ban vocaroos

[syndromeofadown]

Why sitewide, for no one to use, ever again?

Because I don't like it.

If we're banning it from Normals it should just be banned sitewide since I don't see what possible non-normal mechanic you could add that would justify allowing them in games while also alienating deaf/mute/shy/ESOL people. Nobody has given a good reason for allowing it in games other than "for fun", but when has mafia ever been about fun? If I wanted to have fun I'd play a different game.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Because I don't like it.

Well I don't like Jesters. That doesn't mean we ought to ban them from this and every other mafia site.

If we're banning it from Normals it should just be banned sitewide since I don't see what possible non-normal mechanic you could add that would justify allowing them in games while also alienating deaf/mute/shy/ESOL people.

Some games just aren't people's type. all mafia hosts are not required to host a game that 100% of all players could feasibly enjoy.

Nobody has given a good reason for allowing it in games other than "for fun", but when has mafia ever been about fun? If I wanted to have fun I'd play a different game.

We don't need to give a good reason to allow it in games. The proper position to take is to do nothing. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something should be done, rather than nothing being done.
Even if we had no arguments whatsoever as to why they should stay, that doesn't mean the proper course of action is to remove them, the proper course of action is to do nothing regarding them.

[syndromeofadown]

Well I don't like Jesters. That doesn't mean we ought to ban them from this and every other mafia site.

That's a game mechanic, it's different. When you join a theme game you are trusting that the mod will host the game with rules you like. If a mod is known for/makes it known there are bastardish roles you don't like, you can just not join the game. Vocaroo isn't a game mechanic unless you make it one. See the difference?

Some games just aren't people's type. all mafia hosts are not required to host a game that 100% of all players could feasibly enjoy.

Agree. However, if they explicitly create/allow a mechanic that you literally can't comply with through no fault of your own and not being told beforehand, that's a problem. If someone wants to host a game completely through zoom that's fine. That's a different form of mafia, I gotcha. But if I join a game and suddenly players are joining a zoom call together and the mod allows it, that's a problem.

We don't need to give a good reason to allow it in games. The proper position to take is to do nothing. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something should be done, rather than nothing being done.
Even if we had no arguments whatsoever as to why they should stay, that doesn't mean the proper course of action is to remove them, the proper course of action is to do nothing regarding them.

Disagree. If no course of action is done, then vocarooing is implicitly allowed. So mods who don't want it in the game would have to explicitly ban it, unless they were using it as a mechanic. This leads to two scenarios: either all mods explicitly bad vocarooing, in which case it's no different than an implicit ban, or mod's don't explicitly ban it and any given game I'm at risk of a vocaroo message suddenly being thrust upon me and becoming an integral part of a game forcing me to drop it. I hope you can see how that's different from the Jester scenario above.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Well I don't like Jesters. That doesn't mean we ought to ban them from this and every other mafia site.

That's a game mechanic, it's different. When you join a theme game you are trusting that the mod will host the game with rules you like. If a mod is known for/makes it known there are bastardish roles you don't like, you can just not join the game. Vocaroo isn't a game mechanic unless you make it one. See the difference?

Even if Jester is a game mechanic, that doesn't change the fact that I don't like it. Tomatoes actually being a fruit doesn't make me any more inclined to eat it like an apple, because I don't like Tomatoes (with the exception of Ketchup ).

Some games just aren't people's type. all mafia hosts are not required to host a game that 100% of all players could feasibly enjoy.

Agree. However, if they explicitly create/allow a mechanic that you literally can't comply with through no fault of your own and not being told beforehand, that's a problem. If someone wants to host a game completely through zoom that's fine. That's a different form of mafia, I gotcha. But if I join a game and suddenly players are joining a zoom call together and the mod allows it, that's a problem.

You can replace out of the game. It's not like mith himself will descend from MafiaScum heaven to delete your account if you replace out of a game that you no longer want to play. Even if that were an issue, we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

We don't need to give a good reason to allow it in games. The proper position to take is to do nothing. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something should be done, rather than nothing being done.
Even if we had no arguments whatsoever as to why they should stay, that doesn't mean the proper course of action is to remove them, the proper course of action is to do nothing regarding them.

Disagree. If no course of action is done, then vocarooing is implicitly allowed. So mods who don't want it in the game would have to explicitly ban it, unless they were using it as a mechanic. This leads to two scenarios: either all mods explicitly bad vocarooing, in which case it's no different than an implicit ban, or mod's don't explicitly ban it and any given game I'm at risk of a vocaroo message suddenly being thrust upon me and becoming an integral part of a game forcing me to drop it. I hope you can see how that's different from the Jester scenario above.

Do you.. disagree with the burden of proof? If yes, I'd like to sell you some healing crystals which will cure any disease if you rub it on your belly. Stabbing it into your belly will cure them faster.

If a moderator doesn't want their players to call each other dimwits, then they should explicitly say so. It is the moderator's fault that they don't lay out what they don't want players to do. Now, there are things that it would be unreasonable for a mod to lay out each and every time they host a game what they will and won't allow before a game (See: Site Rules, and common game rules), but this is not one of those things.

If all moderators explicitly banned players calling each other dimwits, then we would probably make it a site-wide rule.

Of course it's different from the jester scenario. I was comparing you not liking one thing (vocaroos) not being a reason to ban something to me not liking something not being a reason to ban something.

[DkKoba]

if the reason you dont want it banned is for the sole reason "i dont like banning stuff" then please dont post because thats a useless reason thank you

[Jake The Wolfie]

I am open to banning stuff.

[House]

Is it banned to record yourself in a YouTube video talking about the game and to link to that? Afaik that would be allowed so any rule change re: vocaroos should also address that imo

It should be included under the "no discussing ongoing games" rule.

While the video may be created FOR the game, it is open to a wider audience, which is a no-no.

[TemporalLich]

There's a big difference between banning it from Normal and Newbie games and banning it from all Mafia games.

The latter would require some burden of proof that vocaroos are a degenerate strategy that make the game less fun for everyone. I have zero experience with vocaroos but I would be okay with them being banned unless explicitly allowed in the ruleset (which would be the case if vocaroos are considered ongoing games discussion outside the thread - which isn't wrong tbh).

I would not sign up for a vocaroo-based game, but having it be something without exception would end up banning vocaroo-based games (which are not Normal regardless).

[yessiree]

data can be embedded in audio signals, therefore, malicious actors can use audio signals as a medium to exchange information in a way that is inaccessible by other players

[Ythan]

Well I mean they could also text.

[yessiree]

that's out of game communication, which is against the rules

this is in-game communication, with encrypted/obfuscated data

[Ythan]

Which is against the rules.

[Ythan]

Not as explicitly as I thought but I'd say definitely in the spirit of the adjacent rules. That rule should probably be made more general.

[yessiree]

ye, mediums that can carry information (audio/video) should be held to the same standards as text

[Jake The Wolfie]

Cryptography is generally banned from games. Anyone who is found out to have used cryptography would probably recieve either a warning or a ban from the actual staff members.

[syndromeofadown]

we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

that sounds like the best solution

[Gamma Emerald]

data can be embedded in audio signals, therefore, malicious actors can use audio signals as a medium to exchange information in a way that is inaccessible by other players

How’s this work exactly?

[Gamma Emerald]

Is it banned to record yourself in a YouTube video talking about the game and to link to that? Afaik that would be allowed so any rule change re: vocaroos should also address that imo

It should be included under the "no discussing ongoing games" rule.

While the video may be created FOR the game, it is open to a wider audience, which is a no-no.

There’s options to make a video unlisted

[sang froid]

.

[Jake The Wolfie]

we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

that sounds like the best solution

Now, could you tell me why we should implement this?

[TemporalLich]

data can be embedded in audio signals, therefore, malicious actors can use audio signals as a medium to exchange information in a way that is inaccessible by other players

That would be considered cryptography, which is against most moderator's rule sets and likely will end up being against site rules for ongoing games.

[syndromeofadown]

we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

that sounds like the best solution

Now, could you tell me why we should implement this?

I actually think it should be a blanket site-wide ban unless a mod explicitly allows it (similar to no communication outside of thread), but this seems like a good, practical compromise since people seem to be against bans for whatever reason. I think everyone has given enough reasons ITT to justify it and it seems pointless to repeat them. I don't know why you still seem to think the onus is on us to prove it somehow ruins the game or is unfair when enough reasons have been presented, and your only counter argument is "get over it." and to maintain status quo for no reason other than maintaining status quo.

Simply put, some people have a problem with it, the problem would be solved if this were implemented, and virtually nobody would by harmed by the implementation of this rule, so...why not? It's not some ethical court of law where I should have to justify anything, it just seems like a practical way for both sides to be happy.

[Menalque]

we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

that sounds like the best solution

+1, honestly

[Datisi]

we could just.. make a rule stating that game mods have to state whether they will allow it in their game or not.

that sounds like the best solution

+1, honestly

except this would not work in practice because, if we're serious about implementing this, then listmods would have to start telling players to include this is all rulesets (assuming there's no blanket ban in newbies/normals), and i guarantee you most game mods would just skim over it and not include it, so it'd either be as if nothing happened, or listmods would have extra work hunting down whoever doesn't have this in their ruleset and telling them to add it. in any case it creates more work for someone to even just be checking if the rulesets contain it

"not allowed anywhere unless mod says otherwise" is both better and more practical

[Ythan]

Agreed with the spirit of those posts Datisi just quoted but also what he said.