Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

We need to talk...

Options
1…1011131516

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    I concur. So far we have

    Leave things the way they are
    Change the wording slightly
    Remove the metagaming rule altogether
    Remove it altogether and put in the don't be a dick rule again
    Brand new wording

    Any suggestions on wordings would be good I think.


  • Options
    #363
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    sKeith wrote:
    I think, but am uncertain, that this is what is bad and dont want done.


    A list of what's ok, even if incomplete, would be good too I think?


  • Options
    #364
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Another form of meta gaming that nobody has mentioned which has happened and imo isn't cool is referring to a players posting in real time on boards outside of the game so like say I suspect Necro is a wolf and pose loads of questions to him and he doesn't respond. I keep on and on, and then point out that it's suss because he's posting away in PW the entire time, and I reference his PW posts. Or say Necro and lordy are chatting about something in the ongoing game in a thread in PW.

    I'd class both of those as meta gaming and uncool.

    *obviously not casting aspersions on Necro and Lord they're just two players I know of that both post in PW so I used them for example


  • Options
    #365
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    sKeith wrote: »
    what metagaming we dislike,
    1) using the who's online, to keep tabs of a players comings and goings, stalking their posts outside of ww forum, and introducing that into game decisions.

    I think, but am uncertain, that this is what is bad and dont want done.

    Addendums: Killing players based on previous games, using previous games to discredit players in current games


  • Options
    #366
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Necrominus wrote:
    Addendums: Killing players based on previous games, using previous games to discredit players in current games


    You won't get out of it that easy necro. As soon as I get that bullet.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    sKeith wrote: »
    what metagaming we dislike,
    1) using the who's online, to keep tabs of a players comings and goings, stalking their posts outside of ww forum, and introducing that into game decisions.

    I think, but am uncertain, that this is what is bad and dont want done.

    I'm fine with this.


  • Options
    #368
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    Pter wrote: »
    A list of what's ok, even if incomplete, would be good too I think?
    anything found in the ww forum is fair game. that is present and past games. anything outside of the ww forum is unacceptable, and the includes FG.

    again this is non-anon ww specific.
    it dont apply to codenames d&d i spy and 20 questions.


  • Options
    #369
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Pter wrote: »
    A list of what's ok, even if incomplete, would be good too I think?

    Referring to previous games rulesets as a comparison - 'In a dream I once had.'
    Drumpots references, taken in a humorous context, although I'm loathe to bring up banter as everyone's definition of acceptable levels of that is different :cool:


  • Options
    #370
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Pter wrote: »
    You won't get out of it that easy necro. As soon as I get that bullet.....

    Lol. I don't mind that really :P I have it coming :pac:


  • Options
    #371
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Whoops I posted there and the posts I quoted disappeared.

    Are we saying 'in a dream I had' is allowed or not allowed.

    Are we saying use in game info only or in forum info only.

    Personally (not as a mod) I hate that in a dream thing. If it died in a fire, that would be ok for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    Pter wrote: »
    Discuss please. Sk I thought you weren't in favour of rampant dreaming (I concur if you aren't)

    Agree with both. Eg, if someone queries whether an SK still gets an evening kill even if they (the SK) are lynched, it's fair to answer that previous games that was the case so you'd assume it'd be the same this game too.

    Banter is hard to judge. I'd say go for it all you like but if somebody is clearly taking offense then ease up or cut it out.


  • Options
    #373
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Pter wrote:
    Personally (not as a mod) I hate that in a dream thing. If it died in a fire, that would be ok for me.


    Agreed just because something was one way in one game does not mean it will be in another


  • Options
    #374
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    Pter wrote: »
    Personally (not as a mod) I hate that in a dream thing. If it died in a fire, that would be ok for me.

    Yeah, it's the phrasing that's annoying. Nothing against discussing other games outright rather than pretending it was a "dream".


  • Options
    #375
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    [Quote= by Pter viewpost.gif]
    Discuss please. Sk I thought you weren't in favour of rampant dreaming (I concur if you aren't)

    [/quote]

    i dont mind it if its allowed, i see it as flaunting the no metagame rule as is.

    if the rules allow it, i'll use it. if they disallow it, the using it in this way should be punished.


  • Options
    #376
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    This is a really interesting discussion to read as a player.

    As a mod, that meta gaming rule is a little less watertight than some of the others so I'm not opposed to revising it. Please do continue to suggest wording. It's really helpful.


  • Options
    #377
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Pter wrote:
    Personally (not as a mod) I hate that in a dream thing. If it died in a fire, that would be ok for me.

    I'm not a fan either, was just referencing it in relation to how it's currently used. Death by firing squad for 'in a dream' and No Lynch. That would make my weekend :D


  • Options
    #378
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    Meh, I don't really mind the 'I had a dream' thing. My only problem is that it sometimes confuses new players. I don't see any issue with discussing previous game mechanics or saying 'oh well necro is usually talkative so he must be a wolf this time coz he's so quiet'. If it's becoming an issue in a game then it's up to the game mods to decide if it warrants clarification on thread or not.

    I do think the personal stuff got a bit much in the last game and wouldn't like it taken that far again when it was obviously upsetting people. I think calling someone an imbicile is fine, mentioning family is off limits IMO.


  • Options
    #379
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    So, minor abuse and taunting (in the now stuff) of a player fine. (you are... )
    abuse relating to past or present is not acceptable. (how do you.. you must...)
    abuse or mentioning of anybody else, that is not the player is unacceptable. ( kids, siblings, friends, parents etc.)


  • Options
    #380
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Sully and I have been discussing this topic and it was something I was going to post about once the meta discussion had run its course a bit. I'll be updating the charter to reflect the below, but you can take this as a mod update from both of us.

    Mod note

    From this point onwards, personal abuse of any other posters will be taken very seriously and will result in the poster(s) at fault receiving an infraction and potentially a thread/forum ban. Regardless of whether they are playing in an active game.

    Consistent provocation to obtain a reaction and instigate mod action will also be monitored and punished.

    End mod note.

    Sk I think your shortlist on what kind of thing is good and bad is very good. I think that's something we need to include when we update the charter with the above.


  • Options
    #381
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    Pter wrote: »
    Sully and I have been discussing this topic and it was something I was going to post about once the meta discussion had run its course a bit. I'll be updating the charter to reflect the below, but you can take this as a mod update from both of us.

    Mod note

    From this point onwards, personal abuse of any other posters will be taken very seriously and will result in the poster(s) at fault receiving an infraction and potentially a thread/forum ban. Regardless of whether they are playing in an active game.

    Consistent provocation to obtain a reaction and instigate mod action will also be monitored and punished.

    End mod note.

    Sk I think your shortlist on what kind of thing is good and bad is very good. I think that's something we need to include when we update the charter with the above.

    7) Don’t be a sensitive soul. While boards own forum rules clearly take precedence over any in-game rules that I have, this is a game where people will be insulted, there will be some bad language and people will try to provoke a reaction out of each other. Please accept this is part of the game and don’t go annoying the mods with the report post button unless really needed.



    zero tolerance vs playing the game ?
    not sure on this one, is it up for discussion or is it now closed ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    Provoking a reaction is one thing, but not by poking at a players family or personal life.


  • Options
    #383
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    sKeith wrote:
    zero tolerance vs playing the game ? not sure on this one, is it up for discussion or is it now closed ?

    Mod hat back on :)

    As I said, it does need to be tied to some examples such as the ones you gave. I want more input from everyone before I finalise that list, but sully and I have been talking about it for 2 weeks and we agree that rule needs to be tightened up.

    No Abuse is a boards rule so we can't have people blowing up and throwing abuse, and neither, imo can we have people hitting out of bounds topics to get a reaction.

    Looking for a reaction as to whether someone is good or bad? Yeah ok i can see that being ok. Calling someone's life a mess to break them down? No thanks.

    Similarly with the family thing etc etc as per your list.

    Disclaimer; what's in the past is past and I hope there are no hard feelings from the parties involved in any of the blow ups. There certainly aren't from me as a mod anyway, but this is something I feel does need to be changed.


  • Options
    #384
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    "Consistent provocation to obtain a reaction and instigate mod action will also be monitored and punished. "

    Not entirely sure this is clear. Do you mean by breaking the rules to make mods kill you?


  • Options
    #385
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Mollyb60 wrote:
    Not entirely sure this is clear. Do you mean by breaking the rules to make mods kill you?

    More trying to provoke someone into earning a Molly Award was my thought :o


  • Options
    #386
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Mollyb60 wrote:
    Not entirely sure this is clear. Do you mean by breaking the rules to make mods kill you?


    No so someone who pokes at another player over 3 days regarding family or some sore spot and then that second player blows up and curses the first persons mother from a height.

    Both players are getting looked at there.


  • Options
    #387
    Digital Solitude
    Registered Users Posts: 11,397 ✭✭✭✭Digital Solitude


    Is there any way we could run 2 charters for WW, one being the true charter, stuff that brings Pter and Sully down on you.

    Second charter is then game etiquette for want of a better word e.g. this is how we do it, this is how we metagame, its enforced by game mods and so each would have their own say over how tight the rules were.

    Take the metagaming rule out of the charter as Pter and Sully can't enforce it, add it to the second, players charter. Now the rule is a guideline, you can test the waters with it, worst case in that scenario is a game mod telling you to cut that out.


  • Options
    #388
    Digital Solitude
    Registered Users Posts: 11,397 ✭✭✭✭Digital Solitude


    Pter wrote: »
    No so someone who pokes at another player over 3 days regarding family or some sore spot and then that second player blows up and curses the first persons mother from a height.

    Both players are getting looked at there.

    As the game mod who allowed that to carry on, something should have been said imo. I don't want to be shifting blame, but if you have a problem with how someone is posting let a mod know.

    From my position, I thought what was said was a bit OTT but had I been on the receiving end, brushed it off. Given nothing was said to myself or PJ there wasn't much we were gonna do, mods want to keep their games going as freely and smoothly as possible.

    I think the easiest way to carry on in future is if you're not okay with how someones talking to you, ask them to stop or ask someone else to tell them, otherwise they're going to continue believing what they're saying is fair game, and plough on


  • Options
    #389
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    Digital Solitude wrote: »
    As the mod who allowed that to carry on, something should have been said imo. I don't want to be shifting blame, but if you have a problem with how someone is posting let a mod know.

    From my position, I thought what was said was a bit OTT but had I been on the receiving end, brushed it off. Given nothing was said to myself or PJ there wasn't much we were gonna do, mods want to keep their games going as freely and smoothly as possible.

    I think the easiest way to carry on in future is if you're not okay with how someones talking to you, ask them to stop or ask someone else to tell them, otherwise they're going to continue believing what they're saying is fair game, and plough on

    Can you clarify that part digi?


  • Options
    #390
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    Game Mod(s) Date Game Thread
    Werewolf XXVI - Overwatch Digital Solitude & partyjungle & raze_them_all April 2018 Werewolf XXVI


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Digital Solitude wrote:
    From my position, I thought what was said was a bit OTT but had I been on the receiving end, brushed it off. Given nothing was said to myself or PJ there wasn't much we were gonna do, mods want to keep their games going as freely and smoothly as possible.

    I don't think any game mods have done anything wrong in this regard up to now. After all the rule has been don't be sensitive, it's part of the game. The game mods honoured that, fine by me.

    However abuse is against boards rules. There is some abuse that isn't covered by the don't be sensitive rule. This change tightens that up.

    We have discussed this in the mod forum at length and it's only fair we tell everyone this and put this in the charter because there will be an instance of personal abuse (although we hope there won't be and this is all moot) and sully and I will have to step in and start handing out punishments....this gives fair warning that will happen if there is abuse (and hopefully stops it before it happens).

    As anyone can see from this thread I am all for giving game mods as much control over their games as is possible, but when it comes to breakages of boards rules we have to enforce what is there. We can understand the context of the game and let someone saying someone is acting like a fool, but we can't let harsher abusive language or pokes at RL go.


Advertisement