Consistency of the Rule Regarding Quotation

[Lukewarm]

As someone who has an English degree, and both written and graded numerous papers - and also someone who has seen both the post and role pm - the post absolutely fails at its attempt to put the role pm in its own words. If you run the two through a plagiarism testing app, it flags it for plagiarism. So from an English major's perspective - regardless of whether there are quotation marks, or it being attributed to the mod, or even intent on behalf of the poster, the post quoted mod communication.

So from my PoV, it broke the rules as written. Maybe the rules should not be that way - I actually agree that the rule might need to get some refinement - but I understand why a mod would have turned to a listmod and why a listmod would rule for a modkill. Basically, I think it broke the rules, whether I agree with the rules or not.

[Lukewarm]

I am curious if you have found this to be a prevalent problem across the site, or if you only find this one example to have crossed a line? Are there other games that you are aware of that had modkills for this reason that you think were misruled?

That is actually the only game I have seen where someone was modkilled for this (admittedly, my personal sample size is on the small side).

[Lukewarm]

If you run the two through a plagiarism testing app, it flags it for plagiarism.

I know that mastina said that Toog did the same thing she did without being modkilled, so I would like to point out that I ran both Toog's claim and Toog's role PM through the same plagiarism checker, and it was not flagged for plagiarism - because he did put everything in his own words.

[Lukewarm]

I must be missing something. I feel like the rule of thumb here is to just

not quote moderator communications and then this would stop happening.

The game that jjh is referring to, a player decided to full claim their role in a complex large theme game, and they accidentally used a few strings of verbatim that were identical to the role PM.

I think that it is pretty obvious that the player did not mean to quote the moderator, but... they did. Because there was no intent to do so, the modkill was unexpected by the player - and they also thought it was uncalled for.

So I think the question is, how do you claim your role, while also making sure you don't cross that line.

[Lukewarm]

I would think there are three major points of discussion here;

1. Is a modkill a required response to all infractions of this rule, regardless of context?
2. For something to be a "quote", does it need to be clearly attributable to the moderator?
3. If no to 2, where is the line drawn on how much can be identical to a PM?

1) Absolutely. If a rule is a rule, it should be enforced the same, regardless of how it is affecting that exact game. If mods let it slide some of the time, then there will be players who will try their best to walk the line. See how much they can do without enacting the punishment. And it would also make it much harder for mods to be consistent on it - now a mod doesn't just have to look for the rule being broken, they have to try and judge its effect on the game state.

If you want consistency in games, and that is what I want, then the rule needs to be set in stone, and the punishment should be the same every time.

2) This question is tricky, because how are you defining it being "clearly attributable to the moderator." Any time a player is claiming thier role, inherintly, they are attributing thier claim to their role pm. That is the only place it could have come from lol

3) I think that this is the real question of the day. When claiming your role, you are always going to be referencing your role pm, which will always be mod communication. The very nature of claiming your role, you are going to be going into this grey area-- so how do players make sure they are within the acceptable range here

[Lukewarm]

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

I strongly disagree with this actually. Having the listmods make the final decision is a big help in keeping it consistent across games.

If every mod has the final say, then I think that the inconsistency across games would only get worse.

[Lukewarm]

I am curious if you have found this to be a prevalent problem across the site, or if you only find this one example to have crossed a line? Are there other games that you are aware of that had modkills for this reason that you think were misruled?

That is actually the only game I have seen where someone was modkilled for this (admittedly, my personal sample size is on the small side).

viewtopic.php?p=12436092#p12436092

Exact same issue. Partial copy of a string of text from the role PM, a different skittle ruled, modkilled.

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

If you don't think that that is the same issue, then my question still stands. Do you think that this is a wide spread issue, or do you disagree with exactly this one ruling?

[Lukewarm]

I think that the issue is more obvious, when you put mastina's claim right next to the way it is worded in her role PM

My non-SP ability is Charm Eye. I target a player and they are Charmed -- Charming counts as a form of marking.
----------------------
Charm Eye [Active] - Choose a target. That target will become Charmed. Charm is a form of marking.

My 1-SP ability is Chain Circle. I bind the target, negating all support done to them
---------------------
Chain Circle (1 SP) [Active] Choose a target. You will bind that target, negating all support done to them.

My 2-SP ability is Nerve Circle. I ensnare my target in a circle--anyone targeting that player takes 2 HP in damage
---------------------
Nerve Circle (2 SP) [Active] Choose a target. That player will be ensnared into a circle, and any user who targets that player for that stratum will take 2 damage.

My 3-SP ability is Curse Circle. I curse my target to be unable to be healed by utility abilities.
---------------------
Curse Circle (3 SP) [Active] Choose a target. You will enact a curse upon them, where they may no longer be healed by utility abilities.

My fourth ability, Dispel, 2-SP, is dispelling the curse circle. Doing so heals me for 2 HP.
--------------------
Dispel (2 SP) [Active, Self-Targeting] Choosing to dispel your Curse Circle will cause you to heal for 2 damage instead.

My passive, Enlightenment, makes me gain 1 SP every time I successfully mark someone.
-------------------
Enlightenment [Passive] - Each successful mark will grant you 1 additional SP.

Basically every ability uses the same wording. I also find is strange that she even put the ability names?? Like, what impact does that have on your claim, unless you are hoping that everyone will be more likely to believe that it is coming straight from your pm?

[Lukewarm]

I don't know if it's a widespread issue- I'll need to know how the listmods officially approach these kind of things

What I do know is it is a possible crack that things can fall down and it's worth discussing as a result

I was trying understand if this was your only example because I agree with the modkill in this example.

[see post 52 - every single ability is way too close to the original wording, it did not feel like something the player had put into their own words, and her claim unnecessarily included the flavor names of every single ability]

If you had other examples, then I was prepared to look at them to see if I agreed it was a problem, but if this is the only instance where you think that it was mishandled by the mods, then from my pov, it is a non-issue.

[Lukewarm]

I don't have really have a comment on the Yggdrasil modkill. From a glance, it looked okay, but with as much as was redacted, it is a bit tough to say whether it was indeed fair or not.

Mastina posted a non-redacted version of the role PM after the game ended. See 52 for a line by line comparison of Mastina's claim and the original role PM

[Lukewarm]

Maybe. I don't think that that was the core of the issue, it was just how much was the same, and that just added to it.

Imo, the crux of the issue is that claiming your role is inherently quoting mod communication - and that is why the "paraphrasing is okay" clause exists in the first place.

From my point of view, Mastina's claim just did not do enough in the way of paraphrasing, for me to say that she paraphrased it. Again, if I were grading papers, I would not have accepted that as adequate paraphrasing - it would have been flagged for plagiarism in a "you basically quoted the original without indicating that you were quoting" --- So, I completely understand why a mod would have seen that post, and treated it the way that it was treated.

I guess I am saying that I think that the mod did the right thing, given how the rules are written, and that I think that the list mod did the right thing, given how the rules are written.

To be clear, I do not think that Mastina meant to break the rule there. But I also think that the rules should be enforced the same way - regardless of intent or context, because that just leaves the door open for people to try and game the system to see how close they can get to the line.

I do agree that it could be nice to have clearer rules / examples of how to adequately paraphrase role PMs

[Lukewarm]

I think that maybe something like that could work possibly work, if you were to account for what ffery has added, by giving the list mod 1-2 role pms that are NOT the one in question, and then have then look at the post.

[Lukewarm]

Like, I like the idea in concept, but I personally feel that Mastina's post would have failed this kind of test as well.

Reading thorough her post, it feels like she is switching between two "voices." The voice where she states how the ability works (which is where she is very similar to unwnd's own wording" and then after that, she adds her own commentary to it, which feels like it is in her own words.

In my personal opinion, it does read like the voice of the mod when describing her abilities

My non-SP ability is Charm Eye. I target a player and they are Charmed.

(No clue what Charmed means, my role PM doesn't specify.)

Charming counts as a form of marking.

(And is the only form of marking I have.)

Like, here, she even separates out her own commentary with parentheses. And in the rest of her claim, when I read it, feels like it is "quoting my role pm" followed by "my commentary on my role pm"

Spoiler:

My 1-SP ability is Chain Circle. I bind the target, negating all support done to them

-- useful for the town if I target scum, but harmful to the town if I target town, because it's by my understanding basically negating buffs to the target. Preventing scum buffs pro-town, preventing town buffs anti-town.

My 2-SP ability is Nerve Circle. I ensnare my target in a circle--anyone targeting that player takes 2 HP in damage

. This basically turns my target into a form of PGO. Incredibly pro-town if I target a player scum target as it damages scum. Incredibly anti-town if I target a player town target.

My 3-SP ability is Curse Circle. I curse my target to be unable to be healed by utility abilities

. Again, incredibly pro-town if I target scum to stop them from healing, but incredibly anti-town if I target town to stop them from healing.

My fourth ability, Dispel, 2-SP, is dispelling the curse circle. Doing so heals me for 2 HP.

My passive, Enlightenment, makes me gain 1 SP every time I successfully mark someone.

Like reading through, everything that I made blue would have stood out to me, as not seeming to be coming from Mastina in Mastina's words - and if I had my own role pm to compare to, I would have looked at how everything in the blue was worded compared to how my own role pm was worded, and looking at both, it

feels

like unwnd wrote the words in blue. That is why her lack of paraphrasing is an issue, because it still feels like unwnd wrote it. - And every player in the game had a role pms to compare it against.

[Lukewarm]

I mean, I think the example is tainted at this point because you can't look at it without knowing what you know. Particularly as you have got some definite false positives in there- look at nerve circle.

As a player in that game who read through Mastina's post I did not suspect any of it was taken from unwnd

Hmm... maybe it is tainted for me. I was in the spectator chat, and so I saw Unwnd processing Mastina's post, and trying to figure out how to handle it, and being very upset about the final decision, because he loved the role he spent so much time creating.

Although I would like to say that you seem very convinced that the modkill was unnecessary because you personally did not think anything of it at the time -- but I would suggest taking into consideration that the mod, the back up mod, and the list mod all approving the mod kill, and now a couple spectators and a number of other players from that game have commented to say that they agreed with the mod kill -- I think that that is decent enough evidence that Mastina's post, was, at the very least, deep in the grey area.

I will also say that I am getting the feeling that this example may be tainted for you as well - it feels like you are somewhat focused on defending mastina, who I assume is a friend of yours, and I get that. But I also get the feeling that talking about this example in particular is going to just have us all going around in circles.

I understand that being modkilled must have sucked for mastina, but I think it is beneficial to realize that it sucked for Unwnd as well.

It was a crappy situation, that no one wanted to have to deal with.

[Lukewarm]

SS, I think that modkilled is the only way to handle this particular issue tbh.

What other response do you suggest?

Public warnings and/or force replace would both amplify the damage from the original post, and would just make the situation worse, right?

[Lukewarm]

I don't think that the issue boiled down to key terms, like the "dirty money," example.

There was just so much of Unwnd's exact wording. Like look back at post 52. Like, every single line. Mastina's sentences do not look/feel like they are in Mastina's own words.

I also think that it is clear that that is the issue. I mean, 15 or so players successfully claimed that game, but only the one crossed the line, so clearly there were acceptable ways to claim your role.

[Lukewarm]

I think that the issue is more obvious, when you put mastina's claim right next to the way it is worded in her role PM

My non-SP ability is Charm Eye. I target a player and they are Charmed -- Charming counts as a form of marking.
----------------------
Charm Eye [Active] - Choose a target. That target will become Charmed. Charm is a form of marking.

My 1-SP ability is Chain Circle. I bind the target, negating all support done to them
---------------------
Chain Circle (1 SP) [Active] Choose a target. You will bind that target, negating all support done to them.

My 2-SP ability is Nerve Circle. I ensnare my target in a circle--anyone targeting that player takes 2 HP in damage
---------------------
Nerve Circle (2 SP) [Active] Choose a target. That player will be ensnared into a circle, and any user who targets that player for that stratum will take 2 damage.

My 3-SP ability is Curse Circle. I curse my target to be unable to be healed by utility abilities.
---------------------
Curse Circle (3 SP) [Active] Choose a target. You will enact a curse upon them, where they may no longer be healed by utility abilities.

My fourth ability, Dispel, 2-SP, is dispelling the curse circle. Doing so heals me for 2 HP.
--------------------
Dispel (2 SP) [Active, Self-Targeting] Choosing to dispel your Curse Circle will cause you to heal for 2 damage instead.

My passive, Enlightenment, makes me gain 1 SP every time I successfully mark someone.
-------------------
Enlightenment [Passive] - Each successful mark will grant you 1 additional SP.

Basically every ability uses the same wording. I also find is strange that she even put the ability names?? Like, what impact does that have on your claim, unless you are hoping that everyone will be more likely to believe that it is coming straight from your pm?

Like, looking at each line side by side, it does not look like paraphrasing to me

[Lukewarm]

Like, looking at each line side by side, it does not look like paraphrasing to me

Paraphrasing is literally saying the same thing using different words. How is that not paraphrasing?

It does not look like "adequate" paraphrasing to me.

Having both written and graded papers, I know that there is a thresh hold where something has been put into your own words, but I also know that, even in that setting, that thresh hold is a bit hard to pin down.

What I was trying to say, is that based on my experience, I don't think that it crossed that thresh hold.

[Lukewarm]

I don't think that the issue boiled down to key terms, like the "dirty money," example.

There was just so much of Unwnd's exact wording. Like look back at post 52. Like, every single line. Mastina's sentences do not look/feel like they are in Mastina's own words.

I also think that it is clear that that is the issue. I mean, 15 or so players successfully claimed that game, but only the one crossed the line, so clearly there were acceptable ways to claim your role.

And I imagine every player who claimed after Mastina did so with a far greater level of care than they would normally. She also had the most complicated role PM in the game. Finally, when you split it up to try and make it obvious for comparison's sake, you are actively making an effort to sift through the paraphrasing, so of course it will end up looking unnatural.

Speaking for my hydra...actually, no.

Mastina was under no duress to claim when she did, and neither were we.

We gave the general amount of care we always give when claiming. Seeing mastina modkilled didn't put the fear of Arceus in us.

Also, Mastina was not even the first one to claim. Toog was able to claim successfully

[Lukewarm]

It seems impossible to disentangle this discussion from just debating the Yggdrasil ruling - despite a couple people saying that we should.

I think I am back to wondering if this is even a issue that needs to be fixed. Especially since you seemed to agree with the modkill in the only other example of a modkill over this issue.

Is this an issue that you are think you are likely to run into in your future games - when unwnd is not the mod?

Because, if you have been on the site for 4 years, and in your experience, there is only 1 example of the current system having the wrong ruling - then is that really a big problem? A system that "maybe" messes up once every 4 years?

[Lukewarm]

It does not look like "adequate" paraphrasing to me.

Having both written and graded papers, I know that there is a thresh hold where something has been put into your own words, but I also know that, even in that setting, that thresh hold is a bit hard to pin down.

What I was trying to say, is that based on my experience, I don't think that it crossed that thresh hold.

Okay well there's no rule against inadequate paraphrasing. These are generally simple, keyword-laden ideas. There's not much you can do besides switching connecting words around. Even if this is something you know how to do, surely it's inappropriate to force those standards on everyone on the site, when the penalty is wrecking a game that a lot of people have put a lot of effort into.

I don't expect anyone to be held to a higher then achievable standard - look back at the Yggdrasil game, and see how many people were able to claim their role without crossing the line. It was clearly possible to claim your role without crossing the line. In some instances, mastina did not even change around the words surrounding the "keywords"

Again however, I don't think that debating the mastina ruling actually does anything productive.

To be clear, when this topic was created, I was really interested to see if there was a pattern of this being a problem - if it was a recurring thing, then it should be addressed. But it looks like this topic is really just boiling down to debating the Mastina ruling :/

[Lukewarm]

I am gonna head out of this conversation at this point, but my final opinion on my way out: I think that modkills are the only answer for breaking the rule, and I don't think that the rule should be loosened up.

The only change I could personally get behind would be to make it clear that paraphrasing - if done poorly - will be treated the same as quoting, so that everyone is clearly aware of the danger when they are paraphrasing, and will be careful when doing so to make sure that it really is in your own words.

This is not really a change, but I do think I could also get behind there being a listmod thread dedicated to the topic, similar to the one about mentioning on-going games, that provides examples of acceptable paraphrasing of your role pm vs unacceptable paraphrasing.

[Lukewarm]

I get the feeling, both from Mastina, and a few other people, that they think that a modkill in this scenario would require intent. I disagree with this.

Modkilling is not supposed to be a punishment, it is supposed to protect game integrity. Even if it was completely accidental, if a modkill protects game integrity more then leaving you in, then a mod kill it the right call.


I think that it is fairly obvious that in this case, Masitina did not do anything with malicious or underhanded intent -- but that is irrelevant to the decision.


From my pov, I would expect someone accidentally breaking this rule to receive a modkill, and someone who intentionally breaks to to receive a modkill + some form of punishment, like a ban.