we could maybe look into allowing people to ask (in postgame) if action was taken, with “asking if action was taken” privileges immediately being revoked on a per-user basis if you’re annoying about the answer? does that have obvious problems that I’m not thinking of
3 Likes
i can understand not wanting to be confrontational or get yelled at, i wouldn’t wanna be, and it’s easier for me to ask of volunteers to handle more of that when i don’t have to do anything myself
1 Like
if this were to happen would you also tolerate people asking why rather than just if
if it was disputed past this point then i’d understand revoking privileges but for me personally knowing why action wasn’t taken is just as important
found the next fol mod
2 Likes
flashbacks to everyone being tolerant of you asking “why” to their clue submissions in word match 4. that went quite smoothly and without conflict
2 Likes
to be fair wavelength had zero mod intervention regarding submissions and that ended up being a complete mess in the reverse direction with pretty much everyone gaming the system so the lesson here is that a compromise is needed
2 Likes
with the understanding that this is still just wild spitballing, I think “why not?” would be fine, “why not? so you don’t care about toxicity?”/“why didn’t you punish him when I got warned for what happened last game”/etc. would not be
3 Likes
i mean that would pretty much cover the basis of what i think matters from adding this so sure
1 Like
i misread this as you saying that you think its fine if arctic files a report, you reject taking action, he asks “why?” and you say “why not?”
1 Like
I intervened multiple times
1 Like
What you saw was the post-intervention selection
1 Like
(I thought changing the rules inconsistently/mid-game would be more unenjoyable than just having the system gamed a little, so I only denied the submissions that I thought crossed even the line set out by allowing sulit’s submission in Round 2)
2 Likes
so it’s not just me then!!
2 Likes
Anyway I don’t think telling people whether action was taken is necessary or productive, I don’t think people who report something have a right to being part of the moderation process and I think specifying whether or not action was taken opens things up to too much of that process
2 Likes
(sorry this is offtopic) but maybe both issues could be resolved by simplifying the allowed inputs? for word match - just allow any noun/verb/adjective. disallow any given names, or whatever thats called. like “Adam” or a brand of something
for wavelength - the same. allow only simple words (not given names), and put a limit of words you can have in your clue, like 5. basically try to just play with simple words like you’d see on a codenames board
1 Like
I think something like that would be entirely reasonable and probably a good solution but it wasn’t something I wanted to implement midgame especially when there were 0 rules in the original OP regarding complexity of submissions
2 Likes
And I think it can lead too heavily to users trying to be part of the moderation system and feeling like they are “in charge” of people or “deserve” to have the moderation team intervene whenever they see fit, I think it intensifies feelings that lead to weaponisation of mods
2 Likes
yeah maybe you just make proper nouns illegal
because pretty much every sketchy submission arised from the submission of a proper noun
and it’s extremely hard to game the system with a non-proper noun submission so at that point it could probably just be allowed since you’re basically shooting yourself in the foot
3 Likes
This is off-topic
3 Likes
I think this is a valid thought, it was expressed already but it hasn’t been worded like this. It reminded me that FoL has the rare rule of forbidding “weaponizing mods” which I’d argue is quite rare, at least I haven’t seen it in other sites. This kind of … well it won’t necessarily lead to mod weaponization but it kinda steps in that direction, maybe
1 Like