and not have me butt in.....but when there are forum rules broken, we have to do our jobs.

I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, and I'd love to mod a forum where my sole role was to change thread titles and update the game log op, but that's not the case.

Baggly

Actually that's basically all I do most of the time because most of the time no rules are broken.

Uriel.

Pter wrote: »

I'll add as well, because reading back it looks like 'forum mod pter' handing down decrees from on high that he must have pulled from his ass...

Its not. Ive checked all these things and I'm saying this to clarify things what didn't need to be clarified before because....well because the issues with discipline and punishments were non existent for most of the time the forum has existed. The rules have always been there...they just didn't need to be enforced because everyone played ball and got on with it.

In the past 12 months or so there have been a few incidents, and so rules have to be enforced. I'd love to leave the game mods to do their thing and not have me butt in.....but when there are forum rules broken, we have to do our jobs.

I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, and I'd love to mod a forum where my sole role was to change thread titles and update the game log op, but that's not the case.

You're not called gulag Pete for nothing..

Baggly

Uriel. wrote:

You're not called gulag Pete for nothing..

Quiet you. Back into gulag.

Mollyb60

Pter wrote: »

Limiting game numbers is one thing but saying to someone 'no you can't play' or 'you can play but we are handicapping you in the game because we didn't like something you did' that's part backseat modding and part bullying. And that will not be stood for.

Ok I'm gonna have to be blunt here but I've said it in the backrooms and I'll say it here again. I will not mod a game with Tigger (or any account run by that person) again. If the mods see that as against the forum charter then unfortunately I'm going to have to remove myself from all future modding commitments. The amount of stress and panic caused by his quitting in the last game reminded me why I don't like to play with him. And I don't think that it's fair that I should have to include him in something that I have spent months working on where the fear is always in the back of my head that he will ruin my entire game. Sorry to be the bitch about it but modding is stressful enough without that hanging over me. The forum charter may call that bullying but I have to look out for myself and that's the choice I've made.

Apologies to any of the mods of games I've signed up to.

(not taking a pop at you Pter btw, I understand the forum mods position)

Pawwed Rig

sKeith wrote: »

This post is all kinds of wrong.

It was spot on from my reading of it.

Baggly

Mollyb60 wrote:

(not taking a pop at you Pter btw, I understand the forum mods position)

Thank you. I understand your point of view but I agree with the policy. If someone isn't banned and agrees to play by the rules, they should be allowed to sign up to any game that has space.

All I could promise is, as happened here, rule breakages will be punished. And after that repeated rule breakages severely punished.

sKeith

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It was spot on from my reading of it.

already pointed it out.

Forum mods or cmods or admins are the only ones who may hand out punishments on boards.ie.

Game mods can punish game rule breaking however they see fit.
They can modkill player who break their (arbitrary from the point of view of a forum mod) rules.
They are not breaking boards rules, just the arbitrary ruleset that the game mods have designed and envisaged themselves.

Mollyb60

Pter wrote: »

Thank you. I understand your point of view but I agree with the policy. If someone isn't banned and agrees to play by the rules, they should be allowed to sign up to any game that has space.

All I could promise is, as happened here, rule breakages will be punished. And after that repeated rule breakages severely punished.

When a person continually breaks the rules of games after agreeing to abide by them, then the trust that necessarily exists between game mods and their players can't exist. I don't think that I should be expected to play with a person that I can't trust.

sKeith

Mollyb60 wrote: »

When a person continually breaks the rules of games after agreeing to abide by them, then the trust that necessarily exists between game mods and their players can't exist. I don't think that I should be expected to play with a person that I can't trust.

There are deleted posts in this thread. If the games you are modding are in the next 9 months, you don't have to drop out.

Baggly

sKeith wrote:

Game mods can punish game rule breaking however they see fit. They can modkill player who break their (arbitrary from the point of view of a forum mod) rules.

Caps for emphasis.

WITH FORUM MOD GO AHEAD

sKeith

Pter wrote: »

Caps for emphasis.

WITH FORUM MOD GO AHEAD

Okay, i modded the game with tonnes of modkills but you comodding it with me, and there were no modkills in the latest game i modded, so i have no experience of this, but has every modkill seeked forum mod permission in the past or is this something we will need to do in future?

Baggly

sKeith wrote:

Okay, i modded the game with tonnes of modkills but you comodding it with me, and there were no modkills in the latest game i modded, so i have no experience of this, but has every modkill seeked forum mod permission in the past or is this something we will need to do in future?

It's implicit go ahead because no game mod has ever abused it. But if one came along and arbitrarily killed off someone for no reason....yeah forum mods would step in.

Baggly

Go down that road sKeith. Gamemod x kills off a player for no real reason. Player complains to admins at bullying, admins come along and discover a list of pseudo mods they never actually approved to moderate discussion on their site. It just wouldn't fly. There has to be oversight from boards assigned mods.

sKeith

okay, i think i understand now.

i didn't understand the reach FG mods had before.

if i make up a game, and give a ruleset for that game, and open a thread and start playing it with others, if a player comes along and breaks my arbitrary rules, i can seek boards sanctions on them.

now i understand, it is making more sense.

i still don't implicitly trust the system, but this is where we play, so thats it.

thanks for explaining it, and sorry it took this long.

Baggly

What would have been the alternative? Kick them from the game after the game is already ruined?

And arbitrary? No. Game rules, yes we have to be able to look at that. Someone has to be able to look at rule breaks across games. Because game mods can't eject someone from a game as punishment if they have already gone and broken the game (worst case scenario example).

Mollyb60

sKeith wrote: »

There are deleted posts in this thread. If the games you are modding are in the next 9 months, you don't have to drop out.

I didn't realise this but in any case this is besides the point. If I'm not allowed to refuse to play or mod a game with a player in it then the only option remaining to me is to remove myself from the equation. I wont force my decision on anyone else.

Triceratops Ballet

sKeith wrote:

3. Be active: Please all try to reasonably contribute to the game thread and always remember to get a vote in as a minimum. Failure to do so will result in being Substituted or Mod killed, whichever is more convenient at the time. Substitution does not indicate any alignment or role. All players who are mod killed will be replaced if possible.

sKeith wrote:

Okay, i modded the game with tonnes of modkills but you comodding it with me, and there were no modkills in the latest game i modded, so i have no experience of this, but has every modkill seeked forum mod permission in the past or is this something we will need to do in future?

Pter wrote:

Go down that road sKeith. Gamemod x kills off a player for no real reason. Player complains to admins at bullying, admins come along and discover a list of pseudo mods they never actually approved to moderate discussion on their site. It just wouldn't fly. There has to be oversight from boards assigned mods.

Just some perspective from my experience, I've modded a fair few games now that have had a major incident. Pretty much every time the forum mods came to me about whatever the incident was rather than me having to go to them so any time I've had to take a drastic mod action it's always been in consultation with a forum mod. I never really thought about it before now so I have probably been working on the assumption that it's the same for everyone.
IME, our mods are fair and measured in their approach.

duffman13

Mollyb60 wrote: »

When a person continually breaks the rules of games after agreeing to abide by them, then the trust that necessarily exists between game mods and their players can't exist. I don't think that I should be expected to play with a person that I can't trust.

I can totally see this point of view. The weeks and months of work that go in to run a game to try entertain people for 4 to 5 days is phenomenal.

People are here to play a game and have a bit of craic. Tigger/JackMoore is one of the best players I have come up against and I'll be disappointed to not play with him however I'd also think if someone is running a game then it's their prerogative to rule someone out if they've caused issues in a previous game. It's not fair to anyone the put the level of work in to running a game to see it ripped down.

There is already a few players who have said at certain points they wont play in a game if he's allowed play. I wouldn't ever agree with that but it's up to each poster just like it should be up to each mod team.

I dunno how you could implement that rule though so it's probably a complete no go

I made a similar vow to Molly after co-modding the Stephen King game. I made that vow as someone with no previous incidents with the player in question. In fact, I missed all of that shíte in the past and was more than happy to give him a clean slate in our King game.

I can fully understand Molly's sentiment. By this point, there are just too many incidents now for me to feel confident as a mod going into a game featuring this player. That vow I made after the King game, it was probably fading as since then Jack's been alright. However, 3 games later we now have another incident. It's like a Russian Roulette gamble for game mods.

Separately (but I guess related)...

There were feedback threads created for the Stephen King and Sherlock games. Why was this idea started and subsequently stopped?

Baggly

Deleted User wrote:

There were feedback threads created for the Stephen King and Sherlock games. Why was this idea started and subsequently stopped?

Wasn't stopped. Just wasn't continued. No specific reason why I think. I forgot for vanillarama anyway.

Necro

I can completely see the viewpoint from Molly here as valid; spending months at a time designing games only to have issues crop up is basically my forte at this stage

However, moving forward as a community I just don't see how an exclusion policy enforced outside of forum sanctions is a possibility at all. Pter has essentially pointed out that such a policy could have a player refer the issue higher up the chain and bring allegations of bullying.

Today has been very negative and worrying to read tbh. Just a couple of pages back I was talking with others about how to attract new players to the forum, and this really isn't a fabulous advertisement for it at all.


And the thing is that is such a shame as primarily this place is completely and utterly trouble-free. What's done is done, and I think while it's ok and important for people to have their say let's not go overboard and say there's major issues here.

Players for the most part behave themselves.
Mods are not dictators who shut down discussion (as today has specifically indicated).
Everyone generally treats each other with respect.

There's so much more right with this place than is wrong, so I don't think focusing on the negatives too much does any of us any good.

I mean, look at the positives:

There's an engaged community concerned about moving forward and resolving the minor issues.
We have a schedule of games to take us into 2020 - 15 whole months at this point in time - of WW games to look forward to.
There are a host of exciting themes (new and rehashed) coming up in that time.
We must have by and large the most number of yearly meet-ups in RL based off the threads here (I think 4 this year?).
Necro was a clock in the last game (ok I'm just putting this here to see if you notice).
We have a host of varied and exciting mod teams coming up.

Etc etc...

sullivlo

You were not a clock.

Triceratops Ballet

What kind of clock? Like monsieur cogsworth from beauty and the beast?

Baggly

Triceratops Ballet wrote:

What kind of clock? Like monsieur cogsworth from beauty and the beast?

He wasn't a clock.

Necro

Triceratops Ballet wrote:

What kind of clock? Like monsieur cogsworth from beauty and the beast?

Don't heed them. I was The Countdown Clock.

And HA! I just realised I wasn't the first inanimate object in WW history.

Bounty Hunter was a talking candlestick in Disney :P

Baggly

Necro wrote:

Bounty Hunter was a talking candlestick in Disney

If it can talk its not inanimate.

Necro

Pter wrote:

If it can talk its not inanimate.

I was a talking clock:P

sKeith

The countdown clock is not an inanimate object. its hand moves about its face.

tritium

Pter wrote: »

He wasn't a clock.

Ahem! monsieur cogsworth was most definitely a clock.

Very similar on many ways to the infamous Necro countdown clock :pac: