TL Mafia Ban List - Page 13

On May 10 2010 06:17 Bill Murray wrote:
it's like when go.go slid his scv through the probe block. they allowed it, then banned it.
he didn't know he was breaking any rules.

On May 09 2010 14:53 Incognito wrote:
-WORDS-

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.

-MORE WORDS-

On May 11 2010 04:43 BrownBear wrote:


If it helps at all, I really was not intending to alter the way the game was played at all. I just fucked up ><

(slash is this affecting my ban duration?)

On May 11 2010 04:43 BrownBear wrote:


If it helps at all, I really was not intending to alter the way the game was played at all. I just fucked up ><

(slash is this affecting my ban duration?)

So, by your own logic, you cannot now lynch me. I may be targeted by mafia for this, I may even have incurred flamewheel's wrath and be modkilled. So be it. But I will be DAMNED if the town's gonna waste a valuable lynch on a blue character.

On May 11 2010 09:20 Incognito wrote:




Oh of course. You want to tell me that you knew you might be modkilled and did this so that the town wouldn't waste a lynch (aka strategic modkilling, its in the rules, you may claim not to have known about it, but it was there. your loss if you didn't read it). Of course that statement doesn't show an intent to alter the game. Sorry, but I don't buy your excuse. Seems like you knew what you were doing here, and strategic modkilling is also in the rules. You broke two explicitly stated rules. Doesn't warrant any more sympathy than Bill Murray imo.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

On May 12 2010 00:32 BrownBear wrote:


Believe what you want, man, obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise. All I'm saying is, that makes me sound like a giant douchebag who intended to fuck with the game, and that's exactly the opposite of what I did.

Also, kinda funny you're raging so much at me over this, when it was completely dealt with, over, and done before BM started whining...

On May 12 2010 06:09 Bill Murray wrote:
Brownbear: before i started whining? to me i was banned without any reason, days after the event took place, without ANY notification. I just happened to see Qatol post in here, and figured I'd see what he was saying, since I value his opinion. When I saw I was getting a 2 game ban, I was like "WTF?". Sorry if you consider that whining.

Qatol: I agree that it does not need to be resolved right now, as I will be sitting out caller's game regardless *sniff*, but I would really like to know if I need to put any more energy into this community.

On May 12 2010 16:00 Bill Murray wrote:
who is considered to be "everyone"?
by "everyone" i'm assuming you mean "the people who are old-school and moderately good". Being a terrible player, and a newb, I feel that my jury should consist of other new terrible players

On May 12 2010 16:15 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Typically those voting are hosts/balance crew

On May 12 2010 16:00 Bill Murray wrote:
who is considered to be "everyone"?
by "everyone" i'm assuming you mean "the people who are old-school and moderately good". Being a terrible player, and a newb, I feel that my jury should consist of other new terrible players

On May 14 2010 16:53 Qatol wrote:
Okay Ver never got back to me, but you've waited long enough.
Incognito - 3 games
Ace - 2+ games (vote gets more weight because he was host)
BC - 2 games
Flamewheel - 1 game
Bill Murray - 1 game
Sorry Bill, it looks like 2 games is the call here. I hope you don't quit playing here for good; it would be a shame to lose such an active player.

Your ban progression would be 2-3-whatever the normal 3rd punishment was.

---

Basically the way I think we should treat warnings in the future is that if someone is given a warning, their next ban's duration is increased by 1 game, giving them an even greater incentive not to get themselves banned. What do other people think about this?

On May 09 2010 14:53 Incognito wrote:
*** 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).