|
I think this is a better argument of why Coag should play. But I'm afraid of the precedent it might set. The second someone is let off the hook then everyone will be trying to dodge some how. Sorry Coag but I think the best course is just to take the ban and move on.
Edit: the reason why I posted this is because I don't think using play styles is a good method of solving this. I happen to agree that having Coag in a game is better than some inactive newbie but I don't think getting in a debate about who's play style is better for the game is the right way to solve this.
|
On March 15 2011 15:31 Incognito wrote:This implies that you are critical to gameplay and that you are the main reason the game progresses. If Foolishness or Ver said this, I'd agree. But I don't think a majority of the players here would say that the lack of your presence would severely hamper the game. Posting a bunch of one liners IN ALL CAPS doesn't really benefit the game. I'd disagree with RoL that one liner activity > inactivity. Its really not. Neither type of behavior meaningfully benefits the game. Its nice to know that you care, but that's hardly a justification.
Uh no.. this implies when a blue gets modkilled for inactivity in a game me being a replacement would be better than the town taking a loss to their town powers.
|
I honestly don't think we are getting anywhere with this debate any more. How about we just put Coag's punishment to a vote? The reasonable options: 1 game ban, warning, no action. As usual, anyone who cares can vote, Host's vote counts extra.
WARNING: I see these kinds of things as precedent going forward. I will be inclined to treat similar situations the same way in the future. Keep this in mind when you vote.
|
I'm assuming this is for Coags ban: Im going to vote Warning.
|
On March 16 2011 00:24 OriginalName wrote:
I'm assuming this is for Coags ban: Im going to vote Warning.
Yeah. Fixed.
On March 16 2011 00:41 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Who gave him the ban in the first place? DrH?
He was modkilled by Incognito and Flamewheel in Diplomacy Mafia.
|
Who gave him the ban in the first place? DrH?
|
I vote that everyone modkilled in Diplomacy Mafia should get a warning.
|
United States22154 Posts
The thing with coags case is that he wasn't the only one modkilled for inactivity in Diplo, everyone who was modkilled for the same reasons should get the same penalties, no? (barring exceptional cases)
|
On March 16 2011 01:03 LSB wrote:
I vote that everyone modkilled in Diplomacy Mafia should get a warning.
Regardless of whether a game is dead or not, if you sign up you are making a commitment to follow the rules. Just because lots of people did it too doesn't make it right. If you are on a road with a 50mph limit but everyone is going 70, if you get caught you can't turn around and say 'everyone else was doing it too'
However, in this case I agree with a warning for everyone, but its up to the host to decide. His game, his rules. Don't sign up if you don't like them.
|
I vote for instituting a policy where a player with at least 5 previous games can choose to make their bans warnings which will dissipate after another 5 games are played without incident. However if you get mod killed within those 5 games you get the punishment for that mod kill plus whatever warnings you had.
This only applies to ACTIVITY mod kills. Anything behavior related is a completely different issue.
IE: Coagulation gets a one game ban for his mod kill in BR experimental mafia. Coagulation chooses to turn that ban into a WARNING. If coagulation plays another 5 games without incident his warning is removed. However if coagulation gets mod killed again within the next 5 games he would get a 2 game ban. One for his previous warning and one for the current mod kill.
|
I trust Incognito's decision, so whatever he says +1.
|
On March 16 2011 01:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I vote for instituting a policy where a player with at least 5 previous games can choose to make their bans warnings which will dissipate after another 5 games are played without incident. However if you get mod killed within those 5 games you get the punishment for that mod kill plus whatever warnings you had.
This only applies to ACTIVITY mod kills. Anything behavior related is a completely different issue.
IE: Coagulation gets a one game ban for his mod kill in BR experimental mafia. Coagulation chooses to turn that ban into a WARNING. If coagulation plays another 5 games without incident his warning is removed. However if coagulation gets mod killed again within the next 5 games he would get a 2 game ban. One for his previous warning and one for the current mod kill.
Then we'd have to track game numbers for pretty much everyone, even newbies, and then update them all the time. With staggered games ending, it's going to get real messy real fast with the signup system we have that would require manual updating of the game number list. Maybe if it was automatic this would work but for now it's just too complicated
|
Just to clarify what I said above:
If I was host I would give a warning, and I think in this case a warning would be better.
However it should be up to the host, not a vote. If he asks for a warning instead, give a warning, if he asks for a ban give a ban. That's my opinion.
|
Ban. Basically what deconduo said. If you sign up to join a game, you're agreeing to play the game until you die or it is declared to be over. It wasn't exactly that difficult to take 5 minutes to skim the short thread and send me a PM containing orders. And then I see people in the game who are active elsewhere on the site. Its not like you didn't have time to send in orders. Not playing the game because nobody else was is a terrible excuse. Not to mention the effect it has on other people who were actually trying to play the game, like Ace/citi.zen were. If everyone is waiting around for other people to say stuff of course nothing gets done.
|
On March 16 2011 01:52 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 01:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I vote for instituting a policy where a player with at least 5 previous games can choose to make their bans warnings which will dissipate after another 5 games are played without incident. However if you get mod killed within those 5 games you get the punishment for that mod kill plus whatever warnings you had.
This only applies to ACTIVITY mod kills. Anything behavior related is a completely different issue.
IE: Coagulation gets a one game ban for his mod kill in BR experimental mafia. Coagulation chooses to turn that ban into a WARNING. If coagulation plays another 5 games without incident his warning is removed. However if coagulation gets mod killed again within the next 5 games he would get a 2 game ban. One for his previous warning and one for the current mod kill. Then we'd have to track game numbers for pretty much everyone, even newbies, and then update them all the time. With staggered games ending, it's going to get real messy real fast with the signup system we have that would require manual updating of the game number list. Maybe if it was automatic this would work but for now it's just too complicated
No, we do everything normally. The only difference is a player can request we look at their history and see if he qualifies for a ban reduction.
|
On March 16 2011 04:11 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 01:52 chaoser wrote:On March 16 2011 01:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I vote for instituting a policy where a player with at least 5 previous games can choose to make their bans warnings which will dissipate after another 5 games are played without incident. However if you get mod killed within those 5 games you get the punishment for that mod kill plus whatever warnings you had.
This only applies to ACTIVITY mod kills. Anything behavior related is a completely different issue.
IE: Coagulation gets a one game ban for his mod kill in BR experimental mafia. Coagulation chooses to turn that ban into a WARNING. If coagulation plays another 5 games without incident his warning is removed. However if coagulation gets mod killed again within the next 5 games he would get a 2 game ban. One for his previous warning and one for the current mod kill. Then we'd have to track game numbers for pretty much everyone, even newbies, and then update them all the time. With staggered games ending, it's going to get real messy real fast with the signup system we have that would require manual updating of the game number list. Maybe if it was automatic this would work but for now it's just too complicated No, we do everything normally. The only difference is a player can request we look at their history and see if he qualifies for a ban reduction.
The problem I have with this system isn't checking to see if someone qualifies for a ban reduction, but tracking the player after they get banned. I know Diplomacy mafia happened at the same time as other games. I don't think any of the others did. If that is the case, this is the list of players I would be keeping track of right now between bans and warnings and not counting the people who already sat out:
Jackal58
astroorion
Beneather
BloodyC0bbler
Coagulation
ShoCkeyy
Divinek
ilovejonn
me_viet
ELITECubWarman8
SouthRawrea
Johnhughthom
Project Psycho
zerroth
papapanda
Nfi
tube
Mr. Zergling
Brocket
Tevo
ghote
youngminii
While not all of them would merit this special treatment, at least youngminii, tube, SouthRawrea, divinek, shockeyy, coagulation, BC, beneather, and jackal would (and probably others, but I'm not going to bother to check right now). For those players, you just added a lot of extra work because I'm going to have to track their warning through the next 5 games they play (it isn't really fair to do just the next 5 games because of people like myself who might merit special treatment but don't play often enough for such a punishment to be meaningful if it's just the next 5 games played).
|
i say just use common sense.
ask yourself is the person a liability to the function and integrity of the game?
if yes ban if not dont ban.
|
I have played maybe 30+ games here very actively.
the only game i have any trouble in is the one where the game ends because of general player base inactivity issues.
I dont see why a warning wouldn't be sufficient.
|
Coagulation the problem with that is its too subjective and completely unfair to go based off of the opinions of others. I would not support any system that is basically a popularity contest. Having set definitions makes it as objective as we can make it.
Oh and Qatol, I really don't think it would be much work if it all. All you do is change there game ban count to warning. Next time they get mod killed we just count the disparity if applicable.
The same thing I was trying to apply was that warnings/bans eventually wear off after a certain amount of time. But I think the player should be responsible for telling you that they have fulfilled the 5 games without incident requirement. That's not something any of us should worry about.
IE: If Coagulation has his 1 game banned turned into a 1 game warning. He is allowed to play. If he goes 5 games without incident he PM's Qatol to take him off the list, with a list of the games he has played in. However if Coagulation gets mod killed on his 3rd game after turning his ban into a warning he is naturally reported in this thread as having been mod killed. At which point we just add his 1 game ban and his 1 game warning together and he has to sit out. for those two games.
|
On March 16 2011 06:02 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Coagulation the problem with that is its too subjective and completely unfair to go based off of the opinions of others.
The only person who should have an opinion on it is each individual host
The modkills should be recorded and compiled in a list in this thread for information to help host's make their decisions.
I dont understand why there needs to be a rigid system set to deal with problems that are much more organic and variable in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
