Application of WOTC

[SpyreX]

It's almost like the moderator is. .moderating.

Is this utilized that often these days? I mean that's concerning for a while different set of reasons

[Frozen Angel]

This is enough

Also IME most people who dislike someone enough to blacklist them have either told this to them previously or seen multiple people they respect tell this to them. Post 95 is correct in practice.

This is redicolous.

Your arguning about something being just or not with me and you guys can't really stop insulting my understanding.

For the last time : No I never got wotc'ed. I am in some people blacklists though but they are in mine as well.

Let me give you an example. during one of the games I had , my mother passed away, and my activity level decreased in a game. Me and my mther got insulted and I got accuesd that I'm using RL excusses for lurking. I blacklisted that person for a long time. since like a moth ago when he tried to join a game I was in. I messaged that person asked him to leave and the return message was his appology for previous behavior.

And I forgave him. And I played that game and I let him play my game after that point.

Is there any darker colors than black? What is worst than getting insulted right after your mother funeral?

This is what it is. You are responsible for your problems with others. You must explain them to them - follow those problem - see if you can resolve them or not. If you reached this agreement to stay away from each other but the other person is being unreasonable You may use a middle man - in this case moderators - if not the current wotc is like running toward your mother and asking her to punish the bad boy who you have a problem with. You think it must be this way cuase we have minors in here? I'm sure this approach is not even considered just by 10 years old forward.

If you want to take someones right for joining a game (cause if their not banned or WOTM'ed by mod they have that right) You must resolve this issue with them directly or in a public manner - whatever is your choice.

back to the insults coming toward me. yes I might not be fun to play with. Whats your point? Are you saying cause I'm not fun to play with my idea about WOTC is wrong? Are you saying cause I'm arguing its not just for being handled privately (not in justified manner privately) I'm not fun to play with? Or are you stating that I'm an absolute peace of trash, better being ignored and thrown away inside a trash can and throwing it away in the middle of ocean - cause i am that peace o trash

I have the bravery to accept that though. Do you have the bravery to accept your wrong?

For the record I see some justice in a Completely private WOTC as well , where people who are not informed who is woting who , wotc the same person for same reason. But that's just imaginary I persume. who use that? Show me an example please.

[Frozen Angel]

It's almost like the moderator is. .moderating.

That is ok. Moderators can choose whatever enforcer method they want at the end. I accept and respect this.

The rest of the argument is about these enforcer methods justification. I do beleive WOTM is totally justified , the rest have some problem which can be fixed if

1 - every player who has a problem must try to directly resolve this issue with the other one cause if that other player is joining the game your in that means they don't have any problems with you (Its not two sided) so your responsible for the issue you have
2 - judging a more serious accusation (which can't get resolved privately) must be done publicly or at least the accused person must be informed about the whole story and the identity of the accusers.

They are arguning that this will cuase drama and I totally agree with that. Can we remove drama's and fights in courthouses? no cause the accused have the right to know what are the accusations and why are their getting exiled and loosing something which is their right.

[Frozen Angel]

Again this will only backfire at me

no one is going to argue logically with me , all you will do next is to say "This is for the best!" and "only morons like you will argue about it being wrong"

so there is that. I got my answer, if its any of the above without proper reasoning don't bother yourself for writing them down please. That way I won't be forced to waste my time writing about my POV again and again and you will help me and yourselves a lot.

[zMuffinMan]

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

[SpyreX]

I think there's a disconnect somewhere in this discussion.

I think it's great you were able to reconsile with someone with that poor of behavior. I think your personal decision to do so is one.

I also think if you had chose not to, it wouldn't have been a poor reflection on you to have went to a mod and say this is why i won't play with them and, at that point, whatever the moderator devices would be valid.

Even moreso, i think that if this was in signups i think the other 11 players have every right to not have to deal with this being aired publicly.

There's enough nuance that any policy that takes this out of the moderators hands i would not agree with, but i also barring be circumstances think people should be able to figure out how to play like humans without a wotc to begin with.

I have a blacklist as a mod but it's not for the types of things that appear to generate this.

[Ranmaru]

And that's why I want to push it to a single person who has the final say.

MOD: I'm rejecting this entry.
PLAYER: baaaaaaaaaaw why
MOD: Because <embarrassing links>
PLAYER: baaaaaaaaaaw not fair
MOD: Yet I'm the mod. Sorry or something.

Also IME most people who dislike someone enough to blacklist them have either told this to them previously or seen multiple people they respect tell this to them. Post 95 is correct in practice.

I think this is all fine public too. Basically not have everyone vote, I agree with mod intervening.

Like just updating the thread with "

Mod: Ok ScummyMcscummersan, we have determined that you have been WOTC'd for reason A, X, and 3"
ScummyMcscummersan: Ok fine. D: <

See how easy that was? It's public, on one wants to act like a brat in public. I guess people are sensitive everywhere, even my own fraternity brothers, but I call out anyone and I don't care. I'll be direct. You can't solve problems being quiet and 'not talking'. Communication is key, and transparency.

[Vi]

Mod: Ok ScummyMcscummersan, we have determined that you have been WOTC'd for reason A, X, and 3"
ScummyMcscummersan: Ok fine. D: <

See how easy that was? It's public, on one wants to act like a brat in public. I guess people are sensitive everywhere, even my own fraternity brothers, but I call out anyone and I don't care. I'll be direct. You can't solve problems being quiet and 'not talking'. Communication is key, and transparency.

Don't even call it WOTC because it's imprecise and the term has baggage attached. Instead, explicitly say why you're cutting them out.

"Denied. You flaked from your last three games. The next game you flake from won't be mine."

[Frozen Angel]

Thats WOTM and perfectly fine and just

[Papa Zito]

good lord almighty

there are people on here who have proven time and again to be useless, or flakey, or a chronic lurker, or toxic, or whatever. Generally Unfun To Play With.

Players in queue seeing one of those people joining a game and PMing the mod to say "hey that guy's a jerk can you not let him in" isn't some kind of massive evil corporate conspiracy, it's people who don't want a crappy person shitting up their game.

The End

[Wisdom]

FA
If people were reasonable enough to not /in for your games after youve told them not to you most likely wouldnt have blacklisted them in the first place
Not everyone is reasonable, therefore you do need a way to forcibly kick them out when they dont understand

[Accountant]

1) some people are shitters
2) i dont want shitters in my games, whether as a mod or player
3) ergo we need a way to keep shitters out

if we accept these three points as valid then wotc or a wotc-like system has to happen at some point. Anything else is just wording or fine details

[Wisdom]

(still at FA)

I think your issue is actually not WOTC itself, but that when you blacklist someone you should inform them of it rather than saying nothing and just anonymously WOTC the person out of games. In which case I agree with you.

But I don't know if anonymous WOTC without any prior notice really happens that often, does it?

[Accountant]

Nobody gets kicked because of one anonymous WOTC. If you anonymously WOTC someone and they get kicked, that means other players dislike them too, which means they probably deserve it

[Frozen Angel]

show me a fully annonymous wotc accountant.

the current meta of wotc is like this : player a pm's mod player b shouldnt play beacuase of x and y. mod announces there is a request for wotcing player b, if anyone else gas issues pm me. player c and d tell mod they have issues as well and b will be outed.

its wrong becuase :
- the reasons never got public
- player b dont know who are the accusers
- players c and d had no sirious issues with player b before mod ask them anout it.

so in my opinion :
- it must be either fully hidden or completly public
- player b must be notified about the accusations and the accusers

[Accountant]

That's fine, but it's not an argument against WOTC as a mechanic. You're just saying it needs some tweaks

[Aristophanes]

That's fine, but it's not an argument against WOTC as a mechanic. You're just saying it needs some tweaks

Which is the whole point of this thread really.

[Frozen Angel]

>.>

read my posts since the start and tell me if I was sying anything else?

[Papa Zito]

its wrong becuase :
(1)- the reasons never got public
(2)- player b dont know who are the accusers
(3)- players c and d had no sirious issues with player b before mod ask them anout it.

1. Two things here - why do you support public shaming and also who ever said that Player B has some constitutional right to know these reasons?
2. See #1. There are also some people who would prefer to just

play mafia games on a mafia site

and not get bogged down in useless drama. Weird right.
3. Sounds like C and D did have serious issues since they PMed the mod about it. :3


THE POINT IS that after your scenario is finished the moderator has a better playerlist which likely leads to a better game. I dunno about you but I for one am all about better games. hooray

[Frozen Angel]

1) I'm not supporting public shaming. I'm saying player B must know the resons. Don't tell it publikly in queue thread. But you shouldn't hide that detail from the accused and exiled player.

2) Its not something the accusers must have a talk about. Player B is getting judged and punished and he has every right to know why. You wanna prevent drama? Can you prevent drama in a ourthouse by not telling the accused what are them accused of? sure you can but its wrong.

3) They pm'ed the mod about it after mod reminded them. Their just supporting a case they think is on player B and want to support the WOTC becuase it might be legit and they don't want their game ruined. I saw someone getting woted in a player list who didn't know him mainly - can you explain why such a thing might happen? If it was totally private then multiple people reahed the same onlousion about Player B and that might, "MIGHT" means their case is legit.

As I said I am ok with enforcers. WOTM , Blaklisting , whatever ... WOTC is working. but don't fix what ain't broken? Thats wrong here cuase I'm talking about justifiations and human rights and thats what is not in the current meta of WOTC. Remember your taking someones right to play a game. Its like caliming a land is yours. we can do that in a barbaric manner or in a civilized approach.

[Papa Zito]

This isn't the Hague ffs, there's no court or criminal procedure or cases or "rights" or anything. it's just people who want to play mafia games and have fun.

You are

once again

assuming these people haven't been told time and again that they're toxic of what have you. By and large they are well aware of their reputation.

[Frozen Angel]

This is a form of human societies.

If they know that already, what is the harm in telling them again? beside showing your not extremely rude and coward.

[Accountant]

This is a form of human societies.

If they know that already, what is the harm in telling them again? beside showing your not extremely rude and coward.

Because it gives them something to latch on and argue and drama llama about

[Frozen Angel]

This is a form of human societies.

If they know that already, what is the harm in telling them again? beside showing your not extremely rude and coward.

Because it gives them something to latch on and argue and drama llama about

That what happens in human societies when you sentence someone. To avoid that you may have general rules for further (more crucial) punishments.

[pirate mollie]

This is a form of human societies.

If they know that already, what is the harm in telling them again? beside showing your not extremely rude and coward.

Because it gives them something to latch on and argue and drama llama about

That what happens in human societies when you sentence someone. To avoid that you may have general rules for further (more crucial) punishments.

fa I am with spyrella in that I think there is a disconnect here. I have been kind of seeing this as part of language barrier combined with a naturally defensive personality and I am not judging you for either.

so lets work from the premise that there is a miscommunication somewhere and break this down. you cannot expect other pple to go back and read your posts in order to wade through and glean what you are trying to say if you are unwilling to do the same courtesy. I keep getting the feeling you are reading a different thread than I am cos I am not seeing where you are insulted or ignored in any way; I am seeing pple keep trying to explain things and you seem unable or unwilling to parse what is actually being said to you. what I am saying is, there really needs to be some level of reciprocity here. okay?

so lets break this down:

1. this forum is not a democracy it is modocracy. we as a userbase have no control over who the mods are or how they enforce the rules. and this extends to the game mods altho the userbase does have some control over which mod's games they chose to join.

2. zito is correct in that this is not a court of law. this isn't a "human rights" issue. I wonder if the is the keystone of the breakdown in communication, the "disconnection" if you will is cos I think we have the same understanding of what human rights actually are. I am not quite sure how to fix this tho.

3. I thin the reason no1 is readily providing you with a list of successful, private, anonymously done wotc-ing is that pple likely wanted to keep it private for a reason and don't want to bring it light, most likely including the pple who were wotc-ed. pple who are getting wotc-ed have likely been told what behaviour that other players find unacceptable in previous games. show me an example of where some1 was wotc-ed and it came out of nowhere.

4. lets look at 3 examples of members who were either wotc-ed or threatened to in the queue.

marquis - I remember when marquis first opened that particular account pple started making noises about her joining games because was laying a steady trail of lol-hammering that was costing players to lose games. I can't remember how it got resolved but regardless marquis stopped lol-hammering. and became a super duper strong player that was mostly universally enjoyed.

bert - when bert was new he wld get steadily run up in games and he wld freak and either self-vote or self-hammer. some players reached out extra hard to him and he listened to the feedback and soon became a lot of pple's most favourite player. I MISS HIM. again it was brought up in the queue but I can't remember if he was actually wotc-ed.

now lets look at jeanne/yume (who incidentally is this thread about). under the jeanne account jeanne was given feedback on her play by getting wotc-ed and when it was made public she started a thread in md about her getting wotc-ed. she was given feedback as to why, she got defensive and was told to "create and alt". I think the yume account came first (I can't remember exactly), she started joining games under yume and never corrected the behaviour and sure enough, is getting wotc-ed again.

so why is it the responsibility of the other players to repeat themselves and keep giving her chances when she is not accepting the feedback or correcting the questionable behaviour and not jeanne's to correct it? I mean how many chances shld she be given at the expense of games when she has a pattern of not correcting it?

and 5. I am really confused how on 1 hand you are saying that you think the reasons ought to be made public along with the accuser's name and then say that you are not naming and shaming. cos to me it seems like the latter is what you are advocating.

I hope that I am making myself clear, I know I am simply not the most articulate person and struggle with communication myself.

I don't know, mebbe if you cld put aside the filter of perceiving that pple are attacking you instead of trying to communicate that they disagree with you things might go better. wis made some fantastic points and I think he has an easier way of communicating with you as in, you don't seem to get quite so reactive with him. but I don't see you considering his very valid points either but mebbe I am wrong.

anyway I hope this helps in some small way. I like you, even tho I frequently find myself disagreeing with your perspective on things. I think you are at heart, a good egg