Mandatory WotC

[Gobln]

Honestly I don't really feel like reading past games.

Idk, Policy Lynching every game can be fun sometimes i guess. Let's get along from now on, bros.

[milte345]

There has been one time where I admitted to gamethrowing and that was because I actively threw the game.

[milte345]

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

you don't want a legitimate answer to that

[K1llthestory]

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.

youre now black dog

thats your form

[parkerparkour]

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.

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

He already is, please do not enable him or give him any more attention as that is his only purpose for posting.

[TrueGent]

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.

[TrueGent]

Like someone PM'd Met yesterday and the issue was dealt with within an hour.
This solves an issue that only exists because people are too busy circlejerking themselves rather than wanting their problems solved.

[verdance]

isnt there already a rule about how you cant join a new game if you replace out for a period of time, only the mods never enforce it?

[TrueGent]

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

[ChubbyMooshroom9]

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

i've yet to be

[TrueGent]

The only game you have joined since being forced out of BB3 is Patho2 which was overlooked due to the game taking long to fill anyway.
I know that without even looking

[Alzar]

i still think having wotc as a mandatory step in every game just serves as an extra step that won't really accomplish anything by itself, if hosts want to use wotc they can but i dont see the point of having this as mandatory for every game

[Varanus]

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"

[chitownmvp01]

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.

WOTCing for personal reasons shouldn't be allowed. Past games that included WOTC required players to explain why they want to WOTC a player.

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"

[Gobln]

I think my biggest fear with the mod-team and speaking directly to them is that often, things go unresolved.

I pm'd metrion about a specific idea, and though it was discussed by the mod team, I received no reply from Metrion. This was a month ago. Or how Melanora agreed to implement certain NFM changes, but never did.

The idea of a "report" is so vague in the worst way. It just seems like I'll make a big post about a player, pm it to a moderator, and they will either ignore it or outright dismiss it, making my work invalid.

Here is my question to all the moderators. Why are you against the community having the ability to choose who they want to play with? How is giving the community the ability to WotC bad? If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't do anything. People move on and complain on discord like they do now.

[TrueGent]

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.

[TrueGent]

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.

[Gobln]

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?

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.

[Alzar]

its more childish to force every host to use wotc imo

its not even like wotc is outlawed just ask hosts to use it i dont see the issue

[TrueGent]

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?

I don't personally deal with NFM nor pay much attention to it, I suggest asking Mel.

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.

No, my argument is that WotC can encourage ignoring your issues rather than actually having them dealt with, whilst communication with the mods does not have that pitfall. And don't act like the majority of users on here aren't childish, because you would be lying.

I don't really see the point, if enough people want WotC in every game then people can just put it on their game regardless.

[Gobln]

Alright i see how this will be. Unfortunate, but I know what i must do.