Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Staff Responsibility/Accountability
Ruggahissy
May 30 2017, 05:49 PM
I think the staff is within their rights to correct an error. The notice was given in error, staff cops to it, and says that Ciel can appeal now that staff is on the same page about to handle it, that being as a group.
I think it is incorrect and unjust for a handler to be punished due to what you are saying is an acknowledged staff error. If the error is staff's, then so must be the fallout.

Staff Responsibility/Accountability
birthday kid
May 30 2017, 03:46 PM
Staff has a board to decide things. Why would they single-handedly just 'ok' stuff?
It's caused a lot of trouble historically (and was something I talked a lot about prior to stepping down), and I certainly can't speak for anyone involved. In the three occurrences in V6 Pregame of unilateral staff action, the staffer(s) who acted erroneously was/were talked to about it and the most lenient option among those proposed/enacted was the one allowed to stand. This has also been the precedent in prior versions and a change from that represents a notable departure from established handling of such situations.

Staff Responsibility/Accountability
Hey, staff. It is with a heavy heart that I come to the long-forgotten Support/Suggestions board today, but a matter has been brought to my attention that I feel requires immediate and public acknowledgment and redress.

A member came to me today to ask advice on a situation regarding inactivity. The specifics of the case aren't particularly consequential, but what stirred me to action was when, near the end of our conversation, the member mentioned that their appeal had actually been granted by SOTF Help, they had posted, and then hours later they were informed that their appeal had been granted erroneously and was thus being revoked.

I think it goes without saying that such a turn of events is completely unacceptable from any sort of fairness-based or member-first perspective.

While I am given to understand that the initial appeal was granted by a single staffer acting without authorization or approval of the team, that does not change the fact that an appeal was granted through SOTF Help and that the member posted in accordance with said appeal, constituting a return to activity, prior to the PM rescinding the appeal.

If a mistake was made on the part of a staffer acting unilaterally, that is very much a problem worthy of internal discussion and possibly of some form of appropriate action or reform, but that is an internal situation that should be handled by staff. What is totally unacceptable is for a member operating in accordance with rules and official staff communications to be punished for an internal staff error. The unauthorized granting of the initial appeal was the fault of the staffer who granted it, not the handler who received it. The failure to follow protocol was on the part of the staff team. If a handler is making a request or communication through an unauthorized channel, staff needs to handle that appropriately, shutting it down or redirecting as need be. I've been in that spot, again and again. I know it can be tough to say "My personal opinion is X, but that has no binding until discussed by the whole staff," but that is the only correct action. Once a staffer knowingly uses their authority to grant an appeal, they are wielding the weight of the team, and while this can be repaired (and has been at many points in the past), that repair work must be done with a keen eye towards treating affected members with all possible fairness and leniency.

I was on staff for a long, long time. I remember vividly the difficult and tense situations we've dealt with, and I know that an erroneous ruling can be incredibly frustrating to deal with. At the same time, staff has always prided itself upon fairness and has always accepted the repercussions of its mistakes. No single staffer is perfect, and the collective certainly is not either. Mistakes happen. But part of making mistakes is dealing with them fairly and professionally, and rescinding an appeal—one that had been granted by SOTF Help and acted upon in a timely fashion—due to errors made by staffers and utterly outside the control of the affected handler, is neither professional nor fair.

A key part of staff work has always been weighing costs and rewards. In this case, I see very little reward that could possible be worth the cost to staff's reputation of undoing a ruling to the expense of a handler. I have been, by and large, very proud of the operation of staff since my departure. I consider you all friends and I trust you to do what you think is best. But this is not best. This is a massive staff error, and one that demands immediate corrective action and acknowledgment of the mistake.

If staff going off half-cocked is a problem (and I know it historically has been) then that should be dealt with internally. If that means establishing procedures to prevent similar occurrences (or enforcing existing procedures more carefully), barring certain staffers from handling certain decisions or using certain features (say, SOTF Help) without oversight, or (in the worst case scenario) placing staffers on probation or removing them from the team, then so be it. But a staff mistake should not result in punishment for a handler. A granted appeal must be a granted appeal, unless for some reason something comes to light to suggest that the handler knowingly supplied inaccurate information. Anything else undermines the system we've spent so long honing, and that cannot be allowed to pass without comment.

In the interests of full disclosure, and with permission of the handler involved, the PMs that provoked my ire with dates and times included may be found here. I understand that there have been further communications, but that really falls outside my sphere of concern; I'm only getting involved in this due to what I see as a tremendous mistake on the part of the staff team, one which causes me serious concern for the site's well-being.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Also, I really do not like self-voting and all that tends to come with it but as I said I dislike no lynches more and this setup actually has some cool stuff that alleviates many of my gripes with the mechanic so VOTE: Myself

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Sorta unfocused here (huge surprise, I know). The short version is I was angling to get lynched at the end of last phase and poured basically all my thoughts/focus into the short term due to that. Putting a brief list of thoughts for posterity:

Folks I do not get good vibes from:
Zetsu
Maddie
Kermit

All of these are for reasons hashed out at length earlier. Maddie moved down a bit with Vyse flipping town, but remains on the list because her stance still strikes me as off. Vyse's flip gives Kermit a teeny bit of town cred, but I really do not like the "Yes! It's true! That is scummy!" "Why did you do it then?" <crickets> progression of a lot of challenges to him. Zetsu's involvement reminds me a bit of Vyse's scumplay--always be just short of the best option for a lynch.

Folks I have slight fuzziness on but it's not developed to scumread yet:
Frogue
Prim
Randomness

Frogue's stance started to bother me a bit, despite having struck me as townish yesterday, and on reflection I think it's due to a certain method of circling the argument. This is pretty gut-read level, though, and mostly designed to prevent clear town cred from coalescing. Prim is odd and always strikes me as scummy, largely due to no scum games to compare to. But I've not seen a few things I usually expect from town Prim wrongly accused, so maybe this time for real? Randomness I know is defending me while I'm town, but is doing so in a slightly odd way; perhaps this is an attempt to get a boost off being right? But only scum and I know I'm town.

Folks I'm feeling good (or better) about:
Ricky
RC
Toxie

Ricky actually did change my mind in a good number of his interactions. Watch him closely anyways but please don't just smack him down due to my inevitable town flip. RC I wish had answered my later questions/given a bit more detail but that's the only thing stopping me from solidly townreading him. Toxie is confirmed town (and also awol :( ).

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
fogu
May 18 2017, 06:10 PM
What record were you trying to set straight? Did someone suggest you weren't getting heat from grim?
Nah, my misunderstanding, as explained in the post you're discussing.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Primrosette
May 18 2017, 04:14 AM
I don't really have a read on anyone as it is really hard for me to concentrate on this game right now. But I guess MW is possibly the only one who is lynchable right now. And I think I should vote for someone for the time being until I think someone else gets caught in my scum alert senses (which is possibly just a gut feeling). I want to at least do something so definitely doing this vote.
Watch this. Lots of distancing from results/disclaiming responsibility, and factually incorrect based on the count two posts above it (clearly a two-vote difference is an insurmountable gap!). I struggle to read Prim due to total lack of scum history and generally odd behavior, but this does raise an eyebrow.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Randomness
May 17 2017, 11:27 AM
@Murder, A little bit of a separate note from the above, but can you reiterate your reasons for voting for Vyse last phase? Which line(s) of argument from last phase did you think would get across better if you had been lynched, and flipped town?
Vyse seemed unusually tunneled on a few points and was working the game in a way that seemed odd to me. He was also very confident in a read I knew to be incorrect (that I was scum) and a read I suspected to be incorrect (that Kermit was town). The actions of certain other parties also threw me notably.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
fogu
May 16 2017, 01:40 AM
@mw odd response. how does grims read on you have any bearing on whether your failure to raise this possibility is suspicious? heat that you may or may not be getting from grim doesnt really affect whether an action is scummy or not
I'm not overly interested in trying to argue if I am or am not scummy; I basically threw all my cards on the table last phase and didn't intend to be in this one. I am interested in keeping the record straight, though, for the benefit of future phases.

Reads list will be up at some point in the next day or so when I have the focus to wade through everything.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Ah, you're right. I assumed a kill on an empty slot to be functionally equivalent to a no-kill, while reducing the odds of anyone outside the game subbing in and tilting things.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
fogu
May 15 2017, 02:48 AM
scum had zero incentive to hit anyone last night. decoy'd already said that eliminated town would switch in for vyse/ep, who scum knew were town. why risk watcher/tracker with taking a shot on someone who's just gonna come back anyway?

there's no way mw didn't notice this. the fact he hasn't brought it up looks like him trying not to look scummy.
I'm actually currently eating heat from Grim specifically for suggesting scum may have not nightkilled someone.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
MK Kilmarnock
May 14 2017, 07:20 PM
MW responds to this with 'I saw there was a hammer and then ignored the thread' but at my count it was still L-1? Am I taking crazy pills or does my memory just really suck? Anyway, I thought it was flaky as fuck that for all his proclaiming that he'd rather be lynched than have a no-lynch for town, he didn't hammer himself.
Somebody gave an unofficial vote count, and it was wrong. I made the mistake of assuming it was not.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Grim Wolf
May 14 2017, 05:29 PM
However, the second post makes this a little more complicated for me, because he's assuming either an entire scum team (and probably a decent-sized on, given the number of players in the game) or two separate factions both opted for polite play, which is something that seems really weird to speculate on. And in combination with the first post it makes me even more nervous: he basically says "guys, Town might actually be safer at night than we think, and maybe we can't glean anything about what happened last night!"
To clarify, I'm working in the realm of possibility here, not probability. We're dealing with a tricky to interpret night phase, and just about the worst outcome is for, say, a roleblocker to claim and out their target and town to lynch them only to find out they hit a deputy or something, just because everyone assumed no kill meant a roleblock went successfully. If it happens again, great! But one night does not a trend make.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Primrosette
May 14 2017, 05:09 AM
Why not 100%? Why are you 10% unsure? If you think you are convinced that he is scum, you would be 100% positive about it. Right?
Only way to be 100% is to see the role PM. I actually feel better about having a margin of error baked in (especially from someone who's wrong).

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Ric Astley
May 14 2017, 03:23 AM
@Toben list mean list of kermit d1
Why did the list make you think him an informative lynch, though?

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Kermit
May 14 2017, 12:32 AM
Or maybe scum chose to not kill anyone (is that a thing that can that happen?). Assuming scum would've been targeting town in their nightkill, a No!Nightkill'd leave town w/ just the info from Paige/Vyse's flips and night info (instead of those, plus additional town!flips). It'd be super-duper unlikely that more than one scum!group'd go for a no-kill, and this isn't even taking the possibility of an SK into account.
Scum could've also shot one or both of the folks we lost, for some reason or other. I can actually somewhat see it from a polite scum PoV--it'd be a townie removed without taking someone out of the game. Could've also screwed up and forgotten to send an action. Hard to say.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Grim Wolf
May 14 2017, 12:20 AM
With our cop and vigilante out of commission: all night phases are now going to be strictly defensive for Townwhich means we have to use our dayphases wisely. I strongly encourage anyone to side-eye people trying to rush day-phase discussion this early, because unless we have some real interesting set-up for town, that's an action that can only serve Scum. That said, after two days have elapsed, let's slap some votes down so we don't see a repeat of what happened last time.
There is a chance for backups/trackers or watchers or whatever/JOATs. None are sure bets and none are as good as guaranteed cop/vig, but we don't totally know the situation.

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Kermit
May 13 2017, 10:41 PM
#2. Toben was basically begging to be lynched (though he never did vote for himself like he said he would, if it meant a lynch.hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.)
Yeah, we had enough votes that I thought a lynch was secured. I was just as surprised and appalled as everyone else presumably was. It basically went like "Check thread > okay, someone hammered > ignore thread until phase end."

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Kermit
May 13 2017, 09:22 PM
(Oh god I'm gonna be Vyse mk.2 in terms of post volume)

Also,
Volt
 
Well... that's... not great for us.

I mean, it's not the worst thing that could've happened. There were no nightkills!
This sort of response is a classic scumtell for a reason (Maddie's, I mean).

Mass Effect Mafia Game Thread
Empress Plush
May 10 2017, 03:21 PM
Kermit
May 10 2017, 03:12 PM
Gonna leave a tentative note here:
I might need replacing next dayphase. SSRI withdrawal is being absolute hell on my physical/mental state, and depending on how it goes, I might not be able to handle this game.
Since I'm still here and can technically say things until the end of the game please be safe and put your health first Kermit we love you ;_;
Very much this! Mafia is fun, but RL always comes first. And it's okay also to tell folks RL is going on and have a kinda quiet phase or two to see how stuff goes. I don't think anyone would jump you for that or mind a bit.