Anonymous blacklists and secret alt abuse

[Nancy Drew 39]

I personally consider this to be unethical and unacceptable ftr.

Blacklists are supposed to work like this: player A informs player B that they have an issue with thrm. If this issue can for whatever reason not be resolved to player A’s satisfaction, then player A asks player B not to sign up/replace into their games.

If player B ignores this, then it is completely justified for A to request the game mod to kick B.

In contrast, player C unknowingly signs up for a game where player D unknowingly has an issue with player D but has never said word one to them regarding this.

This puts the onus on the game mod to kick player D from a game they never would have signed up for had player C considerately given them the heads’ up first.

Even worse imo, is hypothetical situation 3 imo:

In situation 3, player E /ins into a game under a secret alt. Player E has issues with player F’s play but has never actually voiced their concerns about this to player F.

Player F sees a game they very much want to play and later gets gut punched and publicly humiliated because player E abused their secret alt to prevent player F from playing when had they just either under their secret alt/main just done the kind responsible thing and asked player F to alt, which would have been far less emotionally damaging and hurtful for player F, because they almost certainly would never have even bothered signing up in the first place.

So, I will probably get a lot of shit for this but imo, using an anonymous alt to get someone kicked rather than either informing them you don’t wish to play with said player in X game or asking them to /out is really heartless, unnecessarily cruel and forces the mod to do their dirty work for them.

I didn’t want to address this but I see no good reason why everyone should not have the option to either choose to not sign up for a particular game in the first place or or /out. Only if they absolutely refuse to do either, is it ethically justified they be kicked.

[RH9]

Is this to do with Holiday Dance Party?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Is this to do with Holiday Dance Party?

No it doesn’t but I think referencing any specific game, just muddies the entire point of this discussion.

The issue is, that it is one thing to be asked either not to sign up for a game or /out and an entirely different one to sign up for a game in good faith and then be unceremoniously kicked when that could easily have been avoided.

Neither situation obviously feels great but for me personally, I would hands down either know in advance that there is someone on a playerlist who has an issue with me, because then I can either try to resolve things or just not sign up in the first place or /out. I’m not sure anything can even be done about this but I wanted people who are guilty of abusing secret alts in this way to maybe rethink either discussing with or informing any players that they have concerns about to at least let them know, because in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is unnecessarily hurtful and psychologically damaging to that individual, where as I think letting that person know is as painful as such information may be, still a sign of respect and acknowledgement of that individual’s humanity.

[RH9]

Is this to do with Holiday Dance Party?

No it doesn’t but I think referencing any specific game, just muddies the entire point of this discussion.

The issue is, that it is one thing to be asked either not to sign up for a game or /out and an entirely different one to sign up for a game in good faith and then be unceremoniously kicked when that could easily have been avoided.

I comprehend. Do you think that it would be helpful if people put up their lists on their wiki pages?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Is this to do with Holiday Dance Party?

No it doesn’t but I think referencing any specific game, just muddies the entire point of this discussion.

The issue is, that it is one thing to be asked either not to sign up for a game or /out and an entirely different one to sign up for a game in good faith and then be unceremoniously kicked when that could easily have been avoided.

I comprehend. Do you think that it would be helpful if people put up their lists on their wiki pages?

Possibly? I’m aware Flea has done this. I don’t know how to use them but then I’ve never asked.

Also, coming from the pov of a hypothetical mod, I would also prefer this because having been on the receiving end of this situation, I know how horrible it feels and unless I have actual reason to fear the other party’s reaction, I would absolutely let them know in most cases if I had an issue with someone.

The optimal best situation imo, is for the game mod to be hands on and listening to the players in their games about any behaviour that makes them uncomfortable. On MU both mod and player blacklists are allowed but player blacklists are very rarely resorted to because the mods on there do such a great job of nipping it in the bud before it even becomes an issue.

[Dunnstral]

I've never had a problem with this

[Nancy Drew 39]

I've never had a problem with this

What part? As a player or a game mod?

[RH9]

I've never had a problem with this

Me neither. (But then, that's because I've never modded nor had a secret alt. Unfortunately, I also keep on forgetting which players I would prefer to avoid to playing with.)

[Firebringer]

i can only think of two games i signed up for in which someone blacklisted me and didn't tell me before hand and i still don't know the identities of the people/person who was blacklisting.
Its annoying to deal with cause as u say u want to know beforehand so u don't have this weird situation where mod tells u "hey cant have u play" but also ur wondering "well when does this happen again id rather it not happen"

so i can get a position where its not ideal but the position of unethical? or even unacceptable?
like, some people don't want to confront the person they have issues with to even let them know because it leads to more confrontation/drama and they don't want it. they want to be explicitly out of any situation which causes headache/heartache to deal with it. How is unacceptable for them to mitigate this by asking the mod to accept the list?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Because the player kicked can’t avoid that player and it’s unfair to them because they don’t know. So, for example, let’s say a player could hypothetically pre-in for a game but intentionally doesn’t because they want to avoid this entire situation but upon seeing the confirmed pre-ins, decides that they’re now “safe” and protected from this situation from occuring, only to find out that a secret alt beat them to it and they still got kicked anyway?

My point is that, as long as secret alts are allowed carte blanche to enforce blacklists, this repugnant spectacle will continue. Now, I understand that they’re can be extenuating circumstances like you mentioned. I did in fact object to a player under a secret alt, because that player actually violated site rules in the manner that they had bullied and harrassed me in a previous game but I never did actually report them for it. The game mod did enforce it but they also informed that player why, so they probably figured out it was me anyway but that’s an extreme case but unless they have actually encountered site-rule breaking abuse from another player, then yes, I would consider this to be unethical in MOST (but obviously not ALL) circumstances.

But it’s more than just annoying, because it’s also humiliating as well. I’m aware of one of those circumstances and in that particular case, the mod actually made this public instead of private, which ought to have never been done, so I can say I’ve at the very least, haven’t been subjected to experiencing anything like that yet. I did feel really bad for you. that you had to go through that, especially since I don’t recall if that particular mod had even mentioned WOTC in their setup description.

[Party Boat]

This is Gammagooey btw -

It's annoying but not being able to play a game that you wanted to, but not being able to play in a game isn't "public humiliation". It's fine for two people to either not like each other, or just know their personalities clash and try to prevent potential issues that would arise from them playing a game together. The mods should be clear about if they're using anything like WOTC/WOTM/etc https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... the_Crowds
at gamestart, and do the best they can to make and keep the game environment as non-toxic as they can. Mafia is often a high-stress game, having two people at each other's throats for out-of-game issues can ruin the fun for 10+ other people if it isn't managed well, and if players are aware enough to know that they're going to have issues with another player when joining or replacing in, it's on them as well to communicate their issues with either the mod or the other player so that situation can be avoided.

I think the vast, vast majority of mods do the best they can with the available info they have on that front already, and frankly most of the responsibility for keeping the game civil and non-toxic ultimately falls to the players in my opinion. Neither player should be joining games with the other in it if they have the knowledge to avoid it, and if the mods aren't aware of someone's blacklist and allows them both in at game start or one to replace in, then the correct thing to do is to replace out and leave the situation alone,

regardless

of which player joined first. It isn't particularly fair, but both parties should be at least

willing

to leave if they know they will make the game worse for everyone else if they both stay in, as a courtesy to the other players in the game. If both players do request replacement upon realizing it (I guess in some theoretical all-secret alt game or something), then the mod can discuss it with them individually and work it out.

I don't expect that this is/will be an issue, but if someone you don't want to play with is trying to join games/playerlists you're already part of with a secret alt and get you kicked out afterwards, then report them to the mods because it'd be shitty behavior. For the situation that I know of at least, you two already know you don't want to play with each other, so both of you need to do your best to leave each other alone and communicate any blacklists or potential future issues with players/toxicity to the mods of the games you join.

[Morning Tweet]

I disagree, players shouldn't be required to tell others they do not wish to play with them. If you're not comfortable telling someone you don't wish to play with them (perhaps from worry of harassment, fear of confrontation, whatever) then you shouldn't have to.

I don't think every game has to have WOTC/M, though.

[Ythan]

Having someone else blocked from games for your comfort is a two way street. Nancy's resulting discomfort being on the other side is why this thread and others exist.

[Morning Tweet]

That is true, but I am not sure of a better solution when one conflict in the playerlist can ruin the game for a dozen other people and the moderator. If one party were comfortable talking to the other party directly about it, I'm sure they would have first. I suppose it's a type of last resort.

The fairest thing to do, at least at the moment to me, seems like having WOTC/M for some games, but not others. In the hopes that no one is unable to play all of the time.

[Morning Tweet]

The optimal best situation imo, is for the game mod to be hands on and listening to the players in their games about any behaviour that makes them uncomfortable. On MU both mod and player blacklists are allowed but player blacklists are very rarely resorted to because the mods on there do such a great job of nipping it in the bud before it even becomes an issue.

I also want to talk about this. It's not possible. You can't be there for everyone at all times. Perhaps there are some moderators capable of sorting out issues very well, and find it effortless, and are highly available, but as for me, it's not a feasible thing to do. This would take a tremendous amount of effort on the game moderator's part to react to and sort out conflict as it comes every single time it happens. And I am definitely not on here enough anyway to be able to catch any more than half of cases before it's too late anyway.

Of course, it's part of a moderators job to moderate those kinds of interactions but I think it is also wise to try and prevent them from happening in the first place. It's damaging to the game, it's not fun for you, the players involved, or the entire playerlist. It's also is just very disheartening to me when it feels like I didn't do enough.

Defusing player conflict before it gets to the point of force replacement is not always possible (and to be perfectly honest I think it's definitely not an easy skill and a lot to expect. sometimes it's not gonna be possible at all). Many times the outcome ends up the same where players have to leave, but it's so much worse on top of that.

My point is that, as long as secret alts are allowed carte blanche to enforce blacklists, this repugnant spectacle will continue. Now, I understand that they’re can be extenuating circumstances like you mentioned. I did in fact object to a player under a secret alt, because that player actually violated site rules in the manner that they had bullied and harrassed me in a previous game but I never did actually report them for it. The game mod did enforce it but they also informed that player why, so they probably figured out it was me anyway but that’s an extreme case but unless they have actually encountered site-rule breaking abuse from another player, then yes, I would consider this to be unethical in MOST (but obviously not ALL) circumstances.

Others' situations are likely as valid to them as this situation you describe is to you.

But it’s more than just annoying, because it’s also humiliating as well. I’m aware of one of those circumstances and in that particular case, the mod actually made this public instead of private, which ought to have never been done, so I can say I’ve at the very least, haven’t been subjected to experiencing anything like that yet. I did feel really bad for you. that you had to go through that, especially since I don’t recall if that particular mod had even mentioned WOTC in their setup description.

I disagree with characterizing it as humiliating. Annoying, unfun to deal with, frustrating, and so on I think are fair.

But the interactions that caused players having grievances with each other in the first place are publicly available. And they're plentiful, it's the really intense n personal nature of the game to cause this I suppose. It does not surprise me when players decide it is best they do not play together but an awkward situation occurs due to multi-accounting.

[NorwegianboyEE]

This reminds me of Left 4 Dead 2 where sometimes i'd join an public lobby and i'd get the info that someone had blocked me from playing with them, so i couldn't join.
It was really frustrating, because i'd never understand who did it or why. And i don't think i'd ever be abusive in those games, in fact i practically never spoke at all. I was just really good at the game so i'm wondering if someone blocked me in those games so they wouldn't get defeated by me...

[Nancy Drew 39]

Spoiler:

The optimal best situation imo, is for the game mod to be hands on and listening to the players in their games about any behaviour that makes them uncomfortable. On MU both mod and player blacklists are allowed but player blacklists are very rarely resorted to because the mods on there do such a great job of nipping it in the bud before it even becomes an issue.

I also want to talk about this. It's not possible. You can't be there for everyone at all times. Perhaps there are some moderators capable of sorting out issues very well, and find it effortless, and are highly available, but as for me, it's not a feasible thing to do. This would take a tremendous amount of effort on the game moderator's part to react to and sort out conflict as it comes every single time it happens. And I am definitely not on here enough anyway to be able to catch any more than half of cases before it's too late anyway.

Of course, it's part of a moderators job to moderate those kinds of interactions but I think it is also wise to try and prevent them from happening in the first place. It's damaging to the game, it's not fun for you, the players involved, or the entire playerlist. It's also is just very disheartening to me when it feels like I didn't do enough.

Defusing player conflict before it gets to the point of force replacement is not always possible (and to be perfectly honest I think it's definitely not an easy skill and a lot to expect. sometimes it's not gonna be possible at all). Many times the outcome ends up the same where players have to leave, but it's so much worse on top of that.

My point is that, as long as secret alts are allowed carte blanche to enforce blacklists, this repugnant spectacle will continue. Now, I understand that they’re can be extenuating circumstances like you mentioned. I did in fact object to a player under a secret alt, because that player actually violated site rules in the manner that they had bullied and harrassed me in a previous game but I never did actually report them for it. The game mod did enforce it but they also informed that player why, so they probably figured out it was me anyway but that’s an extreme case but unless they have actually encountered site-rule breaking abuse from another player, then yes, I would consider this to be unethical in MOST (but obviously not ALL) circumstances.

Others' situations are likely as valid to them as this situation you describe is to you.

But it’s more than just annoying, because it’s also humiliating as well. I’m aware of one of those circumstances and in that particular case, the mod actually made this public instead of private, which ought to have never been done, so I can say I’ve at the very least, haven’t been subjected to experiencing anything like that yet. I did feel really bad for you. that you had to go through that, especially since I don’t recall if that particular mod had even mentioned WOTC in their setup description.

I disagree with characterizing it as humiliating. Annoying, unfun to deal with, frustrating, and so on I think are fair.

But the interactions that caused players having grievances with each other in the first place are publicly available. And they're plentiful, it's the really intense n personal nature of the game to cause this I suppose. It does not surprise me when players decide it is best they do not play together but an awkward situation occurs due to multi-accounting.

I wasn’t referring to game mods here but the mod team in general. MU just has a far more efficient moderating team who respond to complaints in a timely manner, so it’s extremely rare for any player to have a negative experience wrt to another player hypothetically poisoning the well so to speak. Player blacklists are such a rarity on MU because the moderation team is always on top of things, don’t have double standards or play favourites. Mods are subject to the same treatment as everyone else, also the rules of everything govering games is made extremely clear.

My point had nothing to with “validity of experience”. My point was that when I got a blacklist enforced under a secret alt, the game mod wouldn’t do it until I actually provided actual EVIDENCE of site rule-breaking behaviour, they didn’t just take my word for it. I had to dig up multiple posts that LITERALLY violated site rule code of conduct violations, not just my “experience”.

At any rate, no one is arguing against the validity of KNOWN blacklists in this thread. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that players who hide under secret alts - can get players who don’t have any idea they’re being blacklisted, - kicked from games they in good faith signed up for.

The issue is not whether player X ought to be forced to play with player Y, only that player Y has a right to know that player X is blacklisting them and therefore player Y, has the right to not be forcibly subjected to being unceremoniously kicked, when they could just not sign up for said game, in the first place or /out.

The issue here, not blacklists per say. I’m arguing that secret alts who enforce blacklists are abusing the entire spirit of what blacklists are supposed to be, which are founded on respect, where as there isn’t anything remotely respectful about secret alts doing this anonymously.

The issue is that as long as game mods continue to allow secret alts to enforce anonymous blacklists without actual evidence of MS site rule-breaking behaviour, this extremely unfair and abusive practice will continue unabated. I am arguing that it’s disingenuous behaviour to hide under a secret alt to get another player kicked, when they could just you know, actually be respectful and first give the other player the heads’ up first. Because then that player knows that they will be kicked because they ignored a known blacklist, In this situation that critical information was withheld from that player.

Spoiler:

As someone who has had experience being anonymously kicked from a game because a secret alt objected to my playing, I can absolutely verify, I did experience that as very hurtful and humiliating. I even made prior multiple posts on this forum practically begging anyone with any grievances with me to let me know, so that I could either have the option to attempt to resolve things with them or if not, just not sign up for any of their games - something clearly impossible to do, when that player persists on withholding that information from you.

[Nancy Drew 39]

This reminds me of Left 4 Dead 2 where sometimes i'd join an public lobby and i'd get the info that someone had blocked me from playing with them, so i couldn't join.
It was really frustrating, because i'd never understand who did it or why. And i don't think i'd ever be abusive in those games, in fact i practically never spoke at all. I was just really good at the game so i'm wondering if someone blocked me in those games so they wouldn't get defeated by me...

WOTC - the current way it is enforced - leave it up to the blacklister’s judgment and there’s an automatic assumption that said blacklister must always be acting in good faith but they’re is no reliable way to actually check this, so a personal honour system is kind’ve assumed. When blacklists are actually known to all relevant parties, there is extremely strong incentive to NOT abuse this. There is no such comparible incentive for secret alts not to do this however.