|
On May 07 2012 07:24 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:23 redFF wrote: The Provocation/hyperaggression playstyle leads to worse games and more hatred. Oh opinions! Honestly iGrok can do whatever he wants in his games. But if a game uses a non-official OP and a non-official ruleset which includes "I can modkill you whenever I want with no warning for what I deem to be unacceptable behavior", it should not be tied to the banlist at all. I believe He did warn though
That isn't the point redFF is trying to make. If your game isn't going by standard rules then you don't get to attempt issuing bans.
I don't agree with it to the extent that redFF implies, though. What about people modkilled out for inactivity like St Dan? Even in non-standard games I believe people like him should be banned. He made an easy win into a really difficult, should have been impossible win for mafia. I like the aggressive playstyle. I toned it down because I didn't want to get modkilled, and BH did too, just not to the extent that I did. If you don't want gifs, make a no gifs rule, if you don't want people to be aggressive make a no aggression rule. Insulting players themselves and not their argument is OMGUS, so just say at the beginning no OMGUS attacks and everything will be fine. If you want to argue the extent of an OMGUS then that's something beyond my scope of experience.
I'm relatively new, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I don't feel he should be banned because he's being banned for a playstyle that wasn't prohibited in the OP. Warning for not listening to the host's general warning as much as he should have, not a ban.
|
Inactivity and behavioral bans are very different things.
I have no issue with iGrok giving bans to people for inactivity. Now if he had a rule like "If you don't post once an hour you will be modkilled for inactivity" then his inactivity bans shouldn't affect the banlist.
I personally think all banlist approved games should have the same general ruleset with regards to activity and behavior (Obviously theme games would have other rules, but the general idea is the same), and if you don't use that ruleset your game should not be able to hand out banlist bans, but that's just me.
|
On May 07 2012 07:24 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:23 redFF wrote: The Provocation/hyperaggression playstyle leads to worse games and more hatred. Oh opinions! Honestly iGrok can do whatever he wants in his games. But if a game uses a non-official OP and a non-official ruleset which includes "I can modkill you whenever I want with no warning for what I deem to be unacceptable behavior", it should not be tied to the banlist at all. I believe He did warn though
Ah yes but the OP states There will be no warnings for misbehavior, only forced replacement or modkill. If he did warn then that's breaking the rules he set out in the OP and is a different issue entirely, and not one for this thread.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
As the person on the receiving end of much of the BH vitriol, I'd rather he wasn't banned
|
Since i've only got one more game left here, I withdraw all bans and warnings for TL LIII.
The people who agree with me don't play here often anyways.
|
 igrok dont go
|
FREEAGLELAND26782 Posts
From: iGrok [ 2812 posts | Profile | Buddy | Report ]
Subject: Bans
Date: 5/7/12 10:12
please remove St.Daniel from the ban list and BroodKingEXE from the warning list. Thanks!
removing
|
I think that BH deserves a ban. I don't mind the odd gif or jibe. I don't mind people being critical or even rude. But trying to interact with BH was like trying to punch and pebble dashed wall that can swear and post images. I think it's a sad day when you are allowed to post like he did and get away with it.
It's pretty clear that some standard for behaviour in thread needs to be set.
|
St Daniel needs to be banned forever still k thx
|
On May 07 2012 10:21 layabout wrote:
I think that BH deserves a ban. I don't mind the odd gif or jibe. I don't mind people being critical or even rude. But trying to interact with BH was like trying to punch and pebble dashed wall that can swear and post images. I think it's a sad day when you are allowed to post like he did and get away with it.
It's pretty clear that some standard for behaviour in thread needs to be set.
Doesn't really matter since iGrok is leaving TL Mafia and removed his ban/warn requests. Issue of his ban is nonexistent now.
Discussion of behavioral guidelines is fine, though.
|
On May 07 2012 11:32 Mattchew wrote:
St Daniel needs to be banned forever still k thx
Seriously... that guy really caused me some grief, and to top it off was posting actively other places than the game
|
On May 07 2012 11:32 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 10:21 layabout wrote:
I think that BH deserves a ban. I don't mind the odd gif or jibe. I don't mind people being critical or even rude. But trying to interact with BH was like trying to punch and pebble dashed wall that can swear and post images. I think it's a sad day when you are allowed to post like he did and get away with it.
It's pretty clear that some standard for behaviour in thread needs to be set. Doesn't really matter since iGrok is leaving TL Mafia and removed his ban/warn requests. Issue of his ban is nonexistent now. Discussion of behavioral guidelines is fine, though.
It still matters unless the people he wants to ban are also leaving the community. They still acted poorly and still need to be sent a message that such behavior is unacceptable here. Otherwise, there's no point in having a centralized ban list if the bans don't matter if the host is leaving.
|
On May 07 2012 15:08 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 11:32 Risen wrote:On May 07 2012 10:21 layabout wrote:
I think that BH deserves a ban. I don't mind the odd gif or jibe. I don't mind people being critical or even rude. But trying to interact with BH was like trying to punch and pebble dashed wall that can swear and post images. I think it's a sad day when you are allowed to post like he did and get away with it.
It's pretty clear that some standard for behaviour in thread needs to be set. Doesn't really matter since iGrok is leaving TL Mafia and removed his ban/warn requests. Issue of his ban is nonexistent now. Discussion of behavioral guidelines is fine, though. It still matters unless the people he wants to ban are also leaving the community. They still acted poorly and still need to be sent a message that such behavior is unacceptable here. Otherwise, there's no point in having a centralized ban list if the bans don't matter if the host is leaving.
I would agree except...
On May 07 2012 10:16 flamewheel wrote:
From: iGrok [ 2812 posts | Profile | Buddy | Report ]
Subject: Bans
Date: 5/7/12 10:12
please remove St.Daniel from the ban list and BroodKingEXE from the warning list. Thanks!
removing
|
On May 07 2012 09:28 iGrok wrote:
Since i've only got one more game left here, I withdraw all bans and warnings for TL LIII.
The people who agree with me don't play here often anyways.
I wont miss you because you are the only person who ever crossed the line towards me when it comes to behaviour.
|
United States22154 Posts
Will address all this tonight after I do the votecount for the theme mini. I intended to do it yesterday but ended up otherwise occupied.
|
On May 07 2012 15:41 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:08 Qatol wrote:On May 07 2012 11:32 Risen wrote:On May 07 2012 10:21 layabout wrote:
I think that BH deserves a ban. I don't mind the odd gif or jibe. I don't mind people being critical or even rude. But trying to interact with BH was like trying to punch and pebble dashed wall that can swear and post images. I think it's a sad day when you are allowed to post like he did and get away with it.
It's pretty clear that some standard for behaviour in thread needs to be set. Doesn't really matter since iGrok is leaving TL Mafia and removed his ban/warn requests. Issue of his ban is nonexistent now. Discussion of behavioral guidelines is fine, though. It still matters unless the people he wants to ban are also leaving the community. They still acted poorly and still need to be sent a message that such behavior is unacceptable here. Otherwise, there's no point in having a centralized ban list if the bans don't matter if the host is leaving. I would agree except... Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 10:16 flamewheel wrote:
From: iGrok [ 2812 posts | Profile | Buddy | Report ]
Subject: Bans
Date: 5/7/12 10:12
please remove St.Daniel from the ban list and BroodKingEXE from the warning list. Thanks!
removing
Yeah, I disagree with that and think it should be discussed more. Especially for St. Daniel and BroodKingEXE because they're just inactivity-related discipline. Since when does the host of the game leaving the site matter at all to the ban list when the behavior was ban-worthy or warning-worthy?
|
So much hate
iGrok don't go!
|
United States2186 Posts
igrok's conduct here seems totally fine to me. While maybe he may not have been 100% congruent according to some, hosts make honest mistakes and that doesn't invalidate his decisions. Furthermore, as he would have pardoned BH if he apologized, that shows that he's not being malevolent, just trying to keep a certain type of atmosphere in his games which imo is perfectly acceptable. redff has a fair point in general but I don't think it really applies here because it really doesn't feel that igrok's 'standard,' if you will, is much different than a bunch of other hosts.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
I don't think iGrok holds any personal animus against me (nor do I against him)-- in fact we got along quite well during Sleeper Cell II. For what it's worth, I did apologize to Marvellosity in private for my unbecoming actions towards him D1.
|
United States22154 Posts
I'm going to sustain the behavioral ban against BH, simply because his behavior would have earned him a ban anywhere else on tl. I say three weeks as usual for behavior bans.
The fact is, hosts can request bans for behavior that is disruptive to their game, even if their decision is different from what other hosts would make. They determine the level of disruption to their game and the type of environment they want, and in this case its pretty much written out in the OP. I don't think its unreasonable that if you play in their games and don't follow their rules that you should suffer consequences. (Assuming reasonable rules, which I think iGrok's were)
I'm going to sustain the inactivity ban on St.Daniel and the warning on BroodKingEXE as well, because inactivity is something that objectivly hurts games.
On May 07 2012 02:10 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:03 Qatol wrote:
We had people quit TL mafia because gtrsrs was too aggressive.... I think intentionally pissing people off to get a read on them is not a valid playstyle and should be punished accordingly. It is not worth it to sacrifice our player base just to accomodate an obnoxious playstyle. Yeah gtrsrs was borderline dickish, but the point is he did not get banned. BH wasn't dickish at all. As I said, the only wrong thing is calling other guy "that kid" twice. We can't just forbid players from playing aggressively. It might be part of someone's game plan.
there is a distinct difference between aggressive, and downright offensive/disruptive, and its the hosts call as to what it is. gtrsrs is a bad example because I actively regret not banning him, he should have been banned, I was just too hesitant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
