|
On April 25 2011 14:09 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist. Because it isn't. Ver writes guides for everyone to learn from. He just doesn't devote his attention to people until they show that they are committed enough to actually read his guides and try to learn from them (which is enough to get people to the level where he is willing to coach one on one). Besides, calling him elitist is just mean. Also, what BrownBear said was a lot worse than just "elitist." He probably would have gotten at least a warning from the TL staff if anyone had reported that post.
Ok when you put it like that, fair enough. I did use his XXX guide extensively after all.
I retract this complaint about elitism. My apologies.
|
On April 25 2011 14:12 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist. No, actually it makes sense. It's a very nuanced issue and not at all black and white. Here DropBear, let's say me, bum, you, kita, DTA, TS, and AO were the last players in the game. Me, you, kita, and bum had been PMing Foolishness all game for coaching. We ask him if he thinks bum is mafia. Do you really think he's going to give an impartial response? It's basically impossible. In that regard, I agree with Ver, coaching has inherent issues. But at the same time it's extremely valuable. Private coaching would be better than public coaching since you're only talking with one person and so not privy to private info on others. I never had problems with private coaching though and so now it's basically "If you're for public coaching, who is that any less worse than account sharing" is the main question.
I don't agree with this. If someone asks such a pointed question he shouldn't be allowed to give a response. That isn't coaching, that's taking over.
|
On April 25 2011 14:16 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 14:12 chaoser wrote:On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist. No, actually it makes sense. It's a very nuanced issue and not at all black and white. Here DropBear, let's say me, bum, you, kita, DTA, TS, and AO were the last players in the game. Me, you, kita, and bum had been PMing Foolishness all game for coaching. We ask him if he thinks bum is mafia. Do you really think he's going to give an impartial response? It's basically impossible. In that regard, I agree with Ver, coaching has inherent issues. But at the same time it's extremely valuable. Private coaching would be better than public coaching since you're only talking with one person and so not privy to private info on others. I never had problems with private coaching though and so now it's basically "If you're for public coaching, who is that any less worse than account sharing" is the main question. I don't agree with this. If someone asks such a pointed question he shouldn't be allowed to give a response. That isn't coaching, that's taking over.
It could be considered bouncing ideas off one another. If I write up an analysis of bum, bring it to Foolishness, and ask him what he thinks of my ideas, how is he suppose to respond to that? If he doesn't respond, he's not coaching. You're basically placing huge restrictions on what is and isn't allowed coaching that can't ever be actually enforced. Not to mention people will have different opinions on where they consider the line to be.
|
Please don't ask them questions like "Hey, do you think Ver is scum" or "Could you give me a good analysis on Qatol", but feel free to ask about how to play, if you ever get confused, that kind of thing.
This is in the instructions for how to conduct coaching but the examples on what you can't do isn't specific at all and looks at the situation in a very black and white way then there's a whole shitload of grey. Near the end of the game, the mafia were mostly in the inactive players. If I ask foolishness, hey, I think mafia, from the play that was exhibited in this game and from the nigh kills, are mostly in the inactives, here is why via analysis, what do you think? Is he not allowed to answer that question? What questions can he answer then? What is considered a pointed question and what isn't?
|
On April 25 2011 14:22 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 14:16 DropBear wrote:On April 25 2011 14:12 chaoser wrote:On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist. No, actually it makes sense. It's a very nuanced issue and not at all black and white. Here DropBear, let's say me, bum, you, kita, DTA, TS, and AO were the last players in the game. Me, you, kita, and bum had been PMing Foolishness all game for coaching. We ask him if he thinks bum is mafia. Do you really think he's going to give an impartial response? It's basically impossible. In that regard, I agree with Ver, coaching has inherent issues. But at the same time it's extremely valuable. Private coaching would be better than public coaching since you're only talking with one person and so not privy to private info on others. I never had problems with private coaching though and so now it's basically "If you're for public coaching, who is that any less worse than account sharing" is the main question. I don't agree with this. If someone asks such a pointed question he shouldn't be allowed to give a response. That isn't coaching, that's taking over. It could be considered bouncing ideas off one another. If I write up an analysis of bum, bring it to Foolishness, and ask him what he thinks of my ideas, how is he suppose to respond to that? If he doesn't respond, he's not coaching. You're basically placing huge restrictions on what is and isn't allowed coaching that can't ever be actually enforced. Not to mention people will have different opinions on where they consider the line to be.
Again I disagree. How you have described it is a direct question and sharing information. I thought that the idea was keeping everything in the thread, no PMs allowed. People obviously do have different opinions and that's why we need a distinct, defined line about what is and isnt ok. If you disagree with me that's fine but it's how I feel.
Regardless of how important or helpful coaching may be, it shouldn't be ok to coach if you are participating in the game and it's a no PM game. Whether he participated by posting a single vote or dictated every word of Protactinium's posts, participation is participation and he shouldn't be allowed to do it. This is doubly the case if he was involved in the setup, and again I would like to know precisely what role Ver played in the setup of the game. He shouldn't be cleared because he "hardly played".
EDIT IN RESPONSE TO THIS:
On April 25 2011 14:27 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +Please don't ask them questions like "Hey, do you think Ver is scum" or "Could you give me a good analysis on Qatol", but feel free to ask about how to play, if you ever get confused, that kind of thing. This is in the instructions for how to conduct coaching but the examples on what you can't do isn't specific at all and looks at the situation in a very black and white way then there's a whole shitload of grey. Near the end of the game, the mafia were mostly in the inactive players. If I ask foolishness, hey, I think mafia, from the play that was exhibited in this game and from the nigh kills, are mostly in the inactives, here is why via analysis, what do you think? Is he not allowed to answer that question? What questions can he answer then? What is considered a pointed question and what isn't?
I agree there is a lot of grey. We need to work out what is and isn't ok.
I think asking if you think someone is Mafia/blue/whatever outright shouldn't be answered, as is explicitly stated in the rules you have quoted.
I've said my piece now. The problems I have with the explanations of BB, Meapak and Incognito are here.
|
Your opinion has been duly noted dropbear... several times.
Ive come to my final conclusion that I don't want bans for anyone. Let's amend the rules so there is no triple smurfing and just move on from the whole thing. BB, if you want bans I'll support it but I dont think there needs to be. This situation and several of the others that stem from the game has created a caustic atmosphere that I really don't like. There's actually an addendum to my post game write up addressing this which I had originally left out but tomorrow I think I'll post it.
|
On April 25 2011 15:45 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Your opinion has been duly noted dropbear... several times.
Ive come to my final conclusion that I don't want bans for anyone. Let's amend the rules so there is no triple smurfing and just move on from the whole thing. BB, if you want bans I'll support it but I dont think there needs to be. This situation and several of the others that stem from the game has created a caustic atmosphere that I really don't like. There's actually an addendum to my post game write up addressing this which I had originally left out but tomorrow I think I'll post it.
I´m not following you, do you think the game will be better if account-sharing and knowledge of the balancing of a game is allowed? If tey can´t be sportsmen about this, then they shouldn´t play a Mafia game. What they did was cheating, and they really should have realised this allready. That they haven´t is no less reason to ban, the problem is the action, not that they thought at the time that nothing was wrong. The host is in his rights to ban for low activity, and this is definetly worse than not posting. If BB wants to ban them then I support him.
I´m actually surprised that so many defend them.
On April 25 2011 12:23 bumatlarge wrote:
Doing something against the spirit of the game should not be a rule. It should be a code inscribed on every TLers hearts.
Quoted for truth.
|
On April 25 2011 18:24 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 15:45 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Your opinion has been duly noted dropbear... several times.
Ive come to my final conclusion that I don't want bans for anyone. Let's amend the rules so there is no triple smurfing and just move on from the whole thing. BB, if you want bans I'll support it but I dont think there needs to be. This situation and several of the others that stem from the game has created a caustic atmosphere that I really don't like. There's actually an addendum to my post game write up addressing this which I had originally left out but tomorrow I think I'll post it. I´m not following you, do you think the game will be better if account-sharing and knowledge of the balancing of a game is allowed? If tey can´t be sportsmen about this, then they shouldn´t play a Mafia game. What they did was cheating, and they really should have realised this allready. That they haven´t is no less reason to ban, the problem is the action, not that they thought at the time that nothing was wrong. The host is in his rights to ban for low activity, and this is definetly worse than not posting. If BB wants to ban them then I support him. I´m actually surprised that so many defend them. Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:23 bumatlarge wrote:
Doing something against the spirit of the game should not be a rule. It should be a code inscribed on every TLers hearts. Quoted for truth.
If you look at the posts you'll see that almost no one defended them? People were merely saying that rules should not be used retroactively to ban people. They didn't break any of written rules and as far as I'm concern, giving them a ban off "spirit of the game" is a bad move, especially since
1) This is the first time we've used that term
2) We have no outlines at all to understand what is and isn't considered breaking "spirit of the game"
Would it apply to Chenizu ignoring his mafia team and creating a new mafia team within a game? Would that apply to trying to find the mafia's IRC and then learning all their shit? Would that apply to posting like 0cz3c? Ban someone who's whole mayor campaign is that he would get a particular someone else lynched on nothing except that fact that they are that person? Should we just ban people who are posting once per game and only vote cause they're pretty much just skating the inactivity barrier and have no real interest in playing? All these can be thought of as "breaking the spirit of the game".
Even so, I still think, while public coaching has problems, that account sharing shouldn't happen Ver, regardless of how it stacks up in problems when compared to public coaching.
|
I don't know why people keep comparing public coaching and account sharing as if they are equivocal in the slightest. With public coaching is generally just helps everyone and the whole goal behind it is with good intention. Account sharing treads into murky water which I don't think should be allowed. So we ban it.
What I don't like is you guys trying to retroactively punish someone. Tell me how it is fair to punish someone for a rule that doesn't exist? It's not, that's why in any decent legal system it's disallowed. We don't even have any sort of rule that could be remotely twisted into condemning them. So if you want a "Spirit of the Game" rule so we have flexibility in the future, then that is a reasonable discussion. However to say they should be punished for this unwritten "code" is completely unfair.
On April 25 2011 18:24 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:23 bumatlarge wrote:
Doing something against the spirit of the game should not be a rule. It should be a code inscribed on every TLers hearts. Quoted for truth.
You can't say this. You contradict yourself. Choose, do you want spirit of the game to be a rule, or not? If you want to punish someone you have to put it in writing. That's like if you going to an a country where homosexually isn't explicitly banned and getting your fuck on with a bunch of guys. Then the people find out and decide "YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE GENERALLY AGREED UPON OPINION YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF." Would it be fair to punish said person for homosexuality even though their was nothing written? Even if they should have known it was wrong to do? No, because there is no official rule at the time of the occurrence.
Maybe it's a stupid example, but if we had Spirit of the Game as a rule this argument wouldn't be what it is. This argument would be "Was account sharing against the spirit of the game?" Which I am sure we would all reach a very easy consensus on. To elaborate on the above example, if they had a law that no one could break a generally agreed upon bad behavior then sure I guess the person could be fucked. Without adequate warning though, no one should get in trouble for something that isn't a rule/law.
|
Always with the grade-A analogies RoL. Top of the line lol
|
Now that I've cooled down from last night, here's my final official opinion on this.
Do I, personally, think that what Ver/flame/Incog did broke the rules of the game? No. Do I think they broke the spirit of the game? Yes, personally, although I understand our opinions differ on this. Do I think they can or should be punished for this? No.
My recommendation is that we add to the rules, specifically stating "one person, one account". From now on, we can punish people for it, but we can't retroactively punish these three for something that was technically legal. I bear no ill will towards any of them, and I hope they don't towards me (after all, things were said, in anger, that probably shouldn't have been said). I think the best way to deal with it is to move on, and make sure the grey area is defined so something like this can't happen again.
And RoL: That analogy really makes me sad. Please change it.
|
On April 26 2011 01:16 chaoser wrote:
Would it apply to Chenizu ignoring his mafia team and creating a new mafia team within a game? Would that apply to trying to find the mafia's IRC and then learning all their shit? Would that apply to posting like 0cz3c? Ban someone who's whole mayor campaign is that he would get a particular someone else lynched on nothing except that fact that they are that person? Should we just ban people who are posting once per game and only vote cause they're pretty much just skating the inactivity barrier and have no real interest in playing? All these can be thought of as "breaking the spirit of the game".
Even so, I still think, while public coaching has problems, that account sharing shouldn't happen Ver, regardless of how it stacks up in problems when compared to public coaching.
Trying to find the Mafia IRC would definetly be cheating.
Fine, people agree that they did something wrong, why will they not be punished? It´s up to the Host but if someone did this in my game then I would be very irritated on that person. There is a lot of time and energy that goes into the game, for the host and all the players that are actually trying to play a fair game, there should be consequences to those who break people´s trust and disrupt the game.
I think they should get a ban or at least an official warning so that future hosts can be made aware of this and if they so choose, take precautions or bar them from their games.
|
Fine, people agree that they did something wrong, why will they not be punished?
This has already been answered by RoL and many others. Retroactive application of rules isn't fair. In the case that if does happen, probably half of the TL Mafia players should be banned.
I know I've tried to find Mafia IRCs, not in any serious way, but I've tried punching in things just for shits and giggles. GMarshal's screenshot in Survivor gave away his team's IRC channel name for XXXVIII and had I wanted to I could have gone and found it. People have found mafia forums, Plexa's blue list, leaked quicktopics. Should they all get banned?
And that's only mentioning IRC finding.
Issues like barely being above the inactivity limit, dicking around in a game, and various other things should all be up for debate in terms of not playing to the "spirit of the game".
RoL gave a horrible analogy -_- but its logic is, sadly, sound. We've addressed the issues, and we'll deal with it in the future if it happens again.
That being said, not even BB/MK want the bans anymore so if, like you said, it's up to the host, drop the issue of getting them banned please -_-
|
What? Spirit of the game is why we play, to have a fun mafia experience with other TLers in the most fair way possible. If you ever have to question that what you are doing goes against that, then its most likely wrong to do. Everybody here knows that, I find absolutely no reason to make it a written rule.
|
How can you guys say that its not "Cheating" cause it isnt outlined in the rules. thats crazy. we cant expect to outline every little thing a player can do that is considered cheating in any practical way. The bottom line is if its wrong you shouldnt do it.
Im pretty sure there isnt a rule that stops me as a mafia from going door to door IRL of all the town players in the game and shooting them when they answer the door to eliminate town. Well its not outlined as breaking the rules in the OP so it should be allowed.
|
I believe account sharing gives an unfair advantage to the players who are doing it. It cannot be compared to coaching because the coaches should only be giving general advice and options rather than actually taking actions that directly impact the game. This is frustrating to me because all three players are experienced in the game. It really is like having three good players' minds connected to make a super player. To what extent they actually collaborated should not really matter because it is the potential Voltron player that matters.
However, I do not believe that any of the three players should be banned. At most give all three a warning or just make the rules clear that account sharing is not allowed.
Smurfing I believe to be okay as long as a player is only using one account per game at a time.
|
Honestly all of you people who say "no ban" should leave this thread. We have perma banned 1 player from TL mafia for doing a similar action.
Ruining the spirit of the game. What makes it worse, is both are trying to say this is private coaching. It's not. Private coaching would mean neither incog or ver would have never posted on the account. In that case I would have absolutely no issue with this as well, I know it happens and there is no real way to stop it.
However, the attitude shown here is disgusting. Two of the three vets involved in this have shown no remorse and have since lied about what they did. Private coaching and account sharing are two different things. Otherwise I would have sat on 8 peoples accounts and solo played as mafia and grape raped the town.
Now as to why they should eat bans. Showtime was banned based on his behaviour in Pyrr's smurf game. He wasn't just banned, he was permabanned. These guys did something similar. They played against the spirit of the game and made it to a degree unenjoyable to others. We had never had a case like Showtime before and he was banned for it. We have shown a trend of retroactively punishing people for breaking the cardinal spirit behind our games here. To let people get away with that purely because "we had no official rule on this exact breach" is horseshit. It has already been admitted they requested a town power role that would have effectively raped mafia soundly. 3 people, 1 account, all 3 sharing opinions and posting, able to swap one out to another based on the needs of the situation. Totally fucking unfair. Totally unprofessional way to play, and considering two of them won't even apologize for their actions, they eat bans.
Flamewheel I would exempt from this as he seems to actually feel bad. The other two need some form of punishment.
Now, you can all say "we don't have a rule for this blah blah blah". Coag is supposed to eat 3 bans for his play, yet was not nearly as disruptive or game damaging as what these 3 did. If he has to take such a punishment, so do they, fair is fair.
|
BC how much was Ver involved? His post showed pretty much little involvement.
I guess Incog can be banned though 
This is almost better than an actual game of Mafia!
|
United States22154 Posts
I've been thinking about this, for a while actually, and BC's post has prompted me to post this.
first of all, I agree with BC, I know I said that there should be no ban based on the rules as written, but I do think some kind of punishment for going against the spirit of the game is due. I'm no expert on past rulings, but I believe we need to punish people who go against the spirit of the game. In the end we are all mafia players and are intelligent enough to see where the lines are, we don't (shouldn't) need every little rule spelled out so we don't behave in ways that are disruptive to the game. I understand the appeal of playing in the gray zone, but seriously, we all know, that what happened on protac was in no way fair, to anyone involved, it denied the mafia the privilege of playing against a fair town, it denied the town the privilege of getting to actually scumhunt.
It made the game significantly worse, for all involved, and frankly, theres a huge difference between breaking the rules in anger or frustration and deliberately undermining the game, with knowledge that what was being done was wrong, if this were a mistake made in rage or something like that I might excuse it, I would understand if someone baited flamewheel and he exploded in rage and had one of you take over, and I might be willing to suggest lenience, but it was deliberately planned and done with knowledge that what was being done was wrong. (and you knew, I know you did, there is no way players such as yourselves were not aware that what was being done was wrong, whatever arguments you may choose to cook up now).
I respect you all very much, not just as mafia players, but as people. That said I am pretty sure if any other set of players had pulled off a stunt like that they would be facing at least a ban, if not much, much worse.
I think that at the very least an apology is due, and I think a ban would actually sit ok with me. I think we should make the protac case an example that playing against the spirit of the game is not allowed or tolerated, whatever the rules as written may say and no matter who decides to play in this manner. We, as a mafia forum will simply not allow unsportsmanlike behavior.
Yes, I realize that the "spirit of the game" has not been used as a term before, and that this is obviously a first time case, thats why its important that it serve as an example, as proof that no matter who you are, you are not above the law, and that despite there being no specifically written rules, some plays are not allowed, in the same way that blackmailing another player, or PMing every players cyphers that can only be decrypted with your death post would not be allowed. We aren't stupid, we can see where the lines are.
TL:DR I thought about it a lot, and I have concluded that despite there not being specifically written rules covering this we are all aware that what was done was wrong and therefore should be punished. As a community we shouldn't allow people to get away with this type of behavior.
|
On April 26 2011 12:32 Ace wrote:BC how much was Ver involved? His post showed pretty much little involvement. I guess Incog can be banned though This is almost better than an actual game of Mafia!
Honestly, Ver's total lack of remorse is what makes him deserve the ban. They should all have had FW's attitude of take whatever action community felt required and praying for mercy as opposed to playing the "we did nothing wrong" card. There is no public apology for contributing to ruining a game, and there has been no actual comments regarding what they actually did. They instead tried to claim private coaching, which is horseshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
