Quote from vezokpiraka »I've played mafia for so long I forgot why rules are so important.
I've played so long I look at these rules and I can clearly say "X = modkill Y = warning".
But the rules don't really explain any of that.
Silver let me explain in totality.
I hate things like this. There is nothing more in the world that I hate than double standards. I just hate it. I can always give a myriad of examples, but the one that always rings true comes from law enforcement.
I've seen police officers damn a person for a simple crime. Yet at the same time see another officer do the same thing and rally behind him and say "Hes a good guy". That's bull*****. You either give both people the same benefit of the doubt or you give nobody the benefit of the doubt.
How does this relate to mafia.
To me its the way that the rules is twofold for these games. I think you guys did a great job at giving the teams an even game. The balance in the games seemed fine. At that point you have to wash your hands clean of the balance aspect and look at player behavior.
So what are the double standards.
First, you treated players that broke the rules early different from those that broke the rules later. Nancy is my example. You can't setup a system that will gladly replace players early game, but then sort of fudge the rules later in the game because you don't have replacements. That's not fair. Maybe those earlier players deserved the same opportunity, or maybe those later players didn't. But you didn't treat them equally and for me that's a big deal. Its worse than that to me though because the system as I see it rewards you for later rule breaking and tells players that as well.
You've done your balancing right? The games were balanced, you gotta at some point let players make their own plays as they see fit and if the rules say you're out you're out.
Secondly, there was some focus on the player comments in this game. I don't have a problem with that really in the sense of maybe how that sounds. My problem is that if you are going to interpret a rule as strict as you can one way, and be active about promoting it. Its strange that another rule is then going to be interpreted as loosely as it was here.
That's my issue. Eco thinks a good game is nobody being mean or using swear words. I think good game might include that but really it should be about player enjoyment. I objectively think Arkham was a failure because of this. Games rules and design should promote memorable games. I think Azreal's disheritance is an example of that. You replace any amount of players with others and I still think I would remember that game. Certainly there is some luck involved with some of the elements sort of brewing together.
And I'm angry about it. I'm angry that my time wasn't respected in this game. I'm angry that I feel cheated even though I left early by that loss in the game. I'm angry that I have to fight so god damn hard to say hey the rules are not fair.
I want rules that tell players what to expect. Clearly that didn't happen here. My point with all of the rules being drafted as they are is that there isn't a Vadar situation. That the rules are so vague players don't know what to expect. We all have a sense of what's fair, what we think we should expect. But clearly some of us have different standards.
I want moderation going forward to be more clear. I think a lot of issues are caused that way. And if a moderator says "I can't explain it right now, but please believe me this is the best decision and we can talk about it later" I think that's fine too because a moderator might not be able to reveal all information. But with these games that wasn't there. You made rules about prodding people a mod kills and replacements and nobody knew what was going on or why you got there.
What I think needs to happen is for rules to clearly state their remedies.
Modkill, replacement, warning. With intent being factored in.
I've seen players take screenshots of things post them and be surprised when they get automodkilled. And its because they thought it wasn't that bad, or didn't understand why it was against the rules. I remember when you had to paraphrase your pm's instead of copt pasting within reason. I'm glad we are past that.
I think the rules need to be rewritten. Even the loosest of interpretations requires us to come to the conclusion that the prods had NINE days before you could be replaced. Nobody intended that. In my mind its actually 12 since repeated implies more than three to me.
I'm going to try and write some new rules with all of this in mind. I'm open to suggestions on what should be included. I just want to respect players. The goals should follow to basic guidelines to me.
First, to remove negatively impact player actions.
Second, be clear.