Consistency of the Rule Regarding Quotation

[TemporalLich]

Modkilling will harm the game's integrity if misapplied - it needs to be used if and only if the risk to game integrity of not modkilling (this includes the lesser administrative action of forced replacement) is greater than (you're not getting an "or equal to" here) the risk to game integrity of modkilling.

Quoting mod communication is one of these times. If the moderator is clearly attributed and it looks like a quote it's a quote.

Paraphrasing, even if "my role PM says" or "the mod says" are included are still paraphrasing and to a player that player could be lying. I don't think this damages game integrity.

Copying is equivalent to quoting but the moderator isn't attributed. If it still looks like a quote, it's a quote. If not, it's copying and you'd need to know if your Role PMs are flavorful or generic.

Most games will have flavorful Role PMs where it will be obvious a quote or copy is a quote or copy. Copies of flavorful Role PMs are nearly as bad as quotes. Some games will have generic Role PMs (e.g. most Open setups). In that case, a copy might look like a paraphrase. I really don't know what would be the correct course of action.

If someone is brazen enough to quote a Role PM and include timestamps, the game is a total loss. Even if the Role PM turns out to be fabricated.

If you're trying to remove a problem player force replacement will be enough (unless the slot is already dead).

[TemporalLich]

For contexxt, the example that has driven me to action here is this modkill, which did have listmod approval. I'm not particularly happy with the way that this "murky situation" is being addressed by the list mods when it arises, and would prefer a consistently defined approach to how that situation is resolved in a way that does not result in unnecessary game-damaging modkills

this is a bad modkill

I would say that is paraphrasing a flavorful Role PM. No harm done, a claim that looks like a claim and can easily be counterclaimed.

Granted, the level of paraphrasing is low (pretty much all meaningful info was claimed but the specific wording style was lost), but this is something that from a player's point of view could be damned lies.

Let me be double clear - this modkill is

objectively bad

and not just murky - the game integrity was harmed by the modkill

[TemporalLich]

A copy of a flavorful Role PM, which is what the listmods seem to think that is, would harm game integrity in the same way quoting a Role PM would - you would be cheating by having your role mod confirmed when it isn't supposed to be

[TemporalLich]

but yeah, the paraphrase is very close to being a copy - so it's not clear but when your two possibility fields are "a modkill is bad" and "ask the list moderators as you might need to modkill" a modkill might be a bad idea.

[TemporalLich]

A player knows their own Role PM, so keep that in mind

[TemporalLich]

A modkill is an administrative action, not a punitive action. Modkills should not be used punitively. Modkilling as punishment is what allows the mod to basically ruin their own game through power tripping.

A modkill should be issued for damaging game integrity via quoting your Role PM and getting yourself an unfair advantage.

A modkill should not be issued because the player needs to be taught a lesson.

All in all, it's better to hold off on a modkill if the situation is at all murky. Only modkill if the risk to game integrity by not removing the slot from the game is greater than the risk to game integrity by modkilling the slot.

And the day phase skip part of modkill is administrative as well - it prevents a modkill from being used as a free elimination and gaining an unfair advantage for the Town.

I don't know anything about checking for plagiarism, but outright copying a flavorful Role PM is almost as bad as quoting a Role PM and therefore a modkill might be justified.

pedit: this entire thread is about trying to figure out if copying moderator communications is as bad as actually quoting them

ppedit: if there's doubt, modkilling is not recommended

[TemporalLich]

the main problem with the modkill approval rule is that it shifts the blame for a bad modkill on the listmods, when it should be the game mod's responsibility

[TemporalLich]

Here's the post- I don't think that's the same issue at all. They literally have a long phrase in quotation marks

I agree

it looks like a quote and is flavorful so I would be able to conclude that's actual mod comm instead of a falsifiable claim

This shouldn't be a hard rule to stay on the right side of but this entire thread says otherwise.

Also, modkills should not be seen as punishment. They are a last-ditch effort to save the game from integrity breaches.

pedit: yeah, publically warning or force replacing a slot that quoted their Role PM is a misstep as it highlights the integrity breach instead of fixing it

Force-replacement is for rule-breaking players, and is used as an administrative action to remove a player for damaging game health or damaging game integrity in a way that the slot is still fine.

[TemporalLich]

While I'd say that attributing paraphrasing to the moderator is in bad form and I would not disagree with it being modkillable, I don't feel it should warrant a modkill immediately - a private warning would suffice unless the situation is bad enough. It still would look bad on the slot and not just the player though.

You either modkill or you don't, retroactive modkilling doesn't make sense as a punishment.

Quoting timestamps on mod communication is quoting a part of mod communication.

[TemporalLich]

The main plus of the modkill approval rule is modkills are more consistent

There's also the secondary plus of more immediate bans and the secondary minus of less immediate action

My thought is that the listmods being blamed for the modkill feels unfair to me

[TemporalLich]

Anyway I made a snap judgment that the modkill was bad... this just shows the point that the situation is more complex than it looks.

That paraphrasing feels insufficient to me but it still is technically that

[TemporalLich]

If I were to write an (ex)listmod policy thread on this rule, I’d emphasize that the purpose of the rule is to prevent players from confirming themselves as speaking truthfully because of some consistency with other moderator communication (timestamp, sentence structure, formatting, grammar, punctuation, ect.). If the claim is more believable or is confirmed because its presentation resembles the moderator, that’s rule-breaking. The defining factor being whether the player gained creditability for their claim that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

This is admittedly still some pretty arbitrary criteria, but keep in mind that much like the ongoing game rule, enforcement is going to lean heavily in the direction of caution. It is too easy to ruin games that players have spent months playing for moderators to be lenient about this rule.

yeah, you put into words what I was thinking.

The intent is to avoid that unfair advantage. Based on that, this situation is really in a grey area and neither the game mod nor listmods deserve blame for a modkill that is controversial.

Based on that, you should paraphrase claims into your own wording style. Something like "I can charm a player for no SP. For 1 SP, I can nullify any support on someone. For 2 SP, I can make anyone targeting my target lose 2 HP. For 3 SP, I can deny someone utility ability healing. For 2 SP, I can undo the previous ability and gain 2 HP. I gain 1 SP for each charm."

3 SP was hard to do a high level paraphrase on. But yeah you can see why I was wrong initially. This was a no-win situation, we'd either be getting this thread or we'd be getting complaints the game was ruined. It's probably better we get this thread so at least we don't have this in the future and people can stay on the right side of the rule.