I know I'm not the best and most lawful player. However, I believe I am still entitled to give my opinion on the state of moderation on this site. I have a few questions to ask, and a few statements to make.
edit: there is a big problem with rulemongerers on this site as well. :L
1. I believe it is unfair to give violations out freely when there is a report exchange (A->B, B->A). Moderators need to take context into account when giving out violations.
For example, there was a game where a town refused to give hammer to me, the clear. Ok, dandy and all, and that game I didn't lead as well. However, I was not mafia, and I wasn't trying to force him to lynch a certain person. I mentioned that this game was a "bonafide slow rolling report," and I didn't intend to change the game to make anyone get lynched.
This person has 1k games, he knew the situation, and yet refused to give hammer, and refused to defend himself once I lead on him for not doing so.
He got no vio, I got an OGI violation. The typical application of OGI in regards to report threats is "threatening to report to get someone to vote the way you want them to,"
This was a situation where the gunned was cop, the cop had shot gun, and all clears were uncc'd. I didn't even directly threaten, but just stated the fact this was a slowroll report game.
This leads into my next statement...
2. Game Hijacking needs its own report category, or at least, should be recognized as a problem
There are people who play red hearts and gold hearts for fun, and there is usually an established flow to gameplay. As a player, I usually interrupt that flow of gameplay with weird strategies. That is not game hijacking.
I have actually game hijacked once before. In an anonymous deck game, as Orange, I demanded hammer from town, and since they refused to give it, I refused to vote. I ended up vegging from that.
That is something that I believe should be prosecuted heavily. I was recently in a game where I was forced to stay for 30 minutes because the clear:
1) didn't ask for hammer 2) forced no lynches because 2 town were voting maf and he disagreed 3) baited and trolled for reactions the entire time due to my reaction to being held hostage in a game
The question is, what can I do, as someone held hostage in a game? The way it's been looking recently with this moderation is that the person I report for ruining the game experience gets off with no vio, while I, in my reaction to having my game experience thoroughly , get a vio.
What can I do? Threaten to report after 7 days until meteor? Suicide, which would be game related suicide? Report for gamethrowing after the person promised to lynch the mafia, but due to my reaction on Day 7, hammer me instead? A convenient mishammer after 7 days.
3. The censor needs to be fixed, intensified, or removed entirely.
The censor, to me, provides an excellent way to let out a slurry of insults and frustration without actually letting them come out. However, the censor is so poorly designed that it cannot recognize plurals of bad words. At least use a better API for gods sake.
Denial views it as "the censor is there so you shouldn't even be typing the words it's censoring"
Excuse me this isn't christianfriends.com where you can just tell a bunch of people in a game that makes feeling run high that they can't say things.
I'm probably going to get an HC vio because I accidentally bypassed the filter because the filter IS SO SO SO BAD!
Questions
1. What is a conclusive definition of OGI? Why are the rules applied so literally, when they were clearly written with a certain intent? For you law nerds out there, I'm questioning the jurisprudence of the moderators.
Do we apply the rules by the letter, or do we apply the rules based on the intent of their writing: aka, what situations were they designed to prevent?
For example, OGI is to prevent people from strongarming you into voting a certain person or making a certain lynch.
It's even designed to prevent you from being forced to sheep a clear when there is a situation where maf may be gunned.
However, this is where things get unfair for the person just trying to play the game: when someone just outright decides to just ignore the clear in a small, day 1 mylo setup like Guns and Hookers, in a situation where maf cannot blitz.
I believe it is okay, in that situation, to ignore the clear, when*townw agrees with you and follows your lynch, in defiance*. However, simply saying, "NO i will not give you hammer", and not lynch someone who you think should be lynched in defiance of clear, is to me, Game Hijacking. Now, town has to work around you (if you are town), and it gives mafia opportunities to slip in and appear towny.
2. The appeal process needs to be streamlined, and coded into the website. Appeals need to be against violations as well as in disagreement with a NO VIO. How can this be done, and what can we do about that right now?
- At what point does experience outweigh benefit of the doubt?
For example, I recently had a game where I reported someone for gamethrowing, because they were sheriff, and I was blacksmith. I was cc'd. Cop was also dead.
I encouraged sheriff to shoot in blacksmiths, because while we can shoot wrong, we cannot lynch wrong. Worst case scenario, he hits me, and my cc gets lynched.
He then shot outside of blacksmiths.
Then, he HAMMERED outside of blacksmiths.
This is a trophywinner. And he got no vio.
That is stupid.
I don't really have much else to say.
