• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:23
CEST 02:23
KST 09:23
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5TL.net Map Contest #21 - Finalists4Team TLMC #5: Vote to Decide Ladder Maps!0[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Mile High15
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up2PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition245.0.15 Balance Patch Notes (Live version)103$2,500 WardiTV TL Map Contest Tournament 151Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada11
StarCraft 2
General
5.0.15 Balance Patch Notes (Live version) Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition ZvT - Army Composition - Slow Lings + Fast Banes Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada
Tourneys
Tenacious Turtle Tussle Stellar Fest $2,500 WardiTV TL Map Contest Tournament 15 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament LANified! 37: Groundswell, BYOC LAN, Nov 28-30 2025
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers Mutation # 492 Get Out More Mutation # 491 Night Drive
Brood War
General
RepMastered™: replay sharing and analyzer site BW General Discussion Question regarding recent ASL Bisu vs Larva game BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Ro8 Day 4 [ASL20] Ro8 Day 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Proposed Glossary of Strategic Uncertainty Current Meta TvZ Theorycraft - Improving on State of the Art 9 hatch vs 10 hatch vs 12 hatch
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Recent Gifted Posts The Automated Ban List BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final
Blogs
[AI] From Comfort Women to …
Peanutsc
Mental Health In Esports: Wo…
TrAiDoS
Try to reverse getting fired …
Garnet
[ASL20] Players bad at pi…
pullarius1
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2081 users

TL Mafia Ban List - Page 148

Forum Index > TL Mafia
Post a Reply
Prev 1 146 147 148 149 150 180 Next
Mig
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
United States4714 Posts
August 14 2012 22:35 GMT
#2941
Sitting out Normal Mini Mafia III
Moderator
kitaman27 *
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States9245 Posts
August 14 2012 22:40 GMT
#2942
Hi Mig! :o
I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt. That stuffs loaded with nutrients. I... I can't compete with that stuff.
sandroba
Profile Joined April 2006
Canada4998 Posts
August 15 2012 00:12 GMT
#2943
On August 15 2012 07:35 Mig wrote:
Sitting out Normal Mini Mafia III

Welcome back man!
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25552 Posts
August 16 2012 00:07 GMT
#2944
I seem to still be on the ban list for my 3 week ban some months back.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
BloodyC0bbler
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
Canada7876 Posts
August 17 2012 01:17 GMT
#2945
Modkill of Synystyr for not posting or voting multiple days in Mad Men.
#3 Member of the Chill Fanclub / Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaeger died. --Ser Jorah Mormont TL MAFIA FORUM http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 go go !
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25552 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-17 02:00:24
August 17 2012 01:59 GMT
#2946
Now that Mad Men is over...

On August 04 2012 19:37 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, I am uncomfortable with this. As ghost said he was just fine in XXII activity-level wise (it was more the content of his posts that got him lynched). If that was "another chance" then another chance sucked


I concur with Marvellosity on this issue. Zork's activity in XXII was entirely acceptable. He lost, but he tried, and there was nothing too lurkerish about it, he was just called out for lurking because he was having trouble forming cases, since as mafia that's hard to do and not give yourself away. As a result, Zork thought his activity level wasn't great when it was in fact fine.

From what I can tell, Zork felt a bit lonely, and maybe a bit confused on how to play mafia well, so he decided to feel out if there was a possibility for being replaced. BC requested further information, and Zork said he doubted he'd be able to be active enough to live up to the game's standards. BC requested a better reason, and Zork said "it's your game". A bit snippy, sure, but a true statement. Zork didn't have a better reason other than that he felt bad about his XXII play.

At this point, BC decided to modkill Zork.

It is, as Zork said, BC's game, so he can modkill who he wants. I oppose any disciplinary actions against Zork precipitating from this Modkill, however. The fact of the matter is, people lurk through games all the time. Zork felt discouraged because despite his acceptable activity level in XXII, he was called a lurker. This was largely because as scum, he had trouble writing good cases. I feel like this modkill was unnecessary, and this ban would drive away someone who only wanted to provide the best play experience possible.

I have no doubt that if, after Zork said "it's your game", BC said "okay, I want you to do your best to be active-- the level you exhibited in XXII was acceptable, just do that again", Zork would be alive and well, unmodkilled, and active, posting several times per cycle.

I am against a ban of Zorkmid.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
BloodyC0bbler
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
Canada7876 Posts
August 17 2012 02:26 GMT
#2947
On August 17 2012 10:59 Blazinghand wrote:
Now that Mad Men is over...

Show nested quote +
On August 04 2012 19:37 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, I am uncomfortable with this. As ghost said he was just fine in XXII activity-level wise (it was more the content of his posts that got him lynched). If that was "another chance" then another chance sucked


I concur with Marvellosity on this issue. Zork's activity in XXII was entirely acceptable. He lost, but he tried, and there was nothing too lurkerish about it, he was just called out for lurking because he was having trouble forming cases, since as mafia that's hard to do and not give yourself away. As a result, Zork thought his activity level wasn't great when it was in fact fine.

From what I can tell, Zork felt a bit lonely, and maybe a bit confused on how to play mafia well, so he decided to feel out if there was a possibility for being replaced. BC requested further information, and Zork said he doubted he'd be able to be active enough to live up to the game's standards. BC requested a better reason, and Zork said "it's your game". A bit snippy, sure, but a true statement. Zork didn't have a better reason other than that he felt bad about his XXII play.

At this point, BC decided to modkill Zork.

It is, as Zork said, BC's game, so he can modkill who he wants. I oppose any disciplinary actions against Zork precipitating from this Modkill, however. The fact of the matter is, people lurk through games all the time. Zork felt discouraged because despite his acceptable activity level in XXII, he was called a lurker. This was largely because as scum, he had trouble writing good cases. I feel like this modkill was unnecessary, and this ban would drive away someone who only wanted to provide the best play experience possible.

I have no doubt that if, after Zork said "it's your game", BC said "okay, I want you to do your best to be active-- the level you exhibited in XXII was acceptable, just do that again", Zork would be alive and well, unmodkilled, and active, posting several times per cycle.

I am against a ban of Zorkmid.



1) hes on probation

2) He had a "reason" that had he explained originally I would have looked into and realized that level was fine. He however didn't have the respect to even give me that until after he was modkilled.


A player who knows they are on probation knows they have to be on their best behaviour. Asking for a replacement within the 16ish hour mark is absolutely ridiculous. This was the point of disrespectful not to just me as a host willing to take him on but also to the players. He didn't attempt to play the game and even display a level of activity instead just said "i want out".

Given that he had no respect for anyone in my game, or me as a host. I would say if he is not banned that any host opting to actually let him play in their game is opening it up to similar experience.
#3 Member of the Chill Fanclub / Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaeger died. --Ser Jorah Mormont TL MAFIA FORUM http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 go go !
Barbiero
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Brazil5259 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-17 03:51:08
August 17 2012 03:50 GMT
#2948
Do we get any actions toward Xsebt on Mad Men Mafia? According to Toadesstern, he blatantly broke rules by PMing him without permission, and gave vital information regarding the game there, which ended confirming a townie later(toad himself, in this case).
♥ The world needs more hearts! ♥
BloodyC0bbler
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
Canada7876 Posts
August 17 2012 04:06 GMT
#2949
I am still deciding on what action to push for.

He broke the no pm rule and cheated (thank you toad for being so upfront and honest) and Talis broke the no screenshotting rule as well as the no making bets rule -_-

Talis' behaviour was not IMO game altering or meant to be malicious in any way so I would let him off scott free as well, it wasn't intentional nor game altering. However Xsebts was and had I modkilled him it would have confirmed all information given to toad which had already made its way into thread rather than have it up in the air.

I am open to suggestions on if a ban is warranted or if people believe a warning is enough to suffice.

as synystyr's modkill was inactivity and he has yet to even respond to my pm nor vote in the last cycle I would say 1 game ban, or time based ban whatever we use now.
#3 Member of the Chill Fanclub / Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaeger died. --Ser Jorah Mormont TL MAFIA FORUM http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 go go !
Qatol
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
United States3165 Posts
August 17 2012 04:08 GMT
#2950
On August 17 2012 12:50 Zephirdd wrote:
Do we get any actions toward Xsebt on Mad Men Mafia? According to Toadesstern, he blatantly broke rules by PMing him without permission, and gave vital information regarding the game there, which ended confirming a townie later(toad himself, in this case).

That is up to BC, rastaban, and/or maybe Toadesstern to request.
Uff Da
BroodKingEXE
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
United States829 Posts
August 17 2012 04:12 GMT
#2951
XsebT should be banned. Correct me if Im wrong Zeph, but it kinda forced you guys to kill Toad as confirmed town.
Playing Protoss = Opponent owned
BroodKingEXE
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
United States829 Posts
August 17 2012 04:12 GMT
#2952
On August 17 2012 13:08 Qatol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 17 2012 12:50 Zephirdd wrote:
Do we get any actions toward Xsebt on Mad Men Mafia? According to Toadesstern, he blatantly broke rules by PMing him without permission, and gave vital information regarding the game there, which ended confirming a townie later(toad himself, in this case).

That is up to BC, rastaban, and/or maybe Toadesstern to request.

Lol ninja
Playing Protoss = Opponent owned
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
August 17 2012 04:13 GMT
#2953
On August 17 2012 13:12 BroodKingEXE wrote:
XsebT should be banned. Correct me if Im wrong Zeph, but it kinda forced you guys to kill Toad as confirmed town.


Yeah, I had no choice on that shot. And if I hadn't had two confirmed townies to shoot, I could have killed Marv instead.
Qatol
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
United States3165 Posts
August 17 2012 04:39 GMT
#2954
On August 17 2012 13:06 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
I am still deciding on what action to push for.

He broke the no pm rule and cheated (thank you toad for being so upfront and honest) and Talis broke the no screenshotting rule as well as the no making bets rule -_-

Talis' behaviour was not IMO game altering or meant to be malicious in any way so I would let him off scott free as well, it wasn't intentional nor game altering. However Xsebts was and had I modkilled him it would have confirmed all information given to toad which had already made its way into thread rather than have it up in the air.

I am open to suggestions on if a ban is warranted or if people believe a warning is enough to suffice.

as synystyr's modkill was inactivity and he has yet to even respond to my pm nor vote in the last cycle I would say 1 game ban, or time based ban whatever we use now.

Personally, I would push for a small ban for Talismania (no bets and no screenshots are still definitely not allowed and he should know that), and I'll have to think about Xsebts more. I'm thinking at least a small ban, probably more than that because it was intentional and game-altering.
Uff Da
BroodKingEXE
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
United States829 Posts
August 17 2012 04:57 GMT
#2955
Good Idear ^^^
Playing Protoss = Opponent owned
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25552 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-17 05:42:08
August 17 2012 05:40 GMT
#2956
On August 17 2012 11:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 17 2012 10:59 Blazinghand wrote:
Now that Mad Men is over...

On August 04 2012 19:37 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, I am uncomfortable with this. As ghost said he was just fine in XXII activity-level wise (it was more the content of his posts that got him lynched). If that was "another chance" then another chance sucked


I concur with Marvellosity on this issue. Zork's activity in XXII was entirely acceptable. He lost, but he tried, and there was nothing too lurkerish about it, he was just called out for lurking because he was having trouble forming cases, since as mafia that's hard to do and not give yourself away. As a result, Zork thought his activity level wasn't great when it was in fact fine.

From what I can tell, Zork felt a bit lonely, and maybe a bit confused on how to play mafia well, so he decided to feel out if there was a possibility for being replaced. BC requested further information, and Zork said he doubted he'd be able to be active enough to live up to the game's standards. BC requested a better reason, and Zork said "it's your game". A bit snippy, sure, but a true statement. Zork didn't have a better reason other than that he felt bad about his XXII play.

At this point, BC decided to modkill Zork.

It is, as Zork said, BC's game, so he can modkill who he wants. I oppose any disciplinary actions against Zork precipitating from this Modkill, however. The fact of the matter is, people lurk through games all the time. Zork felt discouraged because despite his acceptable activity level in XXII, he was called a lurker. This was largely because as scum, he had trouble writing good cases. I feel like this modkill was unnecessary, and this ban would drive away someone who only wanted to provide the best play experience possible.

I have no doubt that if, after Zork said "it's your game", BC said "okay, I want you to do your best to be active-- the level you exhibited in XXII was acceptable, just do that again", Zork would be alive and well, unmodkilled, and active, posting several times per cycle.

I am against a ban of Zorkmid.



1) hes on probation

2) He had a "reason" that had he explained originally I would have looked into and realized that level was fine. He however didn't have the respect to even give me that until after he was modkilled.


A player who knows they are on probation knows they have to be on their best behaviour. Asking for a replacement within the 16ish hour mark is absolutely ridiculous. This was the point of disrespectful not to just me as a host willing to take him on but also to the players. He didn't attempt to play the game and even display a level of activity instead just said "i want out".

Given that he had no respect for anyone in my game, or me as a host. I would say if he is not banned that any host opting to actually let him play in their game is opening it up to similar experience.


It was disrespectful of him to ask to be replaced and not post for the first 16 hours of the game, but is that more disrespectful than letting himself get modkilled for inactivity? I've seen lots of people just disappear from games with no explanation and no warning. Zorkmid didn't want to be that kind of guy. This obviously doesn't justify trying to replace out for no reason, but it's not like Zork was going captain mcdickmode on us.

I think he was definitely snippy, and maybe he doesn't deserve another chance if that's what other people think, but from what it appears he got modkilled simply for requesting a replacement without a great reason. It was your call, and you wanted to run the best game possible, but it seems to me Zork didn't have a good chance to redeem himself.

He was a bit disrespectful, sure, but I'm sure that if he was in my game, and he asked to replace out, and didn't have a good reason, I'd politely deny him. You can't just replace out for no reason. And if he didn't post or contribute, he'd get modkilled for inactivity like anyone else-- but he'd at least be given a chance to play the game. Modkilling him on the spot was your call, and I don't contest that-- but to TL mafia ban him without knowing if he'd have been inactivity modkilled during that game is not the right call imo, especially after his perfectly acceptable performance in XXII.

The Zorkmid I saw in XXII wasn't a great player, but he wasn't a mean person or disrespectful. He was active and pushed his scum agenda, and although he was lynched, he kept on trying to not get lynched, up until the final moments, even faking a doctor claim (albeit poorly). I understand that in your game, the situation was different and he wasn't sufficiently civil and open about his availability to you. I understand your point of view, and it's a totally reasonable one to have-- I wasn't in Mad Men, I don't know. I just wanted to share my point of view, which I hope people also take into consideration.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
BloodyC0bbler
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
Canada7876 Posts
August 17 2012 06:07 GMT
#2957
On August 17 2012 14:40 Blazinghand wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 17 2012 11:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On August 17 2012 10:59 Blazinghand wrote:
Now that Mad Men is over...

On August 04 2012 19:37 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, I am uncomfortable with this. As ghost said he was just fine in XXII activity-level wise (it was more the content of his posts that got him lynched). If that was "another chance" then another chance sucked


I concur with Marvellosity on this issue. Zork's activity in XXII was entirely acceptable. He lost, but he tried, and there was nothing too lurkerish about it, he was just called out for lurking because he was having trouble forming cases, since as mafia that's hard to do and not give yourself away. As a result, Zork thought his activity level wasn't great when it was in fact fine.

From what I can tell, Zork felt a bit lonely, and maybe a bit confused on how to play mafia well, so he decided to feel out if there was a possibility for being replaced. BC requested further information, and Zork said he doubted he'd be able to be active enough to live up to the game's standards. BC requested a better reason, and Zork said "it's your game". A bit snippy, sure, but a true statement. Zork didn't have a better reason other than that he felt bad about his XXII play.

At this point, BC decided to modkill Zork.

It is, as Zork said, BC's game, so he can modkill who he wants. I oppose any disciplinary actions against Zork precipitating from this Modkill, however. The fact of the matter is, people lurk through games all the time. Zork felt discouraged because despite his acceptable activity level in XXII, he was called a lurker. This was largely because as scum, he had trouble writing good cases. I feel like this modkill was unnecessary, and this ban would drive away someone who only wanted to provide the best play experience possible.

I have no doubt that if, after Zork said "it's your game", BC said "okay, I want you to do your best to be active-- the level you exhibited in XXII was acceptable, just do that again", Zork would be alive and well, unmodkilled, and active, posting several times per cycle.

I am against a ban of Zorkmid.



1) hes on probation

2) He had a "reason" that had he explained originally I would have looked into and realized that level was fine. He however didn't have the respect to even give me that until after he was modkilled.


A player who knows they are on probation knows they have to be on their best behaviour. Asking for a replacement within the 16ish hour mark is absolutely ridiculous. This was the point of disrespectful not to just me as a host willing to take him on but also to the players. He didn't attempt to play the game and even display a level of activity instead just said "i want out".

Given that he had no respect for anyone in my game, or me as a host. I would say if he is not banned that any host opting to actually let him play in their game is opening it up to similar experience.


It was disrespectful of him to ask to be replaced and not post for the first 16 hours of the game, but is that more disrespectful than letting himself get modkilled for inactivity? I've seen lots of people just disappear from games with no explanation and no warning. Zorkmid didn't want to be that kind of guy. This obviously doesn't justify trying to replace out for no reason, but it's not like Zork was going captain mcdickmode on us.

I think he was definitely snippy, and maybe he doesn't deserve another chance if that's what other people think, but from what it appears he got modkilled simply for requesting a replacement without a great reason. It was your call, and you wanted to run the best game possible, but it seems to me Zork didn't have a good chance to redeem himself.

He was a bit disrespectful, sure, but I'm sure that if he was in my game, and he asked to replace out, and didn't have a good reason, I'd politely deny him. You can't just replace out for no reason. And if he didn't post or contribute, he'd get modkilled for inactivity like anyone else-- but he'd at least be given a chance to play the game. Modkilling him on the spot was your call, and I don't contest that-- but to TL mafia ban him without knowing if he'd have been inactivity modkilled during that game is not the right call imo, especially after his perfectly acceptable performance in XXII.

The Zorkmid I saw in XXII wasn't a great player, but he wasn't a mean person or disrespectful. He was active and pushed his scum agenda, and although he was lynched, he kept on trying to not get lynched, up until the final moments, even faking a doctor claim (albeit poorly). I understand that in your game, the situation was different and he wasn't sufficiently civil and open about his availability to you. I understand your point of view, and it's a totally reasonable one to have-- I wasn't in Mad Men, I don't know. I just wanted to share my point of view, which I hope people also take into consideration.



It is extremely more disrespectful to do what he did then me modkilling him instantly. He is on probation, as such he has to be on his best behaviour. If he doesn't think he can be active then why sign up? His reason wasn't even a reason. 16 hours into a game is the "i just saw my pm, went wtf why am I vanilla I don't want to play" sort of behaviour.

If someone out and tells you they aren't going to play you don't keep them in the game period. You can say that "well you didn't give him the chance" but seriously anyone who says what he did + the attitude doesn't give a shit about the players or the game. That isn't an attitude that should ever be tolerated.
#3 Member of the Chill Fanclub / Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaeger died. --Ser Jorah Mormont TL MAFIA FORUM http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 go go !
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25552 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-17 06:30:38
August 17 2012 06:25 GMT
#2958
On August 17 2012 15:07 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 17 2012 14:40 Blazinghand wrote:
On August 17 2012 11:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On August 17 2012 10:59 Blazinghand wrote:
Now that Mad Men is over...

On August 04 2012 19:37 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, I am uncomfortable with this. As ghost said he was just fine in XXII activity-level wise (it was more the content of his posts that got him lynched). If that was "another chance" then another chance sucked


I concur with Marvellosity on this issue. Zork's activity in XXII was entirely acceptable. He lost, but he tried, and there was nothing too lurkerish about it, he was just called out for lurking because he was having trouble forming cases, since as mafia that's hard to do and not give yourself away. As a result, Zork thought his activity level wasn't great when it was in fact fine.

From what I can tell, Zork felt a bit lonely, and maybe a bit confused on how to play mafia well, so he decided to feel out if there was a possibility for being replaced. BC requested further information, and Zork said he doubted he'd be able to be active enough to live up to the game's standards. BC requested a better reason, and Zork said "it's your game". A bit snippy, sure, but a true statement. Zork didn't have a better reason other than that he felt bad about his XXII play.

At this point, BC decided to modkill Zork.

It is, as Zork said, BC's game, so he can modkill who he wants. I oppose any disciplinary actions against Zork precipitating from this Modkill, however. The fact of the matter is, people lurk through games all the time. Zork felt discouraged because despite his acceptable activity level in XXII, he was called a lurker. This was largely because as scum, he had trouble writing good cases. I feel like this modkill was unnecessary, and this ban would drive away someone who only wanted to provide the best play experience possible.

I have no doubt that if, after Zork said "it's your game", BC said "okay, I want you to do your best to be active-- the level you exhibited in XXII was acceptable, just do that again", Zork would be alive and well, unmodkilled, and active, posting several times per cycle.

I am against a ban of Zorkmid.



1) hes on probation

2) He had a "reason" that had he explained originally I would have looked into and realized that level was fine. He however didn't have the respect to even give me that until after he was modkilled.


A player who knows they are on probation knows they have to be on their best behaviour. Asking for a replacement within the 16ish hour mark is absolutely ridiculous. This was the point of disrespectful not to just me as a host willing to take him on but also to the players. He didn't attempt to play the game and even display a level of activity instead just said "i want out".

Given that he had no respect for anyone in my game, or me as a host. I would say if he is not banned that any host opting to actually let him play in their game is opening it up to similar experience.


It was disrespectful of him to ask to be replaced and not post for the first 16 hours of the game, but is that more disrespectful than letting himself get modkilled for inactivity? I've seen lots of people just disappear from games with no explanation and no warning. Zorkmid didn't want to be that kind of guy. This obviously doesn't justify trying to replace out for no reason, but it's not like Zork was going captain mcdickmode on us.

I think he was definitely snippy, and maybe he doesn't deserve another chance if that's what other people think, but from what it appears he got modkilled simply for requesting a replacement without a great reason. It was your call, and you wanted to run the best game possible, but it seems to me Zork didn't have a good chance to redeem himself.

He was a bit disrespectful, sure, but I'm sure that if he was in my game, and he asked to replace out, and didn't have a good reason, I'd politely deny him. You can't just replace out for no reason. And if he didn't post or contribute, he'd get modkilled for inactivity like anyone else-- but he'd at least be given a chance to play the game. Modkilling him on the spot was your call, and I don't contest that-- but to TL mafia ban him without knowing if he'd have been inactivity modkilled during that game is not the right call imo, especially after his perfectly acceptable performance in XXII.

The Zorkmid I saw in XXII wasn't a great player, but he wasn't a mean person or disrespectful. He was active and pushed his scum agenda, and although he was lynched, he kept on trying to not get lynched, up until the final moments, even faking a doctor claim (albeit poorly). I understand that in your game, the situation was different and he wasn't sufficiently civil and open about his availability to you. I understand your point of view, and it's a totally reasonable one to have-- I wasn't in Mad Men, I don't know. I just wanted to share my point of view, which I hope people also take into consideration.



It is extremely more disrespectful to do what he did then me modkilling him instantly. He is on probation, as such he has to be on his best behaviour. If he doesn't think he can be active then why sign up? His reason wasn't even a reason. 16 hours into a game is the "i just saw my pm, went wtf why am I vanilla I don't want to play" sort of behaviour.

If someone out and tells you they aren't going to play you don't keep them in the game period. You can say that "well you didn't give him the chance" but seriously anyone who says what he did + the attitude doesn't give a shit about the players or the game. That isn't an attitude that should ever be tolerated.


Oh no I wasn't comparing your actions to his, I was comparing his actions to the other thing he could have done, which was just go afk for 48 hours.

E: From Zorkmid's posted PM string:

"Original Message From Zorkmid:
I was as active as I possibly could have been in the XXII newbie game, and got called out left and right for lurking. There's no way I could handle a game twice that large.

All I was doing was warning you my activity level was going to be similar.

I never said anything about quitting.
"

This doesn't sound to me like a guy who's quitting. This sounds like a guy who I described, a guy who was called out for lurking when he was playing reasonably, and was feeling demoralized.

His activity level in XXII was fine.

Given the circumstances, I stand by my posts. I understand that you disagree.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
VisceraEyes
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States21170 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-17 06:36:59
August 17 2012 06:31 GMT
#2959
I'm with BC here - most inactivity issues are solved before the game even starts. People who don't have time to play shouldn't even sign up, and that's what this thread is for, mostly.

Think of it this way: how long was he signed up for the game with the knowledge that A) he was called out for lurking left and right in his last game, and B) that the game he's presently signed up for is twice as large?

I mean, if he enjoys reading games that's fine - there are archives of games to read. But if you wanna play a game then PLAY the game. Signing up and immediately fucking off when the game starts is a waste of the hosts time and inhibits the ability of his faction to win the game.
if I had to describe his playstyle, it'd be a coked up rabbit with the attention of a goldfish injecting caffeine into himself directly through an IV drip. it's like a reel of random animated shorts where things just blow up randomly
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25552 Posts
August 17 2012 06:41 GMT
#2960
Absolutely, and if he had in fact violated activity guidelines, he deserves to be modkilled, banned without even the slightest hint of a question. Inactivity ruins games, and it's part of the reason we want people to play through newbie games and get a feel for the time commitment of a mafia game before joining up with a regular game.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
Prev 1 146 147 148 149 150 180 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 10h 37m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 114
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 548
Backho 104
JulyZerg 68
NaDa 22
Dota 2
capcasts343
League of Legends
JimRising 936
Counter-Strike
fl0m1167
shahzam487
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe45
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor152
Other Games
summit1g6948
Grubby2748
C9.Mang0260
Maynarde122
fpsfer 1
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick962
BasetradeTV56
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 72
• davetesta18
• OhrlRock 3
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift3492
Other Games
• Scarra1047
Upcoming Events
Map Test Tournament
10h 37m
PiGosaur Monday
23h 37m
Map Test Tournament
1d 10h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 22h
The PondCast
2 days
Map Test Tournament
2 days
Map Test Tournament
3 days
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
[ Show More ]
Map Test Tournament
4 days
OSC
4 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
4 days
Safe House 2
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Map Test Tournament
5 days
OSC
5 days
IPSL
5 days
dxtr13 vs Napoleon
Doodle vs OldBoy
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Team Wars
Maestros of the Game
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
Acropolis #4 - TS2
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
WardiTV TLMC #15
EC S1
ESL Pro League S22
Frag Blocktober 2025
Urban Riga Open #1
FERJEE Rush 2025
Birch Cup 2025
DraculaN #2
LanDaLan #3
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.