|
On March 11 2011 10:29 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 08:00 bumatlarge wrote:On March 11 2011 01:32 citi.zen wrote:On March 10 2011 17:20 bumatlarge wrote:
Well IMO, Bill is a peculiar case.
Is what he is doing to be heavily frowned upon? Absolutely. Is he purposefully trying to do any of the crimes we've accused of him? I don't think anyone here would answer yes.
I believe this is a matter of maturity and personality rather then what I think we are condemning BM for. I think he did a good job with his self control as gryffindor, and let it slip a little in a tense moment in the game still being played. He just needs to spend a little time reading what he posts before hand, and adding whatever else comes into his mind during that time. I don't think he felt he did anything wrong, which is a problem. I wouldn't say we would be banning him for his aggressive play, because I didn't find it all that insulting, if a bit provocative. He needs to understand, however, that his posting needs to be consolidated for everyone's convenience, so we can logically follow his perspective not only in mafia games, but also in conversations in other things, such as discussing a ban :X
I would give Bill another chance. It still warrants an extended ban, but I would like to see his rebuttal here and what exactly is going through that noggin. It's not just a matter of style/bad play/spam. This is someone who repeatedly ruined games by breaking basic mafia rules. See Incognito's mafia XVI for example, where he posted after death the result of his check; he had just flipped DT, so it was a big deal and pretty much ended the game. How would you feel as a host and/or red player who put real effort in that game? You can say "ok, but he was new then" - as we all did at the time. Guess what: he did it again! He also threatened hosts to ruin other games if his demands were not met. He had more than three major strikes, plus minor violations in almost every game he played. What is going through his noggin' is irrelevant, at some point actions speak louder than words. He didn't do this as gryffindor, right? So that means we are making progress! He said hes not even mad! How about this. I will host a game in the future, and that will be Bill's last chance. If he successfully plays the game with respect towards everyone and makes a valiant effort to subdue his vices, we can make a more accurate judgement on him. If he persists in the aforementioned antics, then he gets the perma-ban. I plan on setting up the game in the near future and will wait on the queue list accordingly. It will be interesting game, I promise, and I'd like to see what people would make of it. I will handle the modding and if you don't want to play with Bill, you don't have to play! Bill is a nice guy at heart, give him one more chance with this, and I think you will see a change for the better. + Show Spoiler + The problem is, like Qatol said, we JUST did this. If we allow it again it shows we aren't really going to enforce our decisions and it just encourages him to abuse our charity more. This was supposed to be his one and only chance to redeem himself. He failed and it would be foolish of us to believe that this next game he'll truly be on his best behavior. It may be hard putting our collective foot down, especially someone who is as veteran as BM, but at some point enough is enough. He was supposedly permanantly banned, he got around that and failed his umpteenth chance. If he still wants to play in a year or so I'm not opposed to that but right now I think we should absolutely not let him in again so soon and be like "Ok so now THIS game you have to be extra good in."
Additionally, it looks really bad to the TL staff. I don't like having to go to them, but this was a situation we could not deal with on our own. For us to immediately turn around and ask to have him reinstated makes it look like: 1) we were making a big deal out of nothing (so they shouldn't take these kinds of requests seriously in the future) and 2) we don't respect their judgment in deciding that we were right and he had broken the forum rules.
|
|
|
Canada7170 Posts
Just so you guys know, I'm willing to deal with any sort of moderation issues in the mafia forum- just send me a PM. flamewheel already uses me to check new player for multiple IPs. The only thing I can't do is see edits.
|
I’m going to ask for a 1 game ban for Jackal. I understand that this is after the fact but here’s my reasoning (this may be a little long winded but it’s a complicated situation). Firstly, Jackal’s behavior outside of the one incident was very good; he didn’t lurk, did good analysis, played spiritedly, and was generally an enthusiastic player. His incident with Gryffindor/BM however was completely out of line. Saying “Fuck you asshole” was WAY out of line and repeatedly swearing and resorting to ad hominem attacks was way out of line. I would have modkilled him right there, however that would have meant the town was taking three green modkills in one sitting. If Barundar had not been modkilled at the same time as Gryffindor than I would have modkilled Jackal in a heartbeat however I felt that it would have been unfair to the town to almost halve their remaining number in one go round. If I had killed Jackal on the spot I would have seriously considered asking for a two game ban, however since I let him get away in the thread, I think that sends the message that his transgression really wasn’t two game ban worthy so that’s why I’m only asking for one. When I first read the thread I immediately sent warning PMs to Jackal and BM and Jackal’s reply to me was civil and apologetic so I’m going to chalk this up as an isolated incident (and let’s face it, he was arguing with BM and I doubt if I would have been able to keep my cool in that situation either  ).
This may be completely garbled so if anyone has any questions regarding anything please don’t hesitate to ask and I’ll do my best to clarify.
tl;dr I’d like a 1 game ban for Jackal for his behavior in TL mafia XXXVII
|
On March 13 2011 03:45 mikeymoo wrote:
Just so you guys know, I'm willing to deal with any sort of moderation issues in the mafia forum- just send me a PM. flamewheel already uses me to check new player for multiple IPs. The only thing I can't do is see edits.
Yeah I just didn't realize you were still around. The last time I talked to you, you seemed pretty busy. I'll send you an IM next time.
|
Canada7170 Posts
PMs on TL are easier, msn has been on and off for ages now (around since we last talked)
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Mike come back to Mafia games after you get your degree~
|
On March 13 2011 15:47 mikeymoo wrote:
PMs on TL are easier, msn has been on and off for ages now (around since we last talked)
Okay. Will do.
On March 13 2011 15:48 flamewheel wrote:
Mike come back to Mafia games after you get your degree~
Agreed. Showtime! doesn't play any more, so your original reason for not playing is totally invalid now!
|
Im clearly not an inactive player people
im requesting exemption from my ban.
feel free to discuss.
GET EM ROL!!!!!!!!
*runs
|
USA5860 Posts
You know coagulation, I gave you a wonderful argument to use and you post a 5 line post with absolutely no effort.
I am not sure if I want you in factory mafia know :x
But anyway. I think we might want to consider a sort of "veteran" exemption for mod kills. I was thinking players that haven't been mod killed before and showed good levels of activity in maybe like 5 games of mafia that we should allow them to exempt their mod kill. But maybe make it so they have to maintain activity for 5 games without a mod kill, or it the ban gets stacked.
I think its more fair to those of us who have contributed a lot of time to this forum and even to the hosts. I mean lets say Ace got mod killed from insane mafia II, if he requested joining your game would you really not want an active and good player in your game because of one slip up? I know it might not seem completely fair and bordering on elitist, but I honestly think those who have been here and played with us for a long time deserve more leeway then the random guy who plays in one game then says "Fuck it" half way through. Would you honestly put coagulation on par with someone like astoorian ban wise?
Thoughts?
|
USA5860 Posts
Oh and I know I have proposed something similar before, but I really think we need some way to reward active players on our board. I think we just need to work out exactly what we think qualifies as active, and what doesn't, and how far we go with exemption.
|
Wait a sec...did you just compare Coagulation to Ace, or am I hallucinating?
|
On March 15 2011 05:32 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Oh and I know I have proposed something similar before, but I really think we need some way to reward active players on our board. I think we just need to work out exactly what we think qualifies as active, and what doesn't, and how far we go with exemption.
How bout a point system. Every time you play mafia and contribute you earn points. Getting modkilled would be negative points. Sitting out a game is a point. For example
Play a game of mafia and contribute at all: 1 point
Play a game of mafia and be the MVP of the game: 2 points
Play a game of mafia and get mod killed: -2 points
Sitting out a game: 1 point
Mod Killed again: -3 points.
Maximum of 5 points at any time (meaning if a vet gets modkilled, they would have to do something bad again to actually have to sit out a game).
The details can be worked out.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Qatol has been pretty bored lately. I bet that would give him something to do!
|
On March 15 2011 07:17 kitaman27 wrote:
Qatol has been pretty bored lately. I bet that would give him something to do!
So this would be retroactive? :p
|
On March 15 2011 05:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:I think its more fair to those of us who have contributed a lot of time to this forum and even to the hosts.
I strongly agree. People like Ver, BloodyC0bbler, Ace, etc... should not need to sit out 4-5 games because they went inactive in one. I haven't given enough thought to suggest a system on how to fix this, but I agree that it's a problem.
In general, there's a mechanic that is broken with mod-kills: The more bans you get, the harsher they get. This works well for rooting out new players that go inactive every time, but if someone has played in 20 games receives his second ban, it shouldn't be a harsh as someone who has been banned in his first two games.
|
On March 15 2011 07:50 Kavdragon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 05:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:I think its more fair to those of us who have contributed a lot of time to this forum and even to the hosts. I strongly agree. People like Ver, BloodyC0bbler, Ace, etc... should not need to sit out 4-5 games because they went inactive in one. I haven't given enough thought to suggest a system on how to fix this, but I agree that it's a problem. In general, there's a mechanic that is broken with mod-kills: The more bans you get, the harsher they get. This works well for rooting out new players that go inactive every time, but if someone has played in 20 games receives his second ban, it shouldn't be a harsh as someone who has been banned in his first two games.
Yeah, I've also never seen this happen in the short time I've been here, but what happens if someone who's been around for a while gets a second or third modkill? Say you were modkilled twice when you started playing, and sat out your games normally. What happens if you are modkilled again something like 3 years later, do you still have to sit out 5 games, or do you get preferential treatment because you went three years without being modkilled? Does it go to a case-by-case basis?
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Perhaps we should add something in the form of "for every X, where X represents an amount of time/games, that you are not banned..."
|
USA5860 Posts
On March 15 2011 06:38 Incognito wrote:
Wait a sec...did you just compare Coagulation to Ace, or am I hallucinating?
If I did it wasn't a skill comparison. I was just referring to having players you know will be active sit out over some rule meant to punish the new guys for just idling out games. If I was hosting a game, as much as I hate the way coagulation plays I would prefer him over an inactive and not allowing him in yields a much higher chance to have an inactive new guy fill his spot.
|
On March 15 2011 09:07 flamewheel wrote:
Perhaps we should add something in the form of "for every X, where X represents an amount of time/games, that you are not banned..."
Actually, having spent a while thinking about it, it seems like plans that have any sort of complicated nature in them end up not being used. The simpler, the more likely that it'll actually be implemented... To that end, the easiest solution I could think of is just to leave it up to the hosts. Hosts can let in veteran players, that way the person with the biggest vested interest in the game has to take the risk with a player that might go awol.
Of course that brings up the topic of biased hosts, but honestly, I don't think that would be a big problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
