Staff moderation of Mafia games

[Magicziggy]

You can't make members tolerate each other. But you can require that their expressions of intolerance stay within the rules and can be careful not to play favorites or take sides. That's been missing IMO. Magicziggy and Ghatanothoa (and I for that matter, in my interactions with Gawdzilla) have been tolerated. The people reacting to them have been warned off.

And I'm especially concerned about Zigmen and gandalf. They have a history of pissing each other off that you guys aren't familiar with. Zigmen is being accepted, and even encouraged to exclude gandalf. And people are piling onto gandalf in part because of his leetspeak and in part (I think) because Zigmen has poisoned the well.

Tolerated?

Oblivion, I' was sick to the back teeth of the insults coming out of Bart and Green T. They were poisoning this forum.
I tried to laugh it off, but in the end it got to me. Tell me why a complete stranger should be allowed to tell me shut the fuck up when all I have done is given an opinion.
I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.
I am not that thick skinned myself. If I was subjected to that abuse, I'd lash out tbh. If players are bringing baggage into the sign up, then it's a problem, no?
Leetspeak is not the issue. Its common place. Don't cloud the issue.
This is driving people away. I'm on the edge here myself. I have a perfectly happy mafia life elsewhere.
If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

[Magicziggy]

He didn't deserve that suspension, and it ought to be reversed and apologised for. To re-use my earlier analogy, you're treating him like a schoolchild being punished for backtalk. It's condescending and unhelpful; it's only likely to escalate matters. I can see how you might take his reply to you as an indication that he didn't intend to post within the rules, but shouldn't he have the right to not actually be suspended until he's broken them again after you've warned him?

I reported the post after that warning. He has shown no indication that he intended to stop the the abuse.
He'll be playing here with his mates if it's reversed.
It's poison.

[Ayaan]

You can't make members tolerate each other. But you can require that their expressions of intolerance stay within the rules and can be careful not to play favorites or take sides. That's been missing IMO. Magicziggy and Ghatanothoa (and I for that matter, in my interactions with Gawdzilla) have been tolerated. The people reacting to them have been warned off.

And I'm especially concerned about Zigmen and gandalf. They have a history of pissing each other off that you guys aren't familiar with. Zigmen is being accepted, and even encouraged to exclude gandalf. And people are piling onto gandalf in part because of his leetspeak and in part (I think) because Zigmen has poisoned the well.

Tolerated?

Oblivion, I' was sick to the back teeth of the insults coming out of Bart and Green T. They were poisoning this forum.
I tried to laugh it off, but in the end it got to me. Tell me why a complete stranger should be allowed to tell me shut the fuck up when all I have done is given an opinion.
I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.
I am not that thick skinned myself. If I was subjected to that abuse, I'd lash out tbh. If players are bringing baggage into the sign up, then it's a problem, no?
Leetspeak is not the issue. Its common place. Don't cloud the issue.
This is driving people away. I'm on the edge here myself. I have a perfectly happy mafia life elsewhere.
If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

No, we're not going to allow personal attacks and insults. We want this place to be comfortable for everyone - even those who just play the mafia game. (But know that you are very welcome to join in the rest of the forum or not as you choose.)

Stay and see what happens. We are only just starting to work on this, Magicziggy.

[charlou]

He didn't deserve that suspension, and it ought to be reversed and apologised for. To re-use my earlier analogy, you're treating him like a schoolchild being punished for backtalk. It's condescending and unhelpful; it's only likely to escalate matters. I can see how you might take his reply to you as an indication that he didn't intend to post within the rules, but shouldn't he have the right to not actually be suspended until he's broken them again after you've warned him?

I'd like to explain ... A short while back, after a reminder and warning, Bart Rob was suspended for 24 hours for a previous breach of the guidelines. He was told then that the next one would get him a 48 hour suspension. FBM and xamones chegwe were unaware of this when they spoke to Bart Rob about the quoted post (where BartRob addresses me). They also spoke on my behalf - I prefer people do not do this.

I came online, read the situation, pointed out to FBM that BartRob had been warned he would get a 48 hour suspension next time, and said that he should get a 48 hour suspension for the way he addressed Magicziggy. FBM agreed.

BartRob's suspensions have been for repeated breaches of our play nice guideline and the suspensions will continue and increase in duration as long as he continues to breach the play nice guideline.

[gandalf]

I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.

lol u seem to forget inspector zigmen excluded me for the dumbest reason ever, ie making a joke

i was merely explaining context after that xD

If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

hey i think there's a name for this fallacy

[sparklecat]

I reported the post after that warning. He has shown no indication that he intended to stop the the abuse.
He'll be playing here with his mates if it's reversed.
It's poison.

Do you think the post after the warning was deserving of a suspension, not for what you felt it indicated, but in and of itself?

You're probably right. If the suspension is reversed and he comes back, he'll probably insult someone again. If the suspension isn't reversed and he comes back, I imagine the same thing will happen. Suspend him then, when he's broken the rules. Because you might be wrong, because it's unfair to Bart, and because it sets a bad precedent for the forum. Bans/suspensions based on what mods predict will happen rather than people's actions... is that really how you want the place run?

[Magicziggy]

I reported the post after that warning. He has shown no indication that he intended to stop the the abuse.
He'll be playing here with his mates if it's reversed.
It's poison.

Do you think the post after the warning was deserving of a suspension, not for what you felt it indicated, but in and of itself?

You're probably right. If the suspension is reversed and he comes back, he'll probably insult someone again. If the suspension isn't reversed and he comes back, I imagine the same thing will happen. Suspend him then, when he's broken the rules. Because you might be wrong, because it's unfair to Bart, and because it sets a bad precedent for the forum. Bans/suspensions based on what mods predict will happen rather than people's actions... is that really how you want the place run?

It was my mistake not to report the post straight away.
I left it with the mods to deal with.

[charlou]

I reported the post after that warning. He has shown no indication that he intended to stop the the abuse.
He'll be playing here with his mates if it's reversed.
It's poison.

Do you think the post after the warning was deserving of a suspension, not for what you felt it indicated, but in and of itself?

You're probably right. If the suspension is reversed and he comes back, he'll probably insult someone again. If the suspension isn't reversed and he comes back, I imagine the same thing will happen. Suspend him then, when he's broken the rules. Because you might be wrong, because it's unfair to Bart, and because it sets a bad precedent for the forum. Bans/suspensions based on what mods predict will happen rather than people's actions... is that really how you want the place run?

Please read my previous post, sparklecat. BartRob's suspension was for how he addressed Magicziggy. He was warned previously that such behaviour would result in a 48 hour suspension.

We're not going to tolerate abusive behaviour toward our members.

[Uselesstwit]

I reported the post after that warning. He has shown no indication that he intended to stop the the abuse.
He'll be playing here with his mates if it's reversed.
It's poison.

Do you think the post after the warning was deserving of a suspension, not for what you felt it indicated, but in and of itself?

You're probably right. If the suspension is reversed and he comes back, he'll probably insult someone again. If the suspension isn't reversed and he comes back, I imagine the same thing will happen. Suspend him then, when he's broken the rules. Because you might be wrong, because it's unfair to Bart, and because it sets a bad precedent for the forum. Bans/suspensions based on what mods predict will happen rather than people's actions... is that really how you want the place run?

Since MZ was the player he originaly got banned for insulting, doing it again starts to look like harassment.

[oblivion]

You can't make members tolerate each other. But you can require that their expressions of intolerance stay within the rules and can be careful not to play favorites or take sides. That's been missing IMO. Magicziggy and Ghatanothoa (and I for that matter, in my interactions with Gawdzilla) have been tolerated. The people reacting to them have been warned off.

And I'm especially concerned about Zigmen and gandalf. They have a history of pissing each other off that you guys aren't familiar with. Zigmen is being accepted, and even encouraged to exclude gandalf. And people are piling onto gandalf in part because of his leetspeak and in part (I think) because Zigmen has poisoned the well.

Tolerated?

Oblivion, I' was sick to the back teeth of the insults coming out of Bart and Green T. They were poisoning this forum.
I tried to laugh it off, but in the end it got to me. Tell me why a complete stranger should be allowed to tell me shut the fuck up when all I have done is given an opinion.
I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.
I am not that thick skinned myself. If I was subjected to that abuse, I'd lash out tbh. If players are bringing baggage into the sign up, then it's a problem, no?
Leetspeak is not the issue. Its common place. Don't cloud the issue.
This is driving people away. I'm on the edge here myself. I have a perfectly happy mafia life elsewhere.
If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

MZ, I'm saying the playing field needs to be level. You should no more get away with a veiled insult than I should. And IMO veiled insults are no different from direct insults. And that's a good thing, because I hardly ever resort to direct insults. I can skate under the radar for years, while leaving a trail of sanctioned reactions behind me. It's how the internet worked 5 years ago, and that's where I honed my skills. It's not how the internet works today forthe most part. Many sites treat the indirect stuff and the direct stuff the same way. They either allow both or disallow both.

[FBM]

He didn't deserve that suspension, and it ought to be reversed and apologised for. To re-use my earlier analogy, you're treating him like a schoolchild being punished for backtalk. It's condescending and unhelpful; it's only likely to escalate matters. I can see how you might take his reply to you as an indication that he didn't intend to post within the rules, but shouldn't he have the right to not actually be suspended until he's broken them again after you've warned him?

I can see how you got that impression. There are a few things that affected that series of events that should be explained. The way we moderate is reminder-warning-suspension-longer suspension, etc. If someone comes back from a suspension and re-offends, we don't start over at the reminder or warning phase, we give longer suspension. At the time I first posted in blue, neither of the two posts in which BartRob had told people to "shut the fuck up" had been reported. I wanted to let him know that he was breaking the rules and maybe get him to promise to stop. If he had done so, maybe neither of the two "shut the fuck up" posts would have been reported.

However, after he continued showing his contempt for the other players and staff, the two "shut the fuck up" posts were eventually reported. What happened between my first blue note and the actual suspension was before the posts were officially reported. It may look to you like I was threatening BartRob, but I was really hoping he would voluntarily take some time off and come back with a better attitude. Also, please keep in mind that one of those blue notes was from XC, an admin, not me. I was trying to remove all trace of emotion from my blue notes. No ego, no threats, no attitude, just making the options clear: stop telling people to "shut the fuck up" or go away, either by choice or by a second suspension. His second suspension is seen in context with his first, from staff's point of view.

Again, I don't want to give the impression that I have anything personal against anybody. My intent is to try to do whatever I can to keep the atmosphere game-friendly. Sorry if what I say and do don't always make that clear, but please look at the broader context. I never enjoy interrupting a thread for modding reasons. I'm way too lazy for that. But I'm willing to do it if it helps remove disruptive people and helps people have more fun.

[sparklecat]

I'd like to explain ... A short while back, after a reminder and warning, Bart Rob was suspended for 24 hours for a previous breach of the guidelines. He was told then that the next one would get him a 48 hour suspension. FBM and xamones chegwe were unaware of this when they spoke to Bart Rob about the quoted post (where BartRob addresses me). They also spoke on my behalf - I prefer people do not do this.

I came online, read the situation, pointed out to FBM that BartRob had been warned he would get a 48 hour suspension next time, and said that he should get a 48 hour suspension for the way he addressed Magicziggy. FBM agreed.

BartRob's suspensions have been for repeated breaches of our play nice guideline and the suspensions will continue and increase in duration as long as he continues to breach the play nice guideline.

A suspension initially would certainly have been fair enough, then, but... well, I guess I look at it as a question of corporate responsibility. If someone speaking on behalf of a group indicates one thing immediately after an incident (in this case, that a person's going to be warned for a post, rather than banned), then I think the group should seriously consider being bound by their word. In this case, I think it's possible that Bart could have seen the fact that you gave a warning rather than responding with a ban as intent on your part to de-escalate and did the same himself; he could have responded to the warning by telling FBM to shut the fuck up, and that's what I personally had expected him to do. He didn't. He mocked the language a bit, but didn't break the rules again. I think you might be missing an opportunity here to work matters out with him, if that's something you're interested in doing. If not, if you just want his disruptive behavior to stop by the easiest route available to you... well, that's your choice. Might affect my opinion, but I won't argue that such a choice is unfair.

[higgs2]

I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.

lol u seem to forget inspector zigmen excluded me for the dumbest reason ever, ie making a joke

i was merely explaining context after that xD

If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

hey i think there's a name for this fallacy

l337 speekrs don't kno rhetorik adn that stuf

[gandalf]

I made a comment to Gandalf in zig's sign up because he/she was being inflammatory.

lol u seem to forget inspector zigmen excluded me for the dumbest reason ever, ie making a joke

i was merely explaining context after that xD

If Ratz wants to go the way of allowing personal attacks and insults, I'm out.

hey i think there's a name for this fallacy

l337 speekrs don't kno rhetorik adn that stuf

but we got mad googlefu which is way better imo

[charlou]

I'd like to explain ... A short while back, after a reminder and warning, Bart Rob was suspended for 24 hours for a previous breach of the guidelines. He was told then that the next one would get him a 48 hour suspension. FBM and xamones chegwe were unaware of this when they spoke to Bart Rob about the quoted post (where BartRob addresses me). They also spoke on my behalf - I prefer people do not do this.

I came online, read the situation, pointed out to FBM that BartRob had been warned he would get a 48 hour suspension next time, and said that he should get a 48 hour suspension for the way he addressed Magicziggy. FBM agreed.

BartRob's suspensions have been for repeated breaches of our play nice guideline and the suspensions will continue and increase in duration as long as he continues to breach the play nice guideline.

A suspension initially would certainly have been fair enough, then, but... well, I guess I look at it as a question of corporate responsibility. If someone speaking on behalf of a group indicates one thing immediately after an incident (in this case, that a person's going to be warned for a post, rather than banned), then I think the group should seriously consider being bound by their word. In this case, I think it's possible that Bart could have seen the fact that you gave a warning rather than responding with a ban as intent on your part to de-escalate and did the same himself; he could have responded to the warning by telling FBM to shut the fuck up, and that's what I personally had expected him to do. He didn't. He mocked the language a bit, but didn't break the rules again. I think you might be missing an opportunity here to work matters out with him, if that's something you're interested in doing. If not, if you just want his disruptive behavior to stop by the easiest route available to you... well, that's your choice. Might affect my opinion, but I won't argue that such a choice is unfair.

I would very much like BartRob to return and play, sans the abusiveness .. everyone else manages it and the games have been a great deal of fun that way. It's really up to him how this proceeds for him.