EPTTL Mafia Ban List - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On May 08 2010 09:42 Ace wrote: I don't see how your threat is going to make anyone cringe but ok, do as you please ^_^ One post down. Cringe occurred. Bam. You just got Emeril'd. | ||
|
Korynne
Canada990 Posts
We could all be sitting around saying omg did he get roleblocked for half a day... And probably came to the conclusion that there must be a roleblocker because why would BM not invent something? So then something regarding me or Foolishness being lynched probably because of that. Or at least some kind of using the fact that roleblocker was taken into consideration for lynching. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On May 08 2010 18:18 Korynne wrote: Also, Bill posting that would be pertinent to whether there was a roleblocker no? We could all be sitting around saying omg did he get roleblocked for half a day... And probably came to the conclusion that there must be a roleblocker because why would BM not invent something? So then something regarding me or Foolishness being lynched probably because of that. Or at least some kind of using the fact that roleblocker was taken into consideration for lynching. Hmm very good point. Yes, that information is quite important for telling us about a roleblocker. Oh and Hobbes and Zona get 3 game bans because this is their second modkill for inactivity each. I assume nobody has a problem with this one? | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
On May 08 2010 19:04 Qatol wrote: Hmm very good point. Yes, that information is quite important for telling us about a roleblocker. Oh and Hobbes and Zona get 3 game bans because this is their second modkill for inactivity each. I assume nobody has a problem with this one? FFS guys, play if you're going to sign up. No problem here. On May 08 2010 20:08 Bill Murray wrote: oh, i didnt even think about the roleblocker. i guess the lesson learned is the 1 post after death is a no-no for me. i was surprised to see an any game ban, and i could probably cope with 1, but seeing it at 2 was confusing because I thought it followed 1 game - 3 games - lifetime. Would mine be 2 games - lifetime, or 2 games - 6 games - lifetime, or 2 games - 3 games - lifetime? Just confusing. I don't want to be hated on for something I didn't even mean to do. I would advocate for 2-3-life. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
it is unfair to make exceptions to that, especially when what was done was unintentional, and considering my 2-3 games before that weren't THAT bad. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
I'm obviously pleading not guilty. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On May 09 2010 11:36 Bill Murray wrote: so, what's the verdict? I'm obviously pleading not guilty. Ver hasn't been around. Don't worry, it will get resolved within a few days. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
Anyway, back to the issue at hand, Bill has already been warned once about posting after death in my XVI game, where he posted the result of his rolecheck after he died. And the person who was rolechecked innocent happened to basically win the game for the town as a confirmed townie. That's a BIG misstep. And he only got off with a warning there, when it probably should have been a 3~ game ban. This is his second unacceptable after-death post. There's no excuse this time. Bill screwed up once and got away with it. And that should be considered in the equation imo. If it were my choice, I'd say 3 game ban. Definitely not a 1 game ban. *** On a related but more general note... *** I'm of the opinion that major game changing behavior should not get away with a mere 1 game ban. For example, this game's behavior, Bill's behavior in my XVI game, and BrownBear's behavior in the last game. This game is going on and shouldn't be talked about. In my XVI game, Bill made an after-death post that resulted in a confirmed townie. One that won the game for the town. Even if this was an honest error, it is game changing behavior. Grossly game-changing. It resulted in a net town gain, and was hugely disadvantageous for the mafia. But after the behavior happens, what can the mod do to mitigate the damage? Well, Bill is already dead. Can't do anything there. By doing nothing, mafia loses out big time. Any other action, like modkilling the confirmed townie, sucks for the town, when it wasn't the town's fault, but Bill Murray's fault. Anything that the mod does or doesn't do hurts someone. The logical course of action is just to do nothing. And that results in a net gain for the town. So Bill's action was a gain for the town.was pro-town, whether intended or not. So what makes this behavior different from, say, an inactivity modkill, which also gets a 1 game ban? Well, inactivity modkills hurt your own team. In the event that the modkill is someone like a DT or vig, well, it really hurts your team. But you wouldn't want to do that behavior anyway. However, allowing major slipups like Bill's slipup to go by with only a 1 game modkill doesn't do enough to punish that behavior. In Bill's case, leaking information benefits your team at your detriment. In the case of inactivity, both you and your team lose out because of your modkill. Theres not much incentive to do anything there. While it is true that ban lengths increase for repeat offenders, there should be a distinction between hurting your own team via items such as inactivity, and helping your team illegally. They should be treated as separate categories of offenses. I'll offer more in the last paragraph. Likewise, BrownBear's behavior in last game. First off, theres two infractions, posting a host pm, and strategic modkilling. Like in Bill's case, whether intended or not, the action did result in a net town gain. Town got an extra lifeline in the form of an extra lynch, as BrownBear (arguably) would have been lynched anyway. While the town did not really take advantage of this situation, the action did result in a net gain for the town. Again, we see the theme of townie breaking a rule to result in a net gain for the town. My opinion is that BrownBear deserves a 2~3 game ban. Anyway, given the above points, I want to make a proposal for a new rule. Something to the tune of Strategic Rule Breaking. It goes like this. If you break a rule and it results in a net gain for your team, you get a 3 game ban. So stuff like strategic modkilling, posting (relevant) host pms, after-death posting of relevant information. How would enforcement work? Well, the burden is on the player to check to see if something is legal. Hosts have complete discretion on enforcing the rule. They also reserve the last say in any decision, and are not required to cater to the offenders pleas. Players should check before doing something that is remotely game changing. Otherwise, there are no excuses. Net benefit rulebreaking (after death posting) should be treated separately from net loss rulebreaking (inactivity). | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Should say I can see where your coming from, and I am very much against the idea of punishing people for mistakes where there was clearly no intent to jeopardize the game and it didn't seem immediately apparant that your post would effect the game in any meaningful way. | ||
|
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On May 08 2010 09:11 L wrote: you're a moran ![[image loading]](http://chrisvreeland.com/moran.jpg) | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Charlie Murphy's moran story has impressed upon me the gravitas of calling someone a moran. Truely it is more than a dart to fling at one's opponents It is a barbed dart with which to slay them | ||
|
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Yes, XVI was broken because of his after-death post, since everybody was able to rally around citi.zen in time when they wouldn't have been able to, but since it was Bill's first game he was let off the hook with a warning. XVI was a long time ago, and Bill's been pretty good in all the other games he's played in. Yeah, XeliN, it may have not been completely obvious what Bill had said, but if you went back and looked at it you could have gleaned information from the post made in PYP. However, given that this is Bill's first time, and that this "rule" was just made, how about a compromise? Bill, being not an idiot, gets a one game ban as this is technically his "first punishable time." Incognito's "benefit rule-breaking" stands as of Bill's ban, meaning that all future cases of posting game-altering information after death would be treated as such. However, if Bill decides to break this rule after this time, he is treated as a third-time offender would be. Given the gravitas that generally accompanies third-time offenders, i.e. permaban, I would daresay that Bill would not be breaking the rule again, since he now knows not to explicitly. How does that sound? | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7875 Posts
On May 10 2010 03:00 flamewheel91 wrote: I like Incognito's suggestion. Yes, XVI was broken because of his after-death post, since everybody was able to rally around citi.zen in time when they wouldn't have been able to, but since it was Bill's first game he was let off the hook with a warning. XVI was a long time ago, and Bill's been pretty good in all the other games he's played in. Yeah, XeliN, it may have not been completely obvious what Bill had said, but if you went back and looked at it you could have gleaned information from the post made in PYP. However, given that this is Bill's first time, and that this "rule" was just made, how about a compromise? Bill, being not an idiot, gets a one game ban as this is technically his "first punishable time." Incognito's "benefit rule-breaking" stands as of Bill's ban, meaning that all future cases of posting game-altering information after death would be treated as such. However, if Bill decides to break this rule after this time, he is treated as a third-time offender would be. Given the gravitas that generally accompanies third-time offenders, i.e. permaban, I would daresay that Bill would not be breaking the rule again, since he now knows not to explicitly. How does that sound? This is basically where I stand. I am for giving Bill a bit of leeway in this case as a) his first offense wasn't punished as well as being his first game b) he has played very well recently. As such I am for a 1 game ban this case, perma ban for any future slip ups. I would only revise this to a 2 game ban now if Ace could pm me exactly how the post bill made could have destroyed his game. I haven't really followed your game Ace so I'm not sure just how badly it could have altered things as the post he made did seem relatively harmless (in comparison to say, dt claim after death, vig claiming which person he killed after death etc...) | ||
| ||
