This is not an accurate reflection of site expectations for moderators. If you moderate a game on mafiascum.net, you are expected to read the game, including the unbolded text, as closely as though you were spectating/playing in it. We have issued warnings to moderators who do not do so.In post 54, Ircher wrote:.Not necessarily. Moderators cannot be present all the time, and reading the thread to spot toxicity is an even harder task (than the typical tasks). Mods could probably be more proactive in preventing toxicity, but I wouldn't necessarily blame it all on the moderator if the game does become toxic. That said, I think a lot of people have different definitions of toxic games, and for some people, that definition is much less than for others.In post 52, Datisi wrote:if the game is truly so toxic that it's unplayable... that's not a "i need to replace out" problem, that's a "what the fuck is the moderator doing" problem.
If you are reading a game, it is natural to come across most or all of its toxicity.
Now, if a game moderator sees one player call another player a "vorpal butterknife swordfish", and feels that is harsh but part of the heat of mafia and issues no warning, and mafiascum staff review the same post and has a consensus opinion that it's out of line for sitewide standards, we won't be upset that a game moderator in good faith balanced the principles of player comfort and noninterventionism differently than we would have. But if the game moderator didn't issue a warning because they are not following their own game and no determination was made at all, that's below our standards for the site.
There are other infractions that are more clearcut and that game moderators need to act on without need for discretion, such as if a player is using the game to discuss another ongoing game in a way not allowed by that other ongoing game.