TL Mafia Ban List - Page 69

On April 27 2011 12:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Well, I think Qatol's point is that Coag was acting insane and abrasive BEFORE any of the shit went down with the pardon and protact. So saying "I was mad because of all the shit in the game" may be a valid defense for what happened after the events, it doesn't excuse his previous behavior.

Although in Coag's defense, I don't think he was directly warned until after the first incident (judging by Qatol's log post).

On April 27 2011 12:52 BrownBear wrote:
My opinion is at least some of his anger is justified. His team did kinda get screwed over, and Meapak did tell him to "be an ass" in thread. That said, nothing can excuse the level to which he took his anger and the level to which he shit all over the thread. "Be an ass" does not equal "make the game unplayable for everyone except you".

However, I tend to be a forgiving guy. So, I'm still going to support only a one game ban PROVIDED Coag agrees to the following things:

-I think he should apologize to his team and to anyone else who he offended in game. He can just write a general apology, but it should be meaningful, not a flippant "lol sorry".
-Also, he has said he's going to work to manage his behavior in the future. I believe him, but still I think if he ever gets modkilled for behavioral issues again, we should consider something like a 4-5 game ban.


On the subject of behavioral vs. inactivity modkills - it really depends on the situation. In this game, obviously, the behavior was more disruptive than the inactivity, but there was also a recent game where a DT checked a red, got back red, and then went inactive and didnt get the red lynched, in pretty much a LYLO situation. That really screwed town over worse than any spammer/flamer.

So unless we want to split up the punishments between inactivity and behavior, which seems like way too much work for Qatol, I vote we leave it as is.

On April 27 2011 13:09 Qatol wrote:

Yes, this is my point. And yes he was warned on day 2 before the first incident. Also, there were 3 warnings, 1 in particular he should have guessed was aimed at him (talking about allcaps posting).


This doesn't make any sense. You want a 1 game ban, but you want the punishments to be the same for behavior and inactivity? If the punishments are the same, he is getting a 3 game ban because he has a previous modkill. The only way what you are saying here makes sense is if you want different rules for how bans work. Is that what you want?

On April 27 2011 13:06 Ver wrote:


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114622&currentpage=17#338

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114622&currentpage=21#409

These two seem to indicate two bans sat out if I am not mistaken.

As for coag, the day 1/early day 2 logs are BM level excessive. The hosts seem to be okay with a 1 game ban though. If you want something more than 1 game but not a game ban BB, how about he gets banned from insulting people and using caps lock in future games lol.

On April 27 2011 13:16 Coagulation wrote:


now your saying if people want to give me mercy we have to change the whole ban system? i dont understand the point of opening up discussion to see if people think i should be banned or not if your just gonna keep responding with "well thats not the way the system works"

On April 27 2011 13:21 Qatol wrote:

We can do that, but people aren't even thinking about the system, they keep saying that more than 1 is unfair without talking about the system at all. I'm saying that the case is usually pretty exceptional to reduce what is usually a 3 game ban to a 1 game ban. Nobody is really explaining why this case is so exceptional. Therefore, I conclude that they disagree with how the ban list system works, but people aren't explaining how they would like to see it work either.

On April 27 2011 13:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Dont cherry pick the system. You are opting to punish one person while exempting others from punishment. The reason for lowering his 3 game ban to 1 is to accomodate the fact that leniency is being shown to more than 3 vets. IF they were being punished I would have far less of a problem with coag taking 3 bans as per norm, but you can't expect him to sit back and eat 3 when people who did have a major factor in his behaviour get off scott free while doing something far worse.

Exceptions exist to all rules.

On April 27 2011 14:41 citi.zen wrote:
I keep thinking the fundamental reason for creating this sub-forum was to have a message-board helping hosts run better games.

This sort of ban used to be simple: in 99% of cases the host asked for a recourse, Qatol marked it down as a neutral 3rd party and it was a done deal!

Now there's all this back and forth with every ban, everyone and their grandmother feels they need to chime in, argue their case to multiple people, etc. Qatol is suddenly in the middle of it all, in the untenable spot of having to respond to everyone and defend every ban as if it's the product of the "Qatol code of laws", which is just not fair.

I would suggest going back to a simpler procedure:

1. The host of the game in question proposes a penalty
2. Other veteran hosts (say with 5+ games hosted) get a say, if they desire to weigh in at all.
3. If there is a tie, someone well regarded like Ver breaks it.
4. Sleep well knowing people with a solid track record handle these situations in a simple and considerate manner.

On April 27 2011 13:17 Qatol wrote:

Yes, but for there to be 1 game remaining on his ban, there should be 3 games sat out, 1 from his first (1 game) ban and 2 from his second (3 game) ban. The first sit out you linked to is from his 1 game ban.

On April 27 2011 14:48 chaoser wrote:


+1 Concur