Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[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.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Saucie

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.

I was actually refering to all post-game discussions and some in game discussions that have ended up this way, not just this debate. And it's not just me- it's anyone who has ever pointed out something that others simply don't want to hear. Many players, beyond those I have mentioned, have been subjected to the same. I'm not talking about blatent insults and name-calling, I'm talking about being truthful with how we think things went. Any time someone has said something less than "Great job," about the game, they have been attacked for it.

But the note about hypocrisy was this:

Originally Posted by Roa

They don't want their style of play dictated? I dont want my style of speech dictated.

Which Esty mistook took as a statement that I should be allowed to say whatever I want. Really, I was pointing out the absurdity of people demanding that I change the way I talk when they flip out over the slightest suggestion that their way of playing a game is less than great.

Originally Posted by Saucie

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.

I'm not trying to turn this into a "Everyone vs Roa" debate- that wouldn't help me in the least. I'm using myself as an example because I (obviously) understand my point of view better than anyone else's. I am aware that some people actually agree with me, or least aren't particularly against me. But I can only be certain about my own view- for everyone else, I'd have to make assumptions.

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.

I certainly believe Nogrod is sincere in his apology. I just don't think he did anything particularly wrong, and I really admire that he would simply apologize rather than waste the effort defending himself. What I meant is that he shouldn't be made to feel bad for saying what he thought.

Originally Posted by Saucie

Quote:
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.

This was a rhetorical question and another comment on hypocrisy. I'm not referring to play acting rudeness- it's werewolf, we are trying to kill each other, after all. I'm talking about the explicitly insulting terms. Just think back to the game Diamond modded- Attack of the Wereducks. Because of in-game rudeness, many people left the game feeling horrible. There were direct insults flying all over the place. Yet these very people say that I'm insulting, when I haven't singled anyone out, or used any sort of direct name-calling.

Originally Posted by Gurthang

As far as Loki goes, I do not think your statement is correct. True, some members did not necessarily relish his style or personality, but I was not aware that anyone directly told him he was not welcome to play.

Originally Posted by Saucie

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.

I took up pming Loki (in attempt to calm things down) and do you know what I found out? People neg-repped him, and pm'ed with various messages of "I hope you leave the boards," and "I really don't like you. Just go away." Maybe his out of game style was overly rude, but his in game wasn't nearly as rude as everyone made it out to be. In fact, he played just like Garin, a player who was never attacked with the same viciousness. Really, the cause of the anti-Loki movement in game was Nogrod (who should not be blamed as he was doing his job as a wolf.) He made three posts, on a day that had +200, and everyone decided that he was just causing too much confusion and trouble, mostly because they just didn't like him.

Originally Posted by Saucie

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.

I see your point here, and I apologize. That was unecessarily rude of me. I'll try to avoid statements like that in the future.

And I would like to reiterate that I never mean to insult anyone. As Form pointed out, I'm extremely self-confident and highly opinionated, and as he missed, brutally honest. This gets me into trouble often, but it's who I am. Don't take me personally- if I want to attack you personally, I'll do it in PM.

[Lhunardawen]

Let's take a pleasant stroll down memory lane, shall we? Or at least this is MY memory lane, because I've only played in a few games (relatively).

Nilp started his whole "Lynch me!" campaign in WW VII. An enormously surprising strategy to all players, I'm sure, and he got what he wanted first Day. After the game, no one personally attacked him for that (perhaps because he was just an ordo, anyway); on the contrary, a lot of people found it hilarious. In much later games, though, it suddenly became an issue - perhaps because he was something other than an ordo then. But it's his style of play. Should we care if he gets lynched or not, whichever side he might be playing for?

Not to be self-promoting or something, I played a Lhunatic in WW VI, and a far worse one in WW VII. It was funny, or so people told me. Logically I should have earned an early lynching for it, but I stayed alive longer than most (Eomer's strategy at fault here ). A reprise was done in WW XVI, and while that single Day of Lhunacy had somehow affected the game, I wasn't reprimanded for changing styles within the game. Because that's how I wanted to play, and no one really cares.

morm was a crabby wolf in WW XV, and when I tell you he was insulting, I mean he was REALLY insulting. But that was his chosen role - he had to live up to it. He apologized to all players for his in-character insulting comments, which I don't think he really had to do since I doubt anyone was offended by his being in-character.

A few wolves in the past won the game for their side thanks to, as I see it, their style of going unnoticed, whether deliberately or not. malkatoj was busy in real life, she claimed, when she was a wolf in XVI, and she survived because we could, or would, not interrogate her further to find out if she really was a wolf. Some (or perhaps just I) choose to be silent (read: post as little as possible) when lupine for fear of saying something that would incriminate themselves, and there's nothing others can do about that. The game really involves deception, and that kind of gameplay, while quite unfair, falls under it.

Okay, I think I'm straying from my point. It's just this: we've had more than twenty games, counting the Junior ones as well, and we've had a variety of characters to play, some of which required styles that could somehow affect the outcome of the game for ill, particularly - causing confusion, being offensive, etc. But why were odd playing styles tolerated in earlier games, while now they come under heavy scrutiny? Why are things getting more and more serious as the games pass? Why does there seem to be an increasing obsession to win, leading to uncomfortable post-game discussions when one side loses - as should really happen? Come on, we've been at this for over a year now. Perhaps that's the problem: we've been playing this for too long, and as we run out of new things gamewise to fiddle with, we start going after the players themselves. I am not pleased with this, but I'm beginning to think that it might be better to temporarily put the games on hold, hoping that the fires will die down if there's nothing to fuel them for some time.

I don't know if I'm helping at all with this, but I thought maybe it would be nice to remind you how pleasant, however outrageous, the games used to be.

[Diamond18]

Originally Posted by Roa

was actually refering to all post-game discussions and some in game discussions that have ended up this way, not just this debate. And it's not just me- it's anyone who has ever pointed out something that others simply don't want to hear. Many players, beyond those I have mentioned, have been subjected to the same. I'm not talking about blatent insults and name-calling, I'm talking about being truthful with how we think things went. Any time someone has said something less than "Great job," about the game, they have been attacked for it.

This statement has me floored because it's simply not true. It's... not... true. You are taking one or two instances of extreme criticism that garnered negetive reactions (Loki in DW, and then you and Nogrod in Zydeco) and portraying it as an "all the time everyone for every little thing" trend. If you want to give me other examples that back up your claim feel free to go searching because I really doubt that you will find any -- or at least, any that have taken place since I've been around to see them. I can think of one game right off the top of my head which involved post game comments about lack of stellar play that were not attacked -- Cailín's game. There were comments about the village win not being totally deserved and I for one was among the ones who made such a comment. No one was attacked for saying these things. Therefore the above quoted statement is false.

One thing that really caused me to respond on Zydeco was that it seemed you were upset that you won because the village didn't perform as well as you thought they should have -- in effect robbing you of the chance to win in impressive fashion against all odds, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood your feelings but whenever the winner obviously does not appear to appreciate the fact that they won I have to question the class of their actions. This is different from the latest Lovers game because it seemed that the Lovers played very well and truly deserved to win, so even though I was a villager I regretted somewhat that they hadn't technically prevailed.

Originally Posted by Roa

Just think back to the game Diamond modded- Attack of the Wereducks. Because of in-game rudeness, many people left the game feeling horrible. There were direct insults flying all over the place. Yet these very people say that I'm insulting, when I haven't singled anyone out, or used any sort of direct name-calling.

I'm afraid I don't see the point of dragging the Wereducks game through the mud. I already apologized to Mithalwen and Glirdan for my role in causing them some distress in the game -- and I rather think you are making it out to be a lot worse than it was. The only people who actually defected from the game were you, Sleepy, and Cailín and you all told me it was for RL reasons. One thing I do remember quite clearly about that game was that you ripped into Nilp very hard for his playing style. You later apologized, I grant you, but really, I am not sure you want to be bringing up Wereducks in favor of yourself. Trust me, I am not being sarcastic when I say that -- I really do think that is quite the worst game to use as an example of how people are jumping on you for no good reason. As far as I can see you are now turning this into "Roa vs certain people who will go unnamed but they played in or modded Wereducks" and that's really rather transparent.

As to SpM's sticky notice, I think I made my opinions on this whole subject fairly clear last time I posted (in the Zydeco game thread). I had expected some discussion there and was rather surprised to log on tonight to see all this. I am quite in agreement with what SpM wrote, and so have not much else to add, except for this one last point:

Originally Posted by Roa

And I would like to reiterate that I never mean to insult anyone. As Form pointed out, I'm extremely self-confident and highly opinionated, and as he missed, brutally honest. This gets me into trouble often, but it's who I am. Don't take me personally- if I want to attack you personally, I'll do it in PM.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how denying that you are in any way responsible for how people take your statements helps matters any. It seems to be at the core of this discussion -- the difference between constructive criticism and deconstructive criticism. The line can be thin, but just taking the stance that to be abrasive is your personality type and people should just deal with it because they should understand your motivations is not going to resolve this issue. Quite the opposite. Brutal honesty is only as honest as one's own subjective viewpoint.

[Valier]

All of this is MAKING Werewolf no fun!! It's just a game. Who cares who wins or loses and in what fashion. There will be another one coming along shortly, so why dwell on past games? Let it go. Let everything go. I repeat, it is just a game. Games are meant to be fun. Yes having fond memories of certain games is OK, like having a quote from a fellow player in your sig (many of you have these) or reminiscing, but if one game was not fun for you in any way, forget it, don't mention it. Enjoy them for what they are and really, who really needs to go over why the game was what it was? Sit back, take a deep breath and heck if you feel the need to B&$# at someone, please do it to your cat or something.

I for one take these games in stride and yes I have felt offended in a couple games IE: Cailin calling me annoying, or Mith calling me frothy. Both I let know that I felt they should apologize, that I was "hurt" and they did, and now I use these instances in fun, knowing they did not mean me, just the way I post, which IS different from who I am.

I feel that the even the grimoire is kinda a bad thing, because it keeps track of who won what and in what fashion. WHO CARES!!! Just have fun!!

I will continue to play werewolf and remember, new members always bring new ideas. I for one have several floating around in my brain and they all include having fun and being silly while playing WW.

[Anguirel]

Nilp actually started his "Lynch me!" tactic in WWIV. I was the Seer and played a major part in lynching him. He was, of course, innocent.

Now I shall scuttle back into my hermitage. As the Wise have oft quoth in bygone years:

wibble

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa

I was actually refering to all post-game discussions and some in game discussions that have ended up this way, not just this debate. And it's not just me- it's anyone who has ever pointed out something that others simply don't want to hear. Many players, beyond those I have mentioned, have been subjected to the same. I'm not talking about blatent insults and name-calling, I'm talking about being truthful with how we think things went. Any time someone has said something less than "Great job," about the game, they have been attacked for it.

Being “truthful” about how things went is all very well, provided that it does not come across as personal criticism or lecturing. In all the Werewolf games that have been played on the Downs, only a handful of the post-game analyses (all of which have involved discussing how things went) have given rise to people being upset or offended. So it’s clearly possible to discuss such things in a good-natured fashion without giving cause for offence. It is, I think, mainly a matter of choosing the right tone and manner. In most cases where problems have arisen, the underlying cause of any rancour has not been the unpopular opinion, but the manner in which it has been expressed.

In the future, I don’t want to see anyone being attacked (ie subjected to personal criticism, abuse or victimisation) for expressing their opinion, even if it is an unpopular one, provided that such opinion has been expressed in an inoffensive and measured fashion. That applies across the board.

Originally Posted by Roa

Really, I was pointing out the absurdity of people demanding that I change the way I talk when they flip out over the slightest suggestion that their way of playing a game is less than great.

There is no absurdity or hypocrisy here. No one is accusing you of inept or ineffective posting (far from it ), which would be the equivalent of commenting that someone did not play particularly well. Subject to the exceptions specific to in-game posts that I mentioned earlier, the same principle applies to both gaming style and posting style. If it breaches forum guidelines (ie involves personal criticism or is uncivil, impolite or reasonably capable of giving offence) then it is unacceptable. Beyond that, I am not asking anyone to change anything.

Originally Posted by Roa

I certainly believe Nogrod is sincere in his apology. I just don't think he did anything particularly wrong, and I really admire that he would simply apologize rather than waste the effort defending himself. What I meant is that he shouldn't be made to feel bad for saying what he thought.

Well, if we accept his apology as genuine (which both you and I do), he obviously felt that there was something to apologise for.

Originally Posted by Roa

Just think back to the game Diamond modded- Attack of the Wereducks. Because of in-game rudeness, many people left the game feeling horrible. There were direct insults flying all over the place. Yet these very people say that I'm insulting, when I haven't singled anyone out, or used any sort of direct name-calling.

I would prefer, in this discussion, to consider the best way of moving forward, rather than looking to the past. However, your reference to the Wereducks game does bring up a point worth making. Most of the grief expressed in that game was as a result of players (the Ducks and the Goose, in particular) doing, or attempting to do, what their roles required them to do. Anyone who plays Werewolf has to accept that, within the context of the game, they are going to be accused of lying and/or not be believed when they are telling the truth. That is a function of the game. While it can sometimes be difficult (and I have been guilty of this myself in the past) we have to avoid being over-sensitive to such things when they happen within the game.

Originally Posted by Roa

I took up pming Loki (in attempt to calm things down) and do you know what I found out? People neg-repped him, and pm'ed with various messages of "I hope you leave the boards," and "I really don't like you. Just go away."

I don’t condone neg reps or PMs like that. It would have been much better to point out the ways in which his rude and abrasive approach was inconsistent with the forum guidelines. In hindsight, I should have done that myself at the time. But I have learned from that. I would note, however, that his style was markedly different from that of Garin, who is “abrasive” in a humorous and inoffensive manner. As far as I can recall, I have never had any problem with Garin’s posting style.

Originally Posted by Roa

And I would like to reiterate that I never mean to insult anyone. As Form pointed out, I'm extremely self-confident and highly opinionated, and as he missed, brutally honest. This gets me into trouble often, but it's who I am. Don't take me personally- if I want to attack you personally, I'll do it in PM.

Self-confidence, strength of mind and honesty are wonderful traits to have. But, in a forum such as this, they should be tempered with politeness, courtesy and respect (rather than brutality ). If that means biting your tongue (or keyboard) occasionally in order to avoid giving offence, then so be it. Proper adherence to the forum guidelines can sometimes require that.

Originally Posted by Lhuna

Okay, I think I'm straying from my point. It's just this: we've had more than twenty games, counting the Junior ones as well, and we've had a variety of characters to play, some of which required styles that could somehow affect the outcome of the game for ill, particularly - causing confusion, being offensive, etc. But why were odd playing styles tolerated in earlier games, while now they come under heavy scrutiny? Why are things getting more and more serious as the games pass? Why does there seem to be an increasing obsession to win, leading to uncomfortable post-game discussions when one side loses - as should really happen?

I agree with this, and the final point is perhaps the most pertinent (and it is one reiterated by Valier). We have come to a stage where the winning, for some people at least, is assuming greater importance the taking part, and the post-game discussions are starting to reflect this. If winning is important to you (and it certainly is to me), by all means try your hardest in the game to achieve that. But not everyone has the same approach. Some people just want to take part and have some fun, and there is nothing wrong with that. And that is a point that should be borne in mind in the post-game discussions.

Originally Posted by Valier

I feel that the even the grimoire is kinda a bad thing, because it keeps track of who won what and in what fashion. WHO CARES!!! Just have fun!!

I was beginning to wonder that myself. But I would prefer to keep it going for now, and rely on people being sensible enough not to take it too seriously.

Diamond, I agree with much of what you say, but the principles that I have outlined apply to you as much as they do to the rest of us. Accordingly, I think that it would be helpful if you were to take care to avoid adopting an overly confrontational approach, particularly in discussions like this (whatever the provocation – let me deal with that). For example:

Originally Posted by Diamond18

This statement has me floored because it's simply not true. It's... not... true … Therefore the above quoted statement is false.

It strikes me that this is another illustration of the importance choosing your words carefully. Rather than accusing someone of telling untruths, would it not be better simply to say that you disagree and then state why?

This, of course, applies to everyone. Consider your words carefully (just like you would if you were playing a Wolf ) and take account of the effect that they may have on those reading.

For my own part, I know that some of the things that I have said risk making me unpopular in some quarters. But they need to be said and, for my sins, I have assumed the responsibility for doing so and for ensuring that the principles which I have outlined are adhered to in the future. I would, however, ask for eveyone’s co-operation in that regard, since that will make my job a lot easier (and less time-consuming).

[Macalaure]

*shyly gazes around from under his full cover*

Originally Posted by Saucepan Man

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.

I only played two games so far. Both were short and in both I had to deal with RL-interference, so I come down to a total of 4 Days.
In other words, feel free to ignore my opinion, which is now to follow.


You don't learn from failure. You learn from people telling you what your fault was and how you can do better. In this respect, I think post-game analyses can be very interesting and fruitful. Some people don't like these discussions that much, but (no offense, really, it's perfectly okay) nobody forces them to participate in it or even read them. However, something went wrong in the post-Zydeco-discussion. It started with Nogrod complaining that, though the village didn't go particularly well for the innocents, nobody at all discussed the why of this. The following discussion quickly went the wrong way, and I see no more sense in putting the blame for this on anybody. All I want to note is that, to me, this was never about playing styles. The more styles, the more fun.

The reason why I don't want to go into detail anymore is that all this has clearly gotten out of hands. Some posts I've read recently are much too bitter for my taste. As Valier said, this right now is not making playing Werewolf more fun than before.

Originally Posted by Valier

I will continue to play werewolf and remember, new members always bring new ideas. I for one have several floating around in my brain and they all include having fun and being silly while playing WW.

And this I full-heartedly second.

[Nogrod]

Uh-Oh!

Lot's of sparks flying around... but just a few words in defense of my "arch-nemesis in-gamewise". Yes, she will jump on me for not needing anyone to defend her. But I must second Macalaure there: there seems to be too much bitterness over here to just ignore it. Somehow this remainds me about a mob lynching... but not an in-game one. Thank you Spm for trying to find the middle-ground here.

Roa's playing style is many times a bit abrasive or even aggressive (mine sometimes is too, even though not always). Now I must say that I have wittnessed quite a full-frontal attack on her playing style, partly on the grounds that she makes value-judgements of others playing styles... I could see some point in Roa's claim about hypocrisy here.

I fully agree with the points that we should not go on picking others and their gaming - saying what is right and what is wrong in any objective or personal level. Hurting others feelings surely isn't what we should be doing here. At the same time I'm inclined to believe in Roa's sincerity about her intentions. Her style of writing may just muddy the waters and help people to take an over-defensive stance before they even read what she actually says.

Roa has been accused here partly of her personal characteristics in unison, with some quite heavy bombardment. I don't think reading those posts has made Roa feel nice. Even though I don't think this to be a discussion of Roa vs. the others, it probably isn't too far fetched to understand Roa feeling like secluded from or scorned by many of the others because of her personality and her views on gaming etc. And that I feel is bad too, quite contrary to what has been called for here by Spm and many others.

So to end this quarrell and to set things right again we should try to be nice, everyone of us, not only Roa.

Thanks Valier for the refreshing comment in the middle of this speculation into which I myself too have fallen back.

PS.

Originally Posted by Spm

Well, if we accept his apology as genuine (which both you and I do), he obviously felt that there was something to apologise for.

Yes I did. It was one of my post-game posts that got a bit out of hand as I look at it on retrospect. Although there seems to have been also some linguistics involved too (f.ex. to my ear saying that something is pathetic has always rang as saying something more in a register of fun than actually hurting others...but now I'm afraid I've been wrong with that too).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

You don't learn from failure. You learn from people telling you what your fault was and how you can do better.

Hmm. I still think that this is dangerous territory. In the context of an entertaining pastime, some people would rather not be told that they were at fault for a particular outcome and have no wish to learn to play "better". Also, this will often be a matter of opinion.

I am not going to ban outright discussion of how a particular game turned out the way it did. But people should exercise care when discussing this in the post-game analysis and make every reasonable effort to avoid criticising or giving offence. Tact should be the by-word here and, if you are not inclined to be tactful, please avoid. Blame attribution and indidivual fault finding are definate no-nos.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Roa's playing style is many times a bit abrasive or even aggressive (mine sometimes is too, even though not always).

I should make it clear that I have no issue with Roa's playing style (or Nogrod's, for that matter). In fact, I rather like them. Criticism of Roa's playing style, and indeed anyone else's individual playing style, is another no-no.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So to end this quarrell and to set things right again we should try to be nice, everyone of us, not only Roa.

Agreed. I would add that my comments here have not been intended in the least to "get at" or "attack" Roa. She has (at my invitation and helpfully, I think, in the context of this debate) raised a number of points that probably needed addressing and so the majority of my responses have been directed towards those points. They are, however, of general application.

And now I would like to start to draw a conclusion to this debate. If you have any further burning issues that you wish to raise or feel the need to respond (courteously, of course) to any particular points that have been made, by all means do so, but I am not sure that there is much more to be added that has not already been said. Thank you to everyone who has contributed. It has, I think, been very useful and, for the most part, conducted in the proper spirit.

I propose reviewing this discussion and trying to distil a few (hopefully uncontroversial) principles/guidelines for Werewolf gaming. At some point (although I make no promises when) I will edit the sticky post to set these out. I will also include some of the other generally accepted Werewolf game rules and conventions at the same time. If anyone has any particular suggestions as to what might be included, please speak up.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Nilp actually started his "Lynch me!" tactic in WWIV. I was the Seer and played a major part in lynching him. He was, of course, innocent. (Anguirel)

Most people confuse the suspicious Nilp and the suicidal Nilp.

I played suspicion-hungry stranger in WWIV, but I first cast a vote for myself in WWVII. Therefore my illustrious sister has the correct version of history.

Now I shall resume my sordid love affair with a wonderful arthropod, so auf wiedersehen.

EDIT: After a glance at Lhuny's actual words, I realised that Anguirel is correct. I was clamouring 'Lynch me!' during WWIV, although I got it two DAYs too late.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Valier

I feel that the even the grimoire is kinda a bad thing, because it keeps track of who won what and in what fashion. WHO CARES!!! Just have fun!!

Thank you Valier. I was thinking "who cares" while reading through all of this. I let what was said at first slide off my back because even though I didn't agree with it, it still wasn't much skin off my nose. But now it has turned into something it shouldn't have. I don't see any reason for everyone to be so up-in-arms over this, when it could have been easily resolved at the start with a few simple PMs. But this whole argument is robbing Werewolf of its fun.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I really enjoy the ww games, but if we cannot have them without hurting each others feelings or just plainly showing disrespect, then I think it would better to put them on a hold. The Barrow-Downs has always worked as a kind of a sanctuary for me and if sacrificing WW is what it takes to keep that, then be it!

I am afraid that this might escalate even further and we will end up with a kinslaying of our own.

So what I am saying is: Lets see if we can make WW work again, but if we have any personal chritisism, then put them on a hold.

(We are here to have fun, right ?)

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Saucie

Agreed. I would add that my comments here have not been intended in the least to "get at" or "attack" Roa.

No offense taken. You're just trying to keep order in your forum.

Originally Posted by Mac

The well known "It's just a game, so don't be offensive. It's just a game, so don't be offended." cannot be stressed enough. Both sentences are equally important. Though it is self-evident to me, it should be included that this holds for post-game discussion as well.

Want to hear something ironic? I came up with that. I pm'd LMP during Wereducks, while he was planning Deuling Wizards. I let him know how things were going there. That is, many people, innocents and wolves alike, were throwing around the words stupid and idiotic and just generally insulting each other. At the same time, some people were getting offended over being accused of lying and what not. The point of that statement was that we shouldn't throw around blatant insults, but we also shouldn't assume everything is a personal attack. Unfortunately, people tend to ignore that second part.

In accordance with the rules, I will try to tone things down, and I do apologize for insult caused in the past. If I slip, don't take it as a personal attack. It's just my red-headed temper getting itself worked up.

Now then, on with the gaming.