Pregame Agreements-Resolved

[zealous lynx]

This picture is a real lobby name today in lobbies. As it stands - It is moderatable to have any sort of agreement before a game between 1 or multiple players that impact the game negatively for others.

1. As a community is Co-op such a problem that we have to enforce rules in lobbies? Apparently the consequence is a immediate game stop or a kickban of that eco player if they do not follow the rules regardless if they consented or not. Should we crack down on people making these rules?
   Should you moderate or allow players to self-moderate players that don't follow lobby rules

2. Should we be doing this and telling our community enforcers that hey this is a way we're playing the game because the game's biggest issue doesn't have a fix? Stop moderating players who want to play the game a different way or that is enjoyable instead of being force fed co-op to win every game?
   Should players be moderated for agreements made outside of the game/pre lobby (We get moderated for this today under CoC B4)

What do you guys think? How can we educate our moderation team to work with us and think differently about this?

[quiet plover]

yes we should enforce rules in the lobby

[lost sphinx]

Enforcing rules is completely fine if the player gets kicked through a vote of every player.

If self-enforcing lobby rules becomes reportable, idk what will happen with this game. If anything, even the need to do stuff like this highlights how big of a problem certain things are.

[glossy dirge]

Short answer is: coop is a problem. Long answer: https://discord.com/channels/549281623154229250/1337861239526785064

[ebon grotto]

Im struggling to understand what even is your point? You're mad that a lobby is self enforcing a very clear lobby restriction thats literally in the title?

Do you also by chance join 1v1 lobbies and get mad that they arent 8v8s?

Even as ragebait this makes literally no sense, smh my head. Back in my day bait used to be believable

[zealous lynx]

@ebon grotto For the sake of discussion I suggest taking the emotion out of your interpretation and look at the facts. Players are getting moderated for playing suboptimal or differently. I'm starting the conversation on what players should be getting moderated on.

I think you try to ragebait yourself or see too much ragebait in everything, maybe try to take it easy?

[slim zinc]

The OP is confusing. Are you asking if lobbies should be allowed to set their own rules and kick players that don't follow them?

[zealous lynx]

Yes or stop moderating players who play differently or with different strategies

That's points 1 and 2 you just mentioned, but if I can make it clearer, please help me out

For example, the players in that lobby called to kickban a player who didn't follow those rules, and if those who called the vote get reported, they will be moderated

[slim zinc]

What's the connection to moderation?

Is the question "If the rules for a lobby 'impact the game negatively for others', is the boss of that lobby moderatable for choosing bad rules?"

Also point 3 makes no sense either "should we censor this post" why would you ask if we should censor a post you just made this is confusing and I have a hard time interpreting any good faith question here.

[oak iron]

I would say that if the rule is clearly defined and open to public than it does not count as altering the game in a negative way. For instance, in beyond all reason players are able to disable using nukes and long range plasma cannons. This is something that can be seen right away when you join the lobby. This is clearly shown to all public players that join the lobby and if you do not agree with that disabling of nukes or cannons, then you are welcome to join a different lobby.

I think this is the exact same idea with the gentleman‘s agreement. It is clearly identified in the title and players are able to alter games as long as everyone is in agreement with it. If you or someone else does not like the rule that is implemented in that one specific lobby outside of the other lobbies then you could join a different lobby.

If we as a community set a precedent of not being able to create custom rules in lobbies, then that would eliminate all custom settings.

I would say the context of a single players ability in the game, or what they do in a match cannot be related to or be compared to a custom rule that a lobby of 16 people have agreed to.

To answer the question about moderation that you just posted. People cannot get moderated if you call for a vote as a lobby and the majority votes to kick a player for not following the lobby set rules.

That is completely different than what is considered boss abuse.

[zealous lynx]

Pregame Agreements

[oak iron]

I agree with @glossy dirge that all this indicates that the underlying problem is co-op and sadly this will continue to be a problem until changes are made to beyond all reason in a gameplay/game mechanic way.

[zealous lynx]

There I updated it, how is that?

[slim zinc]

Looks much better now. I think I agree with hoffy's overall opinion on your questions but yeah mostly just wanted to comment to try to clarify what you were asking to avoid things getting derailed.

[zealous lynx]

Thank you! my stance is that we update the COC or train moderators to better analyze these situations instead of blanket moderating players that they think are "griefing" because they didn't use co-op to win or use everything in their power to win

[slim zinc]

I'm pretty sure "not using coop to win" is not moderatable (it's not griefing) in the first place so this statement is still confusing. Did someone get moderated for not paying their tech??

[zealous lynx]

I can't use this thread to go into specifics or call out anyone, that gets me censored. So for your information, there have been a lot of moderations for tech players not doing exactly what the team wants

Aside from COC B4.2 There is no clear definitions of griefing in gameplay style, it is up to the person who reviewed the moderation to decide and the rest of the moderation team supports that persons decision - if im allowed to say that

[slim zinc]

https://www.beyondallreason.info/guide/what-is-moderation-how-does-it-work#risky-stratagems

"Unmet expectations
A good number of issues that escalate to reports result from misaligned expectations of players in team games. Let’s imagine a new player who lands on a spot commonly considered as an air spot, yet doesn’t know that to be the case. It’s not against the rules for that player not to put up a “satisfactory” fighter screen, though it may cost that team the match - “roles” are an emergent player-mandated phenomenon and it’s up to players to reach a consensus on who’s doing what.

At the same time, forcing teammates into roles against their will - and especially attempting to enforce those roles - can and will be moderated."

"Risky stratagems
Controversial plays (e.g. commander dropping) can go badly. They can also go well and they're not against the rules. This is not to be confused with throwing games on purpose. If an ally does a tactic and it doesn't pay off that itself isn't a cause for reporting."

A couple quotes that seem relevant

[silver wren]

It is not a moderation offense to have lobby rules set-up. We will likely moderate players who do not share agreements/lobby rules prior to the game starting.

Continuing to spread your misinformation will likely result in moderation action under b7.

[grand pebble]

⚠ Warned asian6106

[zealous lynx]

I guess the censorship got me again. Good luck gamers, hope to see you out there

[zealous lynx]

So if people in pregame agreements do not follow these rules, its okay for entire lobbies to stop games and kickban people, yes? I know that's definitely not in the CoC, so just trying to clarify so we don't get moderated

Pregame Agreements - POST IS NOW CENSORED

[inland moss]

Having and enforcing custom lobbies and rules is not against the code of conduct. Additionally, democratic votes, regardless of reason, are generally not against the code of conduct. So if your gentleman's agreement is known and accepted by the lobby, there shouldn't be any problems

[zealous lynx]

Thank you for the clarification. If moderations do happen because of this, I will direct players here to appeal their bans

[silver wren]

Pregame Agreements

@zealous lynx I've already warned you about b7. I'm being nice here

[slim zinc]

The warning was for saying that "tech players got moderated for not doing what the team wants" when that's not true right? (You said misinformation I just want to clear up what the misinfo is)

[silver wren]

B7, regarding my first message in here. In regards to his op

[slim zinc]

I appreciate the clarification. I thought it might have been misunderstanding on his part but clearly there's some history here so I'll back off.

[wintry mason]

How do you determine if a lobby knows and accepts the agreement?

[silver wren]

Now that we've established that it's not against the rules to have posted agreement/lobby rules.

We could still moderate red/blue sitting in a private chat who made an agreement without the other 14 players knowing about it, for example.

Is this just coop thread?

[silver wren]

Easiest way is setting it to a welcome message or lobby name.

We can see the entire lobby chat history, and when the message was posted.

[wintry mason]

what if the other players know about it but dont agree to it but aren't part of the agreement so they cant actually control anyones behavior. like glitter gentleman agreement is just between eco players, they are the only ones that need to agree. and if they agree, other players dont have a say.

[silver wren]

They can leave or start a vote to change it in unbossed lobbies. In general.

Or do you mean how do lobbies enforce the agreement?

With votes, or boss powers after game.

[lost sphinx]

can you see lobby name and welcome messages though? i don't think i can when downloading a replay

[inland moss]

Moderators can

[wintry mason]

if players go into a game and they both want to afus, and they're on different teams, and they know that the other players want to afus. players can choose to play less agressively because of outside game knowledge that other players in the game are not privy to

[inland moss]

If people would prefer, we could classify "secretly in communication with a member of the opposing team and knowing about their actions in real time" as cheating rather than griefing

[wintry mason]

real time communication is a completely separate discussion, i dont think anyone is advocating for explicit spec cheat here.

Making an agreement before the game starts to go afus is different from explicitly communicating nonpublic information (like AN location as a specific example)

[oak iron]

I mean in the context of this. If nukes are disabled you would play differently then you would if the match had them enabled. Therefore, the concept is the same. All players know that the rule is 8 t2 con is the rules so the game play is different, but not wrong.

[silver wren]

Please don't go wild with hypotheticals. I'm only going to speak in general.

Moderators don't blindly trust the reviewers statement on reports. We'll ask questions for clarification, or open up the replays ourselves if we see the need to.

-# 2 replies so I don't mod abuse my way around slow mode.

[wintry mason]

i would be happy with making a clear distinction between these infringments. They are on completely different levels in terms of "cheating"

[robust cypress]

Just let the lobby play as it wants xD

[zealous lynx]

@silver wren Sorry, but I spoke in general as the original creator of this post, and I believe it was you who came in to make in something specific, so please do not bring up a specific incident. We can agree though that moderations are happening because of pregame agreements.

Moderators don't blindly trust the reviewers statement on reports is false, and I can support this with evidence, but once again. Let's move on from the specific incident and focus on the pregame agreements that are happening in lobbies

[wintry mason]

There are two main concerns that i want adressed:

Currently, lobbies can make agreements without informed consent of the players (lobby rules are made known in welcome messages and titles which is boss controlled, not though any voting, and agreements affecting a small number of players can be implemented by those few players without explicit agreement of the entire lobby)

There is not a distinction in the rules between agreements pre game and in game spec cheating. its all labelled as in game coordination. These have different implications and shoudl should have different infractions with different evidential requirements

[fair sand]

I'd love to see the evidence

[terse bear]

i think treating the “Ready” button as informed consent is a good enough threshold

[wintry mason]

at the risk of getting too into the weeds here, no one actually knows what the gentlemen's agreement is and people are always surprised at what people think is and isnt'' allowed. ready might be consetn but its definitely not informed.

I would prefer the first (agreements) wasn't moderatable at all. Its incredibly difficult to prove intent and there are a lot of muddily close situations what would be very difficult to making a consistent ruling. Right now its subjective. And i will say I'm personally invested because I have a moderation history for this infringement but I dont like my name to be tarnished

[terse bear]

with the example in the OP of the post, it’s “8 cons before t2 units”, which seems pretty clear to me? or do you mean in other cases/examples, like if the lobby title is just “gentleman’s agreement or kickban”

[wintry mason]

Some places that have had issues:
Can eco make t1? Can they make air? Can they go front?
Can otherp layers make a t2 lab? do they have to make cons before units?
Can the player making cons commie or not? (rainbow cons)

[zealous lynx]

They just automatically stop games now, and call the vote to kickban the rules violator

[wintry mason]

i've stopped playing in lobbies with these rules because of the inability for these rules to be hammered down or actually stopping hte problem its trying to stop...

i dont like not-playing-the-game as a solution to problems. high os is dying enough as it is

[terse bear]

this is fair, those are ambiguous.

but i still think the distinction is ultimately that the original intent is public, i.e. everyone knows the lobby creator/bosses desire that the players play by a modified honor code/ruleset

for me, the distinction between acceptable lobby rules and unacceptable cross-team collusion is whether or not the original intent was publicly disclosed in good faith prior to game start

[quiet plover]

these rules require spec cheating to enforce mid-game

[terse bear]

haha also fair. tbh the best solution is to fix coop.

the second best solution is to have an official setting that explicitly declares and enforces the gentleman’s agreement.

[robust cypress]

Coop isn't getting fixed

The state of #1337861239526785064 is so bad that steam release might happen before any meaningful adaptation of non coop gameplay. So these bandaid fixes like kickbanning if someone coops too hard is a thing

[quiet plover]

how do they post evidence that players are making agreemnets outside of the game

[wintry mason]

And thats fair and perhaps the gentleman's agreement is ultimately deemed appropriate, but it is very difficult to determine if all information is disclosed publically before the game starts. This is why I brought up earlier the notion of players knowing before the game starts that they want to chill and not sweat and make afus. If i'm playing with known afus abusers like Apex or Timko, and other players dont know that these players would prefer to afus as an end game state, then that information isn't publically disclsoed and only some are going to make informed gameplay decisiosn with this information.

And ultimately, its unclear to me whether or not these agreements are ultimately deemed as playing suboptimally. Any agreement is saying "i know that playing like X is better and will give me a higher winrate but i dont want to play like X so can we agree ot play like Y"

[inland moss]

Indeed, people make meta decisions all the time, including based on known gentleman's agreements, and other factors. However, 1: hidden "gentleman's agreements" are hidden knowledge, and acting on publicly unknowable information I would indeed argue is a form of cheating. 2: That's not why people are or have been moderated, and it is blatant misrepresentation of the facts to say it is

[quiet plover]

how do moderator show agreements are hidden or not? if i was having a conversation with a friend earlier in the day about noob lobbies being zzz and they're just there for afus farming then we afus farm in a noob lobby, how can I be moderated for having an ''outside agreement'' without any proof

[wintry mason]

well in the case of my last moderation on this topic, i dont know why i was moderated and when i asked questions the tickets were closed. I'm tryingto not asks specifics about that ticket but i am asking questions that would help me understand

[inland moss]

We watch the replays and look into it, and if things do not add up beyond a reasonable doubt, then it gets moderated. to lean on the actual hypothetical antinuke situation posted above somewhere (actually not based on any particular cases), certain people are known nuke rushers, or maybe it's in meta or whatnot. If people rush antinuke against them a lot, that's reasonable. Wouldn't expect cheating. If someone were to build antinuke within a few seconds of the nuke starting being built, in multiple games and timings and build orders in multiple maps, then there's no reasonable doubt that there's some cheating going on.

[quiet plover]

i see so its educated guessing. so if i dont build thors ever but i have a chat with afriend about thors and we end up making thors against each other in the same noob lobby and just park them not doing anything while our poops cry at us. i might get moderated because i never make thors and in this game we both did and didnt attack

[inland moss]

Do you think people broadcast to their team chat "I AM SPEC CHEATING DON'T REPORT ME" ?
-# although in some, cough, notable situations, that's pretty damn near what happened

[hardy lintel]

There should just be a set of restrictions for what constitutes a ranked game, e.g., no mods (like legion, or ticks only, or no nukes) or only specific mods, commie is allowed, only maps from a certain pool (no metal maps), etc., or whatever the dev team wants to have be considered viable for earning/losing OS. This would also do something to make OS more meaningful, and if it's not ranked, no one really cares what silly lobby rules there are.

[wintry mason]

are you talking about my moderation?

[quiet plover]

nah i just think if we're talking about random elemnts and saying ah we make an educated guess on this without investigating, its kinda sus. so if i literally talk to my friends saying lmao noob lobbies are dog shit. i throw on anime and just afus farm, then later that day we both end up effin afus farming for a whole game. i could be moderated for 6 months? wtf

then it can be called external collusion with ZERO evidence

[hardy lintel]

All this stuff where the lobby or bosses get to make up the rules for their lobby/game just makes the ranked part of it pretty meaningless anyway, because it directly affects who will join and play and thus the balance of the match

[quiet plover]

noone cares, high os players can tell who actual players are and who poops are

[hardy lintel]

If no one cares then just get rid of OS, balance, and so on except for 1v1 and then problem solved. Something tells me people care though.

[quiet plover]

what? OS is useful, adding random things to make 'OS' matter doesn't really make sense cause OS already matters? i don't see what's wrong with the system unless you mean poop lobby farmers who are dog shit but are 40 os playing in lobbies where the average os is 20. yes agreed but i dont want limitations on lobbies, that's a slippery slope, just change how OS is granted when avg lobby os is too far below a player's OS.

also this is way off topic, the topic seems to be how the fk do people know about external agreements and if mods dont know and are guessing, why are people being moderated for crap that can't be proven (external agreement)

[inland moss]

how would you prove in a satisfactory way that someone is spec cheating

[quiet plover]

evidence showing repeat times where the spec cheater/player are in the same lobby and changes in behavior from the norm.

would I moderate people for some odd coincidences that happen once and only once? no

[inland moss]

Indeed

"beyond a reasonable doubt"

[hardy lintel]

Limitations on lobbies will be a necessity for matchmaking, if ever that were to arrive for 8v8. Why not get started now on what those limitations should be, start getting used to them, and improve OS accuracy in the meantime? Because high OS players are poops and don't want it? 🤣

[quiet plover]

@hardy lintel
i dont know what you're trying to argue for, you want to remove OS because its inaccurate and because its necessary to create limitations on lobbies for matchmaking? what? this isn't even on topic, OS is fine, there is no catch all stat. we had the same issue in CS:GO. Guess what, it's not fully accurate but you can pretty easily tell that a 20 os player is dog shit and a 30 os player is ok and a 40 os player is most likely okayish/decentish. sure there's shitters that abuse dog shit lobbies to get higher os, but that's an argument for a different thread

[hardy lintel]

My argument is that player created restrictions degrade the balancing capability of OS to begin with, whether they are explicit on lobby join or made in secret in a way that can't be fairly moderated. You said no one cares, which is clearly false given your agreement OS should be kept around. Who cares what players opinions are about who is good at the game or not, and what does that have to do with this topic?

[quiet plover]

ok then on the other hand ,some lobby agreements make OS a more capable stat by preventing commie strats and preventing OS inflation

[hardy lintel]

Sure, and then those limitations should become part of a codified set for all ranked lobbies while whatever limitations players want can be kept to unranked lobbies where no one has a real stake in the game's outcome. By having preset limitations, we avoid the OP's problem because players can't just set random rules for the matches ranked players want to play. I gave some examples of limitations but i'm not advocating specifically for them, they were just examples. Someone with a higher paygrade than me decide what they actually are. Or better yet, they are developed over time with player feedback.

[quiet plover]

isnt this the same issue as allow custom widgets? since most people now play with custom widgets off, we dont have experimentation and testers of widgets slowing down development?

if i can't create arbitrary rules for a ranked lobby, these limitations will never be discovered because why would i want to play unranked to test a limitation? gentlemen's agreement on glitters was a result of so many dog shit commie games and trying all the different modoptions until we realized there wasn't a catch all and the game felt like shit due to co-op. due to the competitive nature of the players involved and because we were all so h0t and h* that day that we would not have agreed to play an unranked game

also ranked is considered keeping things spicy. we've been playing with zombies, base builder turrets, ruins, all sorts of wacky shit. a majority like ranked on because it means people try a bit and dont just soft int as soon as they are inconvenienced in the game. i think it's a slippery slope, i dont' see the argument against current ranked for 8v8s. the issues of balloons exist with more stringent OS rules

[robust cypress]

what is this game even about

[haughty bronze]

This thread is wild. I dont even know what the hell people think the problem is. My understanding is there are two kinds of actors in the t2 cons lobby. There are those who choose to play the generally agreed tech position and rush units, and those who stop the game and kick those players. Which side are we worried about defending? The people who set gentleman's agreements or those who are getting kicked for exploiting them?

I get that the gentleman's agreement thing technically has wiggle room, but the spirit of the claim is inccredibly clear. The player who spawns in the accepted tech position on glitters must make 8 t2 cons before they make a unit. Further, that player should not be giving their resources to any player until this is done.

There are no restrictions on any other roles, and other players are free to rush t2 labs. In fact they finally can now, because its not a tech cheese fest.

That lobby wants to play with other people who have a similar vision of glitters gameplay. They dont join other lobbies and start kicking players, they started their own and out a description of the game they want to play. Any player who joins that lobby, locks in the accepted glitters tech role, and doesnt do what the title says can and should be kicked, and no one should be moderated for it.

If you as a player are unhappy with that tech playstyle on glitters, go join any other glitters lobby and do whatever you want. Go air in a tech spot, its fine, no one can ban you.

It seems to me like the need for a very specific and explicit entry in the COC is driven exclusively by bad faith actors who want to join a lobby that has defined how they want to play with the only tool they have. You wouldn't join a lava isthmus and start trying to change the map setup because true isthmus has seas and the sea player shouldnt be forced to greed afus on land.

The only difference here is the game has given those glitters players no tools to enforce their vision systematically.

[hardy lintel]

People want to play the game with whichever arbitrary rules they want, that's fine and they should be able to do that. People also want ranking and ranked games to mean something, but it doesn't if everyone is playing different games with different rules. These two things are just incompatible, and this cluster of a thread is solid proof of it. You guys gotta decide what you actually want and advocate for that.

[fair sand]

That is a completely different suggestion from this thread though. This thread proposed the idea to make stuff like gwntlwmans agreements against CoC, while what you said would be to have a unified "ranked", where all lobbies are forced to have the same rules. I can see where you are coming from, but IMO it is somewhat off topic from the threads suggestions

[hardy lintel]

With all do respect it simply isn't off topic, it addresses the OP's concerns around expectations for what players should be able to or be forced to moderate themselves. He asked us to educate the moderation team and think differently about the problem; I complied.

[fair sand]

Gotcha

[hardy lintel]

Ranked lobbies with very few changeable settings, such as only OS min/max, team sizes, and maybe map means the games are basically the same and reliant on balance. Players would report toxicity through the normal channels; you play with who's on your team and you don't get to decide if they're in the lobby or not. In unranked lobbies, you can have boss and popular vote and do whatever you want as is now. Players would be free to moderate their own gentleman's agreements, meta play decisions and so on with kickbans as they see fit.

[zealous lynx]

I’m 1000% for toxic moderation and griefing with malicious intent. I will stand with the moderation team 10/10, I even accept my own moderation whole heartedly cause I know we can all be a lil toxic and heated 😉.

But the essence is if a player gets reported regardless of techer or not because the reporter feels wronged by that person, this launches an investigation and then becomes an educated guess on griefing or not, I don’t believe it’s fair for that person to be moderated because of how another player feels and if the reviewer of the report guesses malicious intent. Same thing for noobs, noobs get reported because they don’t understand what their designated role is but they don’t get moderated because they just don’t know to go front and make units.

This is a REAL feeling about how this game is heading because our lobbies are dying and less and less people are playing. We don’t have the volume of glitters player we used to have because of co-op and the idea of pregame agreements is our community’s way to inject some standard to the game instead of losing in 6 minutes to tech rush.

Guys OS Deflation is a REAL topic and many many players especially high OS want to deflate because they don’t want to try as hard. And I’ve come a long way since my @raikoh. Days but now I understand why he does what he does because it’s not always fun to just steamroll noobs or other players all day. And that IS suboptimal.

Our moderation that sparked this conversation was a gentleman’s agreement, but the fact is at no point was I doing to hurt or harm other players and and no point was I not fully using my apm to build and beat the other players. If anything I was winning and I donated some metal to help the team but we still lost because of an excellent cooperative push from the other team excluding the tech players help. Why should that agreement cause a moderation and not the 8 cons before units like it is today? Or any agreement for that matter

[fair sand]

As explained above by Amojini, reports like that are reviewed by multiple people, usually 2-3 different people plus 1-2 moderators. It's not one person making a decision based on how one person feels, but the input of usually 3-5 people

[zealous lynx]

I understand that but the principle is that I explained I wasn’t griefing and I wasn’t believed and they stood by their decision. My different gameplay style caused a moderation therefore all gameplay styles like 8 cons should be adversely moderated if you hold that standard

I’m saying what’s the standard? And should pregame agreements be different? I doubt anything will change but is it not worth it to take a look at wtf we’re doing here and to not control the way someone plays a game?

[civic forum]

Bro is the most frequent boss abuser, modded many times (because he’s a menace) and muted in this discord I believe before. Ironically posts about boss abuse

[zealous lynx]

😂😂

[civic forum]

Just deal with it. You abuse all the time. That’s the game

[zealous lynx]

Abuse what? Lol

[civic forum]

You should accept your moderations as you said because you frequently break the rules

[zealous lynx]

I do, but you get moderated way more than me and you have nothing of value to add. But thank you for your feelings

[civic forum]

I got warned 1 time and it was because I told someone to uninstall bar (they were bad at it). That was not nice and I feel very sad about it.

You’ve been modded for cheating and boss abuse. You’re scum. We’re not the same

[zealous lynx]

I’ve never been moderated for cheating or boss abuse. Please refrain from mudslinging or personally attacking

[civic forum]

It’s in the mod bot. We can all see your cheating past. Stop lying

I assume you cheat because you know you can’t win legitimately

Get the whole discord call in here idgaf

[lost sphinx]

I can't see any boss abuse anywhere

[wintry mason]

Moderation log being public but tickets being private means that folks that would say someone is a cheater based on moderation log is a 1 sided story. I am a "cheater" cause i have moderation history regardless of context

[civic forum]

I don’t care dude I know how this guy behaves (like an animal btw) and the moderation records are all public

[zealous lynx]

Anyways I said what I said and I open for discussion, I doubt anything will change but see what happens

[wintry mason]

sounds like a personal issue and this thread isn't the place

[civic forum]

Naw it’s relevant to the thread dude is literally complaining about shit APE clan would do every day lol. The irony is funny

[wintry mason]

the thread is about moderation consistency of consequences for perceived griefing in the form of pregame agreements

[lost sphinx]

I think the point of this thread is to discuss a clear statement on how kicking people based on pregame agreements is handled?

I know of some very questionable bans, and very questionable unbans, so I'm afraid I can't say the overwatch team never banned someone for something they did because of pre-game agreements.

-# This isn't taking a shot at the overwatch team, ik y'all are volunteers and I appreciate the work you do. However sometimes the bans are unjustified compared to stuff that goes unpunished, so I am sceptical

[civic forum]

You struggle to read dude

#1446612257906753556 message

when you guys get modded for this I’m sure it’s because you’re using your fake rules to abuse the system. The mods know you do this so they mod you from time to time (they know you frequently break the rules)

[wintry mason]

personal attacks are also not helpful. You're making statements as if they are fact but if they were we wouldn't be having hte conversation

[civic forum]

It’s not personal it’s factual

[wintry mason]

I'm not posting the replay to the game mods are referencing because i'm trying to kepe specifics out of this thread

[zealous lynx]

Seems pretty personal for you to call out a clan

[civic forum]

You think this sounds smart but your sentence makes no sense. We’re having this conversation because I feel like it

[lost sphinx]

Personal attacks should be avoided here, because they are offtopic and do not contribute to the discussion.

"We're having this conversation because I feel like it" also sounds super douchebaggy, sorry.

[civic forum]

I don’t care

[wintry mason]

im not sure why you feel the need to participate, i'm not sure what your goal is here, would you like mods to shut down the thread?

[civic forum]

They prob will anyway because the thread was answered already by mods officially

[wintry mason]

Cause we can just reopen this thread if someone gets moderated again for subjective reasons but I think there was hope to get ahead of issues and avoid future moderation action
i dont think mods are interested in avoiding future moderation actions, given by how little care is given to make sure moderated individuals understand why they are banned and how to avoid being banned in the future

[civic forum]

Just open a ticket 🤡

No one cares when you guys get banned

It’s a reprieve for the community

[wintry mason]

tickets were closed without responding to questions

[civic forum]

Join that group of discord complainers (the misfits like u guys) you will fit in there well

[wintry mason]

I dont know what you're talking about, i'm just here to discuss my opinions on this topic

[zealous lynx]

If you want you’re part of the Ape discord too, you can hash out personal grievances there and we’d be happy to address them! We’re making some big waves as a highly active discord and welcomes anyone who wants to join

@civic forum I’m sorry whatever happened to you wronged you, but if you want message me on that discord I’d be happy to go over it with you

[civic forum]

I don’t want to be in a discord with a bunch of spec cheaters thanks tho

[wintry mason]

there are no spec cheaters in ape. full stop. There are enough active individuals to corroborate what goes on in that space, and its very active. Spec cheating is different from pre game agreements and is a very serious accusation that i dont take lightly

[civic forum]

you guys been modded for it and I’ve literally seen it happen

Just lame af for the #2 glitters clan. That’s supposed to mean something dawg

[grand pebble]

⚠ Warned grant_ps

[loud patio]

Main is a very public channel and bridged with the game. This means it is not the appropriate place for mud-slinging and complaints. If you want to appeal a moderation action then use the #open-ticket channel, if you think something needs to be done better use #suggestions (stuff in main gets lost very easily), if you want to report a player please do that via the report tools.

[wintry mason]

Just went through moderation log for [APE] Members and this isn't the case.

[civic forum]

#🛡️｜moderation-bot message

hello? stop lying

[silver wren]

I'm not even going to look it up to confirm this or not, as it's not relevant or appropriate to have that line of discussion in here

[wintry mason]

this moderation offense wasn't for privately sharing nonpublic information but leaking banter that happened from spectator in all chat, the moderation bot doesn't make the implication it does either, i think you're just linking it cause it says words

[civic forum]

That’s the mod they give you for spec cheat. Anyway it’s not the only one

[wintry mason]

i've already told you why its not applicable in this case.

i cant refute every false statement you make. I can only wish you didnt make them with such frequency

[silver wren]

We have 2 versions of spec cheat moderation messages. I'll clarify and then I'll need both of you to move on from semantics.

[civic forum]

I haven’t made 1 false statement is the thing. If you have 1 say it

[wintry mason]

@silver wren this accusation from thus is why this topic matters greatly to me. Yes I can tell myself that thus is uninformed, but as someone who prides themselves on making a postitive impact on the community, it is hurtful and damaging to have this public shaming in the form of the moderation log

[silver wren]

Version 1, which is used in the linked mod bot message is for when spectators yap too much in the peanut gallery.

Version 2, is used when we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're acting on information that wasn't shared in game. Which carries a steeper penalty.

[civic forum]

Anyway I’ve literally heard them hint gaming in a call. All this is sorta irrelevant I know they cheat lol

[wintry mason]

yeah, this distinction is helpful, and i would say the first i wouldn't even call "spec cheat" in the same way that version 2 would use cheat.

everyone knowing what information has been leaked with no intent to obfuscate that share of information inherently lessens the offense.

[silver wren]

I'm clearing up the link to #🛡️｜moderation-bot , and I'd appreciate dropping this line of attack @civic forum

If you feel your claims are accurate, report it through proper channels, but stop it in here

[wintry mason]

I'm still not clear if my last moderation action was considered version 2 ( i dont believe it was, but i'm not sure if the moderation team agrees which is part of the problem imo, i have the logs to show that the ticket was closed before questions were fully resolved)

[civic forum]

yeah we know you're not clear on if you cheat or not dawg. anyway bye

[wintry mason]

@silver wren he cant help himself

[grand pebble]

🔇 Muted grant_ps for 1 week

[silver wren]

Don't you hate it when someone asks you to do something, while you're in the process of doing it?

[wintry mason]

https://tenor.com/view/well-now-im-not-doing-it-well-now-im-not-gonna-dont-want-to-dont-wanna-not-going-to-gif-1832627252901708353

[silver wren]

I think the discussion before that was about gentlemen agreements being moderated or not, and what was the difference between the op and a previous moderation action?

Let me sticky a mod comment, then folks can suggest an actual change to the rules.

[zealous lynx]

Thank you

[oak iron]

Here I was thinking yesterday we were having a good conversation and I come back today and everything is on fire 🔥😂

[zealous lynx]

We were having a good conversation lol

[errant cloak]

I think some better system than the lobby name is needed, so people can't say that they didn't read the title.
And maybe even some custom kick vote if someone didn't follow the rules (that he can't join the game for more than 15 minutes).

btw I think the lobby is based to demand 8 t2 cons before t2 units there should be a setting enforcing that.

[frank canyon]

i think the experimental tech core feature will probably deal with the t1 t2 pacing issue for narrow commiemaps

[quiet plover]

does experimental tech core prevent corners from going fast t2? if so then it's not a good solution

[tawdry ridge]

one point i agree with Asian on is that we moderating people from doing "suboptimal strategy" when no one is actualy doing perfectly optimal strategy we all playing to have fun at the end of the day

[haughty bronze]

This is a bit of a bad faith argument. Behaviors arent limited to a single label. Griefing can often be considered suboptimal, but not all suboptimal play is griefing. And sometimes optimal play is griefing, like joining a lobby that says 8 t2 cons before units from tech, and spamming t2 units from tech. People are never getting moderated for "suboptimal play", and switching the label in this context just confuses the conversation, it doesnt help it.

The reality is, the longer a game exists, the more defined the meta becomes, and when its a large team game you end up having to sacrifice your right to creativity. Consider league, where there are 5 defined roles for ~4 play areas. Shouldn't that give the 5th player some flexibility? The answer is no, because the community solved that having that player mostly bot lane generally wins over every other playstyle. So the game began to prescribe that playstyle and punish you for deviating. Do off meta playstyles occasionally work? Yes, but even when they do, they force a team of 5 players to change their playstyle around 1, because if the other 4 play standard, they will lose.

Does not tech/air glitters work? Sometimes yeah, but it loses to optimally played air and tech everytime, and it only wins if 6 other players agree to lock into hyper aggressive all in play. Now if a group of 8 players consent to this, thats fine. But if one player says "no, this is how I play", its not genuine, because they are forcing 7 other players to also play "how they play". This is absolutely griefing, and your quest for fun isn't allowed to come at the expense of your teammates (this is why it is bannable to not resign an obviously lost game).

Ultimately I think you're asking for more clearly defined rules for separating griefing from suboptimal play, but trolls will consider rules as loopholes, so it is often dangerous to attempt to define what "bad behaviors" we are banning, as there are essentially infinite ways to play badly and very few to play well. And every system will have some amount of false positives, so we shouldnt call a system broken if it's once. If it's wrong too often, then we can re-examine, but there should be data to back that up. Judging from the strong personal reactions in this thread, it sounds like something at least griefing adjacent had occurred, so im not convinced we have a bad moderation epidemic.

[tawdry ridge]

theres no rank in bar people are playing for fun but theres a limit o_o thats as simple as that

and the limit is arbitrary chosed by mods
case by case

[zealous lynx]

I think this is good too and I see both sides because sometimes people are griefing and pass it off as suboptimal play cause they dislike a player or something. I think the beauty of this game is that it has so many more ways than league or moba style games that there are ways to win without the current meta. Even the current meta can be broken with the right amount of teamwork and timing.

But you’re right the focus is the moderation aspect of it. How can we better clearly define playing to grief be playing for fun. And my opinion is you shouldn’t be warned or moderated just by playing for fun in whatever form that looks like.

I just did a full eco game of mass t1 stouts backed by titans whereas my opponent tech turned on with early t3 and took another base. Was I trying my absolute hardest? Not really, did I have fun? Yeah it was pretty fun. Did someone get mad on my team and say stop trolling? They sure did. Did I end up winning anyway? Yes I did. If that person reported me and we lost I probably would’ve gotten moderated or considered for moderation.

[zealous lynx]

People do get moderated for suboptimal play, otherwise I wouldn't make this thread. I don't blame moderators on this, I think it's hard to find the distinction.

[quiet plover]

The CoC reason doesnt match the evidence used. The most common thing is throwing games reason on CoC but all the evidence used points to suboptimal strategies. You're not being moderated for playing suboptimally xD, you're being moderated for throwing and then we point at "suboptimal" strategies as the evidence.

I have been asked to explain how strategies I use are "valid". I have had to explain why using walls is not playing tower defense, why hover lab open is viable, why air transition is viable, andI have had to explain that placing blueprints doesnt necessarily mean I intend to build them (for manipulating patching logic)

[quiet plover]

The people who decide what is suboptimal are not skilled at the game or knowledgable.

[haughty bronze]

So im not very educated in this whole moderating drama, and so I can accept that perhaps I really dont understand the depth of this issue. Regarding Asain's example of mass t1 stout as an atypical tech strategy. He said "if I got reported and we lost, I probably would have gotten moderated". If that statement is true, then im fully on your side, moderators have no clue, and its ok for players to try goofy things even if it doesnt work, because on the flip side, when you queue up for 8 v 8 you are consenting to working with 7 people who dont think like you.

But im not ready to grab my pitch fork until ive seen evidence. It does sound like you are being told to avoid specifics in this thread, so I understand why it's been fairly vague.

The examples cookie gave are also vague. I guarantee you arent getting reported for building walls or going air. It is the context in which those things are happening.

What is your ask? That we clearly define what specific behaviors are throwing for the CoC and limit moderation to only that? Do you really think its possible to create an exhaustive list that cant be exploited? Is it not better to have a team with some judgement? If you are concerned they are unfair, then shouldnt we just try to create a better and more public appeal process?

[haughty bronze]

This is another useless labeling dispute. You claim the evidence of throwing is just suboptimal play. But by definition, all throwing will consist of suboptimal plays. So this isn't a good argument. You try to reframe it as merely suboptimal because you've correctly that not all suboptimal play is throwing. The moderators say "yeah but this griefing", and you (or someone else) is trying to say "no this is just having fun". But if someone is griefing, they are going to say they were just having fun, so again, this adds nothing to the argument.

If we really have an epidemic of unfair bans for being bad at the game, then lets compile the evidence and debate specifics as a community. But I can tell you based on the team mates I play with, it doesnt appear to me that we are making a habit of banning bad players.

[quiet plover]

but how do you measure that? success of the strat? when i was asked to explain why i went air transition a year ago, should i have copy pasted volshok's video? i even learned how to parse the replays to find i had a 51% success rate. then in the other suggestion thread i authored, it was revealed that apparently a major factor was that i was being reported a lot

i think this is getting off topic, i believe the appeals system should be made public, i still have no clue why its private. youre stating all these hypotheticals, im curious what you would say if you had access to some of these ticket logs. how do we measure griefing? if i go nuke rush and fail, i should be moderated? doesnt make sense. if i get moderated when playing in a shitter lobby while coaching 1 chev players over the course of hours, should i be moderated for playing suboptimally

[haughty bronze]

I don't think it can be measured with 100% reliability, and any attempt to measure it will result in creating protected loopholes for griefing. If we say nuke rush is a valid strategy, then someone who has never nuke rushed in their life will join a lobby with someone they dont like, build a nuke in a shitty timing, and then point to the CoC and say this was protected behavior.

Yes, if someone is reported often, the threshold for griefing goes down. Generally speaking, people worried about ensuring their behavior is protected by the CoC are probably playing like selfish dumbasses, and im not too concerned about trying to define which methods of griefing they are allowed to do.

Im not trying to propose hypotheticals, ive said I need more specific examples, and I also said it sounds like a public appeals process would help, so we agree there.

[zealous lynx]

Holding a tribunal wouldn’t be a bad idea, like League of legends old tribunal but then there would be a lot of bias

[zealous lynx]

How would you realistically suggest we go about this? I wouldn't make this thread post if there weren't moderations like this. But how many examples do I need to pull up to convince anyone or have any action take place?

Moderators are volunteers. They are people too and have bias. Some play the game some don't, I don't know. All I know is that it's not arbitrary and we have no visibility into that. I give them the benefit of the doubt that 90% of their moderations find true griefers, cheaters, and toxicity. But I don't have insight into their process, their teams skillsets, or qualifications, just experience. Like I said I'm more often on the side of the moderation team, but I disagree on moderation based on gameplay style. I'm not trying to forge pitchforks, I'm trying to hold some accountability. And if thats not possible, then I think we need some clear guidelines on suboptimal play vs griefing vs gameplay styles.

[sweet dome]

Pretty sure this guy got banned for “pre agreement” or something so now he’s trying to conflate it with anti coop lobby

Yeah he’s salty about this still and he’s a coop abuser so he’s mad about both anti coop and his ban

[quiet plover]

Lmao allegedly. The wall of shame has no evidence

[zealous lynx]

It was the same agreement as anti-coop so say what you wanna say lol but it’s the same thing. I just want to advocate for some change, don’t you?

And since you like to assume incorrectly we weren’t on the same team in that moderation, we were on opposite sides

[arctic flax]

My 0.02c is that ideally in a ranked game there should not be any sort of lobby enforced rules and that you should be able to use every tool at your disposal without worrying about breaking some code. There are players of many countries and you may even get players who can't read English to even understand the lobby rules.

However, that doesn't mean the normal rules of being able to b-kick for any reason in lobby don't apply. In game kicks for violating a gentlemans agreement that they may or may not have explicitly accepted (besides joining the lobby) are where it's really iffy for me personally.

[wintry mason]

https://bar-rts.com/replays/2f4bdb68e1ec0cafc8978a8c27d98dc0

I'll post the replay for you to make your own conclusions, however i think your post implies a lot of intent that is not present.

I wont speak for others but I, in good faith, dont know the fundamental difference between a game like the one above and the current implementation of gentlemans agreement that is taking place in glitters lobbies, at least to the extent that one was deemed coordinated trolling and had moderation repercussions and the other is an accepted way to conduct the lobby.

[sweet dome]

XD you guys just admit I’m exactly right. All I said was this post was you guys malding about that ban which is 100% true based on what you said. I should be a therapist can read you better than yourself

[tawdry ridge]

What's ur ign

[sweet dome]

Raigeki former rank 1 best player on the server. Wbu?

[wintry mason]

I dont think i'm agreeing with you

getting this energy from you though
https://tenor.com/view/he-admit-it-admit-it-admit-omg-itysl-gif-18470746

[sweet dome]

I say you’re mad about ban and conflating your ban with anti coop lobby. So to prove me wrong you link replay and say they’re the same thing?

[sweet dome]

" I dont know the fundamental difference between a game like the one above and the current implementation of gentlemans agreement that is taking place in glitters lobbies"

conflate - combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.

[robust cypress]

♿ thread

[wintry mason]

I only posted the replay in response to you posting asian and my warning and I was providing context

[wintry mason]

why did you post the definition of conflate? did you have to look it up?

[full flare]

I would recommend to keep anyone's personal moderation history out of this thread.

[sweet dome]

" I dont know the fundamental difference between a game like the one above and the current implementation of gentlemans agreement that is taking place in glitters lobbies"
"It was the same agreement as anti-coop so say what you wanna say lol but it’s the same thing"
yep just context no direct comparisons and attempted justifications

[tawdry ridge]

Mh just wondering bcs u talk a lot but never saw "jacool" play so ig if u rly raigeki it's OK

1st u lied
2nd u didnt played since 31th october 2025 lmao

ig too busy yaping and arguing instead of playing

[zealous lynx]

Omg it’s Raigeki lol I haven’t seen you in years

Honestly, Raigeki or not, you should be the biggest supporter of suboptimal play cause I’m pretty confident your play style is sacrifice teammates for afus. Plus don’t you get rank 1 from just smashing noobs over and over in rotato? Emre is my true rank 1

[zealous lynx]

I don’t think anyone is mad about anything, we’re just trying to have a conversation about a play style topic that stems from current lobbies today

[zealous lynx]

While they are not doing in game kicks, they are stopping the game and vote call banning them after

[arctic flax]

The only issue I personally have with that is that it could be construed as OS manipulation similar to stopping a game you're losing. That being said, there's plenty of ways that OS can be manipulated if people want to and if this is done by vote of the whole lobby VS by boss stop then I don't see it being to that level.

But I'm not mod so I'd defer to them on whether it is CoC violation or not.

[zealous lynx]

That's where we are at. It's not a CoC violation to stop the game and kick someone unless toxicity somewhere because it part of the game title preestablished. Also don't forget the entire lobby has to vote on it to stop, so if the vote does go through that means your team agreed on it too. Therefore the lobby favors rules over OS

[terse bear]

in my opinion this thread has reached a natural stopping point, no? i.e. the mods have weighed in and established:

1. public pregame agreements are (almost) always acceptable.
2. private pregame agreements are (almost) always unacceptable

[zealous lynx]

I like that a lot actually, I'll accept that if that's how moderation rules stand

Pregame Agreements-Resolved

[wintry mason]

and 3. In game private communication about non-public information (AN placement eg) is a separate infringement from (2)

I would also like to know how a line is established for 2, such as the hypothetical about players idly lamenting about wanting to passive afus instead of tryhard influencing them to be more likely to do so in subsequent games (see: prisoners dilemma)

'

[terse bear]

yeah looks like pooman did say something to that nature for your first paragraph, yeah

for the second paragraph, i’m not a mod, but worth mentioning that no one on the mod team has any idea what players talk about in private discords or similar. so my (non mod) opinion is that two players coincidentally going passive AFUS can’t be treated as conclusive proof on its own; there would have to be more

[quiet plover]

how would we know if there's more without public ticket appeals