Breaking Bad season 1 - Game over

[DarkLightA]

<non-gamerelated post>

Interesting. I may be at fault. Here's the exchange, after I rejected Beck's /in to my game:

Damm why you hold a grudge man?

No grudge, I just sufficiently dislike your personality to not want you in my game. If you want to discuss it further you can wait till after Breaking Bad is finished.

What I meant was that I didn't want to discuss it as the game the rejection was based on was on-going. I was surprised that Beck took it as a scumclaim, because literally all I meant by it was that I didn't want to discuss it while the game was on-going.

How could I have responded better?

[shos]

hmm. interesting indeed.
while this specific quote might not indeed hurt, as you can see, it did make an effect.

firstly, I don't think I'd reject for such a cause. as a moderator you have more power than as a player to intervene and warn a player to either stfu or get calmer in the game. Beck was very productive in this game and active, I'd like him as aplayer in my game. if he got too bursty or angsty, I'd warn players involved to chill the fuck out and continue, or at best just replace; but not reject from the start.

secondly, if you DO reject, well let's see how you can phrase it. something should be like "sorry mate, I don't want you in my game for now and can't explain. I'll pm you somewhen later" or something- I mean it sucks and all but really, if you were both alive, you can't refer to the game..

[jasonT1981]

All I will say is this subject was brought to my attention, since it didn't mention on going events I chose not to take it any further. The only thing mentioned was the name of the game, and it did come across that DLA was not actively talking about the game, and in fact saying that due to the on going game rule he would discuss the situation after this game ended.

I decided it warranted no further action as no rules had been broken.

[Beck]

To me it confirmed he knew I was town which meant he was scum. I mean I already had a good feeling but he confirmed it.

[Beck]

<post is about rules, not game>

Personally, I think that the DLA report was justified, but the others weren't.

the reason is that people can understand things about games even if you don't really say much, DLA. see, if you wrote that in a discussion of 'how do you play as scum once the cop is dead' for example, then welel....obvious. but there are other measures that you might not think about, and others can. so basically, you just don't talk about ongoing games, ever, don't refer to them, not by name, even not by saying <ONGOING GAMES> because people can see what games you're in. so you just have to ignore and say something like, "remind me to get this later", and then when the game is done, revive the discussion.

an example would be me and pirate mollie, where we were scum together in a game, and I townread her in another because meta - I knew her scumgame. but I couldn't say why, not even 'meta', because if I did, and mollie flipped in the other game, people might figure that I'm scum with her, which was right.....

But when 1 players words say they aren't putting effort into the game and another's actions show they aren't putting effort into the game, and finding scum requires effort. Its logical (to me) to assume they weren't trying to play to find scum aka not playing to win. Sure nobody agrees, but imo if you aren't trying to play the game, you aren't playing to win

[shos]

yeah this is problematic. no punishment is needed for DLA of course, but a fair miniwarning, I'd say.
the way Beck used it seems actually feasible. that's why it's problematic. but of course DLA did not do this on purpose.

[Beck]

Not to mention people assume I'm always going to play like that. 1 bad game and bam, blacklisted. I hope none of you have bad games...

[Equinox]

Mine?