|
On January 25 2013 06:00 GMarshal wrote:
Alright, update time.
Something a lot of people on tl seem to miss (I've noticed it both here and in the ABL, notably), is the virtue of compassion. Whenever someone gives a two day ban, or just a warning, someone seems to feel like it's "not enough", and they miss the point of the action entirely. Many times much more is achieved by compassion than by crushing the offender under your heel. With mercy, you create good feelings and turn bad behaviors into constructive ones, while by not staying your hand, you instead create further resentment. That is not to say that there aren't times when the fullest punishment is called for, but I feel that it is wisest to err on the side of mercy, there is always time to ban someone, but the hate created by banning rarely heals.
Based on that, and his sharp shift in attitude both here and in PMs and following discussion in the staff forums, kushm4sta will not be permed from tl (yes, he is a PBU, those are allowed on occasion provided they behave) and I will give him the punishment the host decided, a three game ban. If he is caught on a similar infraction however the consequences will be severe. Terminal even.
That said, anyone who does not want him in his games is free to blacklist him. His change of attitude is abrupt, but I prefer to believe it sincere.
A wise conclusion Justicar. The Council's faith in you is not misplaced.
|
DOWN WITH SCUM!
HOUSE CHEZINU ARISES
err I mean all hail GM 
I support the decision, I think he deserves some sort of punishment for the rule-break (and the attitude) but I didn't like the witch-hunt that was being displayed here.
|
United States22154 Posts
On January 25 2013 06:55 HiroPro wrote:
Has anything been decided about threesr?
He doesn't want to play anymore anyway, he smurfed while banned, so perm-banned from mafia, if he wants to come back and explain himself we can rethink the decision
|
Agree 100% with the decision. Gmarshal is so cool.
|
yay thank you for giving me another chance. I will convince everyone that it was the right decision.
to the haters: please don't hate. there's really no reason to hate even if you think I should have been permabanned. also smoke weed because it's good for you.
|
Weed is great and all, but kush you need to take this seriously, and I hope you do. I don't mind the way you.play, its been your attitude regarding the level of disrespect to the hosts and the community that Ive had issue with. Please consider why we take this so seriously before you go running off to bend the rules again.
|
On January 25 2013 09:50 kushm4sta wrote:
yay thank you for giving me another chance. I will convince everyone that it was the right decision.
to the haters: please don't hate. there's really no reason to hate even if you think I should have been permabanned. also smoke weed because it's good for you.
I will always <3 you kush. Please just think about the consequences of your actions in the future. I am sure it will all work out for the best. Good to still have you with us buddy.
|
Sitting out GMarshal's Nomination mafia.
|
Are modkills/replacements/etc still a problem?
Have any of you guys considered doing a statistic analysis to upgrade this system (with a stochastic process for instance?) ?
I could consider doing one....but I already forgot all my statistic shit from uni :/
|
As something of an amateur stats student, please elaborate on what kind of stochastic process you would use here.
|
Something like X=(Xt€N, t€N), where Xt=Number of modkills/replacements on mafia game number 't'.
You can use statistic analysis to determine the distribution of new players into games, and the distribution of modkills per-game, which of those modkills come from the new players, etc.
Then you can try creating the stochastic process in such a way that you take into account banning of players that were modkilled.
If you get that the process has stability, then let (M1,M2,M3,...), where Mn is the number of games you ban a player if they have n modkills (in their mafia life).
With this vector, you define the stability vector pi in function of these.
Since your "ideal" situation is having no modkill per game, you choose (M)n so that pi(0) is minimized.
When that's done, after a bunch of games, you should see basically no modkills per games, or very little.
Would this work?
EDIT: Basically a Markov Chain I'd presume. Although I don't really know how to include the other v.a's into it or how to create it.
I guess I gotta keep rereading my notes 
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
the solution imo is to slap people with wet trout whenever they are banned
|
What is the problem you're trying to solve? Are you trying to discover the optimal ban length to reduce modkills to zero? There are some problems with that, but I'm not sure that that is what you're trying to do.
|
stats is cool.
do i have to write sitout in this thread too?
|
United States22154 Posts
From the OP
1. PM the host of the game you are sitting out saying you are sitting out that game.
2. Post here that you are sitting out that game.
Its ok if you posted it in the game instead, though, we can count that. Basically there needs to be something somewhere saying explicitly that you sat out that game that you can point to.
|
On February 09 2013 21:42 Acrofales wrote:
What is the problem you're trying to solve? Are you trying to discover the optimal ban length to reduce modkills to zero? There are some problems with that, but I'm not sure that that is what you're trying to do.
Yep. Also not only just "optimal ban length", but a ban process entirely (which can just be a simple "optimal ban length" one)
I forgot that we have Newbie games to take into consideration, which is basically another stochastic process altogether.
I don't have any idea how to do anything like that....so Midnight, it's all yours
We are counting on you!
|
On February 11 2013 13:59 GMarshal wrote:
From the OP
1. PM the host of the game you are sitting out saying you are sitting out that game.
2. Post here that you are sitting out that game.
Its ok if you posted it in the game instead, though, we can count that. Basically there needs to be something somewhere saying explicitly that you sat out that game that you can point to.
I'm curious, why do we have that rule? (Not that I think it's bad, I just don't understand it).
|
On February 12 2013 03:08 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:59 GMarshal wrote:
From the OP
1. PM the host of the game you are sitting out saying you are sitting out that game.
2. Post here that you are sitting out that game.
Its ok if you posted it in the game instead, though, we can count that. Basically there needs to be something somewhere saying explicitly that you sat out that game that you can point to. I'm curious, why do we have that rule? (Not that I think it's bad, I just don't understand it).
So we don't have to go through each game to find out if you are sitting one out. This way the person who runs the ban list only has to look here.
|
yeah, but why do you have to PM the host? I guess he does not really care if you /sitout, just post it in the game thread and in this thread.
|
Games that don't use the ban list don't accept sitouts. Games that are expected to run for a very short time often don't accept sitouts. The host has to agree that his game is used as a sitout for a ban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
