|
On November 13 2011 01:58 redFF wrote:The one issue I have with the current system is that there's very little we can do if one person ins for every game and you don't want to play with that person. That's where wisdom of the crowds would help. Banlist is fine for inactivity modkills but for everything else it's inadequate.
We already have something like this in place. It was used in PYP:Insane. However, I don't think this should be used particularly often because it's basically banning people when they haven't actually done anything banworthy. But players are always able to tell the host that they won't play with X and the host can make a decision about letting X play based upon that.
|
yes but if you set a limit where say 5 people have to complain about someone before they are removed we wouldn't encounter the issues we faced in pypi?
|
On November 13 2011 03:33 redFF wrote:
yes but if you set a limit where say 5 people have to complain about someone before they are removed we wouldn't encounter the issues we faced in pypi?
Why do you need 5 people? Why isn't 1 enough? Let hosts make that call, don't force it on them.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
One game ban for hacklebeast for inactivity in Newbie Mini Mafia. Thanks.
|
OH! I remember what was the problem I had with the banlist! Cumulative bans!
The Banned Game Count applies to most modkills (including modkills for inactivity) and is calculated as follows: 2N - 1 where N = the number of times you have been banned. So the first time you get banned, your count is 1. The second time, your Count is 3. If you are modkilled for going inactive in 2 games at once, your Banned Game Count will be calculated as if you were modkilled in one game, but you will receive a warning upon being taken off the Ban List . We reserve the right to artificially inflate your Banned Game Count based upon conduct not meriting a semi-permanent ban, but also not meriting a standard ban.
I was banned a year ago. So if three years from now, I'm inactive in a game, it hardly think it's logical for me to be banned from two games. There either needs to be some sort of "reset" on the banned game count if a certain amount of time has passed or we just need to do a flat 1 game ban across the board.
|
Japan10647 Posts
On November 13 2011 14:19 chaoser wrote:OH! I remember what was the problem I had with the banlist! Cumulative bans! Show nested quote +The Banned Game Count applies to most modkills (including modkills for inactivity) and is calculated as follows: 2N - 1 where N = the number of times you have been banned. So the first time you get banned, your count is 1. The second time, your Count is 3. If you are modkilled for going inactive in 2 games at once, your Banned Game Count will be calculated as if you were modkilled in one game, but you will receive a warning upon being taken off the Ban List . We reserve the right to artificially inflate your Banned Game Count based upon conduct not meriting a semi-permanent ban, but also not meriting a standard ban. I was banned a year ago. So if three years from now, I'm inactive in a game, it hardly think it's logical for me to be banned from two games. There either needs to be some sort of "reset" on the banned game count if a certain amount of time has passed or we just need to do a flat 1 game ban across the board.
agreed.
However I think it should be done by games, not by time. That's a little more complicated, though.
Think about it like this: guy comes to TL mafia, goes inactive, gets modkilled. 1 game ban.
He doesn't sit out his ban for another 4 months, eventually comes back, sits it out, then goes to play another game and again goes inactive and gets modkilled. I don't think leniency should be practiced in that instance.
|
So maybe if you play like 3-5 games without any incidents you get your previous ban removed so there will not be an increasing return on the next punishment?
|
Japan10647 Posts
yeah I'd agree with that.
The only problem is that it's hard to keep track of how many games players are playing.
|
He doesn't sit out his ban for another 4 months, eventually comes back, sits it out, then goes to play another game and again goes inactive and gets modkilled. I don't think leniency should be practiced in that instance.
I actually think there's not that much a difference between how someone approaches a 1 game ban and how someone approaches a 2 game ban. They're going to be a bit annoyed and will have to exert some energy in trying to get it cleared up. Personally I wouldn't mind a flat 1 game ban across the board. For repeat offenders (like 3-4 times inactive) we can deliberate on that issue if needed though I feel like most people who do that would just quit playing.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
It seems a lot easier to just not get banned in the first place. If you're getting banned multiple times after having years worth of experience, its not like you have an excuse to not know the rules. By that point, if you're getting repeatedly modkilled, you probably deserve the extended ban.
|
On November 13 2011 14:43 kitaman27 wrote:
It seems a lot easier to just not get banned in the first place. If you're getting banned multiple times after having years worth of experience, its not like you have an excuse to not know the rules. By that point, if you're getting repeatedly modkilled, you probably deserve the extended ban.
If something comes up that's not in my control but also not an "emergency" enough situation where the host would cut me some slack, then I'd be banned for two games. The purpsoe of the ban system is to make people not want to be inactive and to instill this mentality of responsibility. If I, like last time, had some work emergency come up where I suddenly became busy, why should I be punished more than a 1 game ban?
It's not about experience, it's about sudden things that come up.
And it's not about being repeatedly modkilled, it's about if I get modkilled in one game sometime in the future. By how this system works I'd be banned for two games. Is that really needed?
|
Working with the good in people > an eye for an eye
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Sorry, finally getting around to updating this. I would like to note that mini games do not count toward the ban list. Generally, that has been the precedent: mini games finish quickly. TMMM - Couples' Theory finished in nine days, or just three game cycles.
On November 12 2010 13:13 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 12:11 orgolove wrote:On November 09 2010 11:38 orgolove wrote:
All right. I'll wait until Insane finishes before I bring this up again. :/
Hi. Now that insane mafia is over, I'd like to use the "Don't Lose Yo Village" mafia as my penalty game. Generally we haven't been allowing the mini games to apply because they're over so fast. I haven't seen objections for using Sengoku though, so I'm inclined to say that one is fine. Or I guess you can use Salem, depending on which one actually starts.
However, since the game finished such a long time ago I will honor the sitouts. Just note for the future mini games will no longer count toward sitting out--I will edit the OP to include this. All sitout requests for mini games between my last update and this post will be honored.
VisceraEyes, Erandorr, BloodyC0bbler, and sinani206 have finished sitting out TMMM - Couples' Therapy
VisceraEyes has one game remaining to be removed from the ban list for a second time.
Erandorr has been removed from the ban list.
BloodyC0bbler has been removed from the ban list for the third time.
sinani206 has been removed from the ban list.
Crofty is now on the ban list for one game due to inactivity in TMMM - Couples' Therapy
Divinek is sitting out Mini Mafia X.
As for community service, dreamflower/GMarshal/chaoser should notify me if and when somebody has merited reducing his/her sentence.
VisceraEyes, for the sake of bookkeeping please post here again if you want to sit out TL Mafia 46: Steamship Mafia. Your last post requesting sitout was before your sitout of TMMM - Couples' Theory was complete. You may only sit out one game at a time.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On November 11 2011 08:49 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 08:33 Bill Murray wrote:
Not a big deal, Flamewheel. I will drop it.
I do have a question, though. What will the ban remove? Will I be allowed to host as well as play, given I can be put into a queue? If so, may I be able to be placed into said and aforementioned queue previously to the removal of my ban so that I may begin hosting immediately? No to hosting lol. Please.
I would prefer you not to host before demonstrating you can abide by the rules while playing games.
On November 10 2011 13:42 chaoser wrote:Zorkmid is getting a second chance?
I have no problem with Zorkmid getting a second chance after a due period of time has passed.
As for DoctorHelvetica's case, he is a very active and long-lived player so I wouldn't be averse to granting him leniency in exchange for a warning. Of course, Curu will have to agree to this since the ban choice is mainly his call.
On November 11 2011 08:36 Curu wrote:
From what I understood it's getting replaced without reason that gets you the ban, not the modkills. You shouldn't get a free pass for not wanting to finish a game just because the host went and found someone to replace you, regardless of whether you got replaced or modkilled you still flaked out of a game you signed up for.
The reason I asked for a ban for DoctorH is because the past 3 games in a row the same thing had happened. In Kurumi's XLIV he abruptly stopped playing the game halfway through, in Personality he asked to be replaced out of the blue and then in LOTR he asked again to be replaced out of the blue. Same deal with chaos13 who had been replaced out of something like 3 of the past 4 games he was signed up for. I didn't request a ban for anyone that asked to be replaced and didn't have a history of constantly doing it.
Actually I just noticed JeeJee got a ban for my game, I didn't request one and actually I would be completely fine if that decision was rescinded because I haven't noticed a propensity for him not finishing his games.
I removed JeeJee. Checking through old posts by Qatol, I saw he had added him. Checking your posts, I do see indeed you did not request any punishment. The situation has been rectified; thank you for noticing.
|
On November 13 2011 16:26 flamewheel wrote:
Sorry, finally getting around to updating this. I would like to note that mini games do not count toward the ban list. Generally, that has been the precedent: mini games finish quickly. TMMM - Couples' Theory finished in nine days, or just three game cycles.
I wasn´t aware of this, I thought sitting out minigames was considered okay.
|
On November 13 2011 17:37 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 16:26 flamewheel wrote:
Sorry, finally getting around to updating this. I would like to note that mini games do not count toward the ban list. Generally, that has been the precedent: mini games finish quickly. TMMM - Couples' Theory finished in nine days, or just three game cycles. I wasn´t aware of this, I thought sitting out minigames was considered okay.
Yeah, when did that change?
Today...
Lame.
|
Especially with the lack of games at the moment, I think sitting out mini-games should be allowed, at least until we get back to having 2-3 games going on at all times.
|
Flamewheel, I´d like the rule against sitting out mini games to be discussed further.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On November 11 2011 08:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
My reason for coming out of LotR is highly personal and I refuse to discuss it. Personality Mafia came at a bad time and my schoolwork load increased really unexpectedly. I kind of waned with activity near the end of the last mafia game and didn't want to half ass that game so I asked for a replacement. It was Day1 and I was successfully replaced. I wasn't modkilled in that game. I was, however, modkilled in LotR mafia when I had a much better reason to leave.
I didn't ask for a modkill or replacement in the thread. I simply informed people that I was asking for one/leaving the thread. I think that's fair and courteous? In both cases I PM'd the moderator. I don't understand why that is even being discussed. I'm very confused as to whether my ban is related to Personality or LotR. Why is it 2x? I was replaced in Personality not modkilled. If 1 modkill over a SINGLE replacement with a good reason in one game is enough to warrant a 3 game ban then maybe the Mafia moderators should take a good hard look at the ban system because that is absurd
I'm in favor of allowing DocH off the hook. At the time I was against banning him for asking for a replacement, but I never spoke up, and I wish I had. Asking for a replacement should not be a ban-worthy offense. I realize that the issue here is that it happened several times in quick succession. Still, asking for a replacement shows courtesy to the host, and is something that has (and had) been done very very often on this forum without consequence. Joining a game when you don't have time to play shows bad judgement, but is not ban-worthy in my eyes. Joining a game and then having personal issues come up is not ban worthy at all.
I think DocH landed on some bad luck to tell the truth. If 3 other players hadn't been simultaneously asking for replacements in LOTR mafia then I think this would have never been an issue. Personality Mafia was bizarre from an outsiders perspective, as from the thread it looked like DocH /in'ed and then never posted again, but it seems he asked for a replacement immediately after the game started. Had the game started a day later, presumably he could have just /outted.
I do think replacing out of games was taken a bit too lightly for a time, but I don't agree with bans for it. We had a precedent here of allowing people to replace out of games without consequence. If we want to change that I'm fine with it(and we have to some extent), but I don't think banning DocH out of the blue was the right call. In addition, replacing out of games is many times the responsible thing to do; in Ace's Closed Casket game I had nothing even close to a good reason for replacing out. My dog had died among other things, and I just didn't feel like playing mafia. I was basically already MIA, Ace replaced me with citi.zen upon request, and citi.zen went on to play a fantastic game. I had far better reasons to replace out of Couples Therapy yet did not, and our team suffered immensely due to my half-assed play.
I also believe cutting slack for players who have proven to be active contributors and players to this forum is entirely appropriate. Call it elitist, but I think it is simply common sense. I would be completely fine with a rule where if you have played 5(or whatever) games you may avoid 1 ban. That means if I suddenly got banned I could go compile a list of games I played start to finish in, and present them as avoidance of 1 ban. Then I would need to play another 5 games before getting banned and I would have another freebie. Behavior bans would not be eligible. This encourages active players to stick around, and not leave the forum due to 1 mistake(I have no idea if this type of exodus is prevalent or not though).
The Special Ban List Initiative is awesome. Major applause to whoever thought of it. However, I see no reason for a two week deadline for submissions. Why not simply make it a standing rule, that if you contribute 3 games to the library you get 1 ban removed. At least until the library is up to date. Many players take breaks from this forum for months at a time, and if there are still games to be added to the library, I think they should have a chance to contribute.
Giving people a chance to prove they care about this forum is a fantastic idea. No need to limit it to a couple weeks.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On November 13 2011 14:43 kitaman27 wrote:
It seems a lot easier to just not get banned in the first place. If you're getting banned multiple times after having years worth of experience, its not like you have an excuse to not know the rules. By that point, if you're getting repeatedly modkilled, you probably deserve the extended ban.
Sometimes people mess up though. If it happens extremely infrequently, then I'm ok letting it slide. Chaoser(could be anyone) was banned when he was new to the forum. If he makes a mistake at some point(missing a vote, getting busy and going afk), then I think he should be able to use his reputation as an active player against his potential ban. Everyone makes mistakes and the more they play the more likelihood of it happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
