Werewolf Ethics

[Abe Sargent]

I thought between the big games might be a good time to post a thread. I wanted to discuss various ethical issues that may arise in WW games, and what you guys think are the right call in certain circumstances. We've had ethical issues before (what happens if I cam pm'd in game by someone who can't do that, what happens if I am included on a pm accidetally from the other side, how far can gentle harassing and abuse go before its too far, etc).

I know I have a blanket moral law I personally stand by, and I wanted to mention it here:

No matter what is happening in game, no matter what team I am on, I never, ever lie about real life stuff.

I can lie about anything in game, but making up stories about being sick, going to work, and so forth is, for me personally, outside the boundaries.


What other thoughts do you folks have?

[saldana]

i like that law, and although i never made is part of my official werewolf creedo, i have always abided by it.

[Schmidty]

No offense, but I don't see the preachy point of this point. Good, honest people, are honest. Dishonest people are dishonest by nature. No post about ethics, or etiquette is going to make a "bad" person into a "good" person.

Who's going to say, "You know what - I'm going to change my ways because I'm a cheating, unpleasant jackass, and now I see the light." No. Everyone, even the dishonest jerks, is going to say, "I'm honest, and we need everyone to be honest!!!".

I guess what I'm saying is that you, or whoever, can stand at the pulpit, preach ethics and come up with more rules, but it won't do a damned bit of good. Character is how a person chooses to act when nobody's looking, and no matter what rules are in place, a person with bad character is going to cheat and lie with an seemingly honest smile on their face.

I just got off work, and I'm tired and cynical right now.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

No offense, but I don't see the preachy point of this point. Good, honest people, are honest. Dishonest people are dishonest by nature. No post about ethics, or etiquette is going to make a "bad" person into a "good" person.

Who's going to say, "You know what - I'm going to change my ways because I'm a cheating, unpleasant jackass, and now I see the light." No. Everyone, even the dishonest jerks, is going to say, "I'm honest, and we need everyone to be honest!!!".

I guess what I'm saying is that you, or whoever, can stand at the pulpit, preach ethics and come up with more rules, but it won't do a damned bit of good. Character is how a person chooses to act when nobody's looking, and no matter what rules are in place, a person with bad character is going to cheat and lie with an seemingly honest smile on their face.

I just got off work, and I'm tired and cynical right now.

There are a lot of times where it really is a question of the concensus opinion as opposed to "good" or "bad" character. (e.g. is it Ok to check the Who's Online list?)

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

No offense, but I don't see the preachy point of this point. Good, honest people, are honest. Dishonest people are dishonest by nature. No post about ethics, or etiquette is going to make a "bad" person into a "good" person.

Who's going to say, "You know what - I'm going to change my ways because I'm a cheating, unpleasant jackass, and now I see the light." No. Everyone, even the dishonest jerks, is going to say, "I'm honest, and we need everyone to be honest!!!".

I guess what I'm saying is that you, or whoever, can stand at the pulpit, preach ethics and come up with more rules, but it won't do a damned bit of good. Character is how a person chooses to act when nobody's looking, and no matter what rules are in place, a person with bad character is going to cheat and lie with an seemingly honest smile on their face.

I just got off work, and I'm tired and cynical right now.

I disagree. I think that peer pressure can do a lot in the game. If we all abide by the rules, even a dishonest person is going to play honestly because of peer pressure.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I disagree. I think that peer pressure can do a lot in the game. If we all abide by the rules, even a dishonest person is going to play honestly because of peer pressure.

I disagree with that. A rat is a rat. Pretending to bow to peer pressure is one thing, actually following through is another.

From what I've seen, negative peer pressure is the only kind that actually work.

Off to bed. For reals,

[hoopsguy]

I don't think the conversation necessarily should be limited to "good people" vs "bad people". Hopefully the vast majority of the people who play here have the best of intentions to play the game the right way. Confusion does sometimes emerge over what is considered ethical play.

Example - Dodgerchick had a run on her in Day 1 in a game because she alluded to PM'ing another player. Obviously communication between players about the game is expressly forbidden (if they are not both wolves) but does that mean that you cannot communicate with FOFC people at all during the game? What is the ethical answer to a question like this?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I don't think the conversation necessarily should be limited to "good people" vs "bad people". Hopefully the vast majority of the people who play here have the best of intentions to play the game the right way. Confusion does sometimes emerge over what is considered ethical play.

Example - Dodgerchick had a run on her in Day 1 in a game because she alluded to PM'ing another player. Obviously communication between players about the game is expressly forbidden (if they are not both wolves) but does that mean that you cannot communicate with FOFC people at all during the game? What is the ethical answer to a question like this?

I think the issue was that DC was gonna PM DT to remind him to check on the game. I personaly don't mind this but I can see how someone could look down on this action.

[Tyrith]

I've had the same thought as Anxiety more than once recently. And I completely agree with him now, too.

[Alan T]

I think many of us have become online friends from playing in these games together over time, so I am sure many of us IM or PM with each other throughout the week about all kinds of topics ranging from Tom Brady to Titan Quest to Teacher qualifications in dual-immersion schools. If we end up in a game together with one of our friends whom we PM or IM with, I don't think anyone expects you to totally cut off communication with each other. This also is the case for people who are RL friends such as Saldana and Lathum, or couples like Goldeneagle and LSG.

I would assume we all want to keep the games fair and fun though, so we all know better to keep our conversations via IM, PM, RL or whatever with these people to non-game discussions though. I didn't think anything bad about DC saying she was going to remind Daddy about the game.

I think Schmidty is right that cheaters will always find ways to try to cheat.. its just who they are, but I hope we have a community of people who enjoy playing the game to have fun, and not necessarily "win". I don't remember who won every game I ever played in, but I remember alot of the fun moments from those games.

[hoopsguy]

Lathum, that is kind of the point of an ethics thread - to pose questions where intelligent people who want to play the game the right way can discuss content that might have shades of gray.

Here is another one - as the moderator of the last game I frequently had AIM discussions with players as they deliberated on their actions. I made strenuous efforts not to reveal any kind of information that would aid them in their process or give details about the game that they should not be privy to, but does this line of communication create an unfair advantage? Does the fact that my AIM info is publically available with my FOFC account matter when evaluating this question?

[path12]

I just assume that everyone is honest. I mean, really, it's a game -- and although it is fun to win, the fact is that you're going to lose/die more often in WW than not. I guess I just don't understand someone who would take this seriously enough to cheat.

That said, it is a game where you have to lie at times, and I think Anxiety's original thought is a good one -- the lies should remain in game only.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Lathum, that is kind of the point of an ethics thread - to pose questions where intelligent people who want to play the game the right way can discuss content that might have shades of gray.

Here is another one - as the moderator of the last game I frequently had AIM discussions with players as they deliberated on their actions. I made strenuous efforts not to reveal any kind of information that would aid them in their process or give details about the game that they should not be privy to, but does this line of communication create an unfair advantage? Does the fact that my AIM info is publically available with my FOFC account matter when evaluating this question?

I would assume that it doesn't really give an unfair advantage. As you know this game, even though I have your and Tyrith's AIM info, I probably PM'd back and forth about 10 times trying to understand things to do with my passive abilities and such. In the end, I ended up just IMing stuff instead as PMs get tedious to ask questions. I personally doubt that I would ask questions over IM that I wouldn't ask over PM though. I don't have any problems PMing questions when I have them. I just leave it up to the GM of the game to determine if they should be answered or not. Same thing happens to my AIM questions, I leave it in their hands how to answer the questions.

[Lorena]

Honesty is a really big thing with me and the more games I play, the more I'm changing my style in an effort to not blatanly lie in the event I'm finally a wolf.

As far as the IM message to DT, I was a little taken aback because those whom I talk to on a regular basis know that I would never do anything to gain advantage and I'm sorry if some thought of it as cheating.

But no, I never lie about real life stuff, I think that's out of bounds.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Honesty is a really big thing with me and the more games I play, the more I'm changing my style in an effort to not blatanly lie in the event I'm finally a wolf.

As far as the IM message to DT, I was a little taken aback because those whom I talk to on a regular basis know that I would never do anything to gain advantage and I'm sorry if some thought of it as cheating.

But no, I never lie about real life stuff, I think that's out of bounds.

I tend to be really honest as a wolf. Sometimes too honest.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Honesty is a really big thing with me and the more games I play, the more I'm changing my style in an effort to not blatanly lie in the event I'm finally a wolf.

I'm honest to a fault in real life. But I played Diplomacy via email for years before I ever started playing WW, so I became well-versed in the idea of in-game deception..... Also, sometimes if you don't want to flat out lie omission can be your friend......

[st.cronin]

- I don't think it is unethical to lie during a werewolf game, since I think in most cases no actual advantage is gained. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of a case where this happened. I don't do it, myself, since I don't see any advantage.

- I have pmed players when in a game about stuff that had nothing to do with the game. I think that's fine, as well. There is an obvious line there. If I'm playing a game with Blade, and he pms me to ask about ski slopes in Santa Fe, that's fine. If he pms me to ask if I think Lathum is a wolf, that's obviously not fine.

[LoneStarGirl]

I think Werewolf Ethics is an oxymoron.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by LoneStarGirl

I think Werewolf Ethics is an oxymoron.

I like you.

[LoneStarGirl]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I like you.

I have always had a thing for green hairy men

[Lathum]

I think things like looking to see who is online at certain times is unethical. In regards to peoples relationships they are just gonna have to be trusted. Sal and I have never talked about the game unless it is something one of us has posted and I have never seen any indication GE and LSG have violated any laws of ethics. I frequently aim alan, DC, barkeep, hoops and others. I think it is asking alot for people to cut off communication because of the game

[Schmidty]

PEOPLE AIM PEOPLE? WHY HULK GET NO AIM???!!!!!!!!!

HULK SAYS, GO TO HELL!!!!!!!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

PEOPLE AIM PEOPLE? WHY HULK GET NO AIM???!!!!!!!!!

HULK SAYS, GO TO HELL!!!!!!!

dude, because you're a wanker

[Abe Sargent]

Now here's an ethical question we've had before, and it's one side that I've personally been on the opposite of many.

Do you vote to lynch a person on Day One for failure to check in.

My admittedly loose rule is to not punish a person for what may be a real life issue - not receiving a pm, somethign coming up for a day in an emergency fashion, and so forth. Now, there are extenuating circumstances, such as someone who has agreed to be in the game and posting in a bunch of other forums but not here despite several pms, but that's not the normal case.

Do you vote for the no show on Day One?


-Anxiety

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Now here's an ethical question we've had before, and it's one side that I've personally been on the opposite of many.

Do you vote to lynch a person on Day One for failure to check in.

My admittedly loose rule is to not punish a person for what may be a real life issue - not receiving a pm, somethign coming up for a day in an emergency fashion, and so forth. Now, there are extenuating circumstances, such as someone who has agreed to be in the game and posting in a bunch of other forums but not here despite several pms, but that's not the normal case.

Do you vote for the no show on Day One?


-Anxiety

I usualy don't but I wouldn't fault anyone for doing so.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Now here's an ethical question we've had before, and it's one side that I've personally been on the opposite of many.

Do you vote to lynch a person on Day One for failure to check in.

My admittedly loose rule is to not punish a person for what may be a real life issue - not receiving a pm, somethign coming up for a day in an emergency fashion, and so forth. Now, there are extenuating circumstances, such as someone who has agreed to be in the game and posting in a bunch of other forums but not here despite several pms, but that's not the normal case.

Do you vote for the no show on Day One?


-Anxiety

I usualy don't but I wouldn't fault anyone for doing so.

[Blade6119]

I can say that i talk with at least 8-9 people who play WW outside of WW. I have come to respect quite a few people through this game, and have great discussions with them on things ranging from politics to love to how much we all despise alan .

I think communicating with other players, whether a game is going or not, is fine. Just make sure the communications arent about the game. During the last game sack and i had a rather involved discussion about an issue i was having in my real life. We were both alive, and on opposite sides, but the game never came up. It was simply a friendly conversation between two people.

I talk quite regularly to quite a few players in this forum(and former players who have not come over), and i see no ethical reason for me to stop. We know what we can talk about, and what we cant. I dont see why a WW game going on should prevent me from asking dodgerchick how her day is going or talking to ardent about his personal issues(and our co-dynastys we run sometimes).

Thats just me, but i have relationships on this board bigger then WW. I dont see why it should disrupt those

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Do you vote to lynch a person on Day One for failure to check in.

Yes. Fuck 'em (sorry, but I like to swear, so deal)*.

It's just a game, so if something is serious enough that they can't get there, then obviously a game isn't a big deal. Which is cool. WW shouldn't be that big of a deal.

People get voted off everyday, and I guarantee that people say, "Oh, I forgive blah-blah for not being here, but......", and still vote out Blah-blah because he/she isn't there to bitch about the vote.

So just be fucking honest and vote for them, and me, out. Especially Blade. Not because he's good or bad, but because he's Blade.




*That's another thing - If I ever have to play in another game where I can't say "fuck" or "shit", or "ass", I will not play. THESE ARE EXPLETIVES PEOPLE!!!!!!!! THEY HAVE THE SAME BASIC MEANING AS "FRICK", "CRAP",and "BUTT" THEY ARE FILLERS!!!!!!! THAT'S ALL A FUCKING EXPLETIVE IS!!!!!!!! IT'S A MID-SENTENCE EXCLAIMATION POINT!!!!! IF SOMEONE APPLIES MORE MEANING TO THE WORD, THAT SHOULD BE THEIR OWN PROBLEM!!! DO THESE EXCLAIMATION POINTS AT THE END OF MY SENTENCES OFFEND YOU???? NO???? THEN THE WORD "FUCK" SHOULDN'T EITHER!!!!!!

It is so unbelievably unintelligent to confuse meaning with non-directive exclaimations. America needs to grow up. Fuck, it's ok to say "goddamn" in a PG-13 movie, but if you say "fuck", it's an R rating. What a stupid, fucking rule. One other note, if this post gets changed, I will never play again. Dictators.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Now here's an ethical question we've had before, and it's one side that I've personally been on the opposite of many.

Do you vote to lynch a person on Day One for failure to check in.

My admittedly loose rule is to not punish a person for what may be a real life issue - not receiving a pm, somethign coming up for a day in an emergency fashion, and so forth. Now, there are extenuating circumstances, such as someone who has agreed to be in the game and posting in a bunch of other forums but not here despite several pms, but that's not the normal case.

Do you vote for the no show on Day One?


-Anxiety

I don't have any problem voting for someone who hasn't checked in. There are exceptions though. If someone says they aren't going to be there ahead of time for whatever reason, like Raiders did in Hoops game just recently, I don't go after them.

If its a case where someone is on the forums, got their PM but just hasn't checked in though, I have no problems voting for someone who isn't going to be active playing. Like Schmidty says, if something is going on in their RL, I doubt they care too much about getting voted off in a WW game.

No one likes getting voted off on day 1, the only real thing I try to do on day 1 is not vote off someone who has gotten voted off a ton recently unless they just make some bad slip up or something.

[Thomkal]

I agree with you Anxiety about the no lying about real life stuff. Pissed me off in one game where I had a migraine and posted I wouldn't be on much that day because of it because I thought my fellow players deserved to know why I wasn't posting, and then have some of them wondering if I was making it up to protect myself. Grrrr.

I hate it when a person gets voted off on Day 1 for not posting. More than likely they didn't get a PM, had internet problems, real life issues, etc. that prevented them from posting. If they don't start posting on Day 2 though, I hope the mod is looking for a replacement or they are probably fair game for a lynching.

[Alan T]

Like I said though, everyone hates getting voted off on day1. It stinks getting excited about a new game only to have your time in it shortened. Thats one of the biggest reasons why I often try to create a game that doesn't even have a day 1 lynch built in. No one enjoys it.

I just don't think its fair to give someone else a free pass by day 1 when they are in the off-topic section of the forum posting about things but didn't come to post in the WW thread. If someone says ahead of time that they will be gone, like Raiders just did in Hoops' game then I usually don't vote for them. (In hoops' game I even advocated for people backing off him when he got some pressure on day 2, so I am not entirely cold hearted)

[path12]

I have no problem with voting someone off day 1 who hasn't checked in -- with the exception as mentioned that someone has stated in advance that they won't be there for some reason. I hate day 1 votes anyway and would rather toss mine that way then to someone who is participating in the discussion (though I tend to try and stay away from talking too much day 1).

[st.cronin]

There are few day 1s where there is a legitimate reason to vote for anybody.

[Abe Sargent]

Well, we had another ethical issue happen in the current big game last night. After the game, we can talk more about it

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Well, we had another ethical issue happen in the current big game last night. After the game, we can talk more about it

understatement of the year

[st.cronin]

This has been an ethically challenging game, to say the least.

[Abe Sargent]

Bump for a full discussion, with kid gloves off, of AE's actions in this past game.

[st.cronin]

AE's actions weren't really about ETHICS, were they? I understand people wanting to talk about what he did, but there were enormous ethical violations in this game that had nothing to do with ae. Even after the Dodgerchick revelation, I saw guests logged into the werewolf forum on a regular basis, especially at night.

[st.cronin]

dola

Also, GE referred to cheating which I don't know what he was talking about, but it surely wasn't AE.

[Tyrith]

I think there's certainly an ethical aspect to what AE did, and my argument is very simple.

If you can't control what you're doing anymore, and you're going to make the game less fun for everyone else, you should probably excuse yourself from the game.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I think there's certainly an ethical aspect to what AE did, and my argument is very simple.

If you can't control what you're doing anymore, and you're going to make the game less fun for everyone else, you should probably excuse yourself from the game.

I definitely agree with that. One thing to keep in mind is that at least twice before his meltdown, he tried to quit. Both times he was talked out of it.

[Barkeep49]

I guess I'm real uncomfortable bashing on a particular person. If there are lessons that can be learned from the game, by all means let's discuss them. But clearly AE was not himself when he was removed from the game. I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to say about that, or something that we could learn as either players or GMs. Am I wrong?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I definitely agree with that. One thing to keep in mind is that at least twice before his meltdown, he tried to quit. Both times he was talked out of it.

He was talked out of it 1 time. The other time was a "I'll either go or Tyrith needs to go" situation. Tyrith very graciously agreed to step down in that case.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I guess I'm real uncomfortable bashing on a particular person. If there are lessons that can be learned from the game, by all means let's discuss them. But clearly AE was not himself when he was removed from the game. I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to say about that, or something that we could learn as either players or GMs. Am I wrong?

No, I agree completely.

[Lathum]

I have no problem discussing things but it worries me that people may " take sides"

[Lathum]

I will say this much. I have opened over 60 new TGI Fridays restaurants as a trainer. Obviously when you are training a staff of over 100 people one thing you must do is point out peoples mistakes. Early in my career I would walk around and say " that's wrong!!" and " You're not doing it right!!" and I would wonder why the trainee's didn't like me and were reluctent to aproach me. Not only did it hinder their learning expierience but it made the enviorment less fun.

As I gained more expierience I learned it was best to ask people WHY they were doing what they were and eventually learned that 90% of the time people didn't even know they were doing something wrong. It became obvious that it was beneficial to everyone to figure out "why" they were doing something wrong then just point it out in an accusing manor.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I will say this much. I have opened over 60 new TGI Fridays restaurants as a trainer. Obviously when you are training a staff of over 100 people one thing you must do is point out peoples mistakes. Early in my career I would walk around and say " that's wrong!!" and " You're not doing it right!!" and I would wonder why the trainee's didn't like me and were reluctent to aproach me. Not only did it hinder their learning expierience but it made the enviorment less fun.

As I gained more expierience I learned it was best to ask people WHY they were doing what they were and eventually learned that 90% of the time people didn't even know they were doing something wrong. It became obvious that it was beneficial to everyone to figure out "why" they were doing something wrong then just point it out in an accusing manor.

If this is about the way Tyrith was accused, I agree. If this is about something else, I don't know what you mean.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If this is about the way Tyrith was accused, I agree. If this is about something else, I don't know what you mean.

take it for what it is worth.

[hoopsguy]

I really don't understand the questioning of the "Guest" access - there are guests at FOFC all the time. There are guests on the WW forum at least half of the time I am visiting.

I do think it would be an underhanded way of reading the off-limit threads in Barkeep's last game, but I believe that the vast majority of guests were people without FOFC accounts who are checking out the site rather than someone angle-shooting in this instance.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I really don't understand the questioning of the "Guest" access - there are guests at FOFC all the time. There are guests on the WW forum at least half of the time I am visiting.

I do think it would be an underhanded way of reading the off-limit threads in Barkeep's last game, but I believe that the vast majority of guests were people without FOFC accounts who are checking out the site rather than someone angle-shooting in this instance.

That's certainly possible, and I didn't bring it up during the game (after the DC thing) partly for that reason. Also, apparently, there's no way to prevent it in the future, if a similar mechanism comes into play.