EPTThis is already one of those issues that can never be agreed on, like RoL vs LSB. Did the mafia ask an unspecific question, or did the host make a wrong decision? Only a grudgematch could solve it.
This thread needs more grudgematches.
Protactinium (Mafia XXXVIII) - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Barundar
Denmark1582 Posts
This is already one of those issues that can never be agreed on, like RoL vs LSB. Did the mafia ask an unspecific question, or did the host make a wrong decision? Only a grudgematch could solve it. This thread needs more grudgematches. | ||
|
Node
United States2159 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:37 Barundar wrote: This thread needs more grudgematches. Coag vs. Ver in SC2 (or the bee dubs, whatever works). Nerd stompage will ensue. | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4291 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:37 Barundar wrote: It feels like you want to publicly humiliate them? Ver already apologized for not being able to invite Coag to PYP:I, but promised him a spot in the next game he host. This is already one of those issues that can never be agreed on, like RoL vs LSB. Did the mafia ask an unspecific question, or did the host make a wrong decision? Only a grudgematch could solve it. This thread needs more grudgematches. I do not want to humiliate them. Them apologising would be quite the opposite, it would absolutely make them look better. Ver has apologised for not letting Coag into his game which is commendable. However it is certainly not the same as apologising for the Protactinium issue or for being involved in Coag's ban. On May 11 2011 04:15 Ver wrote: A couple of things to clarify. Coag and BC are not playing. Signups are closed for the most part. Several players (not going to say who, but just to be clear given the banlist discussions Qatol was not among them) only joined the game on the condition that it didn't have people who have a history of creating a bad environment in the thread due to bm etc. At the time this wasn't a big deal: Coag was banned still and the other offending parties either couldn't join, are permabanned, or weren't around. I simply avoided inviting certain people who I would have otherwise wanted to and that was that. Now that coag got unbanned before signups were closed and joined, a pretty awkward situation is created. If I include him, then several players don't play. If I ban him, he (rightfully) feels singled out. People don't want those who have a habit of being BM. Bill Murray has been unbanned especially for this game? Someone who was a semi-perma ban for shitting the place up. Yet Coag remains unable to play? Some people not wanting Coag = Incognito not wanting Coag. I still say that the two of them need to step up. Coag shouldn't try and force his way into PYP Insane because it would cause extreme complications, but he deserves some closure too, as does Jackal58, LemonWalrus and everyone who was involved in XXXVIII. Noone seems to be agreeing with me again so this is the last post I'll make on the issue. Why is everyone trying to sweep this under the carpet again? BB and Meapak find out about Protact on Day 2 of the game and try cover it up. Everyone finds out and shit hits the fan. We talk about it for not very long then everyone tries to cover it up. Ver's game comes along and with the situation still unresolved the shit hits the fan. Cover it up, it comes back. Why not just deal with it once and for all? | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On May 13 2011 21:09 DropBear wrote: People don't want those who have a habit of being BM. Bill Murray has been unbanned especially for this game? Someone who was a semi-perma ban for shitting the place up. Yet Coag remains unable to play? BM was not unbanned for the purpose of that game, BM is not playing in PYPI, BM was most likely allowed to see this forum again when hot bid or someone went through the access thread and simply clicked to all everyone without looking as to whether they were requesting access or just commenting. | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4291 Posts
On May 13 2011 21:58 GMarshal wrote: BM was not unbanned for the purpose of that game, BM is not playing in PYPI, BM was most likely allowed to see this forum again when hot bid or someone went through the access thread and simply clicked to all everyone without looking as to whether they were requesting access or just commenting. Please show me where in the access thread Bill Murray has posted. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
I'm betting that in a sweeping spree of granting access he was accidentally give access as well, what I *do* know, for a fact is that he is not playing in PYPI. | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4291 Posts
On May 13 2011 22:14 GMarshal wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173557¤tpage=9#165 I'm betting that in a sweeping spree of granting access he was accidentally give access as well, what I *do* know, for a fact is that he is not playing in PYPI. This is a fairly old post in which all the surrounding posts were given access quite some time ago. Fair enough though, I concede that it is possible. Alright I'll leave it. Promise this time. | ||
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
| ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
I was preparing a flaming speech to be remembered for ages, but then I noticed I am about a month late and most things have already been decided. Here the only relevant excerpts: I have never heard of Coaching up til this threads very opening post. I did a quick search: Not that many hits, and not a single one close to a threads OP, where rules are proclaimed. If you ask me, the most people per 1 account should be exactly 1 playerand exactly 1 coach, optimally with only player writing. Allowing smurfing is faulted from the concept. If you really want to allow this sort of playing, Coaching, 2persons 1account and smurfing should be mentioned and explained in the Rules sticky. Since this thread is for serious discussion and as of yet this does not seem to be addressed, I bring it up. TeamLiquid.net is long known for being a transparent and professional. I assumed the Mafia subforum would be too. | ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
Hit quote on accident. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Smurfs / Shared Accounts / Coaching: Smurfing is when you sign up for a game using an account other than your standard one for the purpose of hiding your identity. If you are smurfing, I ask that you notify both of the hosts when you sign up for the game. Sharing an account is not allowed in this game. Sharing an account is defined as more than one person having access to an account and using it for the purpose of playing the game. We have a nice selection of coaches for this game! Make use of them! If it is found that you have been smurfing or account sharing without notifying the hosts, you will be modkilled and punished as per the banlist rules. In addition: So yes, it has been addressed. Anyways, welcome to TL mafia. :p | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6784 Posts
On May 14 2011 14:24 chaoser wrote: This issue has been dealt with/is in some sort of resolved state, please stop posting in there! | ||
TheMango
United States1967 Posts
| ||
| ||
