someone has a head between their shoulders

Far from it. I made a very detailed thread about how the average player has at least a half dozen TOS violations. If the rules are going to diverge that hard from what is actually enforced, then that's the same as them not being defined in the first place. It goes back to being a game of Mao where we have to guess what we would actually get warned, suspended, or banned for.

This was basically what I was trying to say. The ToS are pretty clear. They just don't get enforced, or get enforced selectively at best when it comes to minor breaches of them. Hence a lot of players having multiple ToS violations. It's not necessarily the rules we should think about, but the enforcement of them.

Farah has Complaining About inconsistency in the rules and the enforcement of said rules

the mods have invaded the chat, guess we don't have any other option then fizzer heil

Rick, I think Fizzer is just a busy guy. Look at the speed at which he responds to bug reports and fixes bugs. He'll probably read the thread 'cause he lurks everywhere but skim it and miss details. So we probably just need to make things more concise if we want to get our feedback across to him.

I see this as a structural challenge with good intentions on all sides getting lost in some communication noise.

The official Warzone rules are here: https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Rules

A subset version of this is presented to new users, but the wiki page is the official source. The terms of service is more of a legal document for use in lawsuits, in case that ever happened. The mods use the wiki page for enforcement.

To inconsistency in enforcement: We always look at a player's history when determining whether something is a violation. Something minor might be a warning to someone who's never been warned before, but a suspension to a player who's been warned for similar behavior multiple times in the past.

This is intentional, and it's also how the real-time justice system works. A repeat offender is more likely to go to jail for a crime than a first-time offender doing the same thing.

Many years ago I used to process every report myself. As Warzone grew, however, this became possible, so thankfully now we have a team of volunteer moderators that have been willing to help out. They have my undying gratitude, as it's not a fun job.

The first thing I tell every moderator is to review the rules page linked above. This is in effort to ensure enforcement is as consistent as possible. However, whenever you have multiple people there will always be differences. You can always appeal a decision directly to me, and I will review it. Ususally when this happens I look up the person's chat and I find some of the most disguising racist language you can imagine, and I wonder why this person appealed. But occasionally I disagree with a moderator's decision, and in that case I reverse the decision and discuss it with the moderator and they correct their behavior. If the moderator continues making bad decisions they can lose their moderator job. Over time this corrects moderation and should make it consistent.

The thought that someone is punished for criticizing a game is laughable. You may be referring to instances where players were insulting other players for enjoying a game. Imagine if a new player asks a question like, "What are wastelands?" and ten people jump on them and tell them to quit playing the game and insinuate that they're dumb for playing it. That's the very definition of a toxic community and I'm sure everyone would agree that kind of behavior should not be allowed.

Fizzer is changing Srechko's Modern Europe (https://www.warzone.com/Map/11077-Modern-Europe) from a level requirement of 5 to 54

That never happened. The only time I ever set a level requirement of a map was when levels were first introduced. I'm not sure if this map was one of the ones that got set but that wouldn't have been changing "from 5" since no levels even existed before that. If it changed, it means the map maker did it.

he also said around the same time he was working on a feature to let players join mid game

Also a lie. I'm always very careful never to say I'm working on or going to deliver a feature until I'm 100% sure I will deliver it.

Another would be you getting in trouble for naming a game "lotto" rather than "lottery."

Warzone has a feature that allows you to hide lottery games for those who aren't interested in seeing them. The only way it knows if a game is a lottery game is by looking for the word "lottery" in the title. So by misspelling the name, you're bypassing the check. A better solution to this would be to have a "Is lottery game" checkbox you could check while creating games, then you could name it whatever you want.

the biggest change of them all was Idle. Again, we saw a mixed reaction

There's going to be people who like and dislike every feature. But that's OK, as new features added are optional. Don't like Local Deployment? Don't play it. Don't like multi-attack? Don't like idle? Fine, they're optional features. Previous features didn't break.

It's fine to be critical of the decisions I make -- that was the situation I was in before I created this game. I was playing other games and didn't like their UI or the design of their game. I thought I could do better. So I did. Maybe one of you will make your own game one day. If you're lucky, you'll be successful, then you can deal with your audience criticizing your features.

We love Fizzer snapping (and this game ofc <3)

Fizzer's reply to this thread is an automatic contender for thread post of the year. It seethes what I am sure how every longtime player feels about the nature of the accusations on this thread.

Even if I myself don't find much enjoyment out of the game itself anymore, you have made an amazing experience fizzer, especially considering the indie nature of this game.

The thought that someone is punished for criticizing a game is laughable.

Fizzer isn't running an authoritarian government, he is running a game. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose from this sort of behavior. He has monetary incentive to improve the game, so he definitely appreciates constructive feedback from the users of his product.

If it changed, it means the map maker did it.

Yep, fizzer grants map creators sole control of when a map is unlocked. I don't see why he would ever have the need to change map unlock levels himself. If you wish to complain about map unlock levels, bring it to the attention of the map creator, not fizzer.

Edited 3/26/2021 19:55:48

TL;DR: Thanks for taking the time to skim and respond to some of the points. However, if you read the thread more thoroughly, you'll notice that the points you made were ones that everyone had already responded to. Below I've outlined 3 concrete places where the rules could be cleared up to be more predictable, as well as reiterated my request for more mods so we can benefit from consistent and reliable enforcement.

Like I've said, the criticism in this thread isn't asking you to overhaul the system, only make some very minor adjustments that will have big quality-of-life impact for the subset of users inordinately impacted by and consequently frustrated with moderation. Some readers of this thread speaking against these minor requests seem to be missing the point that we are not criticizing Fizzer or the overall site, only providing feedback on a frustrating experience that could be fixed with trivial patches. Not everyone's moderation experience is the same (due to the understaffing problem), so a lot of players have gotten away with things that would have gotten others warned/suspended- and seem to be making the logical leap that their mild, positive experience invalidates others' documented frustrations.

Thanks again.

---

The official Warzone rules are here: https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Rules A subset version of this is presented to new users...

Thanks for your response, Fizzer, but I'd appreciate it if you cleared up a few issues with that document that have been highlighted in this thread (which, if you read more closely, was entirely responsive to your statement before you made it).

It's also important to note that additional rules exist in the Warzone terms of service

What are these additional rules, exactly? Like you said, the TOS is broader than the actual rules. We know that the Rules in the wiki are official rules, that's great. We also know that there are additional rules but those are undefined. Players have been warned, suspended, or banned for rule violations not in that Rule list*, so it's of great importance that those additional rules actually be clearly defined in one place. This is the challenge of the "common sense" appeal that I was talking about.

Finally, there's a recent rule change that multiple players have asked you to clarify:

You shall not operate more than one Warzone account that participates in the same game, tournament, ladder, clan war, or in any way gives you an advantage or gives you points or coins.

(emphasis mine)

In the past, Warzone has been fine with players having multiple accounts on the same team in the 3v3 ladder, for example. Today it's unclear, with the rewording, whether that's still acceptable.

* Off the top of my head, here's some sources of unclarity/subjectivity with the rules that I would greatly appreciate if you fixed:

You shall be respectful to other players at all times.

This is a rule that polices intent, not action. Players have very different ideas of what counts as disrespectful behavior. For example, joking on someone's clan thread (that you have rapport with) about their unclear prerequisite did not occur to me as disrespectful, but it clearly was disrespectful enough for you to ban me for. It would be great if we even had examples to work with of what counted as disrespectful.

Racist language, personal attacks, excessive profanity, or offensive language will not be tolerated.

What is "excessive" profanity, exactly? Nauz and Dan and others can attest to being able to repeatedly use full profanity with a low rate of getting warned for it. Meanwhile, Kenghis Ghan got a warning for using "WTF," which does not immediately strike someone as 'excessive,' just 'profanity.' Could you please clear this 'excessive' vagueness up as well?

Finally, over the past week there have been repeated incidents of players going on racist screeds on Global Chat. Yesterday, a Level 1 player (something _chungus)
kept talking about African-Americans, using racial slurs, and promoting racism on Global Chat, for example. This lasted for between a quarter hour and a half-hour. No mods were available to deal with the incident, and the incident ended when the inciter himself got tired.

This was a level 1 sockpuppet, so warning or suspending them after the fact will not do anything meaningful. The only solution to this would've been to have someone actively deal with the incident as it happened.

The degree of understaffing, in conjunction with vague rules, leads to misunderstandings. For example, I might see some behavior that to you is disrespectful or excessively profane but not realize that it's against the rules because the mods aren't there to police it at the time. I could see, for example, a player telling another who made bad picks on a forum thread to go back to playing with Legos (this actually happened) but not know at all whether that falls under the highly subjective "disrespectful" umbrella because the vast majority of disrespectful language goes unmoderated. Then years later I might see someone else say something even milder about another player's skill level and get warned or suspended for it.

As you also know, there are three openly Nazi-leaning racist organizations on this site organized as clans. It's unclear whether their continued tolerance is just an oversight due to understaffing or is simply just not counted under the "racist language... will not be tolerated" rule.

It would really really be appreciated if we had more mods to make sure that the rules were enforced. Either clearing up the rules by improving documentation or by having more mods so users can better infer what the vague rules are would go a long way.

Edited 3/26/2021 20:26:20

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose from this sort of behavior.

This is a flawed model. Plenty of customer-hostile organizations thrive, even in the gaming scene. Especially in the gaming scene.

First off, Fizzer has more or less singlehandedly revolutionized the mechanics of Risk. Like you can't overstate how much better Fizzer's game mechanics are than Risk's. So people will tolerate a fair bit of frustration (e.g., UI, design) because the core value proposition is great. This is why you see user feedback rather than users leaving. (Well, the ones leaving usually do so quietly. The players that I know quit over moderation didn't exactly get tracked somewhere.)

Second off, the only "everything to lose" scenario over moderation would be if players left in a coordinated manner. To do that, they'd have to actually organize and communicate. This is an uphill battle because communications about moderation issues tend to get shut down on this site (see: this thread) because there's a strong bias among unaffected players in favor of assuming the system can't have flaws and that players must have deserved bad things that happened to them. Sometimes the threads (like the TOS thread) actually get deleted (see: https://www.warzone.com/Forum/444718-many-tos-violations-). Heck, Fizzer has frustrated me enough via his moderation that he is the only person I have blacklisted on any platform (I have him blacklisted everywhere because almost every single interaction I've had with him has made the game worse for me), but I have too much going on in this site (Optimum/Prime) to just leave. And even if I left, losing a player who's spent ca. $200 on the site is just a tiny drop in the bucket. You'd have to really screw up to see a noticeable decline in revenue. Heck, if you remember SOPA a half-decade ago, GoDaddy had net positive revenue growth even during the boycott. Just doesn't work that way in the real world.

I think your view oversimplifies the experience and misapplies your own positive experience to deny others' negative ones. Both can simultaneously be true. Plus it's not like this thread is out to get Fizzer. The nicest things said about Fizzer or Warzone in this thread have all been in the critical posts. I just think we have a lot to gain from assuming good faith and communicating instead of getting heated or denying others' perspectives. Instead of assuming the other person isn't telling the truth or that their views aren't valid, we could try to reach a mutual understanding that accepts all our experiences and comes to a more complete picture. We all have the same goal: a better Warzone experience.

Edited 3/26/2021 20:45:57

What are these additional rules, exactly?

Common sense things, like launching denial-of-service attacks, or using someone else's account without their permission.

Warzone has been fine with players having multiple accounts on the same team in the 3v3 ladder, for example. Today it's unclear, with the rewording, whether that's still acceptable

Same team is OK. The previous rules said "don't use multiple accounts in a way that gives you an advantage". The main idea behind the re-word is to make "an advantage" more clear and less open to interpretation. I've had people try to claim they didn't get an advantage by multi-accounting in a ladder or tournament since they didn't happen to play themselves. But that's not acceptable, since the point of the rule is that they could have played themselves so it's still against the rules.

joking on someone's clan thread (that you have rapport with)

Insulting someone in public is never allowed. Calling it a "joke" doesn't make it any better. You can say you have rapport, that they knew it was a joke, that they weren't offended, and that you're both OK with the insult. The problem is that you posted it in public. Therefore, anyone can view it, and the majority of people viewing it won't know about your rapport. They don't know about this private relationship that you have with the recipiant. All the public will see is hateful and mean things being said between two players, and if that is allowed to persist then this gives onlookers the impression that this is normal and expected and acceptable behavior on Warzone, which it isn't.

If you send them this in a private mail thread and they don't report you, then it's fine, since it's just private between you and them. In public you're always expected to follow the Warzone rules.

What is "excessive" profanity, exactly?

You'll know it if you see it. If every other word is profanity, for example.

Kenghis Ghan got a warning for using "WTF."

That is a lie -- I just looked through his report history to confirm, and there's nothing even close to that, and I've never been aware of anyone ever getting warned for something so minor. I don't discuss a specific player's reports publicly, but in other people's cases I've seen people lie about why they were warned before. People will often lie about why they were warned/suspended. Just like in prison "everyone is innocent", some people don't like owning up to their bad behavior and will deny deny deny.

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the rules I asked you to clarify. I really appreciate it!

I do not know whether Kenghis Ghan got warned on his main or on another account. Is there a way for you to search for this warning text?:


Other than that, I think you've responded to most everything minor/immediate I asked for, so I really really appreciate it.

Say I swear every other OTHER word, where would I be in terms of trouble?

Say I swear every other OTHER word, where would I be in terms of trouble?

Probably suspended, but you already used 14 normal words, so you would need to use 14 swearwords in a row next to get a free dose of trouble!

That is a real warning screenshot but A: It's cropped -- there was a lot more text below it that you can't see. And B: It's written by a moderator who lost their mod powers a long time ago.

Thanks for your time reading this thread and responding to it; I'm following up with Kenghis on Discord to get more context on that warning. I believe the rules are much clearer now for those who were previously frustrated by surprise warnings, suspensions, and bans, and for those who had asked about the change to the multi-account rule.

Edited 3/28/2021 21:18:57

Its thread has become much more intense than I thought when I made it.

That never happened. The only time I ever set a level requirement of a map was when levels were first introduced. I'm not sure if this map was one of the ones that got set but that wouldn't have been changing "from 5" since no levels even existed before that.

Going full serious-boring mode here:

I don't think that's what happened (though I'm not a big appreciator of that either). I clearly remember a public forum thread asking why the level was raised a long time (maybe a year) after the mapmaker was last seen and me offering to host it for them and discussing this issue further with other people. I very much doubt I hallucinated it. I even remember posting screenshots of the PM thread but I don't know how to search my cluttered spammed mailbox now. But perhaps Fizz forgot as is likely with big F's other claim of calling me a liar.

he also said around the same time he was working on a feature to let players join mid game

This one is a lot less attested and a lot harder to verify. I give this one only a 75% chance that I remembered correctly, but it was in a noncommittal offhand comment on a stream that Fizz hosted which is why Fizzer forgot it.

Edit: found the screencap https://i.snag.gy/SxdZ8I.jpg.

And from there it's easy to find the smoking gun. https://www.warzone.com/Forum/141774-modern-europe-. Unfortunately (actually fortunately he's a good guy and mapmaker) the mapmaker was last seen 1h30m ago, so there's no ultraconcrete proof. But those who know Srechko know he wasn't around in 2016, he was retired.

Edited 3/27/2021 00:22:51

Why was my post downvoted fizzer?