EPTTL Mafia Ban List - Page 109
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
Also, and this should really go in active games so I'll paste it there, but why don't we make hosts do game write-ups after their game is finished? If we did that, and required it before hosting again, it might slow down the host requests a bit. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On November 14 2011 02:15 iGrok wrote: As far as rewarding activity vis-a-vis ban leniency, why don't we just pick a number of games, and every time you play x games, you earn a get-out-of jail free card for your next inactivity ban. Behavior bans would still be in effect. The player would have to keep track of how many games he has played, and apply for the card on his own. So flamewheel wouldn't have to keep track of who is playing where. Or if we do want to do that, I volunteer to keep track of who plays in which game. In a massive Excel spreadsheet. Also, and this should really go in active games so I'll paste it there, but why don't we make hosts do game write-ups after their game is finished? If we did that, and required it before hosting again, it might slow down the host requests a bit. Yep I like this. I think the player should have to do the work themselves. If they want to apply for waiving a ban, they can go compile the list of games they have played since their last ban(if they have one). I think 5 games is good, but I would be fine with something like 10 if people wanted to go that direction. I also have no problem with hosts doing game write-ups for the library after a game is done. We have a huge glut of hosts...  . However, I do not host very much, and would rather hear from the people who do host consistently. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On November 14 2011 03:02 Radfield wrote: Yep I like this. I think the player should have to do the work themselves. If they want to apply for waiving a ban, they can go compile the list of games they have played since their last ban(if they have one). I think 5 games is good, but I would be fine with something like 10 if people wanted to go that direction. I also have no problem with hosts doing game write-ups for the library after a game is done. We have a huge glut of hosts... . However, I do not host very much, and would rather hear from the people who do host consistently.The thing with this is that hosting is already enough work as is, most of the people who want to host at this point want to host radical theme games, rather than normals, and I feel like that is going to seriously hurt the amount of people hosting normal games, if on top of sorting roles/dayposts/drama you make the host write an analysis as well. TBH I feel like a better solution would be to have a requirment whereby you have to have hosted/co-hosted 2-3 normals before being allowed to host theme games, and perhaps have to host one normal for every theme. I know theme games are "exciting" but our bread and butter should be normal games, and frankly a large number of the theme games people would like to host are pretty radical setups, which not many people are going to be interested in. I think that would fix the majority of the issue with us having a large "glut" of hosts. | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26782 Posts
On November 14 2011 00:42 Forumite wrote: Flamewheel, I´d like the rule against sitting out mini games to be discussed further. Sure. I have nothing against it, I just follow precedent. On November 12 2010 13:13 Qatol wrote: 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. Of course, there are instances where mini games were allowed. I still don't think it's fair, for the most part, to be able to sit out for a game that lasts nine days (3 cycles) as opposed to the average five or six cycles. On November 14 2011 01:37 VisceraEyes wrote: Unless my participation in the diversion program will allow me to PLAY in Steamship Liquidia, I'd like to sitout Steamship Liquidia. Until you do something, it doesn't count. You are noted as sitting out. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 14 2011 03:51 flamewheel wrote: Sure. I have nothing against it, I just follow precedent. Of course, there are instances where mini games were allowed. I still don't think it's fair, for the most part, to be able to sit out for a game that lasts nine days (3 cycles) as opposed to the average five or six cycles. I wasn´t aware that there have been any instances at all of players being forbidden from sitting out minigames, although that´s not the issue, it´s just the reason I´m so surprised about this new rule. I don´t see a problem with sitting out minigames, even IF they take half the time. There might be a slight issue with someone sitting out a game that take longer than expected, while another banned player sit out a game that finish quickly, but to be fair that happens all the time, sometimes one or the other team fold after just two days, and sometimes a minigame run the maximum number of days. Couples Therapy would have gone for another night if it wasn´t for Scum giving up. Likewise Pony Mafia would have gone for 2 more days if it wasn´t for Town getting modkilled and not being able to find scum. My point is that long games can be shorter than expected, while small games can run for the maximum number of turns, but if we are discussing how long games take rather than how many games a player sit out, then why are we using sitting out games as punishment, when it´s a sufficient time banned that we want? I think we should either use a fixed time to sit out, or just stick to sitting out games, ignoring how the games look, because even if a game can take a week more or less than another game, a lot of the time banned is NOT spent sitting out games, the time between games that the banned players spend waiting for games to start is about even, regardless of type of game. If a minigame takes 2 weeks and a longer game take 3, the difference become smaller when games like Callers take 2 weeks of waiting before it dawns that it isn´t going to be played anyway. 4 weeks waiting isn´t much shorter compared to 5 weeks. And if one minigame finish early, so what? Someone with 5 games banned will probably take a few longer games too, and the player banned for 1 game missed a minigame, isn´t that punishment enough? Do we want him to wait a week for a longer game to start, so he can sit out a longer game, or just be done with it and get back to the game? tl;dr: Minigames take a bit shorter to play, but they still take time to start. If the difference between sitting out a mini and a normal game isn´t that big, why complicate things? | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
Zorkmid still posts regularly on TL, so it wouldn't by tough to contact him. I only say that because I don't think he checks the mafia forums, especially after this post. On August 16 2011 10:31 Zorkmid wrote: I feel like there would be a lot of people that feel the same way that you do RedFF, and I don't feel like there's any way that I could convince you or those like you that letting me into a TL mafia game is a good idea. Don't waste any more precious scumhunting time debating the merits of Zorkmid. GLHF! I've gotten over my side of the incident. The game turned out to be a real gem despite it, and there was no other impact on the players aside from sandroba and myself/zork. | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6788 Posts
On November 14 2011 02:15 iGrok wrote: As far as rewarding activity vis-a-vis ban leniency, why don't we just pick a number of games, and every time you play x games, you earn a get-out-of jail free card for your next inactivity ban. Behavior bans would still be in effect. The player would have to keep track of how many games he has played, and apply for the card on his own. So flamewheel wouldn't have to keep track of who is playing where. Or if we do want to do that, I volunteer to keep track of who plays in which game. In a massive Excel spreadsheet. Also, and this should really go in active games so I'll paste it there, but why don't we make hosts do game write-ups after their game is finished? If we did that, and required it before hosting again, it might slow down the host requests a bit. Just so you know iGrok I started a list of how many games people have played. You can find my progress in the library thread. However it's been pointed out that my numbers are wrong. I think it's because I was missing some player lists so I was going to wait until that part of the library is finished before continuing. If however you want to give it a crack right away I just wanted you to know that data exists so you dont have to start completely cold. The easiest way however would be if everyone voluntarily kept track. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On November 14 2011 10:05 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Just so you know iGrok I started a list of how many games people have played. You can find my progress in the library thread. However it's been pointed out that my numbers are wrong. I think it's because I was missing some player lists so I was going to wait until that part of the library is finished before continuing. If however you want to give it a crack right away I just wanted you to know that data exists so you dont have to start completely cold. The easiest way however would be if everyone voluntarily kept track. I wouldn't go back in time, this would start fresh, since it would be a new thing. I might just do this anyways. What do you think of the concepts? | ||
|
papapanda
Taiwan326 Posts
Posted on that thread also, is there anything else I need to do? | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6788 Posts
On November 14 2011 11:06 iGrok wrote: I wouldn't go back in time, this would start fresh, since it would be a new thing. I might just do this anyways. What do you think of the concepts? If you start fresh then all the power to you. It'll be useful to have and if we did decide on get-out-of-jail free cards then it'd be already made. Also if you want help I'd be more than happy to since it ties in with what I had tried to do earlier. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
Perhaps we can find something other than actually sitting out games to prove someone is actively sitting out games. The central library thing, every ban results in one game you have to write up, and if some are of poor quality we can use a second ban to spruce them up. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:40 Cyber_Cheese wrote: We should fix specific amounts of times as the bans (A month?), and do the get out of jail cards but very infrequently (10+, though I'd prefer 20) Perhaps we can find something other than actually sitting out games to prove someone is actively sitting out games. The central library thing, every ban results in one game you have to write up, and if some are of poor quality we can use a second ban to spruce them up. Fixing specific amounts of times to bans allows people who only play when they're on breaks but they break the rules when they do play to slip through the cracks. They literally aren't punished at all because their ban sentences are up by the time they actually want to come back. Your numbers for the get out of jail cards are completely unrealistic. There aren't more than 10 people on the entire forum who have played 20 games. Even 10 is exceedingly rare and there are people who deserve leniency that wouldn't make the cut. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On November 14 2011 14:47 Qatol wrote: Fixing specific amounts of times to bans allows people who only play when they're on breaks but they break the rules when they do play to slip through the cracks. They literally aren't punished at all because their ban sentences are up by the time they actually want to come back. Your numbers for the get out of jail cards are completely unrealistic. There aren't more than 10 people on the entire forum who have played 20 games. Even 10 is exceedingly rare and there are people who deserve leniency that wouldn't make the cut. I was thinking 4 games. Especially since (in my mind) it would only count for games played after the current point | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
| ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 13 2011 13:19 kitaman27 wrote: One game ban for hacklebeast for inactivity in Newbie Mini Mafia. Thanks. I think you might have missed this with your update FW. Ty. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On November 14 2011 23:06 kitaman27 wrote: Suppose chaoser received a second inactivity modkill like he mentioned. Would these "get out of jail free" passes whipe the entire 3 game ban he would be getting or just reduce it to a 1 game ban as if it was his first? I think you might have missed this with your update FW. Ty. 1 game ban | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On November 14 2011 23:06 kitaman27 wrote: Suppose chaoser received a second inactivity modkill like he mentioned. Would these "get out of jail free" passes whipe the entire 3 game ban he would be getting or just reduce it to a 1 game ban as if it was his first? I think you might have missed this with your update FW. Ty. In my eyes it would be as if he was never banned the second time at all. Chaoser misses a vote and gets modkilled Chaoser receives a ban Chaoser uses his X amount of games to avoid the ban No ban is recorded End of story. It basically has nothing to do with his previous ban. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On November 15 2011 02:38 Radfield wrote: In my eyes it would be as if he was never banned the second time at all. Chaoser misses a vote and gets modkilled Chaoser receives a ban Chaoser uses his X amount of games to avoid the ban No ban is recorded End of story. It basically has nothing to do with his previous ban. Pretty much this. Remember, you can't use a free pass to dodge a behavior ban. | ||
| ||
