PSK

New Mafia Rules and Punishments (Next game can start)

196 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, PSK said:

I feel like there's some misunderstanding to the timeline for these rules. 

 

We have been giving suspensions to players for misconduct based on rules that existed in the section. For clarity, we decided to draw up a list of rules to make it easier for players to reference so that they would not be blindsided by a suspension. While most of the rules should be self evident, there were still complaints and instances of "but it doesn't say that in the rules". 

 

Drunk Mafia was an absolute mess. It felt like having to babysit some people. There was obscenely personal attacks used, claiming as a strategy being discussed and then implemented later, people forgetting that omgus posts are to remain a neutral force, and people actively attempting to throw the game. I do not think some of you understand the level of shit game hosts have to put up with at times, and unfortunately, Faint was made very aware of this. I only hope he will continue to host games as I thought he did a great job for his first time but I would also not blame him if he was dissuaded by the actions of people playing. 

 

Following from Drunk Mafia, I discussed the suspension of multiple players with the other Mafioso. I raised the issue of not being sure whether to provide them a suspension or just talk to them about it. I was edging towards suspension because the section has been getting progressively worse in terms of people showing any amount of self control. This is when the idea was put forward to use warnings. It coincided with the rulings being redone and allowed for us to reevaluate the punishment imposed on those we were already going to suspend. 

 

Perhaps it is due to the fact that we released the rules first and then followed up with the game punishments after that people are questioning the order? Let me ensure you, those that are currently sitting on a warning or a suspension were to be in that position regardless of the new system. 

 

Some of those that have warning points are individuals that usually show some level of restraint and we accept may have simply had a lapse of judgment. Others have shown some restraint after being contacted my a member of the Mafioso. 

 

Those on a suspension have shown a pattern of destructive behaviour or clearly showed intent during Drunk Mafia to take a rule breaking action before doing so. 

 

As the rules and punishments system was created after decisions were discussed about the Drunk Mafia game, previous games were not taken into consideration. If people acted poorly in a previous game, they were handled at that point in time, whether that be publicly or privately. I would seriously question the motives of someone seeking punishments for previous games given what I have just explained as the order of events. 

 

Those of you with warnings, as stated in the OP, they will be removed after three games of normal play. As others have said, these rules are not difficult to follow; you would have to go out of your way to commit a rule break imo, and as I have said myself, I suspect these were just cases of lapse of judgment and have full faith those on warnings will have them removed within that three game timeframe. 

 

Again, this is a problem. Punishment shouldn't be discretionary. If its arbitrary to go back two games to punish someone, its just as arbitrary to go back and only punish people for last game. 

 

Yes The Slickz Thing Was Handled. IMO, in light of what just happened, it's really hard to justify punishing people for last game under the old rules (claiming the new ones are a restatement) when no punishment was doled out for a worse offense two games ago. This makes people question the legitimacy of the rules and moreso the people enforcing them. 

 

Yes Drunk Mafia was a shit show. But punishment isn't based on how many ppl committed the infraction in a given game. It's based on whether X broke the rule. Retroactive punishment isn't the right way to deal with it. You can't claim to punish them under the old rules, but then use discretion as to who gets punished under those rules and who doesn't. That's inherently unfair. Either everyone gets punished or no one gets punished. 

 

Strict Enforcement of Said Rules From Here On Out Is The Right Way To Deal With This IMO

 

The fact that the infractions will be removed in a few games is of no consequence. This is about X getting punished and Y not getting punished for committing the same infractions and a lack of transparency as to why this transpired.

 

 

Edited by Francis J Underwood
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest: the best part about being a mod is that I can delete my doubles. You know how much work I've gotten out of that feature?

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Gemstone Mine said:

and so God speaketh, and his words be law

 

I'm just going to call you out here: For a mafioso, I think you're really doing a poor job of handling people disagreeing with you. OP literally talks about being a more positive environment and you're goading Francis when he's offering a long, clear post with plenty of 'IMO's. Shit on Francis in-game, sure, but right now you're posting in a role that's supposed to set an example.

 

I appreciate crei trying to diffuse the situation but I don't think appeasement is actually productive in the long-term and it only creates resentment. I think it's unfair what's happening so I'm going to come out and say it.

 

I don't accept the 'Some of you guys don't know what hosts go through' reprimand because every person protesting in here has ran games before. It sucks that Faint had a bad time hosting and I hope he does again but this game being a shitshow doesn't mean there have to be Consequences for things that previously didn't earn any.

 

We all agree that retroactively punishing under a new ruleset is messed up and that's not what's happening here. Good, let's ignore the new rulebook and pretend the current suspensions were under the old system.

 

There still isn't an explanation as to why Markus deserves a ban while Slickz didn't get one for the exact same behaviour.

I still think my OMGUS post was neutral and did not impact the game, I've received no response.

(I didn't follow the rest of the game close enough to discuss other punishments)

 

Finally, verbal warnings that are handed out and upgraded to a suspension by discretion of hosts/mafioso are imo not equivalent to formal warnings with a 3-strikes system.

 

Previous suspensions were always well justified and got discussed a lot in the old suspensions thread, I don't get why it's not happening here.  

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Malcolm's Multi said:

Shut the fuck up holy shit

 

I'm all for telling people to shut the fuck up but he's completely right on the point that you can't create new rules and then apply them to events that occurred before you created them.

 

If the mods are arguing that Markus would be banned under the old rules, it directly contradicts their no-ban decision on Slick, and it suggests that people get preferential treatment. It's not good for the section.

 

If someone wants to explain to me how what Markus did was worse than what Slick did, then I could consider it a legitimate decision. Taking the full 24 hours or forgetting to submit a night action is not that bad. Self-voting at MYLO is pretty bad though. But if that's the standard for throwing, then Mark also deserves a ban (alignment is irrelevant).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sophocles said:

Shit on Francis in-game, sure

 

Actually, they just made this against the rules, supposedly. ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jazz said:

 

I'm all for telling people to shut the fuck up but he's completely right on the point that you can't create new rules and then apply them to events that occurred before you created them.

 

If the mods are arguing that Markus would be banned under the old rules, it directly contradicts their no-ban decision on Slick, and it suggests that people get preferential treatment. It's not good for the section.

 

If someone wants to explain to me how what Markus did was worse than what Slick did, then I could consider it a legitimate decision. Taking the full 24 hours or forgetting to submit a night action is not that bad. Self-voting at MYLO is pretty bad though. But if that's the standard for throwing, then Mark also deserves a ban (alignment is irrelevant).

 

Edit: this because I accidentally hit enter before I finished it

This is not what I am saying at all. 

 

The Rationale For Punishing the Five People Here Is One Of Two Things. 

 

1. This thread is a clarification of or restatement of rules already in effect and the mods are punishing under those rules just using a different system. 

 

I have no problem with this at all. However, if that is the case, then they at the very least have to explain why punishment is being doled out in an inconsistent manner. The example I chose was iSlickz because the mods never explained it anywhere and never handed down any punishment or announced a lack thereof. 

 

I AM NOT SAYING THE MODS DID THIS: but the way that was handled makes it seem like Slickz got a pass and the mods are just trying to sweep it under the rug (for lack of a better phrase- I'm not throwing shade here despite the negative connotation) and move on. 

 

By not providing transparency as to why Slickz was not punished and then punishing Markus, the punishment seems inconsistent and is without a reasonable explanation for it is inconsistent. Why choose to enforce the rule against Markus, but not Slickz? 

 

Discretion is not a valid explanation. First of all, discretion is a dangerous tool in itself. Second of all, if discretion was used there has to be transparency so that people have a chance to voice their opinions. 

 

I am personally of the opinion that the rules just need to be strictly enforced against everyone, but the mods in claiming discretion did not take this approach and without an adequate reason why, this is inherently unfair. 

 

2. These are new rules 

 

Not the case, but in the event it is, it is unfair to punish retroactively. 

 

Edited by Francis J Underwood
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just seriously bewildered that the approach that was decided on was

"There's a lot of negativity and resentment in the section, and everyone's united in that it needs to change. Let's crack down extra hard on offenders for good measure" - because imo that's what you're doing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it so fucking hard to understand that these aren't "new"rules? they were pretty obvious/self-evident and the community had done a decent enough job at policing themselves up until this last game. 

 

You and underwood are speaking from a place of bias and not of objectivity

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iSlickz said:

 

You and underwood are speaking from a place of bias and not of objectivity

 

host = biased?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these people were getting banned/warned anyway I fail to see anything new being applied

 

every situation isn't going to be black and white and what is wrong with a case by case basis at the discretion of the mods?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iSlickz said:

these people were getting banned/warned anyway I fail to see anything new being applied

 

every situation isn't going to be black and white and what is wrong with a case by case basis at the discretion of the mods?

Slickz then why shouldn't you have been banned or warned two games ago? Explain to us why this okay given we aren't using a new set of rules. 

 

The problem with discretion is it's unfair and it creates situations where people aren't sure how their conduct is going to be affected. 

 

Take Posting During the Night Phase For Example 

 

It's against the rules, but not one ever punishes it if its non-ogi. 

 

However, if one person gets punished for it (say me) and someone else does it all the time (say Mason), then how is that fair?

 

Edited by Francis J Underwood
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was "warned" under the old system so consider that grandfathered in. 

 

Being banned on this site has always been at the discretion of a mod, why should it be any different for this section? 

 

I'm surprised you were not warned or banned for continuously posting in games you are not a part of. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jazz said:

 

host = biased?

To be fair this is a bad argument since you only started bitching about it after you got hit. 

 

I don't have that problem so idk why Slickz is saying I'm biased. Yeah he fucked me over but its pretty evident that 

 

1. He broke the rule by voting himself with presumably the purpose of getting himself killed (gamethrow). 

2. Breaking the Rules Usually Triggers Punishment 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iSlickz said:

I was "warned" under the old system so consider that grandfathered in. 

 

Being banned on this site has always been at the discretion of the mod, why should it be any different for this section? 

 

I'm surprised you were not warned or banned for continuously posting in games you are not a part of. 

Discretion is part of the problem because it creates situations like this and the one you bitch about in the last line. 

 

Because We Are Trying To Implement A System Of Rules To Make The Section Better And How We Enforce Those Rules Matters To That Cause. 

 

See Line 1 And Too Bad That Rule Is Never Enforced. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iSlickz said:

I was "warned" under the old system so consider that grandfathered in. 

 

Being banned on this site has always been at the discretion of the mod, why should it be any different for this section? 

 

Thanks for bringing up that every person who was verbally "warned" before gets a clean slate now, unless you dropped the ball last game

 

It's not at discretion any more, at the insistence of Allen there's a clear list of rules and you can only be punished for those, the suspension logs actually need to come with the number of the rule that was broken. Frogman threw a fit that it was this vague in mafia while it's so different on DGZ as a whole. Whether we should match the forum I don't think is relevant - but we don't right now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These rules and outlines do make the section better. They are more clear, and no one should have a problem with discretion being used by the mafiosos. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sophocles said:

 

I'm just going to call you out here: For a mafioso, I think you're really doing a poor job of handling people disagreeing with you. OP literally talks about being a more positive environment and you're goading Francis when he's offering a long, clear post with plenty of 'IMO's. Shit on Francis in-game, sure, but right now you're posting in a role that's supposed to set an example.

 

I've literally been trying to explain my thought processes in a reasoned manner, and you call out my one joke post as doing a bad job?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm putting that out there because I think in that regard you being bias as fuck because you don't agree with me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao francis is completely right and yall r retarded

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gemstone Mine said:

I'm putting that out there because I think in that regard you being bias as fuck because you don't agree with me.

To be fair, what he is probably upset with is that many of your responses have tried to shut down discussion or were otherwise inadequate. 

 

He's not wrong in that i am right to call out the use of discretion on Slickz as opposed to strict enforcement here. Not going to go back and quote but some of the reasons you alluded to in dealing with Slickz were 

 

- Not wanting to ban him, but not having a system that dealt out less punishment - Not sure if this is even true considering I think we had a system originally but w/e. I don't agree since what he did was right up there with mascis but that's neither here nor there. 

 

This doesn't fly here because you didn't have a system before drunk mafia either. You expressly created one because of it and applied it retroactively. 

 

- Decisions were previously made under discretion and now they are made under hard rules

 

This is just inherently contradictory. Selectively enforcing rules is discretion and while you didn't mean it to come off this way, it's essentially the equivalent of what we didn't want to ban Slickz, but we want to hit everyone from last game

Edited by Francis J Underwood
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Markus gets a 1-game ban for intentional game-throwing. Alright, requesting 1-game ban for game-throwing from rei as well: not posting entire day etc. which results into him being lynched. Explain to me how he did not throw yet Markus did? 

 

Is not being cooperative at MYLO/LYLO also game-throwing? If you're only once or twice and miss out on, or don't communicate on making game-winning plays, and post but don't leave your vote out when you know you'll be away for the next 10h, which cause the team to lose, is that also a game-throw? (basically antag/silver)

 

No, I do not want rei banned, and I assume he was busy and always get alive=scum'd, but in this game Markus started off just fine. I painted him into being scum, he realized he was a question mark and that people wanted him dead, so self-voted to rule out a question mark. How is that throwing? Now I assume this may have to do with not submitting the night action? 

 

That said, if a night phase is 24h, then someone taking the full 24h to submit their night actions should be deal with by the community itself getting angry at them at most- it's not a rule, and you can't force people to send out their night phases ASAP if I'm being objective here (because yes, in the heat of the moment I guessed it was Markus and I got angry at him for it). Now maybe the "pattern of signing up and not contributing" has to do with it. But is this even true? As far as I can remember he actively contributed in most of the last games he played in (Matrix6 was already solved so there was no point, I remember him contributing in Goat, GoT, Fuck You mafia etc). 

Also requesting a 1-game ban on myself. I self-voted which arguably threw the game.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mark said:

Markus gets a 1-game ban for intentional game-throwing. Alright, requesting 1-game ban for game-throwing from rei as well: not posting entire day etc. which results into him being lynched. Explain to me how he did not throw yet Markus did? 

 

Is not being cooperative at MYLO/LYLO also game-throwing? If you're only once or twice and miss out on, or don't communicate on making game-winning plays, and post but don't leave your vote out when you know you'll be away for the next 10h, which cause the team to lose, is that also a game-throw? (basically antag/silver)

 

No, I do not want rei banned, and I assume he was busy and always get alive=scum'd, but in this game Markus started off just fine. I painted him into being scum, he realized he was a question mark and that people wanted him dead, so self-voted to rule out a question mark. How is that throwing? Now I assume this may have to do with not submitting the night action? 

 

That said, if a night phase is 24h, then someone taking the full 24h to submit their night actions should be deal with by the community itself getting angry at them at most- it's not a rule, and you can't force people to send out their night phases ASAP if I'm being objective here (because yes, in the heat of the moment I guessed it was Markus and I got angry at him for it). Now maybe the "pattern of signing up and not contributing" has to do with it. But is this even true? As far as I can remember he actively contributed in most of the last games he played in (Matrix6 was already solved so there was no point, I remember him contributing in Goat, GoT, Fuck You mafia etc). 

Also requesting a 1-game ban on myself. I self-voted which arguably threw the game.

What rei did, we actually used to punish. We just had it on a multiple offender scale because everyone did it. @Top_LADD knows better than anyone. 

 

Voting Yourself In An Effort To Get Yourself Killed To Hurt Your Faction When Your Faction Is Mafia Is Pretty Evidently GT. Further, he did this when the vote was tied or to tie the vote near EOD. Do you understand the distinction? 

 

One is negligent

 

The other is intentional 

 

I don't have any problems with punishing Markus. I have an issue with selectively punishing him and not another player who did something that was arguably worse and/or the same with no apparent/justifiable reason behind it. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Francis J Underwood said:

 

I don't have any problems with punishing Markus. I have an issue with selectively punishing him and not another player who did something that was arguably worse and/or the same with no apparent/justifiable reason behind it. 

 

 

Which is what I did, I self-voted as scum at MYLO so it's essentially worse than what Markus did, by your own definition 

I will say that I didn't see the retracted posts Markus and Silver made after day ended and after they were dead - so I assume that to play a part in their ban as well

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.