TL Mafia Ban List - Page 60

On March 16 2011 05:43 Coagulation wrote:
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.

On March 15 2011 07:12 darmousseh wrote:



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.

On March 15 2011 10:30 Kavdragon wrote:


This is what I'm talking about. Again, I think that a point system is too complicated, but I think that hosts should be allowed to make exceptions to the ban list. But now that I think about it, this is probably in effect anyways, as the host has the decision to follow the ban list or not...

On March 16 2011 00:24 OriginalName wrote:
I'm assuming this is for Coags ban: Im going to vote Warning.

On March 16 2011 01:03 LSB wrote:
I vote that everyone modkilled in Diplomacy Mafia should get a warning.

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.

On March 16 2011 08:01 BrownBear wrote:
I'll vote warning for all people involved with Diplomacy too, if only because having that many people on the banlist really hobbles the next few games (and especially since I'll be running a 40-man setup, having as many people as possible would be very helpeful).

On March 15 2011 10:02 Ace wrote:
That's too much extra work. Someone who has played 20 games would be so familiar with the rules here that they'd avoid a modkill by asking the game moderator to replace them. The only way I can see someone with a lot of games under their belt getting modkilled is for some real life issue that kept them away from the forum.

Point is no one that has been around for more than a few games and has the ability to communicate should be getting modkilled.

On March 16 2011 03:05 Incognito wrote:
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 15 2011 10:06 GMarshal wrote:
The ban list isn't broken, why fix something that seems to work well? I mean if we leave it down to individual mods then the effect of being mod-killed diminishes greatly, I like it the way it is, its a standardized system of punishment for inactivity/rulebreaking. I wouldn't complain if there was some magical # of games played between bans that decreased the severity of it, but thats as much as I think should be changed.

On March 16 2011 07:22 citi.zen wrote:
I don't even understand what there is to discuss. The hosts asked for a ban. Veteran, reasonable, hosts, who contribute a lot to this forum. Just deal with it, it's not that hard to sit out a game. Repeatedly triple posting in this thread without making a serious argument is not the way to go.

On March 15 2011 10:51 Qatol wrote:
As for Coagulation's ban, I think it was fair. People can feel free to outvote me, and then so be it (standard policy for this thread), but I don't see a problem with it and I don't see any reason to give him any special status.

On March 15 2011 15:38 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:

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 16 2011 02:07 deconduo wrote:
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.

On March 16 2011 01:44 bumatlarge wrote:
I trust Incognito's decision, so whatever he says +1.

On March 16 2011 09:04 Ver wrote:
As long as the punishment is the same for everyone, I'm fine with deferring to the host on this (for diplomacy).

On March 17 2011 12:51 Foolishness wrote:
Rules are rules dude. And anyways the hosts of the game should be the ones that have the most weigh in on these matters, and both of them have said Coag deserves a ban.

I like the idea of implementing some sort of system to allow long time players a little leniency, but as stated previously it would be really cumbersome. Not to mention any long time players would probably not have issues with being banned since they know to find a replacement if necessary or give advance warning. I also think it might get to the point where a long time player will almost purposely get banned because he knows he will be off the hook: "well I know I should find a replacement, but that would require some work and it's okay since I won't actually be banned since I've played my 5 games already...".

On March 17 2011 13:23 dreamflower wrote:
Because I was told to offer my two cents on Coagulation, I think this should be pointed out:



Incognito and meapak, the two hosts for the game, say, respectively:





Ace, the host whose game you are trying to join, says:



Both hosts for the game in which you were banned voted for a ban. Ace will let you join as a replacement but isn't going to let the game count toward your ban. By your own argument, you should sit out one game, let Qatol know about it, and return to the world of busy and active posting. Surely it isn't so hard to not play in one game. You were inactive in a game (and no, the argument "Everyone else was doing it" doesn't help you, especially when I'm pretty sure everyone else from that game is suffering the same punishment and most of them aren't arguing against it), so you were modkilled, and thus you should serve out your time. It shouldn't be a very long time, either, really.

Semi-edit: Okay, I just read Foolishness' post and I guess I'm saying pretty much the same thing he is! Oh, well. I hope quoting the posts of Incognito, meapak, and Ace added something, at least.

On March 17 2011 15:23 Qatol wrote:

Yeah the cohost was flamewheel. Oh well, his vote was the same as yours so I don't think it matters.

On March 17 2011 16:03 flamewheel wrote:
Yeah I just happened to AFTL for about three weeks.

But the name's still there!

On March 17 2011 12:42 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I don't want to vote since I have a conflict of interest in wanting the current games to start sooner than later, but I do think some sort of system should be put in place that reduces the severity of future bans over either the period of time between them, or the number of games played. I also think some sort of standardization should be put in place for games that just sort of fall apart, in either warning or banning all inactives, or some other decision.

That's my two cents, but I'm still new here, so I'll defer to the veterans, as I might not know what works in practice as well as they would.

On March 16 2011 01:52 chaoser wrote:


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