Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jim Groovester]

I agree with everything that Vector just said.

That was utterly atrocious and unthinkable conduct, Book. If you're not going to try to be constructive in a way that isn't condescending and smug, I'd greatly appreciate if you wouldn't say anything at all.

Since I ICed that game I feel some ownership of it, and quite frankly, your smug little post immediately after the game was over was completely counterproductive to anything I wanted to do.

[Pandarsenic]

I agree with both the Mafia Mom (<_<) and Jim Groovester.

The subforum has, frankly, come dangerously close to death in the past and I don't want to see it collapse because we can't attract new players.

[Vector]

I agree with both the Mafia Mom (<_<) and Jim Groovester.

The subforum has, frankly, come dangerously close to death in the past and I don't want to see it collapse because we can't attract new players.

D:

I agree with both the Mafia Mom (<_<) and Jim Groovester.

D:<

Mafia Mom

I:<

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

[fake distress]Don't say stuff like that Pander, She might send us to our rooms![/fake distress]

[Book]

I'm sorry, I thought I was sparing your feelings by simply telling you to quit it rather than publicly reaming you.

Go for it, I'm right here. There's nothing that needs be spared.

This is not boot camp.  We are here to have fun.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I have said as much everytime some self-important blowhard quoted the "MAFIA IS SRS BSNS!" mantra, to which I do not subscribe. I'm here to have fun, and lurkers are harshing my high. They be screwing with my joy of the game! So I have to tell them, make sure they hear it, and, if I want my future mellow/joy/high/whatever not spoiled, I may choose to not be around those known by spoiling others' fun.

The newbies know that they screwed up.  You already called them out in the thread where they were played their game.  I don't think it's at all necessary to come out here and say this batch of newbies is bad, or that you're boycotting certain players.

They do? Good. That was the intention. Only one has owned up to it so far, which gives me hopes for his atonement. The players in BMXXI were objectively bad, in the sense that they let the game die instead of completing it. I reserve my right to remind them of this fact so they can, as you say, know they screwed up. If they mend their ways, or if I forget (it's not like I dedicate too many neurons to their individual achievements), then it'll be fine. Until then, it's like a dog with a poop on the carpet. Point their snout to it, and hit them with a rolled-up newspaper. They may or may not understand, but if they do, we'll all be better for it.

And I'm not boycotting players. I'm boycotting known flakers as mods. I will play with any of the above because diluted at 1/15 they can't do much damage; but if I know them to be unreliable, I at the moment choose not to give them control of a weeks-spawning chunk of my attention. It is my attention, yes? I can choose to place it where I deem worthy, yes? And announce my choices too. Based maybe on my perception of their past behaviour, but ultimately on my whim, yes?

Basically, you can keep your negative opinions to yourself.

I can, but I can not as well, yes? I am free to express them regardless of whether you consider them negative or positive. In my opinion, negative reinforcement is a necessary part of building a robust gaming community, as expressed by the dings in the attendance board for flakers/prods, or instances of modkilling people for rules violations. It is not just a "gold star or silence" deal, there's a "you failed" part as well.

My only motivation is a good player base. The first and foremost danger to a good player base is flakers and lurkers killing a game. People signing up to play stuff they don't ultimately play. They need to be told this is not OK. Clearly, repeatedly and with emphasis, until they understand it and either change or leave. The worst thing that can happen to a game is three or more people flaking out and needing to be replaced two or three days in. I'd rather those people hadn't joined at all.

If someone is running a game that you don't want to participate in, then don't participate in it.

That's what I said. "I won't participate in games ran by these people for these reasons, at this time". People, reasons, and time are subject to changing circumstances.

They are players who have been having issues in a couple of games, and this overreaction is entirely unnecessary.

"Overreaction" is your opinion, and I have my own (without the "over"), but I'll grant that emotions are fresh and may have triggered a stronger/faster reaction that cooler emotions would have. Is it not the case, however, that the game end was particularly bad, and that attention needs to be called to it? Shaming them, even publicly, has the effect of the dog/carpet/newspaper thing: you don't like it? You wish it didn't happen? You wish people joined your games? Then how about you DON'T KILL GAMES BY LURKING!

Simple enough. Just saying my "negative opinions" are not only part of the "atmosphere here" but built in on prod mechanics, attendance boards, IC comments, and the like. We don't want people to lurk to the point where games die. If they do, they need to be told, forcefully, not to.

Yes?


PPE: Oh, the peanut gallery. Without the amusing big fonts:

That was utterly atrocious and unthinkable conduct, Book.

What specifically: telling them lurking kills games? Telling them that the victory was hollow? Which part was "atrocious and unthinkable" and why?

The subforum has, frankly, come dangerously close to death in the past and I don't want to see it collapse because we can't attract new players.

It has, yes, and it stayed alive because there were active new players, not because of the many (whose name I don't remember, but I can look up) who signed up, played for a week, and left games unfinished for others (new or old) to pick up. If the forum is still alive is because we have some players willing to see games to the end, not because we have a lot of passers-by. Sure, as I said earlier, we should always have a BM in sign ups, so we catch new active people, but those who choose to sign up and not be active... should they be pampered? Ignored, coddled, or whatever? Or told, in no unequivocal terms, that in order for them to join a game, they have to make a commitment to see it through?



Bah. I don't get you people's point. Is it not to tell lurkers not to lurk? Then I don't buy it and stand against it. I will tell lurkers not to lurk, at the top of my lungs, at every opportunity. Lurkers are what almost killed the board before. I post trackers so they can't hide away. I favour modkills instead of replaces for lurkers. I think lurkers kill games, and should be publicly shamed, shunned, and chastised until they learn better. Is this the position about which you think I am wrong? Or is it something else? If so, please elaborate.

[Vector]

The position you're wrong about is the part where you equate people to dogs.

People are different from dogs.  Do not treat people like dogs, please, because it makes me really fucking angry.

We already have our neutral system of rewards and punishments.  We already have mods who regulate things and say "Well, maybe you shouldn't play in this game."  We already have the ICs and the mod of the game itself to talk about what went wrong without your swooping in to tell everyone how ashamed you are of them--with nothing positive in it.  You are not an arbiter.  You have no more right than anyone else, and your apparent attempt to take it is disgusting.  I am dismayed by your attempted display of force.  These people are players here, just like you, with rights to be defended.  They are not here to be hunted down and corrected, castigated, ostracized, or berated for something so minor as their actions in a beginners' mafia game.

Simply put: this is B12, and we expect better of ourselves here.

You will be a bigger man when you can alter people's behavior without making them feel like shit.  You will be an even bigger one when you value the emotions of your friends here over their performance in a game.

[Mr.Person]

Let me put it to you this way, Book. If somebody plays a game of mafia and flakes halfway through because they wind up not liking the game, are they even checking the various mafia-related threads anymore? Will they see your ranting and berating? No, they will not. They don't care, which is exactly the problem.

But what if somebody flakes through the game but legitimately feels bad for it and wants to improve? They'll probably continue to check mafia-related threads. Maybe not all of them, but potentially this one and probably the one they played, right? So the only people who are gonna see your rant about how shitty a job they did are the people who are already aware of how shitty a job they did. They don't need to be reminded, ranting just makes them feel like shit and dissuades them from attempting to reform themselves in another game, because they're afraid they'll do another shitty job. Feel free to tell everybody who played the game they didn't play well to make sure they get it, but coming onto this thread to berate them some more was entirely uncalled for and seem to serve no purpose whatsoever. And don't dwell on the bad job they did, mention exactly how they can do better. That's called constructive criticism, something you are definitely not doing.

[Book]

The position you're wrong about is the part where you equate people to dogs.
People are different from dogs.

I make the point that negative reinforcement is necessary. I use the dogs as an example where negative reinforcement is known to work. The point is not the dogs, the point is that negative reinforcement works.

because it makes me really fucking angry.

You must be mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck.

We already have [this and that...] You are not an arbiter.  You have no more right than anyone else, and your apparent attempt to take it is disgusting.

Every game is open for all posters after the end to come in and give their opinions of what was good, bad, different or noteworthy. We have all done it in many games, and will keep doing it. One thing I've done on most BM games in recent memory is, if it was a lurky game, to tell people not to lurk, and if it was an active one, to give compliments to the players for being active. This was a particularly bad one, so particularly bad comments were needed.

I am not an arbiter, nor I call myself one. I am a spectator of that game, and a player of others. As spectator, I have every right to tell the playing teams my opinions, right or wrong, at length. They may or may not choose to heed those opinions; I never claimed to force anyone to do anything, at most I have said what I have planned to do or not to on what basis. I have zero authority, but I have a voice, and I choose to exercise it loudly. Shouldn't I? Who are you, or he, or they, to tell me to shut up? These are my opinions and I choose to post them.

These people are players here, just like you, with rights to be defended.  They are not here to be hunted down and corrected, castigated, ostracized, or berated for something so minor as their actions in a beginners' mafia game.

What rights? They have no rights that I don't have. Or in the positive, they have every right I have. To tell their opinions on how to play a better game, build a better community, talk to each other, what game to run next, who may or may not join and why and so on. And sure, I have proposed (as the record shows) to be lenient about infractions in BM games, but this was a particularly bad one, so I though the point needed to be made that a different judgement by the mod and the attendance board maintainer (who happen to be the same in this case) would be in order. It is just as much my right as Painiac's to say that.

And the "beginner's mafia" excuse is valid on some, less so on others. I pointed out double shame on Ottofar, because he should know better. Ottofar has been playing here longer than I have, he should know what happens when people lurk a game into extinction. He has no excuse, and his negative reinforcement should be doubly reinforced.

One more time: I'm not calling for others to boycott them, or join or applaud or coddle or mentor or hug or whatever. I'm merely stating my personal intention and perception about those who allowed a game to fail though incompetence, and what I will do about it. I'm not recruiting. They may or may not care about what I have to say. I don't care whether they do. I say my piece, and they will choose to heed it or not. Whose rights have been infringed?

Simply put: this is B12, and we expect better of ourselves here.

If I'm not welcome, say the word and I won't come back.

PPE: Person: If they read it, then they'll know my rant has but one purpose: don't lurk.

[Vector]

because it makes me really fucking angry.

You must be mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck.

I see that you don't care about my opinions.  As such, this exercise seems somewhat futile.


All right.  I'm not arguing with you any more right now because I frankly don't have the energy to waste on it.

I would appreciate it if someone else could help me explain what's going on here, but if no help is to be had then I can continue to shout away at some other time.

[Darvi]

While I do agree with book here, I don't like the way he delivers the message.

[Vector]

While I do agree with book here, I don't like the way he delivers the message.

Ah, I'm sorry.  Of course I agree that lurking is bad and that people should be informed of it.  They can even say things like "I'm disappointed and believe that the game was lost due to flaking."

I don't think this level of vitriol, spread across this many places, is necessary.

[Mr.Person]

No, Book, you're free to yell at them not to lurk, but I think mentioning that you won't join another game with them in a thread they probably won't read is more than a bit over the line. It implies that they shouldn't even bother because you won't give them a chance. Especially since just saying "don't lurk, that game was ruined by it" would of more than sufficed. I mean, feel free to use more words or whatever, but don't make this into a personal attack.

[Book]

While I do agree with book here, I don't like the way he delivers the message.

a) I'm glad you agree; b) You must be mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck.

Ah, I'm sorry.  Of course I agree that lurking is bad and that people should be informed of it.  They can even say things like "I'm disappointed and believe that the game was lost due to flaking."
I don't think this level of vitriol, spread across this many places, is necessary.

So, just how much vitriol is acceptable towards newbies? Or is your point about where? If so, then see my response to Person:

Newbies: if you're reading this: LURKING KILLS GAMES. Don't Fucking Lurk.

I see that you don't care about my opinions.  As such, this exercise seems somewhat futile.

I do, but I want your reasoned arguments, not just your name calling, or what triggers which emotion, or false analogies of saying I make people into dogs or something. I am interested, if you have anything useful to say.


By the way: Pandar and Jim, you were quick to jump into agreement with yo mamma's posts. She's given up, so how 'bout you pick it up? Or were you just jumping into an easy bandwagon? If you have no further arguments, I restate what I said earlier, with a qualification: If my opinions are not welcome, say so, and if more votes are for than against then I won't come back. We'll even use the chess thread for it. Just man (ahem, or lack-thereof) up and state your friggin' challenge, or shut the fuck up.


PPE: Person: learn the difference between "have" and "of" or I won't read your OOC posts. It's too painful, and I don't care enough (in-game, of course, I'll hunt your scummy ass down to the end of the Earth).

[IronyOwl]

Mafia Mom

I find this wholly appropriate. Sorry, Vector.

People are different from dogs.  Do not treat people like dogs, please, because it makes me really fucking angry.

I hate to be a dick, but this is the opposite of what you're objecting to. If people could be assumed not to be dogs, we wouldn't have to worry about them slinking off and not coming back because someone was loud and mean to them.

Until then, it's like a dog with a poop on the carpet. Point their snout to it, and hit them with a rolled-up newspaper. They may or may not understand, but if they do, we'll all be better for it.

The issue, though, is that we don't want to teach them that being on the carpet is bad, or that coming near the guy with the newspaper gets you hit. Not everyone is going to be quite so understanding that you're enraged at their play and utterly disgusted with their actions during the game, and that you mean no particular ill-will towards them in general.

For that matter, I'm not sure how crystal clear you make it that simply not doing that makes everything better again- "I hope it is remembered by [everyone] when these indecent infractors try to join more games" sounds an awful lot like you're trying to run them out of town.

[Vector]

Let me put it this way.  The reason why we can argue so strongly in games without impunity is that we keep it nice out here.  We know that we're not really flaming each other.  We're friends.  We like each other.  I like my games rough and my forums nice and vanilla.

You've repeatedly said "I don't give a fuck about your opinion on the way I deliver my messages."  At the same time, you say "explain why you don't want me to berate people."

You've also said "if you don't like my opinions, then I will just leave."

Therefore, it basically sounds like either a. I say GTFO or b. I argue an argument I can't win, because your response to "I really don't like it when you hurt people's feelings outside of games" is "you're mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck."

This seems sort of stupid, doesn't it.


As for why, I actually care about people's feelings.  It's called empathy, sugar.  You might want to look it up in a dictionary.

I don't like people coming here and being cared about more as a player than as a person.  I don't like you saying "everyone remember this--heed ye!"  I don't like your ultimatums, I don't like your PSAs, and I don't like the nasty way you argue.

That doesn't mean that I want you to leave.  It means that I want you to change it, because I like the atmosphere here, I care about the players, and I don't think they deserve to be treated this way.  By anyone.