Moderators: Varanus, FM Game Moderators
TeamMystic wrote:milte345 wrote:There has been one time where I admitted to gamethrowing and that was because I actively threw the game.
*facedesk* are you trying to test how long it's going to take to get blacklisted
Gobln wrote:TrueGent wrote:Gobln wrote:Okay, Gent. Lay it out for us. Make it easy and clear for us.
Give us a form that we can fill out and use to report a player. And how many reports are needed before that player gets blacklisted/banned/suspended/whatever?
I'll gladly go back and read games, but just set it up so I'm not wasting my time here.
You don't need a form, all you need to do is let us know if you truly have an issue with someone.
The standard would remain the same, 3 official warnings for a blacklist.
I need a form. Give me a form.
TrueGent wrote:If you think we start every complaint discussion with "does this break any rules" and we completely dismiss it if it doesn't then you have missed the point entirely.
I could start warning people for every instance of rulebreaking that exists and by next week we would have about 3 players left that aren't blacklisted, because at the end of the day slight rulebreaking is allowed as long as the players involved don't care, and if they aren't communicating the fact that they DO care to me, who am I to say that they should care?
TeamMystic wrote:milte345 wrote:There has been one time where I admitted to gamethrowing and that was because I actively threw the game.
*facedesk* are you trying to test how long it's going to take to get blacklisted
parkerparkour wrote:TrueGent wrote:If you think we start every complaint discussion with "does this break any rules" and we completely dismiss it if it doesn't then you have missed the point entirely.
I could start warning people for every instance of rulebreaking that exists and by next week we would have about 3 players left that aren't blacklisted, because at the end of the day slight rulebreaking is allowed as long as the players involved don't care, and if they aren't communicating the fact that they DO care to me, who am I to say that they should care?
I'm saying it needlessly muddies the waters to combine player perspective with mod interference when it isn't at all necessary, especially when this would work completely independantly. You're trying to negate the entire concept for something that many people are not comfortable with based on how mods have handled situations in the past as well as the general perception of there being 1.5 working mods, I seriously doubt meta and communication will change unless mod reliability heightens on your end of things whereas this is very simple, realistic to add on, and tweakable until almost everyone is happy.
TrueGent wrote:Not only is that irrelevant, people have been warned for attempting to join games whilst they can't before.
So idk what you are on about
TrueGent wrote:parkerparkour wrote:TrueGent wrote:If you think we start every complaint discussion with "does this break any rules" and we completely dismiss it if it doesn't then you have missed the point entirely.
I could start warning people for every instance of rulebreaking that exists and by next week we would have about 3 players left that aren't blacklisted, because at the end of the day slight rulebreaking is allowed as long as the players involved don't care, and if they aren't communicating the fact that they DO care to me, who am I to say that they should care?
I'm saying it needlessly muddies the waters to combine player perspective with mod interference when it isn't at all necessary, especially when this would work completely independantly. You're trying to negate the entire concept for something that many people are not comfortable with based on how mods have handled situations in the past as well as the general perception of there being 1.5 working mods, I seriously doubt meta and communication will change unless mod reliability heightens on your end of things whereas this is very simple, realistic to add on, and tweakable until almost everyone is happy.
No it doesn't, it means things actually happen outside of "lol you can't play this game now because of reasons".
If people aren't comfortable with pming a mod "yo this guy is ruining my forum mafia experience" then either there's an actual issue that should be communicated in itself or people need to grow up and stop worrying about having to snitch to teacher.
At the end of the day if a player is problematic enough to the point where they would be getting WOTC'd for literally ruining the game, because wotcing for personal reasons is absolutely stupid imo, I don't see why you can't just message a mod and we can deal with the core issue rather than just excluding them from the playground because we are all 5 years old.
Varanus wrote:I find it far funnier than it should be that all the active people voted "yes" early, and then all the flakers slowly started showing up to vote "no"
TrueGent wrote:And ftr, we did in fact discuss that PM and came to conclusion that it was kinda arbitrary, thats not an issue with us not coming to a conclusion, thats an issue with metrion being busy and things slipping his mind, if you want a more offical response I suggest you chase that up instead of idly twiddling your thumbs.
TrueGent wrote:Because people don't always dislike people for reasons that involve the game or their game impact. You can dislike someone as a person but I don't think that person should only be able to join games where an arbitrary number of people don't want to exclude them for "le dank memes xDD".
You want to use WotC in your own game? Sure go fucking wild for all I care, but if people don't want to deal with their problems like adults then I'm not going to encourage dealing with them like children.
Gobln wrote:TrueGent wrote:And ftr, we did in fact discuss that PM and came to conclusion that it was kinda arbitrary, thats not an issue with us not coming to a conclusion, thats an issue with metrion being busy and things slipping his mind, if you want a more offical response I suggest you chase that up instead of idly twiddling your thumbs.
And melanora/nfm?
Gobln wrote:TrueGent wrote:Because people don't always dislike people for reasons that involve the game or their game impact. You can dislike someone as a person but I don't think that person should only be able to join games where an arbitrary number of people don't want to exclude them for "le dank memes xDD".
You want to use WotC in your own game? Sure go fucking wild for all I care, but if people don't want to deal with their problems like adults then I'm not going to encourage dealing with them like children.
So, and correct me if im wrong, your argument is that WotC is for children, and contacting the mods directly is dealing with their problems like adults?
I don't understand how giving the community the ability to choose who they play with is childish. Sure, people can WotC for "childish" reasons, but that is why it's a majority vote.
Look, how about this. Since the vote count IS in favor of mandatory WotC, let's test it out? Maybe for one episodic cycle, we have mandatory WotC? If it sucks, halfway through we can remove it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests