Forum Games and Trolling

[Abaddon]

Within forum games, the OP, the person taking the time and effort to run a game should be able to exclude users. Problem solved.


Except it isn't. CFC doesnt like elitism, and this is kinda it.


You have to be clever about it, do it in a PC way..


Have applications for players in your games, control how they can interact. At worst, instruct everyone to ignore their actions..

DONT FEED THE TROLLS

[PPQ_Purple]

Again, you use the term troll to refer to something that is not one.

A person would be a troll if you fallowed what DaveShack said and the person still refused to fallow the rules than he would be a troll. In fact, his solution is the best. Defined the rules beforehand and make everyone agree to them.

I mean, on most games I run on other forums I frequent I (as the GM) routinely ask for personal applications from each potential player including references to any and all past gaming experience, play style etc.


All this said thou. I hope you don't mind me saying but you people are the most generally hostile playing community I have ever encountered. Fun to debate? Yes. But I would newer want to play with you people.

[choxorn]

I like what DaveShack said.

[bestrfcplayer]

The forum games has to many trolls. I agree with Zack's idea the best.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

I think you are completely missing the point.
This is because you can only see one side of the two while I can see both.

I'm not missing any point; you're imposing an arbitrary distinction that isn't there.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

Becouse some pople prefer to play a part rather than win.
And not everyone is going to play a historically accurate part. Why should he?

So what's the justification for allowing everybody to play a random part and be protected from the ramifications of playing that part, if it's not historical accuracy? Why should people be penalized for playing the part of acting to win the game?

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

If for example the players are playing a Medieval styled RPG with magic.
One can play as the heavy hiting paladin knight that maximises for combat. But one can also play as a bard with no combat skills at all. Both roles are going be equaly fun if you know how to play them properly.

Precisely. And the bard with no combat skills makes up for that, in stories and the real world, by either endearing himself to everybody such that even the people who want to 'win' elect not to hurt him, or by buying protection for himself. There's every reason why that sort of thing should happen. There are plenty of people who have played NESes as insular states who have preferred not to get into the affairs of others, and to masturbate off in the corner. They generally have to come up with a way to do that masturbating, though. Apparently you're in favor of the theoretical possibility of a game that forbids others from attacking them while they're off masturbating. I certainly understand that some people might be interested in that sort of nonsense, but I definitely wouldn't play in it, and I wouldn't attempt to mandate any kind of blanket subforum-wide enforcement for it. Mod runs the game the way he wants and delivers updates in a timely fashion, players in exchange follow the rules he sets. Not a difficult implicit contract to understand.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

Often times, I have had more fun playing a complete idiot than I have a power gamed character. In one case even an engineer who's idea of fixing an airship is to add a bicycle powered replacement for the broken engine and sit on the roof all the time stitching holes together.

That's nice. Does your happy-go-lucky engi get by with the personal protection of Mod Himself, endearing himself to the players such that they elect not to attack him out of gratitude/lulz, or dumb luck? Either way is perfectly acceptable to me, so long as it's not imposed on any other games.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

No, you are.
You are defending a stance opposite to that presented by the people complaining because you can not understand where they are coming from.

I am defending the same stance you are, but for different reasons. I can actually understand both you and them, and I think the main problem is that you can't understand each other.

I don't think you understand what I'm arguing at all. English not your first language?

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

Geez, can't you take a little figurative speach.

No, actually, I'm interested in hearing about this little scenario. Is it a real one, or made up for the purposes of your speech?

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

Again you fail to realize something.
For the roleplayers, victory is no fun at all. Wining means that the game ends.

Another thing is that they do not want to make a "historically accurate" character. Instead, they want to make a character that is fun to roleplay as.

And while we are at it, how many historical characters do you know that did not make mistakes. How many do you know that did not have weird character failings. It's roleplaying these failings and how they affect your nation, and in turn showing how you overcome them what is fun for the roleplayer.

Yeah, see, the thing is, just like in the real world, in NESes or forum games, people make mistakes all by themselves, without the need to roleplay them in. Especially the powergamers. I guarantee that most of the people that are accused of powergaming in IOT games are in fact making horrendous mistakes that no historical ruler would get caught making - or, sometimes, ones that they would - but that the mod is insufficiently educated to understand that the player is, in fact, making a mistake. Alternatively, the mod might know, but can't be assed to bring down the hammer of Mod on them by following the decisions to their logical conclusion and confronting the player in question with the terrible swift sword of unforeseen consequences. If a player hires a huge army to overrun the world, he should get hit with penalties for it, like economic ones (either in terms of upkeep or reduced output, and almost certainly in terms of inflation, since he'll have to mint heavily to hire all these troops), or command-and-control ones (not enough officer cadres to effectively lead all these men, leading to a decline in leadership quality) to counterbalance the advantage he has gained by his huge army with disadvantages that will prevent him from being a world-bestriding colossus. And if he effectively mitigates the disadvantages with other policies, there should be downsides to those, too.

Roleplayers - or rather, the masturbators you characterize as 'roleplayers' - might not have fun when people 'win', because that means the game ends for them. My response is 'tough'. If you wanted to hang around the entire game diddling by yourself, you should go play in a game that allows, permits, or shields that, or run one. Just like how people who complain about not being permitted to 'powergame' or 'play historically' shouldn't complain at all when they're playing in a game that the mod has, up-front, marketed as a game for masturbators, where playing to win is punished. You join the game, you play by the mod's rules, so long as they aren't user-specific or break the forum's rules in any other way. Don't like them, don't join the game. It's really a very simple solution.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

It's playing the part that matters, like a good actor. And it is from discovering new dept in this role you create your self that is the fun.

Believe me, I know this very well. And I don't have a problem with it at all. But either you face the consequences of your actions, or you play a game that protects the people who do deliberately stupid things so they can feel as though they are roleplaying.

Honestly, I can't see why people think that getting pwned when they do deliberately dumb stuff is a bad thing. I've done deliberately dumb things as a ruler before in games, chiefly for the purpose of making stuff more interesting; I understand that my state is almost certain to suffer the consequences of my actions, and that's part of the reason I'm doing it in the first place. But I recognize that plenty of other people just want to masturbate, playing Inspector Clouseau, who bumbles around all over the place idiotically and yet gets the girl and defeats the bad guy in the end anyway. They should play in games specific to their situation, then.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

In other words, your approach is different than theirs, and they in turn are bigoted against your approach because they can understand you about as much as you can understand them.

Until you are ready to meat each other half way you will always be fighting.

Funny how people on CFC seem to have a hair trigger for using the word "bigot". Seems to usually be a word for "jackass who doesn't think like I do", but slightly less offensive.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

Not really, we sort of had a non nuclear treaty that defined that anyone caught stockpiling them will be ganged up on by everyone else.

I just used good espionage to ensure that they newer found out before it was too late.
Also, you would be surprised how one can use the Tu-95 for great effect in huge numbers while others buy expensive ICBMs.

I congratulate you on outfoxing your fellow players.

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

I can talk from experience when I say this people. If there is not enough roleplaying, the game turns into a game of chess with tightly defined rules and everyone playing only to win. It eventually gets so bogged down in meta gaming that it newer goes anywhere. Every turn becomes so meticulously planed that in the end you have to do what chess did and introduce a turn timer.

But on the other hand if there is not enough power gaming, than the story again goes nowhere because there is nothing driving it. A bunch of people having fun playing their characters will have just as much fun playing them in the local tavern as they will killing that dragon. But that dragon is a risk to end the game, better stay in the tavern. Or worse yet, the GM will make the dragon easy or the players will at least know they cant die since the GM also wants to keep the game running for fun. Hence no risk and no fun after a while.

I speak from experience myself when I say that there are no, or almost no, perfect powergamers. There is no human being on Earth that has an understanding of history, economics, military theory, politics, and/or science fiction deep enough to be able to play a NES-like game better than everybody else. What matters for a powergamer is being more intelligent - or rather, more well-versed in the subject - than the mod of the game, and mods should rightly be concerned with developing a better understanding of their world than any of their players; if they don't have one, they can't force the players to accept the unforeseen (or foreseen, but ignored on the grounds that the mod is incompetent) consequences of their actions. And so, even if they aren't as well-versed as the player is, mods can and should compensate with Acts of Mod, or "random" events, geared to slow such a player down and bring him or her onto even terms with other players. If a mod fails to do those things, then I for one have no interest in playing a game that that person is modding. Other people might, of course, and I leave it open for them to decide if they want to.

On the other hand, you hit the nail on the head about masturbating games where there are no consequences for one's actions; nothing goes on, or everything goes on, but none of it actually matters. Even so, it floats some peoples' boats, and I'm okay with that. I just wouldn't touch the game myself with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.

Originally Posted by DaveShack

The community that plays a given game should set standards of behavior within that game. Bring those standards to attention of the mods, who should have veto power. Once the behavior standards and rules of the game are put in place, everyone who participates must agree to them. The standards and rules may narrow the general forum rules, but may not widen them. (you can't make something legal that forum rules say is illegal) If someone violates the game's rules or standards, you have the option of imposing a in-game penalty, or reporting the violator for mod action.

Under this kind of structure, you would not be able to preemptively ban anyone from a game. If the member decides to turn over a new leaf and comply with the game's rules, then they're in.

Quite. No game can have rules that violate the forum's rules - either by being user-specific or in other ways. Though, honestly, if a mod is going to ignore a player's orders because he doesn't want the player in the game, why would the player want to be in the game in the first place, other than for the purposes of breaking forum rules by trolling? But no mod can be punished for the stuff that they do to the players within the context of the game, so long as, again, it isn't explicitly against the forum rules. By deciding to play in a game, a player accepts an implicit contract from a mod; the mod agrees to run the game, updating (presumably updating regularly, but some mods won't even pretend to do that), and the player agrees to abide by the rules, so long as the rules aren't against the forum rules. If a player doesn't like the game after some time playing in it - he feels victimized, or whatever - he can quit the game, obviously.

There really shouldn't be any hoopla over this at all. Calling in the forum mods to punish players who don't play by a game's rules is childish and asinine, as far as I'm concerned, and the infant IOT community needs to get past it as soon as it possibly can. If you're breaking forum rules, you're breaking forum rules, and if you're not, no need to get the forum mods involved. Should be fairly simple.

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: @Dachs: The discussion here is generally decent. Keep it that way, please.

[PPQ_Purple]

Originally Posted by Dachs

I'm not missing any point; you're imposing an arbitrary distinction that isn't there.

But a destinction is there. I don't see why you refuse to accept it existing. Even thou it is said distinction that is making people that do play here hate you.


Or in other words. Said distinction is why this thread was created in the first place.
Ergo, said distinction must exist. Otherwise, this thread would not exist. And we would not be discussing this here.

So what's the justification for allowing everybody to play a random part and be protected from the ramifications of playing that part, if it's not historical accuracy? Why should people be penalized for playing the part of acting to win the game?

In a roleplaying game. It is the duty of players to make up interesting characters that are fun to play. And it is the duty of the Game Master to create around them a world that is fun to play those characters in.

When I do real RP worlds, I usually have absolutely no fixed rules, maps or anything. There is not even a win condition.

Precisely. And the bard with no combat skills makes up for that, in stories and the real world, by either endearing himself to everybody such that even the people who want to 'win' elect not to hurt him, or by buying protection for himself. There's every reason why that sort of thing should happen.

Exatcly. You got it so far.
The point is that in a roleplay oriented game, the most importmant thing is to play your character, even if this leads you to ruin.

For example, in your country leading situation. Let's say you are playing a country that has in the past shown to (for what ever other reasons) not engage into offensive wars. And furthermore, since you did not like those that did go to wars, you used diplomacy and posts to condemn the act of going into such wars for what ever reason. (like say pushing the world against those that do since they happen to also be your rivals).

Than, it would be breaking character and hence unacceptable to engage in an offensive war without somehow justifying it through roleplay. (For example, saying that a certain Austrian painter rose to power.)


In other words, if your character has in the past shown no skill in fighting. And he gets into a fight, you have to let him die. Since doing the opposite would be breaking character. It looses you the game, but it's better than to derail your character.


So if you do not go to far on the extreme of the Roleplay side you will find that the main point of being one is, that when you are confronted with an action you will ask your self: "What would [name of your character] do."

There are plenty of people who have played NESes as insular states who have preferred not to get into the affairs of others, and to masturbate off in the corner. They generally have to come up with a way to do that masturbating, though. Apparently you're in favor of the theoretical possibility of a game that forbids others from attacking them while they're off masturbating.

Please refrain from using terms relating to sexual actions when running this conversation. This is not an Amsterdam commune and it is certainly not a brothel. So pick your words more carefully.


To adress your point thou, I agree. A player should be open to atack at any time. And unless he has shown some sort of defensive capability than he should not be able to defend him self.

If he is somehow magically in-attackable without providing actual reasons that are plausible in the context of the game and his character than he is God Moding.

And if he magics up means of defense out of thin air without having proving their existence earlier than he is Power Moding. The only exception would be something that goes without saying, like having a standing army.


On the other hand, the attacker must provide a reason for atacking that is plausable in the context of the game and the character. Out of the game contexts may not be used at all.

In other words, attacking Player A because you want his land so you can win the game is not acceptable. Attacking Country A because the people of your country have a long standing feud with them, or your leader wants their land is.


However, if you get to the point where the GM is protecting players from each other even thou the attacking player has fulfilled his part and the defending one has not. Than you have the one thing I warned about, a too RP centric environment.
This is useless and outright stupid because it discourages anything other than each player siting in his or her corner and playing his or her own game.

(See my last post to you, fallowing paragraph

Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple

But on the other hand if there is not enough power gaming, than the story again goes nowhere because there is nothing driving it. A bunch of people having fun playing their characters will have just as much fun playing them in the local tavern as they will killing that dragon. But that dragon is a risk to end the game, better stay in the tavern. Or worse yet, the GM will make the dragon easy or the players will at least know they cant die since the GM also wants to keep the game running for fun. Hence no risk and no fun after a while.

and I wouldn't attempt to mandate any kind of blanket subforum-wide enforcement for it.

There we agree. Any sort of subforum-wide enforcement for it would be a crime.
If the individual GM does not like who is playing his games, do as I do on other boards. Conduct a personal check of every candidate. I even run background checks on other forums to see what they did in the past.

Mod runs the game the way he wants and delivers updates in a timely fashion, players in exchange follow the rules he sets. Not a difficult implicit contract to understand.

How would you fare in a RPG that has no rules save for: No God Moding and No Power moding. Not a single rule past that, nothing.

I have been running such a game on another board for 2 years now. And we are still working fine.

That's nice. Does your happy-go-lucky engi get by with the personal protection of Mod Himself, endearing himself to the players such that they elect not to attack him out of gratitude/lulz, or dumb luck? Either way is perfectly acceptable to me, so long as it's not imposed on any other games.

If you get to the point where the GM is protective of the players in such a manner, than you face a serious problem.

I don't think you understand what I'm arguing at all. English not your first language?

I understand you. But it is you who does not take the time to understand me. Instead, you cling stubbornly to your own side refusing to open your eyes and understand my explanations.

Much like a blind believer failing to accept the fact that there is no god. Or his counterpart, the flat earth atheist.

No, actually, I'm interested in hearing about this little scenario. Is it a real one, or made up for the purposes of your speech?

Completely made up. But the one where I used a fleet of Tu-95 Bombers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles for a cheap missile spam on the entire world is not.

Yeah, see, the thing is, just like in the real world, in NESes or forum games, people make mistakes all by themselves, without the need to roleplay them in. Especially the powergamers.

And that is why pure power gaming environments are so much fun. But they are also extremely taxing. Just like a professional chess game. When every person works every second of every move making sure his every action leaves no mistakes.

It can be a lot of fun. But it is also a lot of hard work, and not everyone finds that sort of thing entertaining.

You know, tastes differ and all that.

I guarantee that most of the people that are accused of powergaming in IOT games are in fact making horrendous mistakes that no historical ruler would get caught making - or, sometimes, ones that they would - but that the mod is insufficiently educated to understand that the player is, in fact, making a mistake.

Making stupid mistakes does not make you less of a power gamer. It only makes you a bad one.

Alternatively, the mod might know, but can't be assed to bring down the hammer of Mod on them by following the decisions to their logical conclusion and confronting the player in question with the terrible swift sword of unforeseen consequences.

As a GM, I usually prefer to let the players handle that. But than again, I play a character as well in all my games.

If a player hires a huge army to overrun the world, he should get hit with penalties for it, like economic ones (either in terms of upkeep or reduced output, and almost certainly in terms of inflation, since he'll have to mint heavily to hire all these troops), or command-and-control ones (not enough officer cadres to effectively lead all these men, leading to a decline in leadership quality) to counterbalance the advantage he has gained by his huge army with disadvantages that will prevent him from being a world-bestriding colossus. And if he effectively mitigates the disadvantages with other policies, there should be downsides to those, too.

That largely depends on the setting and the type of the game. This also relates to the selected level of abstraction and how far the game is on the fantasy vs realism scale of things.


For example, if you are running a full scale, completely realistic world simulator than this would be correct. If you are running a medieval fantasy setting that makes heavy use of "Magic"tm and you are running an army of zombies not so much.

In fact, a GM might purposefully chose to abstract certain aspects of gameplay to match the fact that a truly realistic game would require a supercomputer running spreadsheets to play it.


And than, finally there is the fact that the events in a game should not ever be expected to make sense in the real world. They should be expected to make sense in the game world. As such, suspension of disbelief is in order to provide for a good playing experience.

Roleplayers - or rather, the masturbators you characterize as 'roleplayers' - might not have fun when people 'win', because that means the game ends for them.

Again, you use words not appropriate for an internet forum open to the public. Some people, my self included do not appreciate this one bit.

Just like how people who complain about not being permitted to 'powergame' or 'play historically' shouldn't complain at all when they're playing in a game that the mod has, up-front, marketed as a game for masturbators, where playing to win is punished.

My response is 'tough'. If you wanted to hang around the entire game diddling by yourself, you should go play in a game that allows, permits, or shields that, or run one.

You join the game, you play by the mod's rules, so long as they aren't user-specific or break the forum's rules in any other way. Don't like them, don't join the game. It's really a very simple solution.

I fully agree with you on that. On the other hand, it seems that both you and the others fail in creating a set of rules that won't fall into the Uber Power Game 3000 with a million detailed mechanics or the Uber Roleplay Game 3000 where no one can ever die lest we risk unfun.


Both of you are wrong. You need to have a RPG where only in character knowledge and reasons are allowed. But the RPG must also make players accountable for their mistakes.

Honestly, I can't see why people think that getting pwned when they do deliberately dumb stuff is a bad thing. I've done deliberately dumb things as a ruler before in games, chiefly for the purpose of making stuff more interesting; I understand that my state is almost certain to suffer the consequences of my actions, and that's part of the reason I'm doing it in the first place.

Keep in mind that it is not you who is playing the game. You are merely writing what is already present within your character.

As you play the game, your character will develop a personality of his own. And it is your duty as the player to recognize this, analyze your posts and establish what the personality is. And finally guide this character to acting in ways that are a logical conclusion of what was presented to be his persona.

In other words, learn your character and make him act like he would act if he had a say in it.

He is the player, and you are merely the tool he uses to do so.

But I recognize that plenty of other people just want to masturbate, playing Inspector Clouseau, who bumbles around all over the place idiotically and yet gets the girl and defeats the bad guy in the end anyway. They should play in games specific to their situation, then.

As someone who has plaid quite a similar role (the afore mentioned engineer) I can say that a player who does manage to believably pull of such a part is a great one indeed.

Having a bumbling idiot character that relies on blind luck and at the same time making logical reasons why blind luck does in fact save him when you want it to can be a lot of hard work and is really fun.

But to pull it off properly you need both a good GM and a good crowd of other players. And most importantly, you have to be extremely good your self.


Done properly, it is in fact one of the hardest roles to play.
So don't dare demean it.

Funny how people on CFC seem to have a hair trigger for using the word "bigot". Seems to usually be a word for "jackass who doesn't think like I do", but slightly less offensive.

No, the word bigot means a person that refuses to see anything other than his side of an argument and that dismisses anyone who has a differing opinion as a troll.


I think this describes the people who started this thread quite well, don't you?

I congratulate you on outfoxing your fellow players.

I speak from experience myself when I say that there are no, or almost no, perfect powergamers. There is no human being on Earth that has an understanding of history, economics, military theory, politics, and/or science fiction deep enough to be able to play a NES-like game better than everybody else.

That is mostly correct. But on the other hand, if the game is not set in the real world than you can in fact poses such knowledge.

Keep in mind that you do not require perfect knowledge of how the world works. You require perfect knowledge of how the cut down abstracted version of the world used in the game works.

A truly good GM is one who can create such an abstraction that will both be fun enough and realistic enough to play without getting bogged down into technicalities (like having to calculate how much food supplies you need for an invasion down to the last spoon full of rice).


In the mentioned 2 year and running game I have actually accepted the approach that players should calculate everything and than throw the numbers away.

They need to calculate it to make sure what they are saying is reasonable. (for example that their starship can carry a reasonable amount of ammunition for a battle)

But they also need to throw it away in that I will newer require them to use said numbers in a realistic situation other than to justify realism. (I will newer ask them to count the shots on their starships and run out of ammo. What I will require is that their starships are designed large enough for an undisclosed but reasonable amount of ammunition to fit inside.)

What matters for a powergamer is being more intelligent - or rather, more well-versed in the subject - than the mod of the game, and mods should rightly be concerned with developing a better understanding of their world than any of their players; if they don't have one, they can't force the players to accept the unforeseen (or foreseen, but ignored on the grounds that the mod is incompetent) consequences of their actions.

And it is the duty of the GM to enforce the rules of the world he or she has created, even to the detrement of a player, even if he him self is a player in his own RPG.

I have had to make rulings in the past that hindered my character because they were required according to the rules of the universe.


However, it is also the duty of the GM to create a universe that is adapted to the wishes of his or her players. So if the GM does not want a universe that will allow people to beat each other up, than he should create one accordingly.

And so, even if they aren't as well-versed as the player is, mods can and should compensate with Acts of Mod, or "random" events, geared to slow such a player down and bring him or her onto even terms with other players. If a mod fails to do those things, then I for one have no interest in playing a game that that person is modding. Other people might, of course, and I leave it open for them to decide if they want to.

I fully disagree. The Game Master has as his primary duty to know more about the world he has created than any and all of the players.

If he or she fails this, than he or she should abandon the position to another.
But under no circumstances should the Game Master use random events to justify changes in the game and bring down a leading player that knows more about the universe than he does.

Instead, he should either step down and let said leading player take over or pause the game and make a reassessment of the entire universe in question.

Quite. No game can have rules that violate the forum's rules - either by being user-specific or in other ways. Though, honestly, if a mod is going to ignore a player's orders because he doesn't want the player in the game, why would the player want to be in the game in the first place, other than for the purposes of breaking forum rules by trolling?

Well yeah, that is completely correct.
On the other hand, why the Game Master should not define the universe in question and the rules of the game before starting is also a mystery to me.

But no mod can be punished for the stuff that they do to the players within the context of the game, so long as, again, it isn't explicitly against the forum rules.

If this is the case, than it is indeed troubling.
A Game Master should always be accountable to his or her players. And any player must always have the right and even duty to call a Game Master up on his or her decisions if these violate the rules of the game and the world or the spirit in witch said rules are defined.

Without that, you have absolute power vested in a single person that can use it to destroy anyone that he or she dislikes. Newer a good idea.

By deciding to play in a game, a player accepts an implicit contract from a mod; the mod agrees to run the game, updating (presumably updating regularly, but some mods won't even pretend to do that), and the player agrees to abide by the rules, so long as the rules aren't against the forum rules. If a player doesn't like the game after some time playing in it - he feels victimized, or whatever - he can quit the game, obviously.

There are so many problems with that that I don't know where to start.

For one, you are giving too much power to the Game Master without any checks on it. You can't make a game where the policy is for the players to love it or leave it.

And the duty of the game master is not to maintain the world by regular updates. (In fact I don't even make updates at all in most of my games) The duty of the Game Master is to keep anyone him or her self included from breaking the rules of the game or the universe in question and to work to keep the game entertaining for all the players.

If you transform the Game Master into a simple logic engine running updates and blindly enforcing the rules than you have done great evil. For it is his duty to nurture the game and the universe like he would a child, ensuring that it always remains fun for the players.


If a player dislikes what the Game Master is doing he should first check the Game Master's actions against said rules. If the actions violate the rules than he has the duty to call the Game Master up on it.

On the other hand, if the player dislikes the rules of the universe in question than and only than should he be expected to quit the game. And only after making sure that his departure does not ruin the game for the others.

There really shouldn't be any hoopla over this at all. Calling in the forum mods to punish players who don't play by a game's rules is childish and asinine, as far as I'm concerned, and the infant IOT community needs to get past it as soon as it possibly can. If you're breaking forum rules, you're breaking forum rules, and if you're not, no need to get the forum mods involved. Should be fairly simple.

There we agree and disagree.

If a player dislikes the actions of the moderators as I mentioned he should call him up on it.

There is a huge difference between playing and trolling. And it is one I have to make clear. Hence the quite appropriate usage of the word bigotry.


So to draw a conclusion.

My gripe against this forum is that they are acting like bigots. My gripe against you is that you fail to understand that there are in fact different tastes and you put your own as the default and only sane one.

All tastes are equal, and theirs are equally valid as yours. But their actions in wanting to use the moderators to enforce said tastes are not.

That however does not excuse your usage of inappropriate language when referring to them or the general distaste you show while doing so.

If both sides showed some respect to one another, there would be no problems.
And trust me when I say to both of you. You would have much more fun playing together than you do playing the opposite ends of the spectrum. A pure RP game or a pure Power Gaming game is nowhere near as fun as a true game plaid properly by a competent and dedicated GM and a group of competent and dedicated players.

[Abaddon]

ITT: People not realising they are being trolled

Sad the thread has become completely derailed too

[PPQ_Purple]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

ITT: People not realising they are being trolled

Sad the thread has become completely derailed too

While your opinion it is appreciated I would kindly ask you to leave said decision up to the moderators.

In fact, I would say that we are the ones actually discussing the mater in question. And I would wager to say that it is you who are through your snaky comments repeatedly attempting to derail and destroy this thread in an attempt to lead to it being closed down.

So you see, we already have a difference in opinion. But I am sure that it can be resolved in a rational and polite way.


So if you are in fact doing what I said, I would ask you to kindly refrain from doing so.
If you chose to continue doing it anyway. Than it is my duty to inform you that the appropriate actions will be taken to inform those who's decision it is to analyze if you are in fact doing what I said and if they deem that you are make sure you are prevented from doing so in the future.


If you however chose to provide a meaningful contribution to the discussion at hand, you are most welcome to do so.


Have a nice day.

[Turner]

And moving right a long.....

[Abaddon]

One has to be careful when replying.
Deconstruct the argument, don't attack the poster.
Being a gramma-nazi is also punishable.. incoherant writing seems to be prefered.

There is no need to discuss what a troll is, the discussion is how to combat them within the gaming section of CFC. That is the matter at hand.

Writing lots of words where they are not needed does not win an argument, it merely exhausts the opponent.
Their lack of a reply could be a seen as a win for some I suppose, but I would hazard it is an incredibly shallow one.

I have been neither snarky, nor repetitive, you do not have any right to exclude me from the discussion. Threatening me with the report button is also not allowed as that can be seen as trolling in its own right

[Takhisis]

All riiiight… so, can we or can we not preemptively ban players who have already proved themselves to be rabblerousers and gamewreckers? or people who've insulte the GM(s)?

btw why didja bold the r in 'snarky', Ab?

[Turner]

For the time being we'll take it on a case by case basis. If there's an issue with the forum games, contact the moderators of that forum, or a senior mod.

This is something we have discussed in staff and are working on a resolution towards. Once we've reached a consensus, we'll make the appropriate announcements.

[spryllino]

I agree that forum-game GMs should be able to exclude people that they feel are likely to upset their game, because the point of a game thread is to play the game, and who is better qualified to judge that than the person who's running the game? The forum moderators certainly are not, as they are rarely involved in the game and rarely have a vested interest in maintaining order within the game, provided no-one is particularly rude. However, it is very possible to be disruptive to any game in a very oblique manner that does not clearly break the rules of the forum.

[bestrfcplayer]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

ITT: People not realising they are being trolled

Sad the thread has become completely derailed too

This times 1000.

[Dachs]

Yeah, I can't be bothered to respond to somebody who insists on arguing with me over things on which we agree, and who consistently and deliberately misinterprets my words while patronizing me and acting the Sage Old Dude With More Life Experience Than You.

Originally Posted by Turner

For the time being we'll take it on a case by case basis.

More or less the best solution anyway.

Originally Posted by bestrfcplayer

This times 1000.

Very much.

[DaveShack]

Edit: didn't notice Turner had already posted the "case by case" thing. I'll start of by reiterating my posts on the subject should be taken as testing the waters, not as anything definitive.

Originally Posted by Dachs

Though, honestly, if a mod is going to ignore a player's orders because he doesn't want the player in the game, why would the player want to be in the game in the first place, other than for the purposes of breaking forum rules by trolling?

I was actually suggesting that a GM would not be able to exclude a player unless/until the player breaks a rule of that game. Not pre-emptively because the player might break a rule or has broken rules of previous games. And failure to be inclusive might be a forum rules violation if we decided to go this way. Just a point for discussion, putting it alongside the demogames which have always had similar boundaries. In fact in the DG it was entirely possible that a lurker might grab a save, play, and spoil the game by posting what would happen if the game took various approaches to the next turn. And a lurker actually did in at least one incident -- collecting a deleted thread and an instant ban for his trouble.

But no mod can be punished for the stuff that they do to the players within the context of the game, so long as, again, it isn't explicitly against the forum rules. By deciding to play in a game, a player accepts an implicit contract from a mod; the mod agrees to run the game, updating (presumably updating regularly, but some mods won't even pretend to do that), and the player agrees to abide by the rules, so long as the rules aren't against the forum rules. If a player doesn't like the game after some time playing in it - he feels victimized, or whatever - he can quit the game, obviously.

Agreed. Tentatively, if it's according to the game's posted rules and not violating a forum rule, it's ok. We'd probably frown upon creating a rule and invoking it without any warning.

There really shouldn't be any hoopla over this at all. Calling in the forum mods to punish players who don't play by a game's rules is childish and asinine, as far as I'm concerned, and the infant IOT community needs to get past it as soon as it possibly can. If you're breaking forum rules, you're breaking forum rules, and if you're not, no need to get the forum mods involved. Should be fairly simple.

Ideally it would never rise to the level where the forum mods would need to be involved. There have only been a small number of times that has happened in the demogames, and in almost all cases it was a forum rules violation anyway. The point is, some people who are breaking game rules are not necessarily breaking forum rules. The idea of considering game rules to be extensions of forum rules gives the forum mods an explicit reason to handle players who won't accept the GM's decisions but continue to hang out in the game being annoying without breaking standard forum rules.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by DaveShack

I was actually suggesting that a GM would not be able to exclude a player unless/until the player breaks a rule of that game. Not pre-emptively because the player might break a rule or has broken rules of previous games. And failure to be inclusive might be a forum rules violation if we decided to go this way. Just a point for discussion, putting it alongside the demogames which have always had similar boundaries. In fact in the DG it was entirely possible that a lurker might grab a save, play, and spoil the game by posting what would happen if the game took various approaches to the next turn. And a lurker actually did in at least one incident -- collecting a deleted thread and an instant ban for his trouble.

Sure, that might work in some contexts, but not in others. Say you're a mod with a relatively teleological view of how some countries should shake out during your game; you spent a lot of time on your setting getting, say, Sweden, into a position to do some damage, kick butt, and take names during the game itself. You obviously don't want anybody incompetent - or that you perceive to be incompetent - playing as Sweden. So if a well-known country-breaker comes up and says "yo I wanna play as Sweden", you have a problem. If you're not permitted to prohibit players from playing preemptively, you're forced to sit there and watch your beautiful Sweden crash and burn, and your setting go all to pot, while the player does nothing against either game rules or forum rules, and merely plays very badly. Now, this isn't how I personally would treat such a situation if I were the game mod, because I try not to be overly teleological about these sorts of things. But some people might complain that it ruins immersion and that this player ought to be prohibited from playing "important" countries. And once the player does start playing and messing things up, it's not like the demogame example where you can delete the post and put the genie back in the bottle. That issue actually has come up in NESes many times, but as far as I know, forum mods were never called in on that.

So how do you deal with something like that? The NES forum mostly decided that, for extreme cases like that, user-specific prohibitions on playing 'good' countries were fine and that nobody was going to complain too loudly, especially since they're only used in a very limited number of NESes anyway. As far as the community in general goes, the jury's still out on whether user-specific prohibitions from playing at all in these games is okay or not. We never really considered it as a forum-rules issue before, as far as I know. More of a player pool-size issue and possibly a morality issue.

Originally Posted by DaveShack

Ideally it would never rise to the level where the forum mods would need to be involved. There have only been a small number of times that has happened in the demogames, and in almost all cases it was a forum rules violation anyway. The point is, some people who are breaking game rules are not necessarily breaking forum rules. The idea of considering game rules to be extensions of forum rules gives the forum mods an explicit reason to handle players who won't accept the GM's decisions but continue to hang out in the game being annoying without breaking standard forum rules.

Well, my point was mostly that it has been happening in IOT games almost from the very start, and that it's the very problem that led to the creation of this thread.

[choxorn]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

Sad the thread has become completely derailed too

Yeah. Stop Text-Walling and derailing my thread, Dachs and PPQ.

[PPQ_Purple]

I just wanted to be helpful. So if I seemed impolite or condescending in any way I am sorry. It was not intentional.

I hope you can work things out. And maybe see that some of the things I said are not at all as insane as they might now appear to you.

But either way, I wish you well.