Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 851 to 894 of 894

Thread: Mod Team Q&A

  1. ISO #851
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfy (#822)
    i think the word coaching is wholesome ( wholesome, not cute! )

    i imagine it as a friendly baseball coach whos also a dad, teaching his son "come on sonny, you can do better than this, make your old man proud"

    the intention is probably to distance from "warning" as in a teacher waving his finger at your face, kinda of like from the song "just another brick in the wall" by pink floyd where there's that annoying authoritarian scottish teacher that tells that you can't eat your pudding if you don't eat your meat

    the people who are upset at the word coaching are probably upset at the fact that moderators spoke with them about their posts. similar effect to a villager upset for getting scumread. from their pov, they did nothing wrong, so why? that annoyance probably carries over and people associate it with the word
    If i wanted the mods to act like my dad, I'd ask my dad to be a mod
    Last edited by Apoc; January 12th, 2019 at 08:40 AM.

  2. ISO #852
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#823)
    Quote Originally Posted by soah (#821)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#815)
    And yeah idk if you have a problem with the word itself feeling paternalistic or condesencding or whatever, I've always thought about it like a hitting coach or a first base coach.

    Professional athletes have coaches. You don't need to be a) bad or b) a child to have a coach. Different places do things differently, there's nothing wrong with not knowing something.
    Professional athletes hire coaches to develop their technical skills, not to teach them how to behave properly. The term in this context absolutely is infantilizing and cringeworthy.
    I’d argue that, say, a clearer understanding of OGI rules and the intent behind them is more equivalent to perfecting technical skills than it is to learning how to behave properly, but it probsbly depends a lot on context and what you imagine the actual messages look like.

    What would you change it to?
    call them reminders

  3. ISO #853
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#826)
    this isn’t a super deep thoyght or anything but I’m not sure why knowing if it was a coaching matters tbh?

    Same thing either way you broke a rule a mod talked to you about it. Regardless of the name. Pretty straightforward

    Sorry if this is overly simplified I just feel like “people don’t know they were coached” must be really caught up on the word? Like I can totally get how some people didn’t realize that. The word doesn’t really matter in terms of moderation progression though.
    Nope, it's pretty spot on Lissa. I think people would understand when someone is PMing you as a mod and when they aren't. Obviously more PMs is worse than less!

    But that does raise the question, if it doesn't matter...so why pigeon hole interactions with labels in the first place?

  4. ISO #854
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by For Reports (#801)
    So to actually get to something serious, since we've been promoting more host control on deciding what is and isn't allowed in their games/threads, do you see people being allowed to create threads/subforums on MU that let people behave with less rule restriction? Something similar to how Makaze controls the Discord's Debate channel and he can allow certain things that may not have been allowed previously. We've already seen people feel like a more rule restricted thing should be allowed per the host request, so I just wanted to know if the mods see the MU rules as a base and aren't allowing "worse" behavior on the site.
    im not a mod

    but definitely a terrible terrible idea

  5. ISO #855
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#835)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#830)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#828)
    How do people feel about "Refinement" - an instance of notable progress in the development of knowledge, technology, or skill. "Refinings" - to improve or perfect by pruning or polishing.

    With how mods use/see coachings and them being more about developing betterment in either behavior or knowledge, why not use the term refine?
    Imo refinement implies there wasn’t an actual issue in the first place
    You do understand what coaching is? Coaches tend to refine a player/persons skill or ability at something. Coaches do not teach, they'd be teachers then
    i dont think this is very accurate tbh


    leave the word refinement to soah

  6. ISO #856
    Million Dollar Baby Champ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    22,102
    Timezone
    UTC-05:00
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    scrambledwowee
    Gender
    Apoc stop spamming so the mods can avoid my question

  7. ISO #857
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    I think i'm having a different conversation to light/dark tbh


    Mine is more about the psychology of the interaction. And how to best try and make sure everyone comes away from moderation without a sour taste.



    I dont think anything is complex necessarily.

    Coach -> Warn -> Maybe Warn #2 -> Maybe Temp Ban -> Perm Ban

    it's really not that hard
    Last edited by Apoc; January 12th, 2019 at 08:50 AM.

  8. ISO #858
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Champ (#856)
    Apoc stop spamming so the mods can avoid my question
    GH paid me big bucks to drown out your insightful and cutting posts


    They will destroy the whole site if they are given any attention

  9. ISO #859
    Million Dollar Baby Champ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    22,102
    Timezone
    UTC-05:00
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    scrambledwowee
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#858)
    Quote Originally Posted by Champ (#856)
    Apoc stop spamming so the mods can avoid my question
    GH paid me big bucks to drown out your insightful and cutting posts


    They will destroy the whole site if they are given any attention
    Damn liberals

  10. ISO #860
    I haven't actually read the thread. SmartBomb's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    weh
    Posts
    13,626
    Timezone
    UTC+13:00
    Community
    Neoseeker
    AKA
    owned, Mikan
    I’ve been following along and my thoughts are:

    - we make the line drawn with what rules are being broken in “coachings” very clear regardless of the tone.
    - not particularly attached to the term coaching and I can see how it’s condescending; however given that it’s a term pretty much used exclusively in internal discussions and in here bc of the nature of the mod qa I’m really very meh about it. Like I can agree we should change it if need be given a better option (reminder’s ~ok in my sleep-addled brain rn) but we don’t use the term coaching when coaching, lol. It’s a label there for the sake of there needing to be a label for the preliminary stage of assuming one-off unintentional rule breaks.
    - mods know what is and isn’t against the spirit of the rules, if you feel like something is against the spirit of the rules report it and we’ll give you feedback why or why not
    - this is not the place to ask about particular cases.

  11. ISO #861
    Penalty Box LanMisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    German Democratic Republic (former)
    Posts
    4,200
    Timezone
    UTC+01:00
    Community
    Forum Paradox
    Gender
    I know that I am not a mod, and thus I might not be qualified to talk here, but I am a referee in my sports, both in Chess and Floorball, and thus I understand the side of the mods here.

    Generally, when a problem occurs in either game, it's my job to intervene. And as such, I have two roles. First of all, I am the person who is going to handle out judgement of the situation. Second, my goal is to not see such a rulebreak happen again at any later point in the game.

    Thus, my approach to rulebreaks is very different, depending on how I judge the situation. For example, a player might do something that I could penalise him for, like making a forbidden move (Chess) or playing the ball with the hand (Floorball). At this time, my first thought is whether this was a severe situation that needs punishment. Did it influence the game? Did the player do it deliberately? How old/experienced is the player? Do I have some wiggle room if I don't go for a direct punishment?

    At this point I decide on how to approach the rulebreaker. If they are younger, or that rule is of newer nature, or they have generally behaved well and appropriate up until that point, I might forgo the punishment depending on the reactions of the other team/players. I might take him to me, explain the rule and why this is a rulebreak, and tell him that if he does such an action again I will have to give him that penalty. Or, even if I have to give him that penalty, I will try to calmly explain to him what happened as to make him understand what his mistake was.

    If they are older, experienced, did the rulebreak deliberately and are already skirting the rules, then of course I will always go for a form of punishment, including the clear language that this behaviour is unacceptable and that they will get consecutive punishments if they don't cut it out.

    In my opinion, it's VERY important for a referee to have this deep understanding of the situation, to feel how you need to handle the other person, and to act accordingly. To figure out whether you can reach the other player and how you should approach them. Maybe a player is not "evil", but just "forgetful" about that rule? In that case, giving him a light form of punishment might him remember that rule in the future and help him along the way.

    My point is that I find it very important that there is a distinction between a "warning" and a "coaching". However you call those words are semantics. I have a coach at my floorball team, like anybody doing sports has. So I personally disagree with the word coaching being infantilising. On the other hand, I wouldn't call my refereeing as "coaching", since I am not, or that isn't the main reason I am doing the refereeing. You could call it "teaching the rules" maybe? But I fear, like some mods, that arguing about the words themselves is more likely a proxy argument than not.

  12. ISO #862
    Wants It More DoubtingThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,929
    Community
    WebDiplomacy
    Gender
    Can we unban wolfy

  13. ISO #863
    GOAT Tier Shad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    13,725
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#862)
    Can we unban wolfy
    Can we attempt to respectfully gather information when we suspect foul play before launching into "justice for x" campaigns

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther
    I thought you were a nerd last week but then I saw you say you play golf and remember you said you chewed so you're some kind of unicorn or something

  14. ISO #864
    Wants It More DoubtingThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,929
    Community
    WebDiplomacy
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Shad (#863)
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#862)
    Can we unban wolfy
    Can we attempt to respectfully gather information when we suspect foul play before launching into "justice for x" campaigns

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    I thought we werent allowed to gather information

  15. ISO #865
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#864)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shad (#863)
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#862)
    Can we unban wolfy
    Can we attempt to respectfully gather information when we suspect foul play before launching into "justice for x" campaigns

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    I thought we werent allowed to gather information
    Leave that to the cop
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemist1422 (#5749)
    I think I managed to make the worst possible play one could make in that scenario without throwing

  16. ISO #866
    Wants It More DoubtingThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,929
    Community
    WebDiplomacy
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemist1422 (#865)
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#864)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shad (#863)
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubtingThomas (#862)
    Can we unban wolfy
    Can we attempt to respectfully gather information when we suspect foul play before launching into "justice for x" campaigns

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    I thought we werent allowed to gather information
    Leave that to the cop
    $#@! the police

  17. ISO #867
    Special Agent tbh Boquise's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,864
    Community
    mafiamaniac
    Gender
    I am somewhat confused on the coaching word here. From my experience, we rarely write "Hello x. You're now getting coached." or "This was a coaching." when we do the coaching. I always name my messages "mod message" and tell the user what code of conduct they broke . Usually we also paste in the relevant rules/code of conduct entries. Then there's usually an explanation on how this breaks the pasted rule/CoC. It is a casual sort of thing. It is in the report thread and the log that we discuss coach or warning etc. It makes it much easier for us in this discussion to have these distinct terms and also easier to read the log.

    If we send you a warning, we are 100% going to tell you "this is a warning" in some sort. This is also probably the point where you will see the word coaching, since we are likely to refer back to it. "We have previously coached you on this matter" although sometimes I guess we can say "We have talked about this before." Then again, these things are awfully context-based.

    However, regardless if it is a coaching, warning or ban,9 times of 10 we sign off with a "if you have any questions, feel free to PM me or any other mod" or something. If a mod message is unclear, please ask questions. If a ban or warning is unfair, please voice that. Aside from getting a better idea how you can improve (or point out an error in our decision), it also helps us getting better at writing the messages.

    Now, maybe it is because English isn't my first language, but it is difficult for me to see "coaching" as having condescending undertones. To me it is used as a way to say "hello, you need to improve on this, here's how you can do it!" Moderators are also, logically, coming from a position of authority in these interactions about game and site rules. That is also why there's a much higher standard on moderators to follow game and site rules. Therefore it isn't too farfetched that we use some authoritative words when we have the mod hats on. I guess there are different connotations of "coaching" that I am not aware of. If a large portion of users find "coaching" to be a problematic term, I think we could stop using it in moderator-user interaction. I don't see us removing it from our moderation discussions or our private log, however.
    Last edited by Boquise; January 12th, 2019 at 12:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydraphobia (#3226)
    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus Party (#3224)
    well I have my math test now be back later
    Math won’t get you laid
    Go to the pub instead

  18. ISO #868
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    I think MU is a social experiment that is meant to see how tilted I can be for 3 years

  19. ISO #869
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#771)

    Nor is it their job to stop you from getting yourself banned.

    The mods talk a good game about rehabilitation and all that jazz. Realistically, their core job is to tell you the rule you broke, maybe why the rule exists, how to not break the rule in future.

    If you go ahead and keep breaking it then tough luck. They shouldnt need to introduce new rules or types of ban to help a player behave like an adult imo
    this is why having a difference in coaching/warnings is irrelevant.

    Mods actual job is to just say "read rules, don't break", then if you do it again they need to get rid of you, now sometimes they really $#@! that up, but at the end of the day, Apoc is right that they don't need to baby people. Warn them, if they don't put in their own effort to read and understand, ban them. Like how the $#@! am I still on this site.

    Also if people won't even put in the effort to learn the rules after a warning, then I don't want them in complex WW games when they can't read OPs.

  20. ISO #870
    smile real big Ampharos's Avatar Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    ATX
    Posts
    1,979
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Smogon | Serenes Forest | EIMM
    Pronouns
    she/her/her/hers/herself
    Gender
    I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?

    Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.

    Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
    DM Ampharos#1651 on Discord with any suggestions/comments/complaints/unwarranted compliments
    [6:42 AM] Makaze: people unironically liking amy's themes is tilting

  21. ISO #871
    smile real big Ampharos's Avatar Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    ATX
    Posts
    1,979
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Smogon | Serenes Forest | EIMM
    Pronouns
    she/her/her/hers/herself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#869)
    Mods actual job is to just say "read rules, don't break", then if you do it again they need to get rid of you, now sometimes they really $#@! that up, but at the end of the day, Apoc is right that they don't need to baby people. Warn them, if they don't put in their own effort to read and understand, ban them. Like how the $#@! am I still on this site.
    Wanna go on a quick philosophical tangent related to this.

    In theory, you're correct in that this is as far as the job of the moderator technically extends.

    Most mods, however, don't WANT to be like that. If we think someone has the capacity to learn and improve, we'll work with that person. Call it babying or whatever, but most of the time we don't LIKE having to ban people (unless they're just completely unrepentant, but we aren't talking with those people).

    Back when I was a mod, one of the things that gave me the most pride was telling someone to shape up and seeing them, yknow, actually do it. Sometimes it takes a while to get to that point, but generally we're willing to put in the effort to do so.
    DM Ampharos#1651 on Discord with any suggestions/comments/complaints/unwarranted compliments
    [6:42 AM] Makaze: people unironically liking amy's themes is tilting

  22. ISO #872
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#871)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#869)
    Mods actual job is to just say "read rules, don't break", then if you do it again they need to get rid of you, now sometimes they really $#@! that up, but at the end of the day, Apoc is right that they don't need to baby people. Warn them, if they don't put in their own effort to read and understand, ban them. Like how the $#@! am I still on this site.
    Wanna go on a quick philosophical tangent related to this.

    In theory, you're correct in that this is as far as the job of the moderator technically extends.

    Most mods, however, don't WANT to be like that. If we think someone has the capacity to learn and improve, we'll work with that person. Call it babying or whatever, but most of the time we don't LIKE having to ban people (unless they're just completely unrepentant, but we aren't talking with those people).

    Back when I was a mod, one of the things that gave me the most pride was telling someone to shape up and seeing them, yknow, actually do it. Sometimes it takes a while to get to that point, but generally we're willing to put in the effort to do so.
    Will you pull the trigger on anyone you see as not fit to reform to the level MU says it requires? Because we see a decent amount of people acting like they have put in that effort, but they have never actually reached the level needed for what the rules say, even though they've "improved". Me/Evan/Quas/Cron/Phighter/etc a ton of people will ride that line(go over it) even after being banned/warned/coached. Why do you see these people as worth to remain on the site? I have my own personal thoughts, but when you look at the philosophical opinion of MU, it doesn't make sense for people like that to continue to ruin the experience for other people and the excuse is "they're making improvements "

  23. ISO #873
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#871)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#869)
    Mods actual job is to just say "read rules, don't break", then if you do it again they need to get rid of you, now sometimes they really $#@! that up, but at the end of the day, Apoc is right that they don't need to baby people. Warn them, if they don't put in their own effort to read and understand, ban them. Like how the $#@! am I still on this site.
    Wanna go on a quick philosophical tangent related to this.

    In theory, you're correct in that this is as far as the job of the moderator technically extends.

    Most mods, however, don't WANT to be like that. If we think someone has the capacity to learn and improve, we'll work with that person. Call it babying or whatever, but most of the time we don't LIKE having to ban people (unless they're just completely unrepentant, but we aren't talking with those people).

    Back when I was a mod, one of the things that gave me the most pride was telling someone to shape up and seeing them, yknow, actually do it. Sometimes it takes a while to get to that point, but generally we're willing to put in the effort to do so.
    @Secondhand Revenant


    that pesky soulreading we talked about
    Last edited by Lightness; January 12th, 2019 at 01:44 PM.

  24. ISO #874
    The One True Hero soah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,693
    Community
    2+2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#870)
    I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?

    Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.

    Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
    If the mods only used the term internally, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place because users wouldn't even know about it. But the mods use it in public on a regular basis, often in contexts like "the user received repeated coaching before getting banned." Just about everyone who spends time on the site should be familiar with how mods use it, which is an initial response to a minor rule violation. The clear connotation of the word is that the person getting coached is incapable of learning and applying the skills in question without the guidance of a trained expert. By using the term as the first response to any rule violation, it's basically sending a message that the mods think the users as a whole are rather stupid. The term also has an inappropriate level of intimacy since coaching relies on a specific relationship between the parties which doesn't exist between users and mods.

  25. ISO #875
    Loansharking Blot Test Newcomb's Avatar Head Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,070
    Community
    DLP
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#846)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#813)
    If you want to call coaching something other than coaching, knock yourself out, but the coaching/warning distinction is a real and useful one.
    You should remove the labels entirely imo

    They both create misgiving before a conversation has even started.

    The word coaching has a parent/child connotation.

    The word warning puts a lot of people in defence mode. And sometimes creates an "us vs them", "cop vs civilian" type of attitude.


    The goal should be a peer to peer conversation. I understand if that seems counter-intuitive, but if any mod doesnt see themself as a peer with regular users then that's a problem all on its own tbh
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#848)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#815)
    And yeah idk if you have a problem with the word itself feeling paternalistic or condesencding or whatever, I've always thought about it like a hitting coach or a first base coach.

    Professional athletes have coaches. You don't need to be a) bad or b) a child to have a coach. Different places do things differently, there's nothing wrong with not knowing something.
    There are a few problems with this analogy Newcomb.


    The relationship is different
    In baseball, it's a professional relationship. Most players are probably not best friends with their coach. They are friends with the other players, the coaches are typically friends with the other coaches. (This obviously isn't to say they are not friendly with each other, but it's primarily a business relationship).

    Moderators are primarily players. They are regular users, friends, sometimes best friends, their main goal here is to play games of mafia. At least that's how i see it (I don't know about everyone else?).
    Then they agree to volunteer their time to keep things going, because...well, somebody has to! (Thanks btw ). The dynamic is very different.

    Not to mention the fact that the players are usually the superstars, and coaches of all levels are regularly "let go" because the players didn't like the type of coaching they got (I don't know how it is in baseball, but this happens regularly in soccer).



    The type of "coaching" is different
    If you are being modded (in any capacity) it's because you did something wrong. Calling the moderation "coaching" doesn't automatically make it the same as other types of "coaching". I know the intent is to convey an information exchange, rather than punishment...but the athlete/coach dynamic is far more like the mentor/mentee game than a mod/user relationship.



    The expectations are different
    Baseball players expect to be coached. It's inherently part of their job. They want the coaching. Most people don't want or expect moderation, so from the get go their approach towards receiving it will be very different. So how the coach approaches the situation will probably need to be different too.






    All of this seems pedantic over a simple analogy or choice of wording, but the underlying attitude towards the interaction...
    and how the players perceive it (it doesn't matter how it actually is )...I think was worth getting into
    Some fair points here.

    I agree that the actual word choice is pedantic - we don't actually use these words in anything but internal discussions (I think I've probably put "coaching" in the subject line for coachings a few times when I couldn't think of anything else to call it; I no longer do this though.)

    The more important thing is the actual dynamic that happens between mod and user.

    I definitely agree that mods are users first, mod second. That's an attitude that I very consciously try to propagate. It doesn't quite mean that there's no distinction, though. When you put the mod hat on, you're not speaking as a user. What I agree with you on is that the mod hat should default to off, and only go on when needed.

    How players perceive any given mod interaction is going to depend, at the end of the day, on which two people are talking. We don't do form letters - Ara's mod messages are never going to sound like mine, and vice versa.

    I think there's some subset of players who would feel put off by the dynamic of a coaching no matter what you call it. The lightness/informality of it coming across as dressed up / fake or something. They'd rather just be told "you did this wrong. Here's the rule. Don't do it again." There's another subset of people who'd get turned off if that kind of dynamic (a more authoritarian one) was their first interaction with a mod on a new site. There's probably yet another, larger subset who don't really care one way or another.

    As in all things MU, there's no pleasing everyone.

  26. ISO #876
    Loansharking Blot Test Newcomb's Avatar Head Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,070
    Community
    DLP
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by soah (#874)
    But the mods use it in public on a regular basis, often in contexts like "the user received repeated coaching before getting banned."
    Fair point. I suppose we could just say "interactions" or something bland.

  27. ISO #877
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by soah (#874)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#870)
    I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?

    Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.

    Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
    If the mods only used the term internally, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place because users wouldn't even know about it. But the mods use it in public on a regular basis, often in contexts like "the user received repeated coaching before getting banned." Just about everyone who spends time on the site should be familiar with how mods use it, which is an initial response to a minor rule violation. The clear connotation of the word is that the person getting coached is incapable of learning and applying the skills in question without the guidance of a trained expert. By using the term as the first response to any rule violation, it's basically sending a message that the mods think the users as a whole are rather stupid. The term also has an inappropriate level of intimacy since coaching relies on a specific relationship between the parties which doesn't exist between users and mods.
    I think something is lost in translation when the mods use these "coachings." I have heard several times that people haven't noticed when a mod coaches them or how serious this thing is, but on the mod side they'll keep a record of every single one and hold it against you in future encounters if you happened to not completely correct some "coached" behavior. If you see these interaction as serious mod instruction, they should come off as so imo.

  28. ISO #878
    vast tonal gap Lissa's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    45,165
    Timezone
    UTC-08:00
    Community
    Ultimate Mafia / Mafia Universe
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#840)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#838)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#835)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#830)
    Imo refinement implies there wasn’t an actual issue in the first place
    You do understand what coaching is? Coaches tend to refine a player/persons skill or ability at something. Coaches do not teach, they'd be teachers then
    Coaches can totally teach imo
    The problem is, think about how dumbly complex a coaching on MU can be. I did the math on 7 mashes, during my searches I tend to find 10+ over the line insults, and 25+ barely under/line skirting insults like potato/etc. Let's say a new player got a coaching after saying "Benji is a toxic idiot", the coaching I assume would be quoting the rule with light tone "Hey bud, saw you insult someone there, just remember to not do that." Then in game that person saw a lot of others going around using potato as an insult or some other sort of codeword, does that person just have to assume that must be allowed even though it's against the spirit of the rule? Also, we should all know that most people don't just ask questions when they need to. This is why an official warning pm going into detail about something is 10x better.

    QUOTED wrong post btw
    wrt this

    coachings are generally pretty detailed/clear on what the issue is imo

    your example isn’t really how that kind of coaching would be written, something a little closer to that might be found in a message to someone who did the exact same or a similar issue a while before and has been better for a while but needs a reminder? But that doesn’t look like a typical coaching would, they aren’t typically that vague about how/why something was an issue
    Quote Originally Posted by benneh (#28799)
    she's hard defended 90% of the dead wolves and the whole thread still wants to wish her happy birthday

  29. ISO #879
    vast tonal gap Lissa's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    45,165
    Timezone
    UTC-08:00
    Community
    Ultimate Mafia / Mafia Universe
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#877)
    Quote Originally Posted by soah (#874)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#870)
    I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?

    Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.

    Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
    If the mods only used the term internally, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place because users wouldn't even know about it. But the mods use it in public on a regular basis, often in contexts like "the user received repeated coaching before getting banned." Just about everyone who spends time on the site should be familiar with how mods use it, which is an initial response to a minor rule violation. The clear connotation of the word is that the person getting coached is incapable of learning and applying the skills in question without the guidance of a trained expert. By using the term as the first response to any rule violation, it's basically sending a message that the mods think the users as a whole are rather stupid. The term also has an inappropriate level of intimacy since coaching relies on a specific relationship between the parties which doesn't exist between users and mods.
    I think something is lost in translation when the mods use these "coachings." I have heard several times that people haven't noticed when a mod coaches them or how serious this thing is, but on the mod side they'll keep a record of every single one and hold it against you in future encounters if you happened to not completely correct some "coached" behavior. If you see these interaction as serious mod instruction, they should come off as so imo.
    I mean, any mod instruction which involved you breaking a rule should be fairly straightforwardly something that is recorded and matters for the future? I’m not sure why it wouldn’t. It’s at the same time supposed to be lowgrade and often somewhat conversational. I think we generally make pretty clear how serious something is, we try to be explicit about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by benneh (#28799)
    she's hard defended 90% of the dead wolves and the whole thread still wants to wish her happy birthday

  30. ISO #880
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#878)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#840)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#838)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#835)
    You do understand what coaching is? Coaches tend to refine a player/persons skill or ability at something. Coaches do not teach, they'd be teachers then
    Coaches can totally teach imo
    The problem is, think about how dumbly complex a coaching on MU can be. I did the math on 7 mashes, during my searches I tend to find 10+ over the line insults, and 25+ barely under/line skirting insults like potato/etc. Let's say a new player got a coaching after saying "Benji is a toxic idiot", the coaching I assume would be quoting the rule with light tone "Hey bud, saw you insult someone there, just remember to not do that." Then in game that person saw a lot of others going around using potato as an insult or some other sort of codeword, does that person just have to assume that must be allowed even though it's against the spirit of the rule? Also, we should all know that most people don't just ask questions when they need to. This is why an official warning pm going into detail about something is 10x better.

    QUOTED wrong post btw
    wrt this

    coachings are generally pretty detailed/clear on what the issue is imo

    your example isn’t really how that kind of coaching would be written, something a little closer to that might be found in a message to someone who did the exact same or a similar issue a while before and has been better for a while but needs a reminder? But that doesn’t look like a typical coaching would, they aren’t typically that vague about how/why something was an issue
    uhh

    sure? like if you say so sure, but literally I think back to any coaching some said I had before all of my bans and such, it was literally a message going 'bro I saw you make some weird posts in the discord, try to refrain from posting that in general if you can' The only time anything was explained to me was my ban, and even then the old mods should know how I felt about those explanations xd

    so from personal experience, and this is coming from someone who needs reform so I tend to think it's what you'd be trying to understand, they not only meant very little but also easily forgettable. You don't even get a record of it on user side

  31. ISO #881
    Manasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    15,740
    Community
    DailyMafia
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#880)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#878)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#840)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#838)
    Coaches can totally teach imo
    The problem is, think about how dumbly complex a coaching on MU can be. I did the math on 7 mashes, during my searches I tend to find 10+ over the line insults, and 25+ barely under/line skirting insults like potato/etc. Let's say a new player got a coaching after saying "Benji is a toxic idiot", the coaching I assume would be quoting the rule with light tone "Hey bud, saw you insult someone there, just remember to not do that." Then in game that person saw a lot of others going around using potato as an insult or some other sort of codeword, does that person just have to assume that must be allowed even though it's against the spirit of the rule? Also, we should all know that most people don't just ask questions when they need to. This is why an official warning pm going into detail about something is 10x better.

    QUOTED wrong post btw
    wrt this

    coachings are generally pretty detailed/clear on what the issue is imo

    your example isn’t really how that kind of coaching would be written, something a little closer to that might be found in a message to someone who did the exact same or a similar issue a while before and has been better for a while but needs a reminder? But that doesn’t look like a typical coaching would, they aren’t typically that vague about how/why something was an issue
    uhh

    sure? like if you say so sure, but literally I think back to any coaching some said I had before all of my bans and such, it was literally a message going 'bro I saw you make some weird posts in the discord, try to refrain from posting that in general if you can' The only time anything was explained to me was my ban, and even then the old mods should know how I felt about those explanations xd

    so from personal experience, and this is coming from someone who needs reform so I tend to think it's what you'd be trying to understand, they not only meant very little but also easily forgettable. You don't even get a record of it on user side
    I mean whenever I got talked to I typically asked some questions to get some reasoning as to why x y z is wrong and how I could either change my behavior or responses to live within the CoC. I think those interactions are typically what mods consider coaching. I do think it's a pretty bad word to use but unsure what to replace it with so I was going to shut my mouth and not share but I wanted to speak to this point.

    This might not be a common opinion but I believe in the idea of asking questions. If there's something you're not sure if you should say, either don't say it or ask someone (a mod) if they think it's outside of the rules. I'm not sure if mods should be responsible for writing out everything you did wrong in the case of a light conversation about something wrong you did.

    Ask the question. Figure out what the root of that rule-break is. Mods keep track of these interactions for the most part but they shouldn't have to write a note or post or anything explaining every aspect that needs to be worked on. Take it upon yourself to figure that out etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther (#5393)
    Take note MU the AIDS bar of 2019 is being set HIGH
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack (#24)
    i need more manasi


    [5:44 PM] Apoc: just remember that you are a WW legend and you are going to own their souls rn

  32. ISO #882
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#879)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#877)
    Quote Originally Posted by soah (#874)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ampharos (#870)
    I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?

    Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.

    Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
    If the mods only used the term internally, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place because users wouldn't even know about it. But the mods use it in public on a regular basis, often in contexts like "the user received repeated coaching before getting banned." Just about everyone who spends time on the site should be familiar with how mods use it, which is an initial response to a minor rule violation. The clear connotation of the word is that the person getting coached is incapable of learning and applying the skills in question without the guidance of a trained expert. By using the term as the first response to any rule violation, it's basically sending a message that the mods think the users as a whole are rather stupid. The term also has an inappropriate level of intimacy since coaching relies on a specific relationship between the parties which doesn't exist between users and mods.
    I think something is lost in translation when the mods use these "coachings." I have heard several times that people haven't noticed when a mod coaches them or how serious this thing is, but on the mod side they'll keep a record of every single one and hold it against you in future encounters if you happened to not completely correct some "coached" behavior. If you see these interaction as serious mod instruction, they should come off as so imo.
    I mean, any mod instruction which involved you breaking a rule should be fairly straightforwardly something that is recorded and matters for the future? I’m not sure why it wouldn’t. It’s at the same time supposed to be lowgrade and often somewhat conversational. I think we generally make pretty clear how serious something is, we try to be explicit about it.
    So let me explain myself with something you can't respond to lol. I've been told to kill myself by someone who has a history of bad behavior, he also threatened to game throw and called me and a friend idiots for trying our best to win the game. Not only that, but he never apologized and his excuse was he said it was a joke. The dude got a warning. So when I am in MU discord and a mod tells me "Benji try not to say stuff like personal harm in general bro, you ok?" it sounds like those things should be LIGHT YEARS away, but the next time I posted something in the general even closely related to that, I got a warning. So me making two bad comments about my stress and personal health, came to the same moderation as the other dude. So saying that you make it pretty clear how serious something is the first time SEEMS MEH

  33. ISO #883
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Manasi (#881)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#880)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lissa (#878)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#840)
    The problem is, think about how dumbly complex a coaching on MU can be. I did the math on 7 mashes, during my searches I tend to find 10+ over the line insults, and 25+ barely under/line skirting insults like potato/etc. Let's say a new player got a coaching after saying "Benji is a toxic idiot", the coaching I assume would be quoting the rule with light tone "Hey bud, saw you insult someone there, just remember to not do that." Then in game that person saw a lot of others going around using potato as an insult or some other sort of codeword, does that person just have to assume that must be allowed even though it's against the spirit of the rule? Also, we should all know that most people don't just ask questions when they need to. This is why an official warning pm going into detail about something is 10x better.

    QUOTED wrong post btw
    wrt this

    coachings are generally pretty detailed/clear on what the issue is imo

    your example isn’t really how that kind of coaching would be written, something a little closer to that might be found in a message to someone who did the exact same or a similar issue a while before and has been better for a while but needs a reminder? But that doesn’t look like a typical coaching would, they aren’t typically that vague about how/why something was an issue
    uhh

    sure? like if you say so sure, but literally I think back to any coaching some said I had before all of my bans and such, it was literally a message going 'bro I saw you make some weird posts in the discord, try to refrain from posting that in general if you can' The only time anything was explained to me was my ban, and even then the old mods should know how I felt about those explanations xd

    so from personal experience, and this is coming from someone who needs reform so I tend to think it's what you'd be trying to understand, they not only meant very little but also easily forgettable. You don't even get a record of it on user side
    I mean whenever I got talked to I typically asked some questions to get some reasoning as to why x y z is wrong and how I could either change my behavior or responses to live within the CoC. I think those interactions are typically what mods consider coaching. I do think it's a pretty bad word to use but unsure what to replace it with so I was going to shut my mouth and not share but I wanted to speak to this point.

    This might not be a common opinion but I believe in the idea of asking questions. If there's something you're not sure if you should say, either don't say it or ask someone (a mod) if they think it's outside of the rules. I'm not sure if mods should be responsible for writing out everything you did wrong in the case of a light conversation about something wrong you did.

    Ask the question. Figure out what the root of that rule-break is. Mods keep track of these interactions for the most part but they shouldn't have to write a note or post or anything explaining every aspect that needs to be worked on. Take it upon yourself to figure that out etc.
    Manasi we both agree on your point. My issue is with the mods saying "WE(the mods) make it clear to the user with the coaching" but like you said it's on the user to ask the questions and try to understand these complexity in the rules, you can't expect every user to do that. The mods treat them as this obvious clear warning, but it doesn't come off as that at face value, holding the users to a certain standard (keeping record of coachings and treating them as serious moderation) but not realizing how they look to the user is just bad..?

  34. ISO #884
    Everyone's mom dyachei's Avatar Discord Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    30,181
    Community
    SDN
    Pronouns
    she/her/her/hers/herself
    Gender
    It's kind of hard to answer this question in a general sense. However, we do take response to moderation into account. If we correct a user and they are apologetic and we see changes to their posting style, of course it's going to go better than if we correct a user and that user curses us out and continues with the same behavior. There are many shades of grey in between that makes it hard to compare. Each individual case comparison isn't apples to apples.
    Yes I am offcially more annoying than navi. Misson accomplished. - Fable

    i have deep seated lust for villager from animal crossing - Cory

  35. ISO #885
    Loansharking Blot Test Newcomb's Avatar Head Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,070
    Community
    DLP
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by FTFlush (#824)
    Can you describe the appeal process?
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.

  36. ISO #886
    Mantichora's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    22,028
    Community
    MiniMafia
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#885)
    Quote Originally Posted by FTFlush (#824)
    Can you describe the appeal process?
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?

  37. ISO #887
    Loansharking Blot Test Newcomb's Avatar Head Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,070
    Community
    DLP
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantichora (#886)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#885)
    Quote Originally Posted by FTFlush (#824)
    Can you describe the appeal process?
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?
    Probably pretty low.

    I've only personally handled like... 2 or 3 since I became head mod. Very few people actually appeal.

    For an appeal to be successful, it has to show how we missed an important piece of information.

    For example, when James2 was banned for running that bastard All Jesters game, we missed an important piece of information: the game had actually gone through review, and the actual problem was with how we were treating "invitational" games in the review process. We just assumed it hadn't gone through review, because obviously no reviewer would let it go through if they thought it was a normal MU game, and the review team assumed it was a de-facto offsite game that the host was in charge of setting the expectations for. So we fixed that hole in the process and then reversed the hosting ban.

    That's an example of the level of thing we have to miss for an appeal to be successful.

  38. ISO #888
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantichora (#886)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#885)
    Quote Originally Posted by FTFlush (#824)
    Can you describe the appeal process?
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?
    The issue with asking this is, the character and assumptions have already been concluded at the point of a ban being handed out. These aren't things that can be "disproven" or changed. And so much of people being banned is based on these soul reads of people. So the literal only way to ever appeal would be something like "yeah well this is a lie "blah blah" here is the screen of my private logs. If you think about some hypothetical bans, ask yourself what a person could disprove outside what I laid out here.

  39. ISO #889
    Thumbs Up Apoc's Avatar Game Manager
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sharing opinions nobody asked for
    Posts
    32,673
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#888)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantichora (#886)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#885)
    Quote Originally Posted by FTFlush (#824)
    Can you describe the appeal process?
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?
    The issue with asking this is, the character and assumptions have already been concluded at the point of a ban being handed out. These aren't things that can be "disproven" or changed. And so much of people being banned is based on these soul reads of people. So the literal only way to ever appeal would be something like "yeah well this is a lie "blah blah" here is the screen of my private logs. If you think about some hypothetical bans, ask yourself what a person could disprove outside what I laid out here.
    This is so far off the mark it's pretty outrageous to be honest

    Ppl are only banned when they break the rules. Though sometimes i wish that weren't the case


    NOTE: IM NOT A MOD
    Last edited by Apoc; January 13th, 2019 at 08:37 AM.

  40. ISO #890
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#889)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#888)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantichora (#886)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newcomb (#885)
    Sure, good question.

    Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.

    If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?
    The issue with asking this is, the character and assumptions have already been concluded at the point of a ban being handed out. These aren't things that can be "disproven" or changed. And so much of people being banned is based on these soul reads of people. So the literal only way to ever appeal would be something like "yeah well this is a lie "blah blah" here is the screen of my private logs. If you think about some hypothetical bans, ask yourself what a person could disprove outside what I laid out here.
    This is so far off the mark it's pretty outrageous to be honest

    Ppl are only banned when they break the rules. Though sometimes i wish that weren't the case


    NOTE: IM NOT A MOD
    I think you misunderstood where my thought was at. We've all broken rules at points, and some of us have had several warnings and even done things others have been banned for. Like the mods have said, once they step over the ban threshold, it's them thinking the player won't/can't reform or that the action was too egregious. So again my point was, when the ban takes place, the soulread of that person and their actions has already been made, so hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

    @Apoc
    Last edited by Lightness; January 13th, 2019 at 01:45 PM.

  41. ISO #891
    Manasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    15,740
    Community
    DailyMafia
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#890)
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#889)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#888)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantichora (#886)
    What % of bans are successfully appealed?
    The issue with asking this is, the character and assumptions have already been concluded at the point of a ban being handed out. These aren't things that can be "disproven" or changed. And so much of people being banned is based on these soul reads of people. So the literal only way to ever appeal would be something like "yeah well this is a lie "blah blah" here is the screen of my private logs. If you think about some hypothetical bans, ask yourself what a person could disprove outside what I laid out here.
    This is so far off the mark it's pretty outrageous to be honest

    Ppl are only banned when they break the rules. Though sometimes i wish that weren't the case


    NOTE: IM NOT A MOD
    I think you misunderstood where my thought was at. We've all broken rules at points, and some of us have had several warnings and even done things others have been banned for. Like the mods have said, once they step over the ban threshold, it's them thinking the player won't/can't reform or that the action was too egregious. So again my point was, when the ban takes place, the soulread of that person and their actions has already been made, so hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

    @Apoc
    The bolded is really only ever the case wrt perma-bans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther (#5393)
    Take note MU the AIDS bar of 2019 is being set HIGH
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack (#24)
    i need more manasi


    [5:44 PM] Apoc: just remember that you are a WW legend and you are going to own their souls rn

  42. ISO #892
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Manasi (#891)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#890)
    Quote Originally Posted by Apoc (#889)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightness (#888)
    The issue with asking this is, the character and assumptions have already been concluded at the point of a ban being handed out. These aren't things that can be "disproven" or changed. And so much of people being banned is based on these soul reads of people. So the literal only way to ever appeal would be something like "yeah well this is a lie "blah blah" here is the screen of my private logs. If you think about some hypothetical bans, ask yourself what a person could disprove outside what I laid out here.
    This is so far off the mark it's pretty outrageous to be honest

    Ppl are only banned when they break the rules. Though sometimes i wish that weren't the case


    NOTE: IM NOT A MOD
    I think you misunderstood where my thought was at. We've all broken rules at points, and some of us have had several warnings and even done things others have been banned for. Like the mods have said, once they step over the ban threshold, it's them thinking the player won't/can't reform or that the action was too egregious. So again my point was, when the ban takes place, the soulread of that person and their actions has already been made, so hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

    @Apoc
    The bolded is really only ever the case wrt perma-bans.
    My original point is getting further from what I intended anyway, you don't get banned when breaking rules on MU, if that were the case the public mod log would be a lot more active. Once they ban someone, the mods have given up on changing said person, and are prepared to perma ban them unless they change personally during your ban.
    Last edited by Lightness; January 13th, 2019 at 03:09 PM.

  43. ISO #893
    Soul Reader
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,711
    Community
    Epic Mafia
    Gender
    Le me give my 2 cents on this.

    As a member of many many communities : People who get banned do not change. They just worsen.

    Here are some good examples from real life scenarios:

    Player A is a good player. He is respected, has friends and the game is getting too easy for them. They want to have more fun so little by little they try to break the rules. End up cheating, caught and banned.

    But because of theym getting banned they start bypassing, cheating even more and little by little progressing to even worse by end up hacking the whole site.

    Getting perma banned but still avoiding with hundreds of accounts and doing whatever they want.


    What would you have done different? Maybe talking with them, trying to argue and reach a consensus would have saved them , not just stright out banning or not even giving them a chance to begin with.

    When people are forced out and hated , they themselves become haters.


    Althrough there are scenarios where it doesnt work.

    User A and user B cheat. They are banned but later unbanned under the presence they changed. They didn't change, they just found better ways to cheat. They expand their cehating right with many other players to not get caugh.


    But the problem here is that one of them becomes a moderator and thats why this ridiculous thing continues.



    So i think the best solution is to be harsh but never too harsh. You need to set lines. Small acts should be frowned upon but not punished. Rules should be bent instead of enforced completely because every scenrio is different. A good moderator should know when to break the rules for the sake of one person. They should be fluid.

  44. ISO #894
    Bandwagoner Lightness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    149
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Space
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Xxerox (#893)
    Le me give my 2 cents on this.

    As a member of many many communities : People who get banned do not change. They just worsen.

    Here are some good examples from real life scenarios:

    Player A is a good player. He is respected, has friends and the game is getting too easy for them. They want to have more fun so little by little they try to break the rules. End up cheating, caught and banned.

    But because of theym getting banned they start bypassing, cheating even more and little by little progressing to even worse by end up hacking the whole site.

    Getting perma banned but still avoiding with hundreds of accounts and doing whatever they want.


    What would you have done different? Maybe talking with them, trying to argue and reach a consensus would have saved them , not just stright out banning or not even giving them a chance to begin with.

    When people are forced out and hated , they themselves become haters.


    Althrough there are scenarios where it doesnt work.

    User A and user B cheat. They are banned but later unbanned under the presence they changed. They didn't change, they just found better ways to cheat. They expand their cehating right with many other players to not get caugh.


    But the problem here is that one of them becomes a moderator and thats why this ridiculous thing continues.



    So i think the best solution is to be harsh but never too harsh. You need to set lines. Small acts should be frowned upon but not punished. Rules should be bent instead of enforced completely because every scenrio is different. A good moderator should know when to break the rules for the sake of one person. They should be fluid.
    I honestly can't tell if you are trolling, but since this is in the QnA I will treat it as serious.

    First Bold: Maybe they do. Though that is not the worry of mods, it's to protect MU's community from toxic/rule breaking behavior. A ban is the result of someone continuously breaking rules and showing a negative view toward reforming. Once a player has reached that point, it is no longer on the mods to think about changing the person.

    Second Bold: You're just explaining how the entire MU staff works, they do reach out, they do give second chances and try to stay away from banning people. Personally I disagree with how they reach out to people, but saying they don't put in the effort would be lol.

    Third Bold: I disagree with this so much, it sounds like someone who is upset that they aren't allowed to break rules, so they are acting like a victim and telling the mods to change how rules work so they fit themselves. What a beyond selfish request.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • J to go down one post
  • K to go up one post
  • Shift+J to go to the last post on the page
  • Shift+K to go to the first post on the page
  • L to go forward one page
  • H to go back one page
  • Shift+L to go to the last page
  • Shift+H to go to the first page
  • Ctrl+G to go to the latest unread post in the thread
about us
Mafia Universe is a community hub for people who enjoy playing the forum variant of Mafia (also known as Werewolf). We offer fully automated Mafia games and a wide variety of customized features crafted to optimize your game experience. We also proudly host the Internet's only database of Mafia/Werewolf communities.

We hope you stick around!
Role of the Day
ITA Master

The ITA Master may each night choose to make his ITA hit chance 100% or 0% for the next day phase.