TL Mafia Ban List - Page 148

On August 15 2012 07:35 Mig wrote:
Sitting out Normal Mini Mafia III

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

On August 17 2012 10:59 Blazinghand wrote:
Now that Mad Men is over...



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.

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).

On August 17 2012 13:08 Qatol wrote:

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

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.

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.

On August 17 2012 11:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



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.

On August 17 2012 14:40 Blazinghand wrote:


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.

On August 17 2012 15:07 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



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.