|
On October 25 2011 05:05 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 23:27 kitaman27 wrote:
Three games seems too severe for an issue that has happened 10+ times in the last year without resulting any bans. One game ban seems sufficient for the mistake. Perhaps we could discuss lengthening the standard ban for future occurances of this type.
Posting example role pms in the OP isn't always practical if the setup is closed. A host could post the standard town role pm, but suppose there are two "super cool vigilantes" in the setup. If the host doesn't want to reveal the role at the beginning of the game, they shouldn't have to worry about the two vigilantes confirming themselves to each other using the wording of the pm. The host could try to write unique role pms for each individual, but that's a lot of extra work. The only reason it didn't result in bans before is because the hosts never requested bans for this before. It isn't really fair to use that history unless you want each previous host to discuss situationally why they didn't request a ban for this behavior in their game and then have us go back and decide whether that decision was appropriate or not.
Actually the history of this sort of behavior, and how hosts have reacted to it, is important to consider by itself, the individual reasons are not as important as which message has been conveyed to the community. The hosts have let things like this slip by without a warning or ban before, giving the impression that this forum more or less accept this kind of behavior. If it has been accepted before, then slapping an extended ban on mig is wrong.
We can say that enough is enough and start banning for this, but giving Mig more than a 1-game ban for breadcrumbing the role PM feels too harsh.
|
On October 25 2011 06:22 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 05:48 kitaman27 wrote:On October 25 2011 05:15 Ace wrote:On October 24 2011 23:00 Kurumi wrote:
I think we need to draw the line between breadcrumbing the role and breadcrumbing the role PM... Because I think sometimes it's really useful to do that. I think referring to something exact in the role PM should be forbidden, but hinting that You have a weapon won't hurt anyone, right? There is no such thing as breadcrumbing a role. You can't do that. You can breadcrumb results of an investigation. That's all. Suppose you're a watcher and on day one you work the word watch into a post using the first capital letter of each sentence. Suppose later on at LYLO you role claim revealing a scum and point back to the day one post to show that you aren't coming up with a convienet result. Is that something that would be allowed? Yes it would be allowed but it would be incredibly stupid. Nothing stops Scum from doing this either. However if you breadcrumb the result of your Watcher actions and then die, your flip will confirm your posts assuming people go back to read. You don't breadcrumb your role because nothing stops the other side from doing it. I hope no one does this.
Ace absolutely nailed my opinion on this. Nothing stops scum from doing the same thing. What you described is nothing more than a roleclaim. It is inherently different from using the PM to confirm people because that can't be faked by the mafia.
As a side note, I think it would be hilarious if a host took the time to make all of the townie role PMs slightly different, so if this were attempted again, it would blow up in the faces of the PM revealers so badly.
|
I think a one-game ban should be sufficient, as it was Mig's very first offense and the rules about role PMs weren't all that clear before this. Mig also sent a PM to Protactinium apologizing for this as well, if I recall correctly, and I did get the impression from the PM that it was more of an accident than anything. He still should have known better, but I don't think it warrants more than a one-game ban.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On October 25 2011 07:12 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 06:22 Ace wrote:On October 25 2011 05:48 kitaman27 wrote:On October 25 2011 05:15 Ace wrote:On October 24 2011 23:00 Kurumi wrote:
I think we need to draw the line between breadcrumbing the role and breadcrumbing the role PM... Because I think sometimes it's really useful to do that. I think referring to something exact in the role PM should be forbidden, but hinting that You have a weapon won't hurt anyone, right? There is no such thing as breadcrumbing a role. You can't do that. You can breadcrumb results of an investigation. That's all. Suppose you're a watcher and on day one you work the word watch into a post using the first capital letter of each sentence. Suppose later on at LYLO you role claim revealing a scum and point back to the day one post to show that you aren't coming up with a convienet result. Is that something that would be allowed? Yes it would be allowed but it would be incredibly stupid. Nothing stops Scum from doing this either. However if you breadcrumb the result of your Watcher actions and then die, your flip will confirm your posts assuming people go back to read. You don't breadcrumb your role because nothing stops the other side from doing it. I hope no one does this. Ace absolutely nailed my opinion on this. Nothing stops scum from doing the same thing.
Nothing stops scum from doing this, but it doesn't mean town has to buy into it if they do. It's just another thing to consider when evaluating the claim.
As a side note, I think it would be hilarious if a host took the time to make all of the townie role PMs slightly different, so if this were attempted again, it would blow up in the faces of the PM revealers so badly.
If I recall correctly, that happened in Insane Mafia 2. Somebody provided an obvious breadcrumb expecting others to pick up on it and they were completely clueless. The fact that the players involved were also part of the item game really made things interesting -_-
|
Somebody provided an obvious breadcrumb expecting others to pick up on it and they were completely clueless. The fact that the players involved were also part of the item game really made things interesting -_-
A mafia even picked up on it first and re-breadcrumbed it back to the person, which was hilarious in hindsight
|
Okay I have a question. Games are filling up slowly and I have been wondering why I cannot sit out Callers game if it follows the banlist. With the other game being a newbie game, there is no opportunity to sitout in quite some time 
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Bans
Edwin5, Fatesgod, Sknowman, and Thnikkaman47 have been added to the ban list for one game due to inactivity in SNMM VI. For all of the above, this represents a first ban.
zany_001 has been added to the ban list for three games due to attempted mechanics abuse in SNMM VI. This is zany_001's first ban.
raynpelikoneet has been added to the ban list for five games due to not playing toward his win condition in SNMM VI. This is his first ban.
sinani206 has been added to the ban list for one game due to inactivity in PYP: Interesting. This is his first ban.
Mig has been added to the ban list for one game due to role PM breadcrumbing in PYP: Interesting. This is his first ban.
Removals
With the conclusion of PYP: Interesting, Sevryn, Kurumi, and SprungJeezy have been removed from the ban list. BloodyC0bbler now has one game remaining to sit out. VisceraEyes now has two games remaining to sit out.
List has been updated.
Generic role PMs should be displayed by hosts in a fashion similar to this (scroll down to the bottom of that post).
I will honor Qatol's proposal, and thus would be willing to let Bill Murray back in on January 1st, 2012. However, this is conditional upon community agreement. Discussion will be noted.
|
Is that six bans from snmvi? Damn...
|
yeah....that game went to shit pretty quickly...
|
USA5860 Posts
On October 25 2011 07:24 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 07:12 Qatol wrote:On October 25 2011 06:22 Ace wrote:On October 25 2011 05:48 kitaman27 wrote:On October 25 2011 05:15 Ace wrote:On October 24 2011 23:00 Kurumi wrote:
I think we need to draw the line between breadcrumbing the role and breadcrumbing the role PM... Because I think sometimes it's really useful to do that. I think referring to something exact in the role PM should be forbidden, but hinting that You have a weapon won't hurt anyone, right? There is no such thing as breadcrumbing a role. You can't do that. You can breadcrumb results of an investigation. That's all. Suppose you're a watcher and on day one you work the word watch into a post using the first capital letter of each sentence. Suppose later on at LYLO you role claim revealing a scum and point back to the day one post to show that you aren't coming up with a convienet result. Is that something that would be allowed? Yes it would be allowed but it would be incredibly stupid. Nothing stops Scum from doing this either. However if you breadcrumb the result of your Watcher actions and then die, your flip will confirm your posts assuming people go back to read. You don't breadcrumb your role because nothing stops the other side from doing it. I hope no one does this. Ace absolutely nailed my opinion on this. Nothing stops scum from doing the same thing. Nothing stops scum from doing this, but it doesn't mean town has to buy into it if they do. It's just another thing to consider when evaluating the claim. Show nested quote +As a side note, I think it would be hilarious if a host took the time to make all of the townie role PMs slightly different, so if this were attempted again, it would blow up in the faces of the PM revealers so badly. If I recall correctly, that happened in Insane Mafia 2. Somebody provided an obvious breadcrumb expecting others to pick up on it and they were completely clueless. The fact that the players involved were also part of the item game really made things interesting -_-
From the mafia standpoint I can elaborate that it was almost entirely luck that we managed to get out of that clusterfuck. I remember LemonWalrus was our mafia in the item game and Jackal/Coag were doing some role PM shit bread crumbing to confirm who was town (The IG players were allowed to PM IIRC) and that confirmed like half the players in the item game. Luckily meapak read something coag wrote and realized what it was and forced lemonwalrus to call him out on some random line that seemed out of context, so because coagulation or Jackal did there role PM breadcrumbing too obvious we were able to catch it and fuck them up a little bit. But that was a fuck ton of luck and a really really good catch by meapak and without that we would of been completely dominated in the IG, which would of given the town a huge advantage.
So yeah, it was still really broken and I remember yelling at LSB for an obscene amount of things that game, among which was the "Sure you can compare role PM's to determine alliance" shit, among the motherfucking bus driver.
|
USA5860 Posts
On October 25 2011 11:51 flamewheel wrote:BansEdwin5, Fatesgod, Sknowman, and Thnikkaman47 have been added to the ban list for one game due to inactivity in SNMM VI. For all of the above, this represents a first ban. zany_001 has been added to the ban list for three games due to attempted mechanics abuse in SNMM VI. This is zany_001's first ban. raynpelikoneet has been added to the ban list for five games due to not playing toward his win condition in SNMM VI. This is his first ban. sinani206 has been added to the ban list for one game due to inactivity in PYP: Interesting. This is his first ban. Mig has been added to the ban list for one game due to role PM breadcrumbing in PYP: Interesting. This is his first ban. RemovalsWith the conclusion of PYP: Interesting, Sevryn, Kurumi, and SprungJeezy have been removed from the ban list. BloodyC0bbler now has one game remaining to sit out. VisceraEyes now has two games remaining to sit out. List has been updated.
Generic role PMs should be displayed by hosts in a fashion similar to this (scroll down to the bottom of that post). I will honor Qatol's proposal, and thus would be willing to let Bill Murray back in on January 1st, 2012. However, this is conditional upon community agreement. Discussion will be noted.
I am almost always up for leniency, and in a less retributive system, but for someone like BM its a complete waste of time. As someone who gave BM a chance just to watch him shit all over my game, then shit on my cohost, then shit on me I can safely say I don't believe he has changed and its a waste of all of our time to even let him in for a couple of games just so he can royally fuck it up again.
Someone posted it a few pages back so I am not going to look it up, but you can tell even by his recent posting that his attitude has literally not changed at all. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and his past has consistently sucked. I believe people for the most part don't have the capacity to change except through some extreme motivation to change, I know BM doesn't acknowledge his need to change how he acts and he thinks hes fine, and if he believes he is fine then he has no reason to change and if he doesn't change then the past will lend to the future.
|
If we're going to get a spot on the sidebar, we should cover what the standard punishments are for various breakings of the rules somewhere, eg. mig's ban needed discussion, maybe create a baseline for everybody who breadcrumbs their pm's from hosts, and other various offences. If mafia suddenly gets very popular we should have an efficient system in place.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Well we have a pretty good system as is, though I agree that being clear is always good.
Typical Ban is 1 game, plus 2 games for each additional time you have been banned in the past. So 1/3/5/7/9 games etc depending on previous bans. Each warning adds one to your banned game count.
Deliberately doing something to wreck a game is always going to net more game-bans. Berating a host is going to net additional game-bans. Doing several other things will also net more game-bans. However, I think in general we should probably stick to standard 1 game per offense, excepting outrageous conduct. If a player continues to get banned, their banned game count will quickly rise, basically removing the problem without any need for hassle or discussion.
If a player is banned for something not explicitly against the rules, then I think we should try to stick to 1 game as much as possible(Mig). These cases will typically always need discussion, as it's impossible to foresee every situation.
Hosts have the most say in who gets bans or warnings and how many games they should be banned for. However, I think in most cases 1 game should be the standard, and any other size bans be the exception.
Semi-Permanent bans should be discussed with the forum as a whole, with affected hosts having somewhat more say.
I think this sums up the general ban situation, or at least my take on what I'd like to see. Anyone have anything to add or correct?
|
dunno unrelated to recent events i think bans should really always be based on rules explicitly stated somewhere. if you are worried about the op being too long, should take the model op and move all of the common elements out of it and just say in it "if you haven't played mafia before on this forum then check out the rules of common conduct here" and then a link to like some post somewhere in the new model op. this will remove a lot of fluff text that everybody knows but has to go through every game anyway and make the op shorter, and also people will never be able to say "but i thought!!!" or similar because it's explicitly stated somewhere that "NO". in every single op just refer to the standard game rules and then say "this game has the additional rules that, derpaderp pms allowed, need to post at least 5 times a cycle, majority lynch". will cut the model op a lot shorter, highlight the important information and no one can ever feel wronged when they break the rules, 'cause the rules are all there. also this will highlight the stuff that people actually needs to know, i think there's always like a model op and then you read that and then you see the 5th post is some guy pointing out "hey, it says that you can abstain from voting here" and you were like "wow i totally didn't see that 'cause it was lost in there with all the stuff i've seen 10 times before". i think there's been some rule confusion lately owing to different people having different perception of "the spirit of the game", from mig to zany, and i hope it can all be cleared up so no one will have to deal with anything like that again 
|
Could someone please quickly explain to me why I can't sitout callers game, but cannot play in it either? It just makes me sad , especially since there are no other games starting at the moment
|
On October 28 2011 10:41 prplhz wrote:dunno unrelated to recent events i think bans should really always be based on rules explicitly stated somewhere. if you are worried about the op being too long, should take the model op and move all of the common elements out of it and just say in it "if you haven't played mafia before on this forum then check out the rules of common conduct here" and then a link to like some post somewhere in the new model op. this will remove a lot of fluff text that everybody knows but has to go through every game anyway and make the op shorter, and also people will never be able to say "but i thought!!!" or similar because it's explicitly stated somewhere that "NO". in every single op just refer to the standard game rules and then say "this game has the additional rules that, derpaderp pms allowed, need to post at least 5 times a cycle, majority lynch". will cut the model op a lot shorter, highlight the important information and no one can ever feel wronged when they break the rules, 'cause the rules are all there. also this will highlight the stuff that people actually needs to know, i think there's always like a model op and then you read that and then you see the 5th post is some guy pointing out "hey, it says that you can abstain from voting here" and you were like "wow i totally didn't see that 'cause it was lost in there with all the stuff i've seen 10 times before". i think there's been some rule confusion lately owing to different people having different perception of "the spirit of the game", from mig to zany, and i hope it can all be cleared up so no one will have to deal with anything like that again
I agree with a majority of this, with one caveat:
If we take the majority of the generic stuff out of the standard model OP then new players who sign up for regular games will often not know half of what they need to know because they'll neglect to read the stuff that is linked. Players might even come up with excuses like, "hey that wasn't in the OP!" and whatever.
I think perhaps the rules need a little bit of tweaking, but since this forum runs on the honor system I don't think it's a big deal. Players just need to use their heads to determine right from wrong, and if they cross the line, it needs to be rectified immediately with some sort of warning or ban.
|
On October 28 2011 11:19 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 10:41 prplhz wrote:dunno unrelated to recent events i think bans should really always be based on rules explicitly stated somewhere. if you are worried about the op being too long, should take the model op and move all of the common elements out of it and just say in it "if you haven't played mafia before on this forum then check out the rules of common conduct here" and then a link to like some post somewhere in the new model op. this will remove a lot of fluff text that everybody knows but has to go through every game anyway and make the op shorter, and also people will never be able to say "but i thought!!!" or similar because it's explicitly stated somewhere that "NO". in every single op just refer to the standard game rules and then say "this game has the additional rules that, derpaderp pms allowed, need to post at least 5 times a cycle, majority lynch". will cut the model op a lot shorter, highlight the important information and no one can ever feel wronged when they break the rules, 'cause the rules are all there. also this will highlight the stuff that people actually needs to know, i think there's always like a model op and then you read that and then you see the 5th post is some guy pointing out "hey, it says that you can abstain from voting here" and you were like "wow i totally didn't see that 'cause it was lost in there with all the stuff i've seen 10 times before". i think there's been some rule confusion lately owing to different people having different perception of "the spirit of the game", from mig to zany, and i hope it can all be cleared up so no one will have to deal with anything like that again I agree with a majority of this, with one caveat: If we take the majority of the generic stuff out of the standard model OP then new players who sign up for regular games will often not know half of what they need to know because they'll neglect to read the stuff that is linked. Players might even come up with excuses like, "hey that wasn't in the OP!" and whatever. I think perhaps the rules need a little bit of tweaking, but since this forum runs on the honor system I don't think it's a big deal. Players just need to use their heads to determine right from wrong, and if they cross the line, it needs to be rectified immediately with some sort of warning or ban.
i'm thinking make it very clear that something has to be read, something is not just an option but you need to read this or you might very well risk getting banned. put it in bold writing or something "IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST GAME YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THIS" link. there's a lot of honor on the tlmafia forums and in my opinion that works exceedingly well the only problem is when rules aren't clearly defined then "the spirit of the game" is interpreted differently by different people and sometimes it ends up having an impact on the game which is undesirable imo. people have different heads and will arrive at different conclusions when trying to infer rules from "the spirit of the game" not matter how much they use them. and this will probably happen every time new players join unless the rules get more clearly stated somewhere. i honestly think that removing a lot of the text wall to an "only read once" post somewhere will make a lot less people skip the text wall because they know they only have to go through it once.
|
I just wanna throw this out there. A ban during slow times like these is much more severe than a ban during fast times like last summer. It simply takes a lot longer to sit out the required games since no games are actually being played.
|
wait why am i banned?
i informed the host that i was on vacation and asked for replacement and then told that i could not be replaced.
this is extremely unfair.
|
On October 31 2011 13:27 sinani206 wrote:
wait why am i banned?
i informed the host that i was on vacation and asked for replacement and then told that i could not be replaced.
this is extremely unfair.
Here is the PM you sent me:
Original Message From sinani206: can i replace out? i just got back from a relally exhausting trip amdn i need tp go to bned also i fell like i would be a burden ttto my team thanks, sionaini Show nested quote +Original Message From Protactinium:
You have failed to get a role and are just vanilla.
You only inform me after you got back from vacation, when it is already too late. By this time, you have already missed the first 48 hours of the game, and had this been a regular game, you would have missed the day 1 lynch vote, which would be grounds for a modkill. If you let me know before you leave on vacation that you will be gone for a few days, then that's all good, but waiting until after the game has started to let me know is just irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
