Nope, if people are going to call me sexist for something that's not I will defend myself.

i don't think i could be a mod. i would ban ihcjay for being sexist

You're sexist and you're ableist.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...rchid=63429117
And you're consistent about it too.

I would ban you for being Matt Gaetz to birdman's trump

Unfortunately these threads always get to point where people want to resolve some old injustice/disagreements.

IMHO it is long past initial discussion.

Just add r word to bannable offense list (make a poll if you want to really make sure majority supportsthat). Make sure to include this information in game OPs and just clearly highlight that rule in next games starting or if we have bigger games with lot of crowd so people would be aware.

If see some other upsetting words being used then just lets try to educate people and if they keep doing it then report to greens or game mods.

Sort it out somewhere else or behind the scenes who gets appointed as mod.

Maybe lock this thread.

And if people put lot of effort to run games then it should be their right to blacklist people. And instead of whining improving your behavior might get you out of that list.

You did cheat.

I assume you’re not campaigning for real.

I don't understand how people can keep these crazy grudges for years.

Get over it. If you can't even keep the facts straight, why is it still an issue to you?

and you are stepping up as a WW mod. Congrats!

good post Willi

willi for mod

It seems to me that the stuff being discussed here boils down to three distinct questions:

1) Should there be a change to the longstanding policy of avoiding -- to the greatest extent that's reasonably feasible -- temp-banning players while they are alive in a werewolf game?

2) If someone is temp-banned for their conduct in a werewolf game, should that automatically result in a modkill?

3) Should the r-word be elevated to the top tier of bad words?


I think that there's been a lot of miscommunication about the objectives of this thread which has in turn made it easy to misunderstand/mischaracterize/not even find out people's positions on these specific issues.

I think that the second question has a very obvious answer, which is no. Modkills can throw off the game balance and thereby reduce the enjoyment for all of the players and taint the victory of a team that clearly benefited from a modkill. They have comparatively little impact on a player that's already been removed from the game. Modkills should be used as a last resort for game integrity problems which cannot be resolved with a substitution.

The third question is a qualified yes. The number of people insulted by it is significant enough that it might as well be eliminated from use. That said, I find it problematic to claim that it's exactly equivalent to other words and therefore should be treated exactly the same. Words are not exactly the same, and in this case one key difference is simply the amount of disagreement over the severity of the word. In practical terms, this means there could be any number of people who use the r-word who are perfectly capable of being good members of the forum, while anyone using the n-word is likely irredeemable/unwelcome. Accordingly, a first offense in each case should be treated differently. (And of course, personal attacks are already against the rules, so a full discussion of this issue would also have to account for how stray personal attacks are dealt with in practice.)

The first question is more of a subjective issue of how much to value game integrity vs other issues. Subbing people out of a game is undesirable from a gameplay perspective, but in most cases it doesn't break the game. Generally players have only been removed from games if it appeared their poor conduct was likely to continue. This continues to seem like a sensible policy to me.

Also, a theme that's underpinning all of this discussion is the philosophical issue of punishment vs rehabilitation. All of my experience with moderating has led me to believe with more and more conviction that punitive measures do not actually lead to rehabilitation. Most people either want to fit in with a community and follow its norms (even if those norms don't align with all of their personal preferences) or they don't. With people in the first group, education is sufficient for reform and punishment may actually create resentment and long-term damage. With people in the second group, punishment may cause them to tailor their behavior to avoid future punishment, but it won't actually resolve the underlying problems and there are likely to be persistent ongoing issues with their behavior. Any rigid set of rules and guidelines will either be too strict and trigger punishment for a lot of innocent behavior, or it will be loose enough for bad posters to make people miserable without triggering punishment. I believe the optimal approach to moderating is to treat people as if they are in the first group until they make it clear that they aren't, and then ban them.

Willi

Very surprised to hear that from you. If a players breaks a rule and heavily spews themselves villager in the process, modkilling is superior to subbing out. Would you rather compensate the wolves by giving them, say, a vig, which would result in them killing another clear player that did nothing wrong? Isn’t it much better to remove the offender?

Or maybe you disagree with the premise (i.e. that, if a player says a banned word whose utterance will result in their removal from the game) they are overwhelmingly likely to be a villager?

At any rate, game mods should obv be able to decide the best course of action for themselves (if the r-word rule is introduced, that is, but at this point, this seems quite likely to happen) but I think that modkilling here is clearly the superior solution. Yes, killing off a slot is unfortunate, but leaving an illegally cleared slot in the game is the worst option.

An Estonian mod you say. What’s next, independence from Russia?

Look, the stuff relevant to the actual purpose of this thread is 95% solved by implementing birdmans suggestion of making it a standard mod action to "remove someone from the game" for problematic behavior, and to publicly announce they are doing so. This gives the game mod the flexibility to solve the situation in a manner that least disrupts the game, removes the problematic person from the game, and publicly reassures the remainder of the game that action is being taken.

The rest of the thread involving bobo, mets, and pwns concern trolling, and kami/siu vs the world is just the nonsense that happens in pog any time anyone tries to make this place better.

Now someone start a new thread for talking about new pog mods so people can campaign over there and the rest of us can laugh at the people campaigning over there

I'm not sure how that would play out in practice.

But I think that there's a confounding issue here in that villagers are more likely than wolves to be highly insulting irrespective of the potential for punishment.

I'm also assuming that if this rule is introduced then most violations would be from people who don't know about the rule.

So... probably villagers again

This. It's simple from an outsider's point of view.

Dont call someone a slur or you risk getting removed. Doesnt matter WTF the slur is, if you use it against another player, gg.

Kind of like socialism

Bruh

I've basically stayed out of this discussion because I don't think my opinion should count for hardly anything for #1 or #2 as a largely non-WW person here.

I'm in support of #3.

Also

What the actual **** is happening, you guys. This is completely *unacceptable*. This kind of **** is why I throw hands around here. CF, ianaww, what the **** is WRONG with you???

You’re completely in the wrong for this, and her reaction to it fair.