I know from previous threads that everyone here has read the CoC, so lets get right into it. The most relevant part of the TLDR is:
Play in a way that is respectful to your team.
Essentially, it is a team game. Most people put some level of time and effort into their team winning the game, and expect their teammates to respect this effort by putting in some effort themselves. This is simply something the moderators have noticed about public team games in this community. It's an impression built up by years of threads, reports, conversations, and drama. We shouldn't be surprised by this since many other online games appear to have a similar standard.
To come at it another way, a player who is the kind of teammates that many people actively do not want on their team is a problem, regardless of the cause. There are obvious issues, such as fighting or drama within a team, but the more insidious issue is that of people spectating rather than playing just to avoid a particular teammate. The overall result is that the agreeable people filter out until the community is comprised of abrasive/disrespectful people and a few agreeable people with particularly thick skin. This is especially bad for attracting new players but is also not the type of community I want to participate in. Besides, in my experience there are more agreeable people than abrasive people, so going the "nice community" route is better for the size of the community.
This sounds like a slippery slope argument, but from my experience it accurately describes a lot of the internet. In short, communities tend towards toxicity unless moderated.
To move on to specifics, here is the game in question: B1230627 14 on Akilon Wastelands ZK v1
The minimum standard of play is really quite low, and attitude plays a big part in it. Remember, we're not making up an arbitrary standard of play, we're trying to learn what the average player will accept from their teammates and moderate to that level. Being responsive and communicative while pursuing a weird strategy is much more likely to make your team happy with it. Saying the following in response to explicit requests to not make ships is the opposite:
MrTumnus added point: THEY WILL NOT HARM ME
Here is what happened in the game. A few members of the team asked MrTumnus
to not go ships. His only response was the marker quoted above. He then makes Mariner, takes and grids some safe mexes, makes some turrets that are countered, and spams Hunter to deal with lobbed Halberd. By the end he has 1% of the team's value killed, and by that point in time it is unclear if it is deliberate.
The team is essentially down a player, and with his rank and experience in a 7v7 the game is very hard for the rest of the team. The pregame communication shows that enough players on the team didn't want this to happen, and the response from MrTumnus
gave those players little hope of being able to talk about it. This falls under playing in a way that disrespects the team.
The communication here is vital. If MrTumnus
had said "Can I try ship tricks" and the team responded with "sure", or even no response in such an edge case as this, then the team would have accepted the strategy. As it is, members of the team predicted what would happen, requested to not play the resulting game, and had that request denied. Such a request has weight because players have the right to play without their efforts being invalidated by a teammate screwing around. Again, this isn't a right arbitrarily imposed on the community. Many players demand this right to some extent, so it was put in the CoC enforced.
The moderator response was a kick from the room once the game ended. This has a duration of five minutes, so at worst it causes the recipient to miss the next game. I empathise with the OP though, as any penalty stings, and feedback about behaviour is hard to take on at the best of times. This possibly should have been a formal warning rather than a post-game kick, but I wasn't there and things are always clearer in hindsight. I don't know what everyone knew or was thinking, or the state of the battle room post-game. I don't know what was said or done in previous games that day. I can say that the kick was made with the intent to curb a behaviour that the moderators agree is an issue, and not with the intent to bully or abuse. Situations can always be handled better, but we're in agreement that it is the type of situation that should see some sort of moderation.
, I apologise to the extent that a kick rather than a warning affected you, with the hindsight from the discussion in #zk. I think this case was an outlier but we will try to err a bit more on the side of warnings.
I doubt that It will get seen by anyone and I don't care anymore, I've had 24 hours to think about stuff and even gave the mod a chance to approach me to open conversation, instead they just lurked in the team games lobby as a spectator and did not make any contact.
I was not aware that you needed further conversation. You had a long discussion in #zk shortly after the event and seemed to go back to playing as usual. As far as I'm aware most of what I have said was covered there, but I am writing this in case it wasn't an also as a resource for the future.
In general, the moderators do not have the time to spend hours on publicly discussing every minor penalty over multiple days in multiple channels. This is even covered by the CoC.
5. Respect Moderator Actions
Moderator arbitration is intended to resolve disputes, not prolong them; as such, we expect you to respect and abide by their decisions...
I would be concerned by patterns in moderation rather than individual cases. If you thought the community was almost entirely kick-free before, then it is still almost entirely kick-free. And yes, obviously people have "gotten away with" worse without any penalty. Moderation is always going to be spotty and base on judgement calls in a grey area such as this. Success looks like people complaining about over-moderation and under-moderation at the same time, not an absence of complaints. The situation would be improved by more reports and more active moderators.
Finally to the elephants in the room. mrdetonation
(and possibly nop
), you pile in to every thread like this. I don't know if we have a fundamental disagreement about the goals of moderation or if you just have a barrow to push. As far as I can tell, we've already talked about everything you have to say. I am not going to respond to you at this time because I have learnt it is a waste of time. Please stop blowing everything out of proportion.