|
In regards to meapak. As someone who was talking to him somewhat frequently before his TL ban he not only was modkilled in igroks game because of it, however he has not been on any chat clients at all while I have been around my comp.
He much like most of us is fairly active online. If he in this much time has not been able to get to a computer to even log onto say aim? or that his comp wasn't auto logging etc... chances are whatever he opted to leave TL for is a rather pertinent issue and most likely a rather large life issue.
Factor in that he has done far more overall than most people for the mafia forum I am willing to give leniency. If he comes back and has a legit reason for why he requested a tl ban (I'm near 100% sure that there is) then no ban. Anyone who requests TL bans usually has some major life shit they need to get done and realize TL is a massive timesink/distraction.
Anyone heavy pushing for justice against him at this point should be fine with waiting til he comes back to make a decision.
|
Perhaps "warned for activity" did not convey the full scope of the situation:
The stated rule is: "You most post in the thread at least once every 24 hours."
--- RebirthOfLeGenD ---
1 day, 7:25:00 between game start at 2012-01-04 15:00:00 and post at 2012-01-05 22:25:00
1 day, 8:24:00 between posts at 2012-01-06 15:34:00 and 2012-01-07 23:58:00
1 day, 15:36:00 between posts at 2012-01-09 09:48:00 and 2012-01-11 01:24:00
1 day, 0:42:00 between posts at 2012-01-11 16:52:00 and 2012-01-12 17:34:00
As for why I did not replace or modkill after all of this, I am always hesitant to modkill players for inactivity because it greatly skews the outcome of the game, and I had only 2 replacement players available, one (iGrok) which I had already contacted earlier and had replied that he was busy, and the other (Adam4167) was actually a participant in the first truncated observer thread, and thus was also someone who I would ideally, out of fairness, not substitute in the game.
As for the rest of your statement, I do indeed treat rulebreaking with and without malice differently. Those who maliciously break rules never play in my games again. As for your attitude that my rules are arbitrary and silly, those rules are in place in order to conduct a particular style of competitive game, and were posted a full week before the game began, and never edited. If you really did not believe the rules are worth following, at the very least I would have expected you to mention it before the game began, or exercised your right as a player to not participate at all. I would have simply avoided the game in your contrived hypothetical example.
If one adopts the attitude that breaking rules without malice does not matter, why bother having any rules at all? As long as a player "doesn't mean it", anything becomes permissible.
|
FW, there's like 7 or 8 votes for atleast marking him as banned til he shows up and we can discuss it....I think 5 or 6 otherwise....as in no ban/when he gets back...I personally don't care, I support a ban til he can explain, and that's all. I don't care if its done in private as long as iGrok is involved in the decision if it is.
anyway, I'm done with the meapak thing.
|
Sitting out BCs Game.
Also moar Mafia drama please
|
redFF just got temped 
Why red, why?
|
|
|
It's suprising how often that happens. People getting banned in the banned list  I hope GM can cope without Red for is Mini.
|
United States22154 Posts
|
USA5860 Posts
On February 04 2012 13:35 Zona wrote:
Perhaps "warned for activity" did not convey the full scope of the situation:
The stated rule is: "You most post in the thread at least once every 24 hours."
--- RebirthOfLeGenD ---
1 day, 7:25:00 between game start at 2012-01-04 15:00:00 and post at 2012-01-05 22:25:00
1 day, 8:24:00 between posts at 2012-01-06 15:34:00 and 2012-01-07 23:58:00
1 day, 15:36:00 between posts at 2012-01-09 09:48:00 and 2012-01-11 01:24:00
1 day, 0:42:00 between posts at 2012-01-11 16:52:00 and 2012-01-12 17:34:00
As for why I did not replace or modkill after all of this, I am always hesitant to modkill players for inactivity because it greatly skews the outcome of the game, and I had only 2 replacement players available, one (iGrok) which I had already contacted earlier and had replied that he was busy, and the other (Adam4167) was actually a participant in the first truncated observer thread, and thus was also someone who I would ideally, out of fairness, not substitute in the game.
As for the rest of your statement, I do indeed treat rulebreaking with and without malice differently. Those who maliciously break rules never play in my games again. As for your attitude that my rules are arbitrary and silly, those rules are in place in order to conduct a particular style of competitive game, and were posted a full week before the game began, and never edited. If you really did not believe the rules are worth following, at the very least I would have expected you to mention it before the game began, or exercised your right as a player to not participate at all. I would have simply avoided the game in your contrived hypothetical example.
If one adopts the attitude that breaking rules without malice does not matter, why bother having any rules at all? As long as a player "doesn't mean it", anything becomes permissible.
I didn't say that. If a player breaks a rule and there is no real harm, and no malice then why should their be a punishment? If I broke a rule I didn't know existed and it had a bad result then sure, I would deserve a punishment. But there was no bad effect, nor was there any malice.
And to follow that up, I don't see how me hopping in the thread every 24 hours and just going "k brb" makes much more of a difference than me not posting? With your guideline I could do that, but I straight up didn't have time to post lengthy stuff every singled day and in an already cluttered thread you want me spamming it needlessly? At some points I can't post because I work, sleep, and have other stuff I have to do. I can't help that. When it came down to it though, I didn't skate by in the minimum and I was by any fair definition an active player.
|
USA5860 Posts
I am extremely sorry for my actions. It was a poor decision that was not made very rationally. I should have PM'd iGrok. I will take whatever ban he wants.
I don't know how much I will visit TL for a while, please just listen to iGrok and I'll sit out my games when stuff is over and I get the chance.
Once again, I'm really sorry.
-Meapak
|
Requesting a warning for redFF.
I don't like requesting this, because I know he's just upset at the way the game ended. However, I pm'd him asking him not to post in the thread for 48 hours, to cool off. I asked him to pm any comments he had to me instead. He then posted "posting in thread". I then warned him publicly in thread, which he responded by quoting himself from earlier.
I understand that he's unhappy with the result, but after two warnings, to continue to post (particularly with "posting in thread") shows blatant disrespect which, even if he never wants to play in one of my games again, is completely over the line.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303792¤tpage=77#1521
|
I didn't break any rules regarding the banlist. Feel free to bar me from your games but I did nothing worthy of being put on the banlist.
Put a lot of effort into that game actually tbh
|
Requesting a warning for Igrok.
Wasted players time with 4 days of pointless play when result was already decided. Then warned a player with legitimate complaints.
|
I know you put a lot of time and effort into this game, and you were one of the few people who actually played decently. But when you disobey a direct warning from a host, you can be, and people have been before, warned for that.
The result was not already decided. I discussed the situation with several people to decide on the most fair way to proceed. Because of no scum communication, as long as either side could win, it wasn't fair to call it early. This is a flaw in an otherwise great setup, to the point that, even in the Obs QT, people had no idea what was going on. With all the terrible town and scum play that happened this game, calling it earlier for either side wouldn't be fair.
While I plan on encouraging discussion, ALLCAPS posts, rage, and excessive profanity are not conducive to the game.
|
meh w/e im not getting warned for this
with a flaw like that i disagree that it was a great setup
|
A warning for redFF seems appropriate to me. It doesn't make sense for a host to be unable to control his thread. The host's word is law. If the host tells you to stop posting for a while, you stop posting. It's common sense. And it's pretty obvious that redFF was acting out just to disrespect the host (which we have permabanned people (Showtime!) for in the past). A warning seems completely reasonable.
|
USA5860 Posts
Red, I read it the thread and I can understand where you are coming from, I really do and in my opinion you were conducting yourself kind of on the boarder until this.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303792¤tpage=76#1505
You were insulting the set up, and rightly so. It sucks to waste your time in an unwinnable situation due to host error like that, and while I can't confirm that you played another 5 days necessarily (From what I gather, I think they had to let it play out to a certain point to make it 100% that it was just a fastest finger ending) you can complain about that, but I would even give him leeway considered its a weird themed set up.
But don't directly insult a host, that's bad. You want to argue his points and say why you think hes wrong, that is fine. There is no need to verbally attack greymist though. It was really really minor though if that means anything. I'd say in the future Redff just approach things way more calmly, less caps posting and more rationality go a much longer way in this subforum when compared with caps lock and baseless insults.
I'd probably say if he attacks a host/player verbally again its probably worth a ban, but an official warning might be a bit much. Up to hosts though. I'd say give it a couple of days both of you cool off and try to come back less emotional.
|
I don't know if I have the credibility to be discussing this, feel free to let me know if I'm out of my place and I'll step out, but here's my 2c.
During the actual game, it makes sense that the host's word is law, but in post-game discussion, is it true that the host can dole out warnings and bans? During the game, redFF wasn't actively insulting people or hurting the game, though he had a difficult role to pull off that he invested a lot of time into. He didn't criticize Greymist/iGrok's setup until postgame, which is the time for such discussion... even though he was being belligerent, it was not excessively so.
There are probably a lot of implicit rules in the ban list that are known to people who've been around, but because these things are not explicitly listed out, it's sort of nebulous. If it is standard that host's word is always law, or that direct insults result in warnings, that's fine, but as is redFF didn't do anything crazy, though the rage was quite fiery. Besides, IMO, dictating that someone can't post in a thread is a bit highhanded, unless the thread is spiraling out of control.
Up to the hosts/ban list mods, of course.
|
USA5860 Posts
Opinions are always welcome Echelon, and thank you. I couldn't agree more.
|
Even post-game hosts are entitled to a modicum of respect due to the simple fact that without hosts we will have no games and hosting isn't generally a particularly rewarding task while requiring a lot of time and effort. If players are allowed to treat hosts as they please, we will have fewer and possibly less capable hosts. Moreover, keeping things civil is a worthy goal by itself. Criticizing the setup is fine as long as it is done in a reasonable manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
