[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa

Before anyone starts freaking out and thinking that the thread will get closed for this, Saucepan Man told me to post my responses here. He thinks actually discussing the problem may help us find the best possible solution. What a novel concept.

Indeed. I did suggest that these points be raised here because I think that some of them merit further consideration. And I do not see why discussion of them should not help us find a solution, or at least better understand where others are coming from, provided that the debate is conducted courteously, respectfully and within the bounds of the aforementioned forum policies. Surely this is not a novel concept on a discussion forum?

Originally Posted by Roa

What do we deem crossing the line? Where is the line? Does this mean we can't point out where things went wrong? Is all critical rhetoric banned, or only that which is designed to be insulting?

The “line” is basically defined by a proper application of the forum policies outlined above. There is no prohibition on constructive discussion of Werewolf tactics, differing styles of play etc. The problem arises when such discussion singles out particular players, or groups of players, in a critical manner.

Originally Posted by Roa

I've always been of the view that if something doesn't go well, wether it is a game or anything else, then it is in everyone's best interest to figure why it didn't go so well. Are we not supposed to do that? Is the post discussion now going to be reserved for half-hearted compliments and rosy talk?

As I said on the other thread, I really see little point in trying to categorise games, or particular approaches to games, as either “good” or “bad”. There is of course scope for discussion as to why one side won while the other side lost. But there is no need for that to descend into personal criticism of other players’ styles. Personally, in the post game analysis, I prefer to concentrate on the positives, rather than the negatives. So, I will make a point of noting posts or stratagems that I thought were particularly good. But I don’t think anyone really wants to be told that they were responsible for “letting their side down”. And I see little point in dwelling on that. Telling people that they could have done better or that the way that they played worked against their team only serves to give the impression that the person doing so knows better than them and is lecturing them on how to play. This is not a Werewolf school, but rather a place in which Werewolf games are to be played and enjoyed.

Originally Posted by Roa

Am I not supposed to say what I think? I've never insisted that my opinion is fact, but I do expect that if someone is going to disagree with me that they at least come up with a good reason why.

Of course you can say what you think, provided that you do so in a polite and respectful manner, avoid personal criticism and consider how your words might be received by others. Also, it is possible to state opinion in such away that it comes across as an attempt to state fact, or at least to state an authoritative view. That should be avoided. I tend do so by using phrases like “to my mind” and “in my opinion”, so as to avoid any misunderstanding in this regard.

The more I think about it, the more that I think that, as Kath and Formy have commented, this really comes down to the tone used. If you sound like you are lecturing or criticising or patronising, then people are bound to react badly. And a forthright and aggressive manner can sometimes come across that way. It is not a matter of not saying what you think, but considering how you can best say it without causing offence.

Originally Posted by Roa

I'd also like to point out that many people who are so insulted over post-game discussion are the very ones who toss out "stupid," "foolish," and other such insults in game. So, it's okay to be rude and insulting during the game where everyone's trying to have fun, but after the game is over, we can't even say, "We didn't do well this game, and I think it was because...?"

No. It’s not okay to be rude and insulting in a game. The forum policies apply just as much within a game as they do to a post-game discussion. Of course, the role-play element has been known to involve a little “play acting” rudeness, but I think that it is generally pretty clear when that is the case. Also, I don’t see any problem with criticising other players’ votes or reasoning or the like, since that is a part of the game and is generally accepted by players as such, provided that it does not descend into personal criticism, name-calling or undue rudeness. Every player has a responsibility to ensure that their posts should not cause undue offence. The game moderator should step in if things are getting out of hand and, if necessary, involve me or one of the other Mods or Admins (capitals denote forum Mods, as distinct from game moderators). I do tend to keep an eye on games that I am not playing, being an inveterate Werewolf spectator, but I cannot be expected to follow every such game in detail.

Originally Posted by Roa

Am I to be banned from stating my opinion because some people have their panties in a bunch and can't handle it?

It strikes me that this is an example of a statement that might have been better phrased so as to avoid any possibility of causing offence. In essence, you are entitled to state your opinion, but you should take reasonable care to do so in a manner that will not cause offence to others.

Originally Posted by Roa

Some people just have a tendency to over-react and read into what's being said when you really shouldn't.

I agree that, just as people should consider the effect that the words they choose may have on others, so those responding should take care not to overreact and risk inflaming the situation. In any discussion, all participants should endeavour to choose their words and tone carefully so as to avoid, as far as rreasonably possible, causing offence.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Ranger

I suggest we let the mod of that game decide. If the mod thinks its in limit then it is, if the mod thinks its getting out of hand it is.

Yes. Every game moderator has an obligation to ensure, as far as they are able, that their game does not descend into petty squabbling. But that can sometimes be difficult, so I am ready to assist in this regard, where required.

Originally Posted by mormegil

It's slightly upsetting to see so many people getting over heated.

We should all try to ensure that this debate does not get over heated, or at least avoid fanning such flames as are already licking at its foundations. My purpose in starting it was not to provoke a heated argument, but rather a civil and rational discussion. I perceived that there was a problem and acted. I could have let matters stand with the sticky warning post, but I would prefer not to stifle opinon, provided that it is expressed within the spirt of the forum policies.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So once again, sorry if I have offended someone, but as that example quite beautifully shows, it's more often than not unintentional from my part.

Nogrod, my (non-existant) grasp of Finnish pales into insignifigance in comparison with your admirable command of the English language. Nevertheless, the fact that some here are not using their first language is bound to cause misunderstanding on occasion, and you are right to raise this issue. It is something that we should all bear in mind. That said, I would still counsel steering away from categorising games as “good” or “ bad” and seeking to analyse such categorisation by reference to players’ approaches to the game.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

With no offence intended by saying so, you, Roa, are one of the worse offenders here. You are supremely self-confidant, and highly opinionated. Your choice of words tends to come across as very high-handed. Whether or not you intend to insult people, the result seems in general to be that you get people's ire up. Your speeches tend to sound like you treat yourself and your way as best- the implication being that everyone else is worse and would do well to be the same as you.

While you claim to intend no offence, Form, I think that this is the kind of comment that risks inflaming the debate. While the standard modus operandi here is to respond to individual posts, I don’t think that means that we have to express our views as personal critiques of those we are responding to. I would prefer that any discussion of particular posting styles takes place in the abstract, rather than singling out particular individuals.

Originally Posted by Roa

Just so we're clear, the purpose of that particular statement , Esty, was to point out the hypocracy being shown.

Sorry, Roa, I am not at all clear on this one. What do you mean by “hypocracy” in the context of this debate?

Originally Posted by Roa

However, when people all but flame me and intentionally insult me for merely stating my opinion, and yet no one comments on it, I fail to see how they can claim "rules" on me.

I don’t think it helps the debate by casting yourself as the victim, Roa. Where I have seen language which I deem might be offensive or taken as personal criticism, whether by you or directed to you, I have highlighted this above and I hope that the same will be avoided in the future.

As I see it, this debate is not, or at least should not be, “everyone against Roa” and I want to avoid it becoming polarised in that way. There are a range of opinions here on various isues, and I see no reason why they should not be calmly and civilly discussed as such. But casting yourself as the victim only serves to increase the polarisation into the two camps: Roa and everyone else.

Originally Posted by Roa

The very purpose of this discussion is to determine wether the post game comments are breaking the rules or not, and what can be done to fix the high tensions that are forming. SPM has instituted some rules to help stem the problem, but he also encouraged discussion of those rules so that a true solution could be reached. A few attempts have been made, but as this will ultimately decide how werewolf will be played, I should think some more people might want to be involved.

A good summary of the rationale for this debate, with which I thoroughly agree.

Originally Posted by Roa

Why can't I state my opinion without everyone jumping on me for it? Why does this seem to hold true for various other members with unpopular opinion?

Perhaps this is the basis for the claim of hypocrisy. If so, I do not agree that this is what is happening. You have expressed your views. Others, including me, have commented on them. Just as it is your right to express your opinion, so others have the right to express theirs. You cannot expect or force everyone to agree with you. That said, the best way forward is for us to try to find some common ground on which we can move forward in a manner which minimises the risk of incidents like this occurring.

To the extent that you have been singled out for personal criticism, I have (as noted above) commented on this and would counsel everyone to refrain from indulging in this in future. If anyone fails to heed my advice in this regard, I will start deleting/editing posts as appropriate.

Originally Posted by Roa

Why does Nogrod have to apologize for stating his opinion, and then have excuse his own behavior?

I felt Nogrod’s apology to be genuine. If he has anything further to add, then I somehow doubt that he will hold himself back.

Originally Posted by Roa

Why was the message sent to newcomer Loki, "We don't like you, so you can't play?"

I think that many, myself included, found Loki’s approach unduly offensive and out of keeping with the forum policies noted earlier. That said, provided that he is able to participate in a more measured manner, I would welcome his renewed paricipation.

Originally Posted by Roa

Why was Mac, who stated the same opinion as Nogrod and myself, in about the same tone of voice, not attacked?

To be frank, I think that Mac’s tone was less provocative. I certainly do not recall seeing any problem with the way he expressed himself. I would welcome his involvement in this debate.

Originally Posted by Roa

Was Diamond, who was far more insulting, left alone because she took the popular opinion?

As I recall, Diamond’s tone was more defensive. However, my comments apply equally to her as they do to everyone else.

Originally Posted by Roa

And since when is sarcasm not allowed on the Down's?

I think that Gurthang hit the nail on the head with this one:

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Insulting sarcasm is not what I would call a good thing; it's quite the contrary. Playful sarcasm, or perhaps you could call it banter, is something I do quite often myself.

The basic principle applies. If its insulting, or might reasonably be taken as insulting, then it’s best avoided.

Originally Posted by Roa

If anyone can answer these questions, I'd really like to know.

Done (I hope).

Originally Posted by Gurthang

I hadn't seen it that way at all. The issue in question is not something that I would consider werewolf specific. Rather, I think it's a problem that has happened to occur within the werewolf games, but is largely unnecessary and often harmful to them.

The fact remains that it is a problem which has arisen (and has for some time been threatening to arise) in the context of Werewolf games, and so needs to be addressed by reference to them. The peculiar nature of Werewolf games unfortunately does lend itself to dispute. For that reason, I think that there is reason to take particular care in how we express ourselves, both within the game and in our post-game comments.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I really must get some sleep so I am not too tired to do the work tomorrow that I should have been doing today, rather than dealing with this issue.