My case for amendment of rules 2 and 3
-
-
McMenno they/themOne For Aren't-We-Allthey/them
- One For Aren't-We-All
- One For Aren't-We-All
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: February 18, 2015
- Pronoun: they/them
- Location: In spaaaace
-
-
implosion he/himPolymathhe/him
- Polymath
- Polymath
- Posts: 14579
- Joined: September 9, 2010
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: zoraster's wine cellar
I don't think it's that hard to imagine a situation where this could be the case, even if you think Datisi's post isn't that. Say player x and player y are in a game together, and player y gets banned for cheating in another game. Player x comments in sgb "whoa, didn't see that coming". This could have implications on how much player x and player y have interacted, which could have implications on whether they're scum together. Say they comment "Sad," and that player y had been playing very well in their game together; this could have implications e.g. that player x is sad that a person who was playing well is going to have to be replaced. Etc, etc. Sure there's not a perfect concrete link necessarily but it's definitely possible to read info into something like that, no matter how innocuous the post is. Things get more clear-cut as having information if we make the post slightly less innocuous, like "huh, hadn't really directly interacted with player y but didn't see that coming", a reaction that sort of clearly would imply that they're less likely to be scum together but on its face is still just a single reaction post.In post 41, Menalque wrote:I don’t think a single reaction post to a ban is ever going to indicate someone’s alignment in game to an accuracy of better than luck
But I think more important is the principle of the matter; strictly speaking, it could have alignment info, which means it's possible for a player to see it and come to a conclusion based on it. In a sort of pure information-theoretic way, its relevance is nonzero. The line is just hard to draw.-
-
Ranmaru Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7092
- Joined: March 7, 2011
-
-
Ythan SheWelcome to the HaystackShe
- Welcome to the Haystack
- Welcome to the Haystack
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: August 11, 2009
- Pronoun: She
-
-
Menalque he/himSurvivorhe/him
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 23727
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
the reason is that it sounds like a joke to me when we talk about if someone should should have received more severe sanction for posting “l m a o” anywhere, whether we’re in serious thread or a joke one, and whether it’s a listmod or any other site user saying itIn post 49, bugspray wrote:There should be no reason for you to believe that a listmod is joking about something like that
~
regarding what implo is saying, sure, if there’s a more substantive post than “lmao” or “whoa” I think that’s problematic and could generate more alignment info. But I think a single word reaction post is just incredibly NAI for anyone generally active on site who’s not infrequently in SGB, and who often responds in a similar way (I’m not certain on this, but hasn’t dats posted similar things about other transphobes getting banned?)
Also it’s a double edged sword: if you rely on that and someone posts something that you *think* doesn’t make sense as scum for them and townlock then but they are scum then you’re probably just losing that game
I admit that the line becomes harder to discern the more that’s posted, but bringing it back to here: I don’t think that even tho bugs was right here that they’d be right more than random. Therefore if they’d used it to form their read and been right — okay, cool for them for this game, the gamble worked out. But next game there’s every chance they get burned by doing the same thing. Hence I think it’s not really an issue
I would just suggest that moderation (if the initial interpretation of bugs’ question is still being adhered to) either alter the rules to make it clear that referring to potential incoming bans is outside influence, or that a clarifying statement be issued that that is acceptable, because I think atm there’s a situation where that’s not at all clearly prohibited from how the rules are written"we knew everything... And we knew nothing."-
-
Gamma Emerald AnySurvivorAny
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 69108
- Joined: August 9, 2016
- Pronoun: Any
- Location: Hell on Earth (aka Texas)
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.