|
On March 05 2010 05:10 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 04:55 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Rage?
Don't make me laugh.
Two words for you: sour grapes.
Qatol, if I recall correctly it was you and LTT who wanted the game over as well, so I wouldn't use that card if I were you. Besides that, you were going to call the game anyway if and only if my team managed to swing the vote. They had several hours to do this and they failed to comply. We didn't have activity problems until that moment and it was only fitting to give it to the Town.
Now let's get something else straight:
I get why Inf. would be bitter. He made a great pawn. I understand why he cannot sleep at night over it, hence his resentment. You got played brother. Move on.
As for your last comment. I’m not the one who comes up with these silly ideas for games. If the hosts are going to add silly roles to make their games different, good for them. But, like I said to everyone I ever played with. I will exploit them to gain my side an advantage and usually I will ask the admins prior to proceeding including you Qatol. The game I was GF I basically told you my every move. As for pry, he can go fuck himself because from what I recall he's a tool.
The biggest problem with most of the games here is activity. When I play I'm right up there with the most active. I do a lot behind the scenes and if you don't like being called out then tough.
GG
EDIT: I love how you took everything out of context Qatol. GJ
I was going to call the game in your favor because you had won mathematically if you managed to swing that vote. No point in playing it out if one side cannot win. How did I take "everything out of context?" I agree you had a bunch of posts complaining about inactivity in the smurf game, but I specifically put in that quote from layoffrage in order to give those quotes context. Try reading the last day or 2 of the smurf game. It basically consists of you either A) complaining about inactivity, B) flaming, or C) bragging. EDIT: Either way, I'm done with this. I've explained why you were banned, and you obviously don't feel bad at all about the worst reason in my view (flaming the host), so I have no problem sticking with the consensus and keeping you on this list. While I agree you are consistently one of the most active players, some things are more important than activity.
Just to respond to this, I remember the smurf game pretty clearly. Here is what happened and why showtime is just a prick, regardless of skill. It was a smurf game and I like to think a lot of us tried our best to honor the intentions of the game. Showtime went hunting for AKA's and creating player lists like an asshole. After around 2-3 days, we had lynched a mafia (based off a DT check and some false clue rape) the town was doing OK. The problem was there was another mafia game going on (Caller's crazy Ukrainian shit) but our activity would of slowly picked up I think. What actually happened was Showtime came out around day 2-3 (I don't remember exactly) and claimed to know EVERY SINGLE MAFIA and basically killed anyone's motivation or incentive to play the game.
The town went inactive because quite frankly there was NOTHING to say. You seemed to have everything under control because you said "All these people are mafia, I am king, I am amazing, Do as I say" and at the end of the day YOU WERE WRONG. You had one fucking mafia out of five. LOL. You fucking ruined the game by saying you knew every role by "abusing, but not breaking the rules" which is bullshit. Don't be a prick about the rule set. You ruined the game only to be wrong on 4/5 counts. The only thing you were correct about was that initial rolecheck being a mafia and that is ONLY because L PMed you after he died telling you what he had found out.
Shit was so gay, I was having fun I found the game pretty interesting and it was fun trying to guess out who other people were just on there posting. I talked to a few people I probably wouldn't have earlier and I liked the concept as a whole. You took the liberty of shitting all over it for fun and that is why most of us wanted you banned.
Because you're a prick.
|
On March 24 2010 20:46 Qatol wrote:
So Phrujbaz just got modkilled a second time (and in consecutive games no less). Thoughts on how long his ban should be? I'm a little shocked at the level of respect that shows to the host and the other players. But I guess maybe the ban shouldn't be forever if he had a really good reason for the modkill?
1 or 2 games. He still hasnt responded to the PMs I sent him ^_^
|
On March 25 2010 00:41 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 20:46 Qatol wrote:
So Phrujbaz just got modkilled a second time (and in consecutive games no less). Thoughts on how long his ban should be? I'm a little shocked at the level of respect that shows to the host and the other players. But I guess maybe the ban shouldn't be forever if he had a really good reason for the modkill? 1 or 2 games. He still hasnt responded to the PMs I sent him ^_^
1 game is too little considering this is 2 modkills in a row, and the punishment for a regular modkill is 1 game, no? I was personally thinking 3 games, but am wondering what others think about this.
|
|
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
On March 21 2010 19:15 Ace wrote:
Can the ban list be updated?
Bill Murray is perma banned from any games I host until he shows better behavior.
Also Showtime! is allowed in my next game assuming he doesn't do some ridiculous shit.
GG already Ace?
On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out.
Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate).
|
Well he asked me so many times and it was convenient so I was like sure, why not ^_^
|
On March 25 2010 16:57 flamewheel91 wrote:
3 games, minimum!
Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite."
On March 25 2010 17:00 flamewheel91 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:On March 22 2010 02:33 L wrote:
Shouldn't Hobbes and Shikyo be back in? Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out. Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate).
Good idea. Though that should be expanded to either the host of the current game or myself. I'll add that to the OP.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
On March 26 2010 01:36 Qatol wrote:Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite."
When saying "3 games minimum" I'm taking into account the varying severity of modkills. In this case, Phrujbaz had made no commitment in either of his games (XVIII and WaW), nor did he even take the courtesy to mention it to the hosts. And if what Ace says is true, not responding to direct prods warning of imminent death basically means that said player cares very little for the game. While I'm not saying that this is grounds for revocation of mafia-playing privileges, the punishment should still be severe enough that this type of activity doesn't occur again. I'd say with three, four, or even five games banned punishment (in this case I would opt toward the more extreme end of the hammer due to the repetitiveness of the modkill--banned in two consecutive games he played in) would not be too severe, though I'd probably say about four games for this situation.
I do like the 3 strikes rule, but sometimes I'd say it has to be taken with a bit of interpretation? Say let's look at Zona--goes from being modkilled in XVIII (admittedly, he didn't play due to a lack of interest) to being highly active in XX, WaW, and even hosting his own game (micro-Mafia). If a strike function is implemented, I'd say it needs to take into account things like these.
|
On March 26 2010 01:36 Qatol wrote:Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite." Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 17:00 flamewheel91 wrote:On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:On March 22 2010 02:33 L wrote:
Shouldn't Hobbes and Shikyo be back in? Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out. Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate). Good idea. Though that should be expanded to either the host of the current game or myself. I'll add that to the OP.
If you are really going to enforce the 3 strikes rule, it should by itself provide a pretty strong deterrent for someone who already has 2 strikes. I doubt sitting out another X games will make much of an "additional" difference. The value of X is not critical, it could even be zero.
|
flamewheel you make a very good point. If Ace got 3 strikes, or if Abenson got 3 strikes, it is completely different. That's what you're saying, right? Substitute any great player for Ace here... Incog, Ver, whoever.
|
On March 26 2010 02:09 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 01:36 Qatol wrote:On March 25 2010 16:57 flamewheel91 wrote:
3 games, minimum! Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite." On March 25 2010 17:00 flamewheel91 wrote:On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:On March 22 2010 02:33 L wrote:
Shouldn't Hobbes and Shikyo be back in? Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out. Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate). Good idea. Though that should be expanded to either the host of the current game or myself. I'll add that to the OP. If you are really going to enforce the 3 strikes rule, it should by itself provide a pretty strong deterrent for someone who already has 2 strikes. I doubt sitting out another X games will make much of an "additional" difference. The value of X is not critical, it could even be zero.
The thing is, the rule isn't just there to deter. It is also present in order to let people have time to get over their grumpiness about inactives ruining the game. Time fixes a lot of things.
|
On March 26 2010 03:55 Bill Murray wrote:
flamewheel you make a very good point. If Ace got 3 strikes, or if Abenson got 3 strikes, it is completely different. That's what you're saying, right? Substitute any great player for Ace here... Incog, Ver, whoever.
Agreed. The circumstances should play a role. However, people like that tend to be more responsible about playing. For instance, Ver is super busy right now, which is why he hasn't played recently. He sits out the game rather than just joining and going inactive with no explanation at all. But yes, it isn't going to be a straight up "3 strikes and you're gone." More like a "3 strikes and unless you have something VERY VERY good going for you, you're gone."
|
On March 24 2010 22:05 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 05:10 Qatol wrote:On March 05 2010 04:55 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Rage?
Don't make me laugh.
Two words for you: sour grapes.
Qatol, if I recall correctly it was you and LTT who wanted the game over as well, so I wouldn't use that card if I were you. Besides that, you were going to call the game anyway if and only if my team managed to swing the vote. They had several hours to do this and they failed to comply. We didn't have activity problems until that moment and it was only fitting to give it to the Town.
Now let's get something else straight:
I get why Inf. would be bitter. He made a great pawn. I understand why he cannot sleep at night over it, hence his resentment. You got played brother. Move on.
As for your last comment. I’m not the one who comes up with these silly ideas for games. If the hosts are going to add silly roles to make their games different, good for them. But, like I said to everyone I ever played with. I will exploit them to gain my side an advantage and usually I will ask the admins prior to proceeding including you Qatol. The game I was GF I basically told you my every move. As for pry, he can go fuck himself because from what I recall he's a tool.
The biggest problem with most of the games here is activity. When I play I'm right up there with the most active. I do a lot behind the scenes and if you don't like being called out then tough.
GG
EDIT: I love how you took everything out of context Qatol. GJ
I was going to call the game in your favor because you had won mathematically if you managed to swing that vote. No point in playing it out if one side cannot win. How did I take "everything out of context?" I agree you had a bunch of posts complaining about inactivity in the smurf game, but I specifically put in that quote from layoffrage in order to give those quotes context. Try reading the last day or 2 of the smurf game. It basically consists of you either A) complaining about inactivity, B) flaming, or C) bragging. EDIT: Either way, I'm done with this. I've explained why you were banned, and you obviously don't feel bad at all about the worst reason in my view (flaming the host), so I have no problem sticking with the consensus and keeping you on this list. While I agree you are consistently one of the most active players, some things are more important than activity. Just to respond to this, I remember the smurf game pretty clearly. Here is what happened and why showtime is just a prick, regardless of skill. It was a smurf game and I like to think a lot of us tried our best to honor the intentions of the game. Showtime went hunting for AKA's and creating player lists like an asshole. After around 2-3 days, we had lynched a mafia (based off a DT check and some false clue rape) the town was doing OK. The problem was there was another mafia game going on (Caller's crazy Ukrainian shit) but our activity would of slowly picked up I think. What actually happened was Showtime came out around day 2-3 (I don't remember exactly) and claimed to know EVERY SINGLE MAFIA and basically killed anyone's motivation or incentive to play the game. The town went inactive because quite frankly there was NOTHING to say. You seemed to have everything under control because you said "All these people are mafia, I am king, I am amazing, Do as I say" and at the end of the day YOU WERE WRONG. You had one fucking mafia out of five. LOL. You fucking ruined the game by saying you knew every role by "abusing, but not breaking the rules" which is bullshit. Don't be a prick about the rule set. You ruined the game only to be wrong on 4/5 counts. The only thing you were correct about was that initial rolecheck being a mafia and that is ONLY because L PMed you after he died telling you what he had found out. Shit was so gay, I was having fun I found the game pretty interesting and it was fun trying to guess out who other people were just on there posting. I talked to a few people I probably wouldn't have earlier and I liked the concept as a whole. You took the liberty of shitting all over it for fun and that is why most of us wanted you banned. Because you're a prick.
I would just like to say that because this was quoting me and my eyes were drawn to the end I was like "RoL! I haven't ever been mean to you! What the hell!" Then I read it and decided you were yelling at Showtime! not me and was okay with it.
|
On March 26 2010 07:11 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 02:09 citi.zen wrote:On March 26 2010 01:36 Qatol wrote:On March 25 2010 16:57 flamewheel91 wrote:
3 games, minimum! Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite." On March 25 2010 17:00 flamewheel91 wrote:On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:On March 22 2010 02:33 L wrote:
Shouldn't Hobbes and Shikyo be back in? Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out. Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate). Good idea. Though that should be expanded to either the host of the current game or myself. I'll add that to the OP. If you are really going to enforce the 3 strikes rule, it should by itself provide a pretty strong deterrent for someone who already has 2 strikes. I doubt sitting out another X games will make much of an "additional" difference. The value of X is not critical, it could even be zero. The thing is, the rule isn't just there to deter. It is also present in order to let people have time to get over their grumpiness about inactives ruining the game. Time fixes a lot of things.
Agreed, but this probably has more to do with non-inactivity related bans. When people get "grumpy" they usually argue a lot, not go inactive.
At any rate I have nothing against X=3, as suggested by others, should provide enough cool-off time when needed.
|
On March 26 2010 23:24 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 07:11 Qatol wrote:On March 26 2010 02:09 citi.zen wrote:On March 26 2010 01:36 Qatol wrote:On March 25 2010 16:57 flamewheel91 wrote:
3 games, minimum! Since you say "minimum," I assume you think a different number is more appropriate. What would that number be? I'm thinking I'd like to make this a 3 strikes rule (3 modkills and you're gone for good), so I'd rather you don't say "infinite." On March 25 2010 17:00 flamewheel91 wrote:On March 22 2010 04:24 Qatol wrote:On March 22 2010 02:33 L wrote:
Shouldn't Hobbes and Shikyo be back in? Did they actually sit out a game, or were they just too busy to play? I'm trying to keep it so that people actually have to want to play in a game and sit that game out. Also I would venture to say that people need to actually let you know that they are sitting out on a game. Being too busy shouldn't count for your missed game. (I'd say half of it is reading the thread and not being able to participate). Good idea. Though that should be expanded to either the host of the current game or myself. I'll add that to the OP. If you are really going to enforce the 3 strikes rule, it should by itself provide a pretty strong deterrent for someone who already has 2 strikes. I doubt sitting out another X games will make much of an "additional" difference. The value of X is not critical, it could even be zero. The thing is, the rule isn't just there to deter. It is also present in order to let people have time to get over their grumpiness about inactives ruining the game. Time fixes a lot of things. Agreed, but this probably has more to do with non-inactivity related bans. When people get "grumpy" they usually argue a lot, not go inactive. At any rate I have nothing against X=3, as suggested by others, should provide enough cool-off time when needed.
Well I guess unless anyone makes a serious case for X>3, X=3. It will definitely not be less than 3. And may nobody ever get modkilled again so this entire thread becomes moot. 
|
A few people have complained to me about the people who don't manage to get modkilled, but are just barely above the bar where they would get modkilled for inactivity because they basically don't contribute other than voting. Abenson is an example of this behavior. What do people think about banning Abenson for a game due to his activity levels/posting habits in games? Alternatively, should we give him a warning?
I went back and counted pure post count in the last 5 games he has played in, only counting posts after day 1 post and while he is alive.
His posts (including spam - like a post which only says :O):
WAW (???): 11 posts
Micro (???): 9 posts
XX (Miller): 7 posts (lynched day 2)
Mafiya (Townie): 21 posts (survived whole game)
XVIII (Mafia): 71 posts (survived the whole game)
His non-spam game-related posts:
WAW (???): 8 posts
Micro (???): 4 posts
XX (Miller): 4 posts (lynched day 2)
Mafiya (Townie): 3 posts – and that’s being generous (survived the whole game)
XVIII (Mafia): 12 posts – again being generous. He seriously had ~60 posts of pure spam including gems like “Hi” or “I can’t think of anything to say”
Also, basically every post is a 1-liner. I think he had a total of 1-2 posts with more than 50 words.
|
You can't outright ban someone for that. It's up to the players of the game to get rid of them in that instance.
|
On March 28 2010 05:20 Ace wrote:
You can't outright ban someone for that. It's up to the players of the game to get rid of them in that instance.
What exactly are they supposed to do? From what I can tell, Opz was trying pretty hard to get Abenson to talk in WAW and nothing came out of it really. I'm grateful that he told everyone that he was going to be gone, but he really wasn't contributing before that. It seems a bit harsh for the town to have to lynch people acting like that. I agree we shouldn't ban him out of the blue, but what do you think about a warning? Also, I'd like other people to give their thoughts on this. It is starting to feel like I'm just talking to Ace in this thread.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Sup guys.
I think I've given Abenson enough prods for him to realize that he should be contributing. On one hand, he's still what we could consider fairly new--though I could argue the same for players like citi.zen, meeple, Zona, to TL mafia that contribute a lot to the games that they play (well okay with the exception of Zona in XVIII...). I feel like an 'official' warning may highlight the utmost importance of contributing, since I've told him enough times that he should make better posts, even directing him toward guides on mafiascum.net and mafia wikis in the past.
Saying it's up to the players of the game to get rid of somebody may go against the flow of the game. True, I know a lot of early-game lynches do focus around "well he's not a good player, so even if he is town all he's doing is causing confusion, etc." but if we take WaW currently, I'd say that most people would be hesitant to lynch off a confirmed pro-town role player. Inasmuch so, going on the policy of "he's a bad player, get rid of him fast" will lead to people taking their "past history" into new games (see: L vs BM lol).
All in all, I'd say an official warning. Banning out of the blue would be unfair to the player, but if he's given the warning to shape up, yet does nothing to make reprimands, then for the sake of the rest of the players in a game it would be good if a dead spot could be taken out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
