| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On November 09 2011 22:30 Palmar wrote: Lol, you got lynched day 1. The only person you should have a grudge with after that is yourself for being bad. This couple's therapy isn't working very well lolol | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:38 Palmar wrote: It doesn't have to be discussed further. There were pages devoted to his ban, and this is the end result. People had plenty of time to put in their words back then. No need to re-visit a closed case. It may even be the wrong decision, but we've made one, so let's stick with it. ♥ Uh, I can almost guarantee me and GM aren't the only people against it. I know meapak is the same as well. On top of which there was never any real discussion. I remember it being mentioned multiple times, me fighting it, no one really commenting then Qatol coming out with a recommendation before his retirement. That doesn't make it law. So no, January 1st isn't set in stone since I don't believe it was a collective decision. If you guys want to create some type of vote to actually get a community decision on it that is fine, but we never seriously came to a decision. Qatol made a recommendation, that was all. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22634 Posts
On November 09 2011 23:19 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Uh, I can almost guarantee me and GM aren't the only people against it. I know meapak is the same as well. On top of which there was never any real discussion. I remember it being mentioned multiple times, me fighting it, no one really commenting then Qatol coming out with a recommendation before his retirement. That doesn't make it law. So no, January 1st isn't set in stone since I don't believe it was a collective decision. If you guys want to create some type of vote to actually get a community decision on it that is fine, but we never seriously came to a decision. Qatol made a recommendation, that was all. Okay, I will not comment further on it. I don't know anything about it, you guys can open the can of worms again if you wish. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On November 09 2011 22:30 Palmar wrote: Lol, you got lynched day 1. The only person you should have a grudge with after that is yourself for being bad. ![[image loading]](http://static.artfagcity.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wordpress_core/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/orsonclapping.gif) | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 09 2011 22:30 Palmar wrote: Lol, you got lynched day 1. The only person you should have a grudge with after that is yourself for being bad. No, I blame Town for making a bad call in the heat of the moment. Town delayed making a decision until right before the deadline and so they got stressed and made sure that someone flipped, not caring who. I know how it goes, we did the same thing in XLV. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On November 10 2011 02:48 Forumite wrote: No, I blame Town for making a bad call in the heat of the moment. Town delayed making a decision until right before the deadline and so they got stressed and made sure that someone flipped, not caring who. I know how it goes, we did the same thing in XLV. lol ok | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
also this is the ban list not the miscellaneous thread | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On November 10 2011 02:54 prplhz wrote: maybe you kids should stop talking about an ongoing game be you host or dead or alive also this is the ban list not the miscellaneous thread Agreed. Please stop discussing the team game until it is over. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
Is a banlist really necessary? I think it's unfair that we exclude people based on decisions made months ago. I propose a new, far easier to moderate system. Hosts post games, anyone can sign up. Hosts can choose to not let certain people play. Players can also pm the host if they don't want a player to play in the game. If say 5 people say they don't want a player in the game, that player cannot play. It essentially accomplishes the same thing, but allows for redemption. It also completely destroys any problems involving certain people having more sway than others on issues. It would also up the quality of games, and people would learn not to be total dicks because it could get them barred from games. thoughts? | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On November 10 2011 06:00 redFF wrote: I've been thinking about this for a few days, anyway here goes: Is a banlist really necessary? I think it's unfair that we exclude people based on decisions made months ago. I propose a new, far easier to moderate system. Hosts post games, anyone can sign up. Hosts can choose to not let certain people play. Players can also pm the host if they don't want a player to play in the game. If say 5 people say they don't want a player in the game, that player cannot play. It essentially accomplishes the same thing, but allows for redemption. It also completely destroys any problems involving certain people having more sway than others on issues. It would also up the quality of games, and people would learn not to be total dicks because it could get them barred from games. thoughts? That does not solve inactivity problems, which is the reason the banlist was created in the first place and is still the vast majority of the bans. Situations like Bill Murray are rare, inactivity is something that will never go away (although it's much better now than it was years ago). In GM's recent mini game there were like 5 inactivity modkills or something? Which is like 30-40% of the players (and years ago that wouldn't have been all too uncommon either). There needs to be something to stop people from signing up for a game, getting modkilled due to inactivity, then signing up for another game and repeating. And people seldom remember inactivity bans; do you remember all the inactivity bans from the games you played in? I only remember ones from when it was my mafia teammates. So PMing the host that you don't want player X in the game because they were inactive isn't going to do much because other people will either not remember or just not care enough. And people are already less of a total dick than in the past. Hosts are much stricter about what behavior is allowed in games. And despite what any other person may tell you, the quality of games here has improved on the average over time. In current games, nearly everyone uses the filter button and rereads the thread as the game is going on. When I first started playing probably 5-10% of the players did that. (Of course, this does not mean that players are always using the information correctly, but at least they are filtering and rereading which is one step closer). | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
the way we handle inactivity is fine I think, but its anything other than activity we have trouble with I think. The mig or the BM issue are 2 big examples, but not the only one. I just don't think people should be banned from games for anything other than inactivity I guess. Anything else should be decided by the game they want to sign up to's players and host. Viscera eyes or BC's bans are good examples. I don't think either of them deserved a month or 2 out of TL mafia, and the system I'm suggesting would be a lot better for anything other than inactivity modkills. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On November 10 2011 06:00 redFF wrote: I've been thinking about this for a few days, anyway here goes: Is a banlist really necessary? I think it's unfair that we exclude people based on decisions made months ago. I propose a new, far easier to moderate system. Hosts post games, anyone can sign up. Hosts can choose to not let certain people play. Players can also pm the host if they don't want a player to play in the game. If say 5 people say they don't want a player in the game, that player cannot play. It essentially accomplishes the same thing, but allows for redemption. It also completely destroys any problems involving certain people having more sway than others on issues. It would also up the quality of games, and people would learn not to be total dicks because it could get them barred from games. thoughts? Basically you're just proposing a system where every single host has their own ban list (which is extremely messy to manage) and where groups of players can force people out of the games permanently. If anything, your proposed system takes away any chance of redemption once enough people get a grudge against someone. We generally don't exclude people for decisions made months ago unless they haven't been around in the intervening months (and it isn't really a punishment if they aren't losing anything, is it?) or their conduct was really really bad. There is a reason we have a discussion here on virtually every disciplinary ban. They aren't treated lightly. If anything, it's simpler to do things this way because then everyone's opinion is made public rather than a few players privately deciding to exclude someone from all games for an indefinite amount of time. If someone is being a total jerk to you in the games, send a PM to the host or to Flamewheel about it. This system can definitely perform the function you want if the actions actually warrant punishment. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On November 10 2011 06:25 Qatol wrote: groups of players can force people out of the games permanently. isn't this exactly what's happening with bill murray? | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22634 Posts
1 game ban for Crofty for getting modkilled. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On November 10 2011 07:02 redFF wrote: isn't this exactly what's happening with bill murray? Not at all. It was a subforum wide thing where pretty much every knew BM was fucking up big time and everyone decided to semi ban him. It's the reinstatement that's troublesome but I'm pretty sure in the end BM will be given is final chance back by some nice host and if he has changed then will be accepted back into the community by everyone else over time. It's like kawaiirice or something like that | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
It just sucks that under the current system, now that I'm back and ready to be active, I can't. Gotta wait some more. *shrug* I don't care one way or the other. I play PLENTY of Mafia. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On November 10 2011 10:29 VisceraEyes wrote: In all fairness red, I'm to blame for how LONG I've been gone - my ban was only 3 games and I'm pretty sure WAY more than 3 games have been played since then. It just sucks that under the current system, now that I'm back and ready to be active, I can't. Gotta wait some more. *shrug* I don't care one way or the other. I play PLENTY of Mafia. But that's the whole point. You were gone. You weren't really affected by your ban up until this point because you weren't around. It doesn't make sense to let people use games in which they wouldn't have played anyways against a ban. | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6789 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On November 10 2011 13:01 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: BM is one player out of literally hundreds who have played TL mafia. Yeah it sucks to sit out a ban but the current system is fair. I personally am among the people who don't want BM back however the general consensus is that he gets one more chance in a few months. Because we have agreed to community rules though I'm going to follow the majority even if it isn't what I want. Pretty much this. However if he ruins one of my games, I will not rest until I see him permabanned with no hope of redemption. I still think that if BM gets a third chance Zorkmid needs to get a second chance. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
