EPTTL Mafia Ban List - Page 164
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
Seeing a player on the banlist doesn't give me much information. What I want to know is - Does this player spam? Does this player tend to flame? Have they ever cheated? And make a personal decision based on that. If a player spams/flames/cheats in my game, he is likely to do it in other games too and it's ridiculous that they would get a free pass because I didn't submit to the banlist. If it's optional - why should hosts be punished for not using it as a metric to decide who they allow into a game? The point of the banlist imo is best served to record the offenses of players in all mafia games. If VE flips out and calls everyone some horrible name in a game and gets modkilled and I talk to him about it and determine he is interested in keeping it cool from then on, I'd probably allow him into a game whether he gets 1 game ban or 1 million. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
If you choose not to respect other hosts' reasons for banning them, then don't expect other hosts to respect yours, or the community in general (through the banlist) to even recognize the complaint: you chose to ignore other people's complaints. Now that doesn't mean I disagree with you about Mocsta. I didn't read much of The Game, but I looked at a few pages around the modkill and he was clearly out of line. However, if you want community-sanctioned punishment, you should help uphold that punishment yourself. Other hosts have seen Mocsta in that game. They may have experience with Mocsta in their own games or as a fellow player, and can make up their own mind about allowing him into a game. I, myself, think that after seeing that, Mocsta could probably use a few weeks cooling down from Mafia, but that doesn't mean you can use the ban list to enforce that. The ban list is partially a deterrent for bad behaviour. If you know the TL Mafia community as a community does not put up with the kind of stuff that gets you modkilled, you will probably think twice about doing it... and lets face it, not playing in a Dr.H. game ever again is a punishment, but not playing in a Dr.H., a GMarshal, a Greymist, a Bugs, or any other host's game for X period of time is more effective. If you subvert the TL Mafia sanctioned punishment by allowing those players into your games, you shouldn't be surprised that you cannot use that method of punishment. Finally, we can argue about whether the ban list in its current form should be changed, but until it is, you should either choose to use it, or choose not to use it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On March 22 2013 14:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: If hosts are allowed to exclude players not banned on the list from their games while still hosting their game as a banlist game, then I guess I have no problem with it. AFAIK they are. Entries in the game are up to the hosts discretion. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
The sitout mechanism ensures that it's not the case that X weeks pass in which the player doesn't even check the forum. By forcing him to sitout a game, he is made aware of the infraction, which (hopefully) causes him to reflect on the behaviour that led to that sanctioning in the first place (and research from behavioural economics actually shows that this works). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
On March 22 2013 15:03 Keirathi wrote: AFAIK they are. Entries in the game are up to the hosts discretion. They are. Hosts are allowed to be more strict than the ban list, just not less strict (although hosts do, of course, have the choice to not use the ban list). | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Whilst I disagree with the warning I received for spamming. *I* was the one who requested the modkill. Further, my final post was indeed immature and over inflammatory. I need to be held accountable - I recognise that in full sincerity - and as stated before am self-imposing a ban. I also realise that the Red game doesnt count, as, technically I should wait until "The Game" is over before applying to /sitout. I apologise to anyone I offended, and realise the error of judgement I made. I won't make excuses for the behaviour. It was unacceptable. I hope the community can put this behind them; and when my ban expires I look forward to playing good games of mafia with you all. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
I dont see how I am spammy. Yes, I have many posts; but in my opinion spam is posting meaningless content/pictures/videos/repetitions Some may feel I satisfy "meaningless content" but i certainly do not satisfy the other 3 categories. In recent TL Mafia meta, there are plenty of players that are "prolific posters" - some forum vets to boot. I am just a person who thinks about the game by talking to others and prefers solving it through discussion. Its part of being an extroverted person. I dont think that by itself is/should be punishable. | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On March 22 2013 15:33 Mocsta wrote: I dont know if i want to continue the conversation in this forum.. (i.e. I will delete this post if GM requests) I dont see how I am spammy. Yes, I have many posts; but in my opinion spam is posting meaningless content/pictures/videos/repetitions Some may feel I satisfy "meaningless content" but i certainly do not satisfy the other 3 categories. In recent TL Mafia meta, there are plenty of players that are "prolific posters" - some forum vets to boot. I am just a person who thinks about the game by talking to others and prefers solving it through discussion. Its part of being an extroverted person. I dont think that by itself is/should be punishable. I think it'd be most appropriate for you to discuss this with the players who specifically complained about you after the game. TO be clear - I only modkilled you because you asked me to. I warn/notify everyone who is complained about. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6789 Posts
| ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
when you are banned you have to sit out of however many games you are banned for, ya like always, except the difference is that you AUTOMATICALLY sit out of games. So the 3 game ban will last for as long as it takes 3 games to start and end. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
| ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
| ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 26 2013 14:27 kushm4sta wrote: so what if someone gets a 20 game ban? not practical you say that like we'd ever try to give someone an impractically long ban but also not perm them for some reason edit: also the only difference between your suggestion and the default that exists now in your example is: for a 20 game ban, your system requires the guy not post a few times, whereas the existing one requires the guy actually have some involvement in the forum, and posting 20 times is pretty easy... but it's all academic because like seriously, "what if someone gets a 20 game ban, it's not practical for someone to type '/in' 20 times" is 1) false because it's quite practical to type /in and if someone somehow draws a 20 game ban they sure as hell deserve it 2) misleading because the typical use-case for the banlist is 1 ban, 2-3 bans, or lifetime ban | ||
| ||
