Application of WOTC

[KuroiXHF]

Let's discuss this here, to divert clutter from the Mini Games thread.

[Aristophanes]

Sounds good!

I dislike WOTC, but I see its need and I think there are better ways to handle it!

[vonflare]

It's a necessary evil because some people just don't play nice.

[Rylai and Lina]

They can be punished if they really deserve getting punished by site moderation system

Its acceptable to have blacklists and don't want some people in your game but they have a personality. To just cry about your problems with them to the mod has no good manner. You may talk about a plan for not joining the same games you are in or how to get along and talk about the things you think are not nice about them in most of the cases.

[Aristophanes]

It's a necessary evil because some people just don't play nice.

Indeed, and that's why I get it. Personally, I'll just avoid a game if I absolutely cannot stand someone. However, that is extremely infrequent for me. I have avoided people for a month and gone back just fine as well.

If WOTC must be used, we have to remember were kicking someone out. Putting up a big "No boys allowed" sign against them. So emotions will always be an issue. Provoking them is unneeded and childish though! Sure, the reasons need to be out there, but arguing about them is absolutely unnecessary! That's why it needs better implimentation!

[Rylai and Lina]

Frozen angel head wrote the above though

I do agree that in some cases, there are conflicts which need a judgement call from the mod (WOTM). but I don't really like WOTC as I believe its 10 years old diplomacy to out the person you don't like.

[Aristophanes]

They can be punished if they really deserve getting punished by site moderation system

Its acceptable to have blacklists and don't want some people in your game but they have a personality. To just cry about your problems with them to the mod has no good manner. You may talk about a plan for not joining the same games you are in or how to get along and talk about the things you think are not nice about them in most of the cases.

Some people just can't talk to each other, but they know this and generally try to avoid games with each other rather than WOTCing them though.

I say usually because I've seen tempers fly when people have tantrums and don't respect each others space. Which is, once again, selfish and childish.

So as much as this is a great ideal, it's not always achievable.

[Rylai and Lina]

But then I beleive so many people in MS already approve WOTC so I surrender.

I do believe it must be applied publicly so others may talk about it , if the wotc'ed person want to express their opinion or to defend against the accusations and to be generally fair.

Judging is hard. Judging anonymous accusations/conflicts is not just fair.

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps a good model would be a private PM to the [to-be] mod. The mod announces to the players that there is one, why there is one and invites people to PM to add their name in to the hat if they wish.

I think this is a great model to follow.

It should become the standard.

[Rylai and Lina]

So as much as this is a great ideal, it's not always achievable.

It is achievable if mods ask them to explain the reasoning and transfer that opinion to the accused, and ask the accused to answer the accuser and defend themselves or to just avoid him.

voting to throw someone out of a game is just so kiddish. Its exactly what children do. like 100%

[Rylai and Lina]

Perhaps a good model would be a private PM to the [to-be] mod. The mod announces to the players that there is one, why there is one and invites people to PM to add their name in to the hat if they wish.

I think this is a great model to follow.

It should become the standard.

nah I disagree

It must be public at least. Its just to lame to remove someone's access to a game without telling them why. Its rude.

[Spiffeh]

What are your ideas for handling it better?

I mean if someone is WOTC'd their feelings are bound to get hurt but I've never seen someone bullied out of a game like that unless they deserved it

And if someone has a valid concern with someone who joins a game with WOTC as an option I feel like making these concerns public is the best way to go so other players who might not necessarily know that person would understand why it's happening.

Otherwise WOTC is a p. useless function

PEdit: This was @ OP

[Spiffeh]

Perhaps a good model would be a private PM to the [to-be] mod. The mod announces to the players that there is one, why there is one and invites people to PM to add their name in to the hat if they wish.

I think this is a great model to follow.

It should become the standard.

I guess this keeps it more anonymous but I don't think this helps the "hurt feelings" part which seems to be what you're trying to fix.

[Aristophanes]

So as much as this is a great ideal, it's not always achievable.

It is achievable if mods ask them to explain the reasoning and transfer that opinion to the accused, and ask the accused to answer the accuser and defend themselves or to just avoid him.

voting to throw someone out of a game is just so kiddish. Its exactly what children do. like 100%

It totally is child's play. No doubt there.

But to ask the mod to play the middle man in an argument that probably won't get worked out and in which they have no real stake isn't right either. At that point the mod is likely to just kick both players out.

Whoa, ninjas.

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps a good model would be a private PM to the [to-be] mod. The mod announces to the players that there is one, why there is one and invites people to PM to add their name in to the hat if they wish.

I think this is a great model to follow.

It should become the standard.

nah I disagree

It must be public at least. Its just to lame to remove someone's access to a game without telling them why. Its rude.

In this model it is made public if the Mod feels it a necessary thing to enforce, so the players can decide and the WOTC'd knows it's happening.

[Rylai and Lina]

But to ask the mod to play the middle man in an argument that probably won't get worked out and in which they have no real stake isn't right either. At that point the mod is likely to just kick both players out.

If I ever face such conflicts I will kick both players out until they resolve that with themselves and only one of them in for the game.

I am no judge , nor a middleman as a moderator and I'm not their mother. They need to resolve this between themselves.

I never saw a WOTC happening privately (without mod announcing publickly its happening) to go through. Like 3 people send mod WOTC request about outing the same person without contacting each other or being notified about each other's request. If you have an example for that I like to see it.

[Rylai and Lina]

In this model it is made public if the Mod feels it a necessary thing to enforce, so the players can decide and the WOTC'd knows it's happening.

The people who are voting yes to out someone must be known. Its lame to vote for WOTC'ing someone without telling them. Its not ok with any standards.

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps a good model would be a private PM to the [to-be] mod. The mod announces to the players that there is one, why there is one and invites people to PM to add their name in to the hat if they wish.

I think this is a great model to follow.

It should become the standard.

I guess this keeps it more anonymous but I don't think this helps the "hurt feelings" part which seems to be what you're trying to fix.

It's part of it. I mean, rather than a personal argument erupting in thread, the reasons are stated and people can decide. The accused is likely to say rebutted, but rather than "you suck and you deserved it!" It is more likely to be "I did it because..."

This is the difference and allows a proper decision from the players involved.

[Frozen Angel]

ego from my main

[Aristophanes]

In this model it is made public if the Mod feels it a necessary thing to enforce, so the players can decide and the WOTC'd knows it's happening.

The people who are voting yes to out someone must be known. Its lame to vote for WOTC'ing someone without telling them. Its not ok with any standards.

Okay, but this can still be done without having personal battles arise.

Like, say "a WOTC was sent in against ___ for ~reason~.
Please let me know if you cannot play with ___ for this reason (or another)."

It's that simple.

[Frozen Angel]

ahhh its simple. Its just rude!

I'm really not ok with the whole thing , but that might be just me. I don't want to argue over something I won't ever implement or use myself and when I'm not really ok with the whole point of its existence.

[KuroiXHF]

So I like how we're talking about this a bit more, but maybe mods can have their own way of doing WOTC.

Now pointing the elephant of the room, I was the one who invoked WOTC against someone else. I've never seen WOTC being used before, so I just stated it outright. I didn't do this with the intention of upsetting Yume. I'm sorry if I did. I'm sure it would suck to be kicked out a game, but at the same time, the mod did made an open and deliberate choice to have WOTC an option in this game.

Presumably, this means that the mod wants a way to let everyone know that there's one player that has a history of causing issues within games. It's not just me in that one game either, although I don't know where they moved the blitz games to. A good number of applicants to the game either had information or received information as to why the request for made and agreed.

It seems the different methods are done to serve two different purposes - one is to protect the game, the method just used. The second is to protect the feeling of one's feelings, the method Aristophanes suggested earlier, where it's all done via PM.

Personally, I'm OK the way any of the ways listed or I suggested.

I also disagree that it's rude. The mod kept WOTC as an option, meaning the possibility of it being invoked exists. I like it because mods put a great deal of effort into the game and a game imploding is not fun or fair to the players or the mod.

[Frozen Angel]

I'm not saying you , who used WOTC as an option mod suggested you, were being rude to someone else or mod is rude for putting that option in signup is rude

I'm saying the whole WOTC Philosophy and core is rude. It makes us all look like a bunch of 10 years old children who can't play with each other. We are not children anymore!

I do think its everyone right for having a blacklist and to want for avoiding others. This applies to mods as well who want to see their games more fun - cause they put effort in building them. Its just not nice to exile others this way; We are humans and we proved we can be civilized enough to talk and resolve issues by trading and applying some sort of order in our lifes!

I talked to much I guess bye for tonight!

[KuroiXHF]

I don't think you're talking too much. I think we just disagree on our views of WOTC. You don't like it. Others (like me) do.

[zMuffinMan]

the idea that it is "ok to have a blacklist" but that it's childish to want someone out of a game you're in is contradictory

WOTC and all variants of it are designed specifically for enforcing "blacklists"