I want to hear from high counsel
@xi0 @Evil3ye
Hello, since xi0 is not involved in this particular decision and Evil is probably afk, if you like, I can respond instead. You can tag others involved if you remain unsatisfied with my response.
To summarise, these rules lean heavily on the host's discretion. This is intended; the host is the one who has to deal with the players, manage the atmosphere, and handle conflicts. The new rules alleviate pressure from the Host; they do not have to ward anyone if they do not want to. They always could, tacitly, and now they can formally, too. It's not a demand the Host has to give in to; they simply can if they feel so. The host decides. And as always, if a host ever misuses that discretion, mods or the council can be consulted, but our culture has long relied on trust in the host to run a fair game.
Allowing “a portion of the player base” to object to someone’s participation is really vague. What counts as a portion two people? Half the players? And what happens if another portion of the player base wants that person to play? The wording opens the door to conflict instead of preventing it.
The phrasing is deliberately flexible. If we set a hard number or percentage, it would just create loopholes where disruptive players can still slip through. This way, hosts and mods can recognise when concerns are widespread enough without being forced into arbitrary thresholds. If they feel like one case or the other would negatively impact their game, they can choose on their own how to proceed. It’s still the host’s decision, and if it’s a borderline case, they can always consult the council or some other party before acting.
The same goes for the phrase “based on past gameplay.” That’s too ambiguous. Does it mean actual rule breaking, or just playstyle differences, grudges, or unpopular strategies? Without clear limits, it risks turning into a popularity contest rather than a fair standard.
The same applies here. This rule isn’t about grudges or disliking someone’s playstyle. It covers repeated patterns of disruptive behaviour across games. If we only act on current actions, we’re forced to let the same cycle of disruption repeat again and again. We have also had cases of toxic players returning after a while and still being the same type of player. The phrase covers those patterns, as waiting for fresh disruption every time just resets the cycle. And to be clear: one bad game, one unpopular decision, or one clash does not qualify. The host here decides if the hypothetical objecting player's argument has merit.
On top of that, it puts unnecessary pressure on the host. If some players demand that one person not be allowed in, the host may feel forced to exclude them even if they personally have no issue. That’s not really fair to the host or the excluded player.
Hosts should have the freedom to say no if enough players, or the hosts themselves, have genuine concerns. Including disruptive players at the expense of everyone else’s fun isn’t fair either; how many people should suffer through the toxic player being toxic again? What if the toxic player respects, or is nice to, certain people but not others? It's always been the case that hosts have to protect the players; it's just that without these rules, they had no tool they could use to ward off players. As I mentioned, we've had examples of this in the (recent) past. We just formalised this practice. So imo this actually takes off pressure from the host. Before, if they excluded someone, it could look like personal judgment. Now they have a clear rule to point to.
A healthier alternative might be to base decisions only on current disruptive actions, with hosts and mods stepping in as needed. That way, people who genuinely want to play in good faith still get a fair chance, while the game can still be protected if someone actually causes problems.
Hosts always have final discretion. And while mod oversight is technically always available, many mods play this game too, and acknowledge that, where these games are concerned, the host is the first authority. The hosts protect the game and the players. There have been cases where a mod had to step in, but these cases were outliers, and not something that commonly happens, if ever, with the regular core of players.
I will also say this: By the time someone is causing (serious) problems in the current game, it’s already too late tbh, the mood will be ruined, and the damage is done. Unlike, for example, the anime discussion threads, where you can walk away and return without affecting anything, players avoiding each other might actually disrupt the experience (especially if the avoided, disruptive player sits on an important role). It's a specific shared experience that one player's consistent and repeated bad behaviour can ruin. The host has to weigh this beforehand. This is a preventive measure, not a punishment
I think most of us want the mafia section to stay active and fun. but this rule update, as written, might unintentionally create more drama than it prevents.
The aim here is exactly what you said you wanted: to keep the section active and fun. Repeated disruption is a much bigger source of drama and damage to the game than drawing a line early. The update gives hosts the formal option to protect players’ enjoyment while still being fair. We just want everyone to have a good time and not let a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone else. Toxic players have come and gone, and our lil sub community still is fine. Evidently, warding off disruptive elements consistently has been a good thing, not a bad thing. And the fact that we’ve weathered such situations before is proof that preventive action strengthens activity rather than weakens it.
We have spent a lot of time discussing this both interally and with other hosts/players, and we're always open for feedback. We'd never implement rules we thought were worse for our community.
I need in that blackmail secret. Spill the beans! Or the peas.
