Policy Discussion: Banning Players

[petroleumjelly]

Not entirely sure I agree with that, Flay.

If mod's have ultimate authority over their games, why do we have Moderation Queues? Why do we sometimes require games to be reviewed? Why do you think mith set up the first-come-first-served criterion for queues in the first place?

This seems more like an iteration of "is-ought" to me. "That's the way it is, so that's the way it ought to be". There is nothing saying we

have

to have Moderation Queues, or reviewed games, or first-come-first-serve criterions. Also, to answer your questions:

1.) We have Moderation Queues so that each Mod has to undergo the same waiting time before they can mod their game, so that games are not being signed for in an unorganized manner. This has no bearing on how the mod is to conduct their game once it is ready for sign-ups.

2.) We have games reviewed because players tend to dislike games which later turn out to be unbalanced - this will adversely affect that players who sign up for that mod in the future. Players also like a sense of fairness; if they are given a role, they expect fair chances at being able to win with it.

3.) First-come-first-serve for queues is simply how it has always

been

: there is nothing saying that's the way it has to

stay

. Reasons were probably along the lines of organization, [general] equality, and consistency.

If we go down that route, I believe we'll rapidly balkanize into cliques and mod abuse and becoming newbie unfriendly.

*slaps self to stop from mentioning slopes of slipperiness*

This, however, is likely somewhat true. The problem is, I (for one) am probably

already

at or near the stage of being frustrated with certain players and newbies who have little to no experience, and I keep thinking that I would enjoy the occasional game which guarantees that I

will not

have to play with those players. This of course ties in well with the invitationals thread, but it can also go hand-in-hand with 'banning players' in particular.

If a mod has spent time both designing a game and waiting for it to bump up the queue so it can be modded, I would certainly think they have the right to disallow players who they think will:

A.) Not understand their role, or game mechanics
B.) Not participate fully [lurk]
C.) Flake out [need replacement]
D.) Be unnecessarily crass, or insulting
E.) Have had a prior history of a problem with that mod or another game.

Designing a game is like opening a convenience store on the city block. You

still

have to follow set rules (like everybody else in the city), but it's your right to deny customers if you have good reason to do so... after all, you're only hurting your own business at your own risk.

Edit:

However, if such a discriminatory practice would hinder the movement of items or people across borders, Congress has the right to regulate or prohibit such practices under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Poli-Sci FTW!

Note: I do not think that

every

game should have such criterions; far from it. If everybody were to deny the same players the chance to play in games, it would be overly discriminatory and allow those players little to no chances to change what is "wrong" with their play. Of course, Newbie Games and Open Set-Up Games [since they have fixed set-ups which do not vary with Mods] should have no means for denial excepting for technical rules (such as "you can't play in more than 2 newbie games at a time", etc).

[petroleumjelly]

I'll see your "is/ought" and raise you an "is&ought" - that's the way it is and AND it's the way it ought to be, in my opinion. That may sound elitist, but there's a lot of anecdotal experience in my world (performing plays and ritual, MUDs, neighborhood watch, mediation) that the

things which are uncontrolled tend to be both of lower quality AND of lower perceived value by the participants.

MafiaScum definitely errs from time to time on the "too long and thoughty" scale, but I think we've done very well on controlling bad moderator behavior so far.

Your point works both ways. If you allow moderators a filtering process for their games, you are giving

that much more control

to the moderator, which will thereby heighten the quality.

1) We also have Moderation Queues so that List Moderators can control who is getting in the queue. I've seen several signup threads for Large Themes shut down because people didn't even follow the lightweight process there, and several of them are games that obviously hadn't been thought out very well. Co-moderators and setup reviews are becoming more common, and I think that's a good thing.

I agree: the queue system keeps things nice and orderly, and makes sure that moderators are experienced enough to mod and can make a balanced set-up.

But the focus of this discussion is what to do once that moderator reaches the point when their game is open for sign-ups. In the same manner some players cannot play in some mini games (if they are already in 4 other mini games, for example), moderators should have some control over who signs up for their games.

2) Why does fairness not also include who can play in what games?

If a player perceives that a moderator will never let them in any of their games, ever again, because they got them lynched that one time, is that fair?

If Townspersons cannot get into any games they want because everyone starts yelling at them to "Go back to The Road To Rome!", is that fair? If you're not chatting in MishMash and General Discussion, it can take a LONG time to get to Mafia Scum or even Goon level in the forum with just game-related posts.

I'll split this into sections.

A.) Again, I can argue both ways. Fairness should also apply to all the

other

players in the game... you don't toss in a guy who can't aim a gun in a military squadron, because he's just as likely to be a liability as a help. The same goes for the type of players I would think are being the targets of 'bans' from games: until they can learn to use their tools, or at least are making marked efforts at improving, I can understand an unwillingness to let them play with the "big boys" until they've at least shown their worth in the "little league".

B.) The situation you present is not one of the reasons I would agree with a mod 'banning' a player from their games: vendettas are not a sufficient reason so far as I'm concerned. Only if you have good reason to believe that a player will ruin a game in some manner (as I described earlier) do I find it allowable to kindly tell a player to sign up for something different.

C.) A Mod which denies a "townsperson" on the basis of them being a townsperson is not being fair: as do other mods, if I spend my time making a carefully balanced set-up with what I consider to be intriguing mechanics or roles, I do not want them ruined because some player doesn't understand the basics of mafia and will claim right off the bat, or get themselves modkilled by quoting, etc etc.

For example, for Royal Family Mafia, I had two players who had never played a game on Mafia Scum sign up for my game... all I did was PM each of them asking for any past experiences in playing Mafia, and whether or not they understood basic roles (such as those found on the Wiki). After they responded, I decided that they were knowledgeable enough that I had no qualms keeping them on the roster, and the game opened soon afterwards. Denying completely raw newbies (as in "I've never played before, but it looks exciting!") is acceptable for an intricate set-up, but

not

an open set-up [which we now have at mini size, New York size,

and

Newbie game size], since there are no special mechanics which can be ruined.

I do agree with you that players can and do improve over time: but there are plenty of games other than Mini Larges or Mini Themes in which those players can do so. I do not agree with the "I can ban you no questions asked" attitude, since I think people have a right to know exactly why they are being disallowed from playing so that they, at the very least, can make an effort to either argue the opposite or change their play in some manner so as to appease the mod.