We need to talk...

sullivlo

sKeith wrote: »

I don't want to have to declare that i was once sKeith, beofre i closed my account, but at the same time, don't want to be kicked out of the game for SNEAKing in.

Summary:
- closing account, re-regging and staying anonymous: fine
- closing acccount, re-regging and telling people: fine
- keeping account, re-regging to deceive people and posting under two accounts simultaneously: not fine

If sKeith has a “closed account” I couldn’t care less if t, u, v, w, x or yKeith signed up to play, as sKeith would have closed his account and had a fresh start.

If sKeith said “no, sitting this one out lads” and suddenly zKeith joins and plays, then I care.

duffman13

sKeith wrote: »

I don't want to have to declare that i was once sKeith, beofre i closed my account, but at the same time, don't want to be kicked out of the game for SNEAKing in.

But sure why can't the boards rules apply here then? Is that not the simplest solution, if you are a rereg your under no obligation to declare. The only reason you would have to declare to the local mods is you were a rereg who'd been banned from the forum or some aspect of the forum. Other than that your not breaking any rules unless it's specifically to dodge a ban.

sKeith

sKeith wrote: »

lots of you seem to be on the same page as me, i'd like to hear mostly from those who would want to kick me for not declaring.

If I’m correct, tigger was banned from playing werewolf for a few misdemeanors? So using an alternative account was a bit naughty and against site rules

If you, or me, or anyone else was hearing that others didn’t want to play with us for no other reason than they didn’t like us. Well, that’s their problem. If for instance, I closed my account and started a new one it’s nobody’s business unless I want to tell them and if they did find out who I used to post under and didn’t want to play. Once again, that’s their problem.

There is a big difference though in what tigger did and just changing names.

sKeith

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If I’m correct, tigger was banned from playing werewolf for a few misdemeanors? So using an alternative account was a bit naughty and against site rules

If you, or me, or anyone else was hearing that others didn’t want to play with us for no other reason than they didn’t like us. Well, that’s their problem. If for instance, I closed my account and started a new one it’s nobody’s business unless I want to tell them and if they did find out who I used to post under and didn’t want to play. Once again, that’s their problem.

There is a big difference though in what tigger did and just changing names.

my sole purpose for doing so would be to do it to play a game on an even playing field.
i don't believe anyone doesn't want to play with me.
i just want to play a games where only my words on the game thread motivate me being killed off.
i recall one game where i posted once, a music video, and was killed off, i'd love to believe that the wolves did so because they did not like guns n roses, but i doubt that was their motivation.
i'll gladly rereg to play more fun games of werewolf, as i doubt i can do that as is in a non anon setting.

Banjo

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If I’m correct, tigger was banned from playing werewolf for a few misdemeanors? So using an alternative account was a bit naughty and against site rules

If you, or me, or anyone else was hearing that others didn’t want to play with us for no other reason than they didn’t like us. Well, that’s their problem. If for instance, I closed my account and started a new one it’s nobody’s business unless I want to tell them and if they did find out who I used to post under and didn’t want to play. Once again, that’s their problem.

There is a big difference though in what tigger did and just changing names.

Wait, no - If my timeline is correct the re-registering was the reason for the ban. The re-registering was to get around the "I'm not playing if he's playing" issue. The not wanting to play with him was for calling out other members who may or may not have broken rules in a manner some people were uncomfortable with. I'll have to reread a game or two and throw up a couple of times to confirm. But puking is how I know I'm alive.

sullivlo

MOD

sKeith wrote: »

The discussion is solely about rereging and not decaring to everybody in the signup thread that you used to be a previous player who went by whatever.

not open for discussion is were this may have happened in the past, we look to the future only with this discussion.

Ahem.

The past is the past. Don’t dwell on it. No more mentions of past issues relating to specifics regarding the reasons for the rereg. These have been done to death and dealt with and are not appropriate for discussion.

Mod hat still on: the answer to the original question remains: the issue previously was breaking boards rules. The current discussion regarding the current rereg issue doesn’t break boards rules as there was only one active account.

Unless there are any valid points, I don’t see the benefit of a circular argument.

Any further naming/shaming of previous poster rereg issues will be dealt with by warnings. It’s not a witch hunt. It’s not appropriate. The two situations are not comparable and the mods won’t tolerate any further unwarranted abuse of any posters when the time has already been paid for the crime.

Any issues, please PM.

Kolido

sKeith wrote: »

my sole purpose for doing so would be to do it to play a game on an even playing field.
i don't believe anyone doesn't want to play with me.
i just want to play a games where only my words on the game thread motivate me being killed off.
i recall one game where i posted once, a music video, and was killed off, i'd love to believe that the wolves did so because they did not like guns n roses, but i doubt that was their motivation.
i'll gladly rereg to play more fun games of werewolf, as i doubt i can do that as is in a non anon setting.

Cant say I totally agree with this, though I do see your point, reregging, all above board, fine. As I believe you dont have to declare it to anyone, fine.
But to play ww, with a group of players you know well, and those players thinking you are a newbie, doesnt sit well with me. (If Im understanding you correctly so far)
If you want a level playing field then we all should have it and play anon games.

quickbeam

The first wolf kill is nearly always for spurious reasons. I don't think any one player has been targeted more than their fair share in non-anon games.

MrsFlushdraw

sKeith wrote: »

Okay, I have gotten clearance to continue this discussion but remove all the bull.

The discussion is solely about rereging and not decaring to everybody in the signup thread that you used to be a previous player who went by whatever.

not open for discussion is were this may have happened in the past, we look to the future only with this discussion.

MrsFlushdraw wrote: »

Getting rid of an account and starting again isn't against boards rules. I did it a few years ago and it was all above board.

This new game looks like it will be an anon game. IF anyone sneaks in with a new username to pull the wool deliberately over my eyes, they will be insta banned from the game.

why? this opinion is as game mod?

if somebody does not want you to know they were once sKeith, and wanted to join a non anon game, as charlie, and you found out somehow they were once sKeith, you would kick me out?

That wasn't what I meant. I meant a repeat of what happened last time. An anon game gives you the even field.

I stated, to deliberately pull the wool over my eyes, they get banned. You have a problem being honest with a game mod?

I have no problem with you closing skeith and starting again. But I was more referring to the scenario of re reg and keeping skeith open. That was my issue.

But I do think game mods deserve to have honesty if you are a honest rep reg. Out of courtesy.

Necro

Can we save all the killing and maiming of each other for the game (hopefully starting) on Sunday?

Banjo

Banjo wrote: »

Wait, no - If my timeline is correct the re-registering was the reason for the ban. The re-registering was to get around the "I'm not playing if he's playing" issue. The not wanting to play with him was for calling out other members who may or may not have broken rules in a manner some people were uncomfortable with. I'll have to reread a game or two and throw up a couple of times to confirm. But puking is how I know I'm alive.

You’re right. Tiggs was banned for using another account. He wasn’t banned before it

sullivlo

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

You’re right. Tiggs was banned for using another account. He wasn’t banned before it

Mod

If I am typing in bold it means that you have been bold.

Final warning. No name and shame.

Next time another poster is called out, cards will be given out.

I think you should all head over to the 20 questions thread.

Mollyb60

Kolido wrote: »

Cant say I totally agree with this, though I do see your point, reregging, all above board, fine. As I believe you dont have to declare it to anyone, fine.
But to play ww, with a group of players you know well, and those players thinking you are a newbie, doesnt sit well with me. (If Im understanding you correctly so far)
If you want a level playing field then we all should have it and play anon games.

This would be my opinion on the issue. It's not against board rules but I don't think it's entirely fair to the players you're playing with. You can use your prior knowledge of them to form opinions but they don't have the same with you because you're a different user now.

Also any N0 munch by wolves is usually for ridiculous nonsensical reasons. I wouldn't get hung up on it. I don't think they targeted you specifically because they don't like sKeith or how sKeith plays.

Necro

I was once N0ed (by PJ in the Xmas game I think) for posting too much :pac:

Drumpot

If I understand this topic correctly , If you re reg correctly by boards guidelines then you are welcome to play the game and not obliged to inform WW mods or community. I don’t think it should be a requirement but as a community it should be encouraged and welcomed. At the very least you should not pretend to be a newbie to the game.

Yes, it’s kind of weird , in a sad way, if a person was to re reg regularly so they could circumvent the concept of fair play, but most people won’t do that. And if there is a player who people don’t like it will generally come out in their play eventually. While a game is going on I don’t know any better so if somebody is cheating I’m still enjoying the experience.

I think though if it’s a case that there was somebody consistently and intentionally going out of their way to stretch the rules in a manner that antagonists regular members it should be addressed promptly.

From a personal perspective , I play 5 aside regularly. I used to play with one group but I stopped. It brought out the worst competitive side (dickhead) in me and I didn’t enjoy it. Now I play with guys who are more interested in having fun and are less competitive. Ironically I am out of action now cause one new lad is over zealous and injured me in a tackle.

But my point is, if I find people cheating, getting too competitive or skirting the rules in a clearly dickish way, I will just stop coming here. I’ve had to learn a few things here, particularly respect for the people who put alot of time and efforts into running the games but I can honestly say that I play the game for fun, not necessarily to win. If I’m a dick at times I don’t mind being called out and I apologize in advance!!

Lastly and most importantly, if Murray can thank my post so it feels like the entire community agrees with me I would appreciate it....

sullivlo

True story:

I was once a wolf who accidentally n0’ed my own team mate.

Point: can’t really read anything into n0 kills.

beakerjoe

Will Drumpot stop coming here if I acquire more Almanacs.....

Drumpot

sullivlo wrote: »

True story:

I was once a wolf who accidentally n0’ed my own team mate.

Point: can’t really read anything into n0 kills.

What’s n0d?

Mollyb60

Night 0. The first wolf munch.

Drumpot

beakerjoe wrote: »

Will Drumpot stop coming here if I acquire more Almanacs.....

When you kept adding on powers I was like



And then the almanac

Necro

Hmmm... I've been struggling the past near full day with how to put my feelings on the topic into words, given the [redacted so as to not name specific players] situation originally came about in my own game.

I don't really know how I feel about it, truthfully - the re reg and restart anew.

On one hand, it's absolutely fine by boards rules and that at the end of the day is what governs us moreso than individual game rules.

On the other hand, while it's (in my opinion) not specific to this case - as in, I don't believe there was anything underhanded given it was referred to in a prior game and carried out at it's conclusion in full view of the rest of the community - I can see how it would annoy people by giving a perceived 'leg up' in terms of meta....


Which brings me back to my confliction. Per the WW charter, metagaming is frowned upon. Yet - and this is inevitable given the community has been up and running for quite some time at this point (nearly 2 years IIRC), meta is simply hard to shake given we play with each other each month.

As an example, the last game was non-anon and players repeatedly referred to others as 'they don't normally play this way' OR 'they're quieter than usual' OR 'they make bad decisions in previous games so we can't trust them in this one.'
And I'm not picking on the last game, there's tonnes of references even in anon games tbh.

I was under the impression that regardless of individual game rules it was still the responsibilty of game mods to follow the WW charter as set out by the mods of the forum... or at least it's primarily what I based my rules on (bar my faux pas in Disney of course).

So what do we do about it? Perhaps it's time to remove metagaming mentions in the charter?

Be stricter on those who refer to past games and players playstyles - not a preferred option for me btw.

Or something else entirely? A combination of the two perhaps.

Either way it needs to be looked at. It may not be upsetting to a lot, but in the interests of the few who are annoyed and frustrated by the meta, which imo brought about sKeith's initial frustration at the top here, we probably as a group need to think about it.

Drumpots post is similar to how I feel. I play here because I enjoy the banter to a certain point, love the game and enjoy playing with everyone here.

BUT... as the gambling ad says, 'When the Fun Stops. Stop.'
This constant back and forth between people is very off putting, and it saps my energy and takes the fun out of it...

There's more than that, but given sully has drawn a line then I'll leave it there (and thank you for that, it was grating that my past indiscretion was constantly being brought up as a stick that seemingly was beating me over the head since January).

Ok, that's my two (probably more like ten) cents.

Baggly

sullivlo wrote:

Point: can’t really read anything into n0 kills.

Everyone should relax on this point. As long as sully or I are playing, one of us will always be picked on n0 :pac:

Baggly

From my own player perspective, a lot of the issues being discussed are covered by boards rules - no abuse, no reregging to have two accounts, listen to the mods.

Anything that isn't is the realm of the game mods. The charter is there and where there are hard rules they are hard rules for the game mods to use. The meta one isnt a hard rule as it's very hard to stop people using meta. So imo game mods can take it or leave it.

I personally don't think the meta rule needs amending, but if anyone wants to put forward a new wording we can all discuss it.

Necro

Pter wrote: »

From my own player perspective, a lot of the issues being discussed are covered by boards rules - no abuse, no reregging to have two accounts, listen to the mods.

Anything that isn't is the realm of the game mods. The charter is there and where there are hard rules they are hard rules for the game mods to use. The meta one isnt a hard rule as it's very hard to stop people using meta. So imo game mods can take it or leave it.

I personally don't think the meta rule needs amending, but if anyone wants to put forward a new wording we can all discuss it.

I agree it's difficult. Meta is impossible to govern given the frequency of games and the regularity of most that play them.

My solution would be to remove it entirely and let the game mods make the call on it as you say above, as per the charter it is currently 'frowned upon', which - from my reading means simply don't do it.

I would say from my own perspective I'd not be one to judge players based on prior games, they could just be hectic at work, or have RL stuff going on that keeps them from being active. I detest when people refer to it within a game as a reason to lynch someone.

It's like using the list of 'Who's Online' at the bottom of the forum, outside game information (which we are not supposed to use)
Use the game and it's environs to make a judgement, not the player's past games.

All games are randed so each person has as much a chance of being a baddie as they do of being a goodie (not actual maths :P)

Baggly

I don't disagree it's difficult, I just think it's up to the game mods to decide and police it as they see fit, and having it in there the way it is isn't prohibitive and gives game mods the wiggle room to make their own decisions for their own games.

Baggly

To directly address your suggestion I wouldn't be up for removing it completely as if it is done in game, rightly or wrongly, we should be addressing it somehow in the charter.

Necro

Pter wrote: »

I don't disagree it's difficult, I just think it's up to the game mods to decide and police it as they see fit, and having it in there the way it is isn't prohibitive and gives game mods the wiggle room to make their own decisions for their own games.

Well you see to me seeing metagaming being frowned upon in the WW charter means, you can do it but you really shouldnt.

A complete removal allows game mods to do what they like re: meta.

Anyways that's my suggestion, not my call obviously.

Necro

Pter wrote: »

To directly address your suggestion I wouldn't be up for removing it completely as if it is done in game, rightly or wrongly, we should be addressing it somehow in the charter.

And therein lies the problem. We all know we shouldn't be doing it :pac: but it's difficult for both forum mods and game mods alike to police.

Banjo

The problem with the Metagaming rule - aside from the fact that it's wooly wording leaves it wide open to abuse and inequality in how it's applied, is that it's a Werewolf rule that appears in the charter for the whole FG environment. Unless the suggestion is that infractions can be handed out to players who's characters use player knowledge in D&D for example. You would be better off with a statement about how general game rule transgressions can be dealt with forum level sanctions. Then the meta rule can be applied on a game by game basis at game mod discretion.