We are humans and this is a part of a human driven society.In post 172, Accountant wrote:See? You keep falling back on the ideas of a court of law, of rights and obligations. I have 0 obligations to anyone as a mod, as a player or as a fellow human being, other than to follow the site rules and be generally civil.
Its really not!In post 173, Accountant wrote:FA, ITS OKAY TO BE UNFAIR
ITS OKAY TO UNFAIRLY EXCLUDE PEOPLE FROM A GAME
THAT IS THE FRIGGING POINT
Do you know if they have their shit together by that time though? I agree with getting their shit together of courseIn post 176, Accountant wrote:By stripping them of their rights to respond and stir up drama, by stripping them of their rights to play a game of mafia, you are sending them an unambiguous message that they are not welcomeuntil they get their shit together. If you give them a chance to argue back or give them reasons to be fair, then you're missing the point.
WOTC is a *punishment*.
No it's not! Humans can be as unjustified and unfair as they like. That's the freedom of thought and action, two of the most basic freedoms in the world.In post 175, Frozen Angel wrote:We are humans and this is a part of a human driven society.In post 172, Accountant wrote:See? You keep falling back on the ideas of a court of law, of rights and obligations. I have 0 obligations to anyone as a mod, as a player or as a fellow human being, other than to follow the site rules and be generally civil.
Justification and fairness are all defined by the definition of humanity.
Its really not!In post 176, Accountant wrote:By stripping them of their rights to respond and stir up drama, by stripping them of their rights to play a game of mafia, you are sending them an unambiguous message that they are not welcome until they get their shit together. If you give them a chance to argue back or give them reasons to be fair, then you're missing the point.
WOTC is a *punishment*.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
That's not the definition of freedomIn post 179, Accountant wrote:No it's not! Humans can be as unjustified and unfair as they like. That's the freedom of thought and action, two of the most basic freedoms in the world.
You assume they don't have their shit together until proven otherwise.In post 178, Ranmaru wrote:Do you know if they have their shit together by that time though? I agree with getting their shit together of courseIn post 176, Accountant wrote:By stripping them of their rights to respond and stir up drama, by stripping them of their rights to play a game of mafia, you are sending them an unambiguous message that they are not welcomeuntil they get their shit together. If you give them a chance to argue back or give them reasons to be fair, then you're missing the point.
WOTC is a *punishment*.
Like whatIn post 181, Frozen Angel wrote:That's not the definition of freedomIn post 179, Accountant wrote:No it's not! Humans can be as unjustified and unfair as they like. That's the freedom of thought and action, two of the most basic freedoms in the world.
and no they can't really.
talking about liberal arts always ends up in fights like this.In post 151, Accountant wrote:Why are you so fixated on being justified in your actions? Nobody needs to justify anything. That's the beauty of it.
no definitely not!In post 183, Accountant wrote:Like whatIn post 181, Frozen Angel wrote:That's not the definition of freedomIn post 179, Accountant wrote:No it's not! Humans can be as unjustified and unfair as they like. That's the freedom of thought and action, two of the most basic freedoms in the world.
and no they can't really.
Are you seriously trying to put forth an argument for policing the private thoughts and reasonings of mafiascum players in order to create a more fair wotx system
1) make an altIn post 184, Ranmaru wrote:So how would you want them to prove themselves otherwise, is my question? (if they can)
And I'm going to repeat myself againIn post 186, Accountant wrote:I'm going to keep repeating this.
No mafia mod is obligated to be fair to players that might shit up their game. No mafia player is obligated to be fair to players who might shit up their game. If YOU get WOTCed, sucks to be you. You don't get the right to demand explanations or an appeal. You leave the game, because YOU have been judged in the eyes of your peers and found UNWORTHY by your other players and mod to play in the game.
lol Yeah, good idea. No hard feelings.In post 185, Frozen Angel wrote:talking about liberal arts always ends up in fights like this.In post 151, Accountant wrote:Why are you so fixated on being justified in your actions? Nobody needs to justify anything. That's the beauty of it.
there is no way for you to convince me at this point , nor a way for me to convince you.
and we both are right and wrong at the same time. so lets ned this and catch up with our lives!
okay you thank its rude. are you okay with pple disagreeing with you? cos I feel like that is where at least part of the conflict is. for instance I do not think it is rude, but there was a time when I did.In post 125, Frozen Angel wrote:thanks for response.
1. As I multiple time said I said there is nothing against the mods or players who are doing games in WOTC manner. Plus as I said WOTM is not even ok but is just as well. Using WOT as it is has no issues by its own. Its an enforcer method and beuase its "modoray" is ompletly fine. My argument is about it being justified as well or not - I mean Doing it as it is , is not illegal ! My argument is doing it as it is , is rude!
wrt the bold: nope. we, as a member have no rights except what is outlined in the terms of service that we agree to when we join. it does not include "the right to join any game that they want. this forum is based on a social contract, the laws that govern the legal side of the internet are still in its embryonic stage, especially laws that can be applied globally. we agree to enter a social contract with owner of the site; the moderation team is here to enforce the adherence to that social contract. I am not going to go into the ethics of moderation cos this is not the appropriate venue for that.2. Its not about the game or the way people sign up for it.Do you agree everyone has equal right for joining games?I do beleive whoever mod don't ban has equal right for joining the games. Now what gives the right to players for outing another player? WOTC will do that. applying WOTC means giving the right of banning to players. Now if you let them do it in the manner it is right now, Your letting them do it rude! thats what I'm trying to say.
I wldn't know the majority of examples cos it was not made public. I do know of a cple of instances where the member was wotc-ed and there was no explanation as to why and I assume it didn't erupt in some big ol' drama cos it is likely that the person understood why the wotc was being applied in the first place. I am not going to provide the instances since they were private and all parties likely prefer it to stay that way. in the instances that I did provide were brought up in the queue several years ago, publicly.3. I don't want to know what was its reason. show me a game when mod never ommuniated with players about the ongoing wotc and multiple players wotc'ed a player in the same time.
I do beleive its a bit more justified than what it is right now.
^ this is another cornerstone of where communication is breaking down. I am asking you to provide an example of where some1 was wotc-ed with no reason. cos that is what you are purporting. what I am trying to get to the heart of is whether or not you are arguing a hypothetical or if this is something you actually saw happen.4. Are you trying to use examples to show how onstrutive might a WOTC be? uase if thats your agenda I must disapoint you. I know how onstrutive an enforement might be. I have no issues with applying enforcements on a player list. All I'm saying is that you Must tell the person your applying these enforemnets on why they got outed. WOTM is understandable as it means "Mod doesn't like you!" Its simple as that. no further explanation is needed as its that person's game and no one else's.
again ms is not a court system. the analogy does not work because ms structurally is not moderated within the scope of a legal system.In WOTC however , Mods are the middle man. It is a Courthouse and mods are the judge in there. Yes the jury might find the aused guilty and he will go to prison for that! (get exiled from the game in this case) and its definitly onstrutive for him. Its just rude to have a hidden ourt when the accused is not informed suh a thing is going on and suddenly announce : Your out of the game cause some players hate you. Thats just rude!
okay. except this just confuses me as to what exactly you are arguing here. again i think this is due to a possible language barrier issue/breakdown in communication, I am just not sure how to try to fix it.If they already told that person they will blaklist / wotc them for reasons A , B , D then its ok! why they want to hide their identities and reasons now?!
okay, but this is where you lose me cos I feel like you being largely inconsistent here. it seems incongruous to me that it is acceptable for a lack of transparency on the mod's part, but not from the userbase. I mean I wotc-ed once and told them why and they threw a hissy for and followed my games that they weren't even in specifically to post that they thought I was "the worst human being ever" and that I was a piece of shit. no1 cared. I can't blame pple for wanting to do it discreetly and it has nothing to do with condoning cowardliness and everything to do with I can understand why some1 wld not want to set themselves up for outright harassment.The only reason someone hides something is for others to not figure it out. and Thats the rude thing.
like I have said, I have never seen a situ where some1 was wotc-ed out any discernable reason. wotc truly does not happen that often.and when I'm saying hidding I mean hidding from the accused person. the wjole process might be hidden from public and that part is totally fine.
of course. we probably both need a break from this convo in order to recenter ourselves.
I believe it's Camn who won't let you join their game without an avatar. Technically WOTM I suppose, though I've never thought of it that way.In post 136, Accountant wrote:As a mod, I could ban you from my game for no reason other than not liking your avatar. That's acceptable
I totally agree hereIn post 198, SpyreX wrote:I guess one thing i didn't make clear is overall i think the idea of a formalized wotc is silly. That, to me, is purview of the moderator.
Because if i get a pm that says so and so sucks at mafia, too bad get a helmet.
But if i get a pm that says so and so is acidic and insulting look at these games I'll probably give them the boot.
But i would be irritated if either took place in my signup threads.
