Application of WOTC

[zMuffinMan]

the idea that it is "ok to have a blacklist" but that it's childish to want someone out of a game you're in is contradictory

WOTC and all variants of it are designed specifically for enforcing "blacklists"

[zMuffinMan]

WOTC (and its variants) and its variants are about getting a player you don't want to play with out of a game. PMing a player directly about issues wouldn't necessarily achieve this

also no one who knowingly joins a game after another player should have any right to use WOTC (and its variants)

plus people in general are little bitches and WOTC provides them an outlet to avoid direct conflict resolution

[zMuffinMan]

With stats on who was WOTC'd out of there that deserved it vs those that did not deserve it

no one has been WOTCd that didn't "deserve" it, where "deserving" it means either playing so badly in games that people don't want to play with them again, or playing in a way that made people just not want to play with them again

it has never happened

the people who complain about WOTC are the people who it happens to and, well, look at the people who have complained about it, i guess...

i mean, you can say it's an unfair system and whatnot but, hey, i don't know a single player who has been WOTCd that i would look at and say, "i don't understand why that would have happened"

[zMuffinMan]

the reasoning behind not making it public is something like "it creates more drama" but then you get threads like this where people who have been WOTCd or are close to someone who has been WOTCd whine about how bad a system it is

tbh i don't really think it matters - do you think people choose not to play with others for no reason? if not, then do you honestly think the people who get WOTCd don't understand why it happened? i mean, maybe there's some naive people who really don't understand why others might not want to play with them but the vast majority of people who get WOTCd know exactly why it's happening. it's why they use alts to avoid it and shit...

really, the only issues with WOTC are actually non-issues - nobody should ever get WOTCd by a player who knowingly joined a game after them and really no one who gets WOTCd doesn't know why it happened. they've probably been told by multiple people what their issues are already anyway...

[zMuffinMan]

i mean, i "oppose" it in the sense id never use it and i think it's a stupid way of dealing with issues you have with someone

but really, the people who complain about it fall into one of two camps - those who live in an alternate reality or are deluded enough to think everyone can get along with everyone else and those who are personally affected (they or someone they're close to got WOTCd)

[zMuffinMan]

Player B has no right to get player A's chance for playing the game ; how horrible player A might be

the point of WOTC(rowd) is that player A makes several players not want to play and therefore it becomes an issue of multiple players out of a game to let one player in and if a number of people have issue with that player already then it probably says something about how the game is going to be - so, you know, the mod follows the

wisdom of the crowd

in that case... that's kind of how it derived its name

you're thinking of WOTO(ne), but even that is an understandable concept whether or not you agree with it - you seem to think that because player B should be the one to suck it up or replace out because a player they don't want to play with joined

after

them... some people do that (you see people /out when another player joins sometimes) but really, your philosophy is no more valid than someone who thinks player A (who joined afterward) should be the one to find a new game

it's really up to the individual moderators, not you, how they feel about it. if you don't like this, don't join games that advertise WOTO

[zMuffinMan]

To me it's like imagining if our report system let people see who reported them

i don't actually think that's a bad thing, but then i also think if you're too afraid of what other people think of you that you're not going to do it if they know you're doing it then you have some serious issues so *shrug*

i don't really like the whole "talk behind their back about them" mentality it promotes and it's just a cowardly thing to do

but i understand that cowards exist and need an outlet so whatever

[zMuffinMan]

it's a courtesy, not a requirement, to tell someone directly that you don't want to play with them (and why)

should it be done? sure

should it be mandatory? no

i DO think it says a lot about a person if they're too afraid to tell another person directly that they have issues with them, but i also don't think people should be forced to do that if they're really that afraid of it

[zMuffinMan]

pretty sure vi meant 94, not 95, but hey, whatever