EPTTL Mafia Ban List - Page 156
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
"Consistency" and "fairness" are only important if players start to feel the system in place arbitrarily favors certain players and as such don't feel like playing here anymore. That's not the case as the system isn't arbitrary and anyway that would only be a problem if the type of player we want to keep around left. I admit I'm not familiar with CC's play in other games, so perhaps he deserves a second chance. Otherwise the intent of the longer ban would be for him to demonstrate that he actually cares about playing here enough to stick around and sit out his bans. If he isn't willing to do that, based on what I saw in TL Mafia LVIII it wouldn't be a huge loss. | ||
|
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
On January 12 2013 01:54 Mr. Cheesecake wrote: -snip- 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. -snip- The reason I lost interest was because I couldn't keep up with the game. So much spam I lost track and couldn't make sense of anything. If I'm in one game at a time, I'll be fine. Concentrating on British took more time than I had imagined, so keeping up with TL was certainly a feat. At least we had a victory in British, eh Hapa? *brofist* | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On January 12 2013 05:17 slOosh wrote: Has he been speaking to you or are you guessing rather based on his character? Because I don't see anything from him indicating that it was a time-commitment issue rather than an interest issue. This is based on his character. I've been involved in quite a few games with him, and I coached him in a few newbie games. | ||
|
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
The main reason I'd ever lose interest is because of time constraints, but if I'm just in a single game I'll at least be able to put forth some effort and just be kind of a lurky-but-active presence. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On January 12 2013 05:19 syllogism wrote: Marvel and VE didn't leave, they weren't modkilled for failing to vote or inactivity. Would you ban a player more than one game for failure to vote (first-offense)? I'd only do so if there were extreme exacerbating factors, and I can't see them here. "Consistency" and "fairness" are only important if players start to feel the system in place arbitrarily favors certain players and as such don't feel like playing here anymore. That's not the case as the system isn't arbitrary and anyway that would only be a problem if the type of player we want to keep around left. I admit I'm not familiar with CC's play in other games, so perhaps he deserves a second chance. Otherwise the intent of the longer ban would be for him to demonstrate that he actually cares about playing here enough to stick around and sit out his bans. If he isn't willing to do that, based on what I saw in TL Mafia LVIII it wouldn't be a huge loss. He's played 4 newbie-games, as well as Witchcraft Mini Mafia and British Mini Mafia - all very actively and engaged. Six games may not compare to the vets, but it is enough of a sample for me to see LVIII as an anomaly due to time-constraints. | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
However without it I would push for a longer ban. A failure to post / vote (first offense) would be 1 game. I agree with that. It's a different situation if this happens while the player is actively playing in another game. It's no different from saying "I didn't get a blue role I'm not playing" and then signing up for another game. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
It's still a bit unclear whether he accepts that there has to be a legitimate reason for subbing out once you have signed up for a game (there's a bit more leeway if you find your own replacement, I guess). | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
If our goal is punitive CC should be get more than a one game ban. If our goal is to make sure he is a good player with real interest in playing well on TL mafia he should get the one game ban because I trust that he ad a. Individual will continue to be active and play to the best of his ability in the future. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10857 Posts
If this list is about keeping toxic players out of games and keeping games fun as a direct result of that, banning Marv and VE seems directly counter-productive to that goal. Even after LVIII They would still make games better with their presence and are almost always a positive influence on the games they participate in. What is the point of this? Keeping out toxic players in order to improve the quality of the games? If that is true, common sense should be applied and Marv and VE should not be banned. If the point is punitive measures to hold up some barely defined ruleset for its own sake. Then I guess we should ban them. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
I can serve my ban its NP. <3 | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
iamperfection
United States9644 Posts
On January 12 2013 09:46 DarthPunk wrote: I don't think Marv or VE should be banned at all. If this list is about keeping toxic players out of games and keeping games fun as a direct result of that, banning Marv and VE seems directly counter-productive to that goal. Even after LVIII They would still make games better with their presence and are almost always a positive influence on the games they participate in. What is the point of this? Keeping out toxic players in order to improve the quality of the games? If that is true, common sense should be applied and Marv and VE should not be banned. If the point is punitive measures to hold up some barely defined ruleset for its own sake. Then I guess we should ban them. I agree and support this | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
So either no bans for the two or 3 bans for all 3 of us imo. I'm fine with either and don't especially like what I did in the game myself so I could understand either way. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On January 12 2013 11:23 Toadesstern wrote: If marv or VE get banned I deserve the same punishement. I've been incredibly buisy the last 4 or 5 days and did nothing besides the bare minimum to not get modkilled in that game. So either no bans for the two or 3 bans for all 3 of us imo. I'm fine with either and don't especially like what I did in the game myself so I could understand either way. Activity and behaviour are two different things. Usually when people have hard time keeping up with the game they ask for replacements or play worse for a while - there's nothing wrong with that. Why would I ban you if I were to ban Marv and VE? | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
Toad, you didn't break any rules and I had you as a strong town read. I think you played fine. | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
| ||
