EPTTL Mafia Ban List - Page 155
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
| ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
Bans for LVIII:
| ||
|
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
On January 11 2013 21:27 Kurumi wrote: [*]Mr. Cheesecake basically resigned from the game and went to play another one, failure to vote. I'd prefer people to discuss this one. In my defense, the signups for both games were simultaneously occurring. I figured I could play in both -- never played in a 30 man game before either. I quickly realized that the 30 man was ridiculously spam heavy and being trolled by people. I focused more on British Mini Mafia. In thread, I publicly announced that I'd lost interest in the game and would be lurking most of the time. I kept in the game and voting until the final day, where, no matter if I voted or not, the game would have ended in a mafia victory. I wasn't active either way, but I did post at least once each day and voted with the exception of the endgame where I declined to vote. Additionally, I PM'd Sloosh who for some reason I thought was the host (he's the co-host) 3 times about getting a replacement because I couldn't actively participate (or at least be useful) in two games. Apparently he didn't receive my first two (one sent January 5th, the other January 6th) and I didn't get a response until my 3rd where the game was pretty much over anyway. So, rule of thumb is to stick to one game. Dearest apologies, Mr. Cheesecake | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
Cheesecake I'd 3 game ban (2 game if we allow that punishment) purely for the fact he essentially quit the game and went to play another. He showed that he had time to play and also showed he didn't give two shits about the game he had quit from. Showing that level of disrespect for both the players and the hosts is pretty horrible. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On January 12 2013 01:54 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:In thread, I publicly announced that I'd lost interest in the game and would be lurking most of the time. I kept in the game and voting until the final day, where, no matter if I voted or not, the game would have ended in a mafia victory. I wasn't active either way, but I did post at least once each day and voted with the exception of the endgame where I declined to vote. but you werent actually participating in the game. you were being completely unreadable by never talking about the actual game | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
| ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
The title was "My replacement ...", the first PM received at 1/11 07:43: Original Message From Mr. Cheesecake: Is there a status on it? This is the 3rd PM I've sent you I haven't heard anything back. Original Message From slOosh: You haven't sent me a single PM. Original Message From Mr. Cheesecake: ??? the first I sent a couple days ago. That's so weird. How did you not get them t.t Original Message From slOosh: Nope. Unless you have been sending them to SIOOSH and not SLOOSH, maybe. Did you send them to Kurumi too since he hasn't said anything about it either. Original Message From Mr. Cheesecake: Honestly I thought they were going through you just weren't responding >.>. Probably should've sent them to a co-host too... stupid me. Well I guess it's a bit too late for a replacement anyway, right? Feel bad about this game because I was assuming i'd just be replaced at some point. Original Message From slOosh: When and why did you request a replacement? Original Message From Mr. Cheesecake: Jan 5th sometime. I knew I was going to be inactive, and figured I would just skeet by in the game by sheeping votes. Regardless, even if I got replaced I'd probably still be lynched tomorrow just by glancing through the thread. Games almost over anyway, don't worry about it now imo. So, went to check his posts. Jan 5 was his marv vote. Next post when people discuss him as lynch: On January 08 2013 04:15 Mr. Cheesecake wrote: Nah if I was scum I'd be tunneling one person entire game. Appreciate y'alls discussin me though. I lost interest in this game 100 pages ago. Will continue to be useless. Though i suggest looking at people pushing me right now cus i'm the ez town target. In b4 i'm scum. Also dont use my one scum game as a meta read lol. Esp. You dibbers. I would play nothing like my first game ever if i rolled scum again. Lost of interest is an unacceptable reason for replacement, and it is compounded by the fact that he didn't really make sure everything was correctly resolved. You can't flippantly /in and decide not to play if you don't like the game. Definitely more than a 1 game ban. Not sure how much though cause I'm unfamiliar with the scale. Agree with BC on marv and VE. They clearly put lots of effort in and mafia can definitely be an emotional game (I'm sure marv and VE both remember that GMarshal mini). | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
I think staying in that game as long as I did was punishment enough :O I kid I kid I serve the ban like good soldier. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
As someone who loosely followed LVIII and played with him in a concurrent game (British Mini Mafia), I can't see any justification for banning him more than one game. The standard length for modkill-related bans is 1-game, and there are no reasons why his actions should double, or even triple the normal punishment. Compare this case to a situation where a player completely AWOL's from the game and fails to vote. That player would receive a 1-game ban on most occasions. CC at least tried to request a replacement. While he didn't follow up on it well, nor did he have a sufficient excuse for doing so, this is not a justification for making his punishment 2x-3x more severe over the former situation. On January 12 2013 01:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote: ... Cheesecake I'd 3 game ban (2 game if we allow that punishment) purely for the fact he essentially quit the game and went to play another. He showed that he had time to play and also showed he didn't give two shits about the game he had quit from. Showing that level of disrespect for both the players and the hosts is pretty horrible. I feel this is a misrepresentation of what actually occurred. CC signed up for two games not knowing what he got himself into. When he realized it would be too much for him to keep up with, he "cut his losses," requested a replacement in one, and continued playing the other. This situation looks like an innocent mistake by a player who didn't understand his capabilities. He should be held accountable for this mistake with a 1-game ban. On January 12 2013 02:52 slOosh wrote: ... Lost of interest is an unacceptable reason for replacement, and it is compounded by the fact that he didn't really make sure everything was correctly resolved. You can't flippantly /in and decide not to play if you don't like the game. Definitely more than a 1 game ban. Not sure how much though cause I'm unfamiliar with the scale. Lost of interest is not a bannable offense. | ||
|
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
Thanks Hapa, you're boss. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
The history argument is even worse, because if anything, you should hold "proven" players to a higher standard. ##Sheep Hapa | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
Anyway, the reason for inactivity and the attitude of the player can be important and in this case there was absolutely no acceptable reason at all. The only valid reason I can see for considering a standard 1 game ban is that he is in here defending himself in a somewhat reasonable manner, although it still seems like he doesn't understand that his reasons for stopping playing are unacceptable. | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
On January 12 2013 04:36 Dandel Ion wrote: I said this in LVIII, but you shouldn't give CC a bigger punishment for the same thing marv did (only CC was nicer about it) imo. The history argument is even worse, because if anything, you should hold "proven" players to a higher standard. ##Sheep Hapa CC was nicer and worse about it. Marv and VE both attempted to fix the thread and actually win. The general level of apathy etc... drove them both to the breaking point so they quit. CC was nicer in that he made no real bit in thread however he actively played against his win con. Him signing up for two games at once not knowing the level of work required to me is not a valid reason. There are enough large games to look at and you can see how they explode in activity etc... Whats worse is that he didn't pm both mods of the situation and failed to even pm sloosh correctly a few times. As for proven players held to a higher standard? They get that already in expectation of performing far above that of a newer player. Punishing someone for actively trying to save a game more harshly than someone who showed apathy and total lack of respect for his fellow players and hosts is not the same offense regardless if both groups were modkilled. This is my own belief however and I recognize that I am not normal in that. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
Until I got lynched in British, I also played 2 games at once for the first time, and those were/are relatively low-maintance ones. But I still decided to replace into british and my play was very unsatisfactory. Now I know I can't handle 2 games at once, even if both are on a Mini-size. And I'll never play 2 at once again, because now I know. It was a mistake of CC to play 2 games at once, yes, but he didn't know better beforehand, and as I know him as a person, he indeed learned that he can't do it, and will not repeat this mistake in the future. just my 2 cents. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
Or am I doing the devil's work here? I really think he did. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On January 12 2013 04:43 syllogism wrote: If you think the history argument is irrelevant, you don't understand what the function of the ban list is. It's not to uphold some sort of imaginary rule of tl mafia law, but to keep the games playable and fun. We want to keep active, long-time players who have demonstrated that in the vast majority of games they will not drag the game down. Players with no history and the wrong attitude are the ones with something yet to demonstrate. CC does have a history of being an active and engaged player. While he was a no-show in LVIII, this is not representative of his game-play as a whole. CC has a history of having the "right attitude," and it looks like you're throwing this around because you're not familiar with the newer-generation of players. Also, your stated goals of the ban-list is to keep the games "playable and fun." If so, what's the effective difference between a 1-game and multiple-game ban? Both make the point that his behavior was inexcusable. This is a first-offense and should be treated as such, and this one has all the trimmings of an innocent mistake. Future offenses should be subject to harsher punishment. Anyway, the reason for inactivity and the attitude of the player can be important and in this case there was absolutely no acceptable reason at all. The only valid reason I can see for considering a standard 1 game ban is that he is in here defending himself in a somewhat reasonable manner, although it still seems like he doesn't understand that his reasons for stopping playing are unacceptable. Yes attitude certainly plays an important role. However, consistency and fairness is also very important. Players who go AWOL (without any host notifications) often receive 1-game bans Marv and VE who left under the most confrontational manner possible received a 1-game ban. A player who made a misjudgment about the time-commitment required to play 2 games should not have his punishment multiplied. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
We should get out before we get lynched. | ||
| ||
