An Issue with Mafiascum.net

[Wake1]

Basically I'm a newbie to MS, and I've recently been banned for two weeks fordiscussing a fragment of an ongoing game in a thread. Because of this I've lost out on three games I was in.

That thread has been deleted for over 3 days.

My issue with some of you guys in administration is that your punishment was way to harsh. They rarely pull that kind of

crap

stuff in the political message boards I frequent. Instead of Draconicly punishing newbies for rule violations,

they issue out warnings.

You could have given me a warning instead of outright banning me in this overreactive manner. There's no need for that kind of crap. If you want members to care enough to join and contribute, you don't blast them over mistakes right away. You blast the habitual offenders. Not newbies. What you guys did was, from my years of being on the internet, not right.

If you did this to someone else he might of just said: "Screw this stupid shit. I don't need to take this kind of harsh crap over little things. To hell with it." Or something along those lines.

I like playing Mafia, but I don't appreciate this extreme and unwarranted punishment. It's so out of line with how other successful websites are run. You would probably be better off issuing warnings to new members first, and then punishing them if they happen to do it again.

[animorpherv1]

discussing a fragment of an ongoing game

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

NOT OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>

OKAY:

"I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."

NOT OKAY:

"I'm in LYLO in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in LYLO. This is a substantive statement.>

It does not matter if you are dead.
It does not matter if you don't think it will affect a game.
It does not matter if you aren't in the game.
It does not matter if you are posting about a game taking place on another forum or posting about an MS game on another forum.
It does not matter if you are moderating the game in question.

[Wake1]

If I recall correctly, I was in

general terms

asking if a VT could/should replace out instead of being lynched to help Town.

[animorpherv1]

That sounds like a loaded question in and of itself - it sounds like in a game, you're considering replacing out instead of being lynched.

But to answer the question, no.

[Wake1]

I didn't say: "HEY GUYS, you know THIS game? Yeah, I'm a Vanilla Townie in this game and these guys are giving me GRIEF so, you know what, should I REPLACE OUT to save TOWN?"

Yeah, I didn't say it like that. There's WAY too much grey area with that rule.

The punishment wasn't warranted. This kind of crap is going to deter members from wanting to join here. Give them warnings, first, instead of outright bans that leave people wondering why the can't even post. They have to hunt down a post in a certain thread to know if they're banned/what the hell happened. Ridiculous. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. Something's got to change because this is going to happen to people with short tempers and, well, more problems will ensue.

Issue warnings to newbies for the first violations.

[animorpherv1]

Talking about ongoing games is a serious offense - it's cheating. Cheaters are ejected from games, so cheating in another form should give the same punishment. Do you disagree?

If mentioning that zoraster makes long posts in games is an offense, than a hypothetical question construed the wrong way (and really, it was structured the worst way possible. It reeks of ongoing game, so you have no one here to blame but yourself) will also be an offense. All in all, watch what you say.

And really,if you want to ask about when you should replace out, ask in MD in a general sense. Not in a way that can be construed as potentially ongoing.

[Wake1]

The punishment doesn't fit. That's the problem.

It shouldn't be assumed that all newbies who do this intend to cheat. I was asking a hypothetical question.

It would have made more sense to issue a warning instead of outright banning. That wasn't called for at all.

[Tierce]

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. In addition to the sticky that animorpherv1 linked, which is present both under Mafia Discussion and the Queue forums, you are required to read the site rules.

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where explicitly allowed to do so by your role/moderator.

You have been here for a month and the rules are posted on the header. You should have been aware of them from the day you joined.

It doesn't matter how oblique or hypothetical you are being. If it

could

be perceived as being an ongoing games mention,

do not post it

, regardless of whether it is about an ongoing game.

The list mods are always available for contact if you think a subject might skirt too close to this rule before you make it public.

If you would like to discuss the matter in private to prevent further compromise of the games you were in, please send a private message to a list mod (green usernames) or site administrator (red usernames).

[zoraster]

If you have an issue with a ban, whether it is yours or someone else's, the proper venue for that is to take it up with the listmod or mod by PM. If you believe that there was an abuse of power or mistake, address your concerns to Mr. Flay or Kison. Starting a new thread about it is not an effective way to do it -- this is doubly true when it concerns an ongoing game as this one does.

[quadz08]

I want to apologize publicly for not double checking that my PM informing you of your ban went through. That's my fault, and it is standard procedure to PM users who have been banned.

[borkjerfkin]

The punishment doesn't fit. That's the problem.

It shouldn't be assumed that all newbies who do this intend to cheat. I was asking a hypothetical question.

It would have made more sense to issue a warning instead of outright banning. That wasn't called for at all.

It doesn't matter if people intend to cheat when doing this. Talking about ongoing games ruins games for

innocent bystanders that don't intend to cheat.

Something that happened to me recently (all games referred to here are finished): Person A posts in Game 1 (that I am dead in and following) about person B, alluding to the fact that A is scum with B in Game 2 in order to make a case against person C who is the mod of Game 2 and would know this. I am town in Game 2 and I figured out the connection.

The only victim of that crime is me, someone who had 1) no intention of obtaining illicit knowledge and 2) had to replace out of Game 2 because of it.

And the admins and mods here take that sort of thing more seriously than someone who is upset about the fact that they got more than a slap on the wrist for doing something that, if lesser steps were taken, wouldn't get ingrained in people's heads that

this is a big fucking problem.

[Untrod Tripod]

We have rules. They aren't a secret. You broke them.

End of story.

[saulres]

I'm curious...

this is going to happen to people with short tempers and, well, more problems will ensue.

Is that intended as a threat? Or are you expressing a concern that the admins here should walk on eggshells in fear of some harsh retaliation by others?

I just don't understand what you're trying to say with that bit.

[Ythan]

This is not a problem with Mafiascum.net, this is a problem with Wake88.

[Mr. Flay]

Let's try to stay vaguely constructive here, folks.

[Ythan]

Intended as constructive: Wake you still don't have any idea how forum Mafia works, just take our word for it that rules exist for good reasons until you're able to see it for yourself.

[Nuwen]

Holy crap. Missing a rule once over shouldn't result in this kind of shit-storm, even if it's THE rule. This thread reads like a Customer Complaint hotline - "PM the appropriate parties and wait for a response

Can we talk about verbal explanations before throwing people off our website? This kind of reaction is going to scare the reasonable folks, and the wrong kind of people will be willing to come back. I think it's possible to communicate the gravity of something without ejection, especially if it results in replacement.

We can agree that replacement is disruptive and detrimental to mafia games, and our policy should encourage new players to stay yeah? Dialog following an Official Warning could have revealed and corrected Wake's misunderstanding more directly than this roundabout ordeal.

[Cheery Dog]

If I recall correctly, I was in general terms asking if a

VT

could/should replace out instead of being lynched to help Town.

The part I've moved the bold too is likely the problem.

You were in games. You have roles in said games, therefore chances are ongoingness can be interpreted.

[Zaicon]

From my PoV, it looks like you are underestimating your violation. You 1) referred to your situation in an ongoing game (even if you phrased it as a hypothetical), 2) were asking players outside of said game about strategy for your ongoing game, 3) mentioned your role in your ongoing game, and 4) were considering replacement as a strategy not to get lynched in your ongoing game (which may or may not be a violation of rules, but it's considered bad form to do so).

There's WAY too much grey area with that rule.

That's what we're trying to cut down on. This has been a big issue lately, and letting newbies get away with it with just a warning (especially in your case) despite it being in the site rules, individual game rules, and an entire thread dedicated to clarifying that

it won't be allowed

, is simply not going to happen. borkjerfkin's story is a very good example of why.

Note that you got a two-week game ban because this is a very serious rule on this site and you broke it (even if you didn't intend to). Not all rule violations will immediately result in a ban (and most don't unless it's a repeated or serious violation).

[TheIrishPope]

The punishment doesn't fit. That's the problem.

It shouldn't be assumed that all newbies who do this intend to cheat. I was asking a hypothetical question.

It would have made more sense to issue a warning instead of outright banning. That wasn't called for at all.

The punishment does fit. There are rules and you broke them. Think about it from the administrators's side: if they saw someone speaking in hypotheticals, while specifying a role, shouldn't they have a wee bit of concern?
Sure, you can ask for advice on playing roles in general (I think there's a thread for it and the wiki explains each role in depth) but what you can't say is "should I do this to increase my chances of winning as this role" because it can be interpreted as cheating and breaking site rules.
Now, the assumption part you speak of is tricky. The administrators can't read minds. They

must

assume the worst because it is their job and giving leeway to anyone may result in cheating and winning the game without honour. You also seem to think that Newbies get more freedom; this is not so, because the minute you stepped in, you were under the rules of this site, and it applies to everyone with no exceptions.
A warning would have solved nothing. You compromised the integrity of the games you were in by mentioning specific roles and strategies and the admins must assume you did it to gain an advantage.

[TheIrishPope]

Can we talk about verbal explanations before throwing people off our website? This kind of reaction is going to scare the reasonable folks, and the wrong kind of people will be willing to come back. I think it's possible to communicate the gravity of something without ejection, especially if it results in replacement.

We can agree that replacement is disruptive and detrimental to mafia games, and our policy should encourage new players to stay yeah? Dialog following an Official Warning could have revealed and corrected Wake's misunderstanding more directly than this roundabout ordeal.

No one is throwing anyone off the website, though. A two week ban is a minor inconvenience. Talking more about the subject (the possible touching of Wake's ongoing games) would only

worsen

things. The most sensible thing was to remove him from ongoing games to protect the integrity and not hurt the players.
The replacement was actually beneficial to the Mafia games. By removing Wake from these, the admins avoided stopping the games entirely because one person had to speak in hypotheticals, possibly referencing their own role and their possible course of action. I feel the policy should encourage new players, but does that mean that they can break rules

just because they're new?

[Glork]

Thread closed due to discussion of a specific ban regarding an ongoing game.

[quadz08]

As stated in previous threads, discussions on individual bans should be done via PM, not via threads. If you'd like to discuss policy in general, please make a thread in Site Ideas dedicated to said policy.

For the record, we are taking the comments made in this thread into consideration for future policy decisions.