|
Now that Mafia XXXVIII is over, we need to talk about what we are going to do about Protactinium. Because this will probably involve a change to the rules and I simply do not want this discussion to be overlooked by anyone, I made a new thread.
WARNING:
This thread is for serious discussion. If you post here, you had better be contributing to the discussion. I also expect you to read the full thread before you post. If your post is not at least 3 lines long, do not post it. And do not personally attack anyone involved. If you break one of these rules, you get a ban list warning. If you have a ban list warning, I'm giving you a 1 game ban. I know this sounds strict, but trust me, it is warranted based upon some of the backlash I have already seen. Your first post in this thread should include your suggested remedy (and remember that your remedy may be different for each player) as well as what you think the rule should be going forward.
The facts:
Before Mafia XXXVIII started, Flamewheel decided he wanted to play. Flamewheel likes to smurf when he plays in games, but he used a known smurf of his, Protactinium. He asked BrownBear to be given the role Assassin. But then Incognito and Ver decided they would also like to play. They also invited me to play with them, but I declined (I have seen the setup and I don't really have the free time). I thought they had told BrownBear that they were doing this, but they did not. They asked BrownBear for the Detective role, but received the Assassin role. The three of them collectively only had the information given to Protactinium. Even though Ver agreed to play, he only made 1 post on Protactinium, a vote. He was the one who first fingered Gmarshal and Coagulation, but the posts came from Incognito and Flamewheel. He stopped even providing analysis during night 1. Around that time, BC told BrownBear that the three of them were playing under Protactinium. I talked to Meapak about the situation at this point. After that, Meapak and BrownBear decided that Protactinium would probably be shot by an assassin during Night 2 and a modkill would be more disruptive than just letting this play out. However, the thread found out during Day 2, and many players (the mafia in particular) were very angry and concerned. I told the thread not to worry about the situation until after the game, Protactinium was shot during Night 2, and that brings us to the present.
One other important thing to note. What they did was NOT explicitly against the rules. Rule 3:
Logging on to someone else's account / looking over someone's shoulder to get their role.
means "Logging on to someone else's account to get their role or looking over someone's shoulder to get their role." This was my mistake for writing the model OP that way, and it has been remedied.
What you should be posting:
I want you to give your opinion about what should happen to Flamewheel, Incognito, and Ver. I also want your opinion of whether you think this should be forbidden in the future.
I have collected the opinions of the hosts and the Protactinium players Incognito (... Ver and Flamewheel....). I will not be giving my own opinion because I believe I am biased and do not trust myself to be impartial.
+ Show Spoiler [BrownBear] +
Now, as far as the Flame/Incog/Ver situation... I'm gonna have to step through this chronologically to make sense of things myself. First, flame PMs me asking to play as Protactinium and requesting Assassin. I know flame pretty well, so I'm like "sure, why not lol. Let's see what crazy third-party antics he comes up with this time." Later, after Meapak and I finalize the role list, flame changes his request to DT. There are no DTs in the setup, but I can't tell him that, so I decide to give him his old request, Assassin, in the hopes that's good enough for him.
Also, at this point in thread, I ask if there are any smurfs, for them to please PM me so that I know, as per standard. flame does not PM me letting me know of his group-project, so I assume it's just flame playing by his lonesome.
Game gets underway, Protact fails at running for mayor (IMO he could have easily won without the assassin claim, but w/e, that was his gambit to play). I do not find out about the triple-play until midway through Day 2, when BC tells me while we're lulzing at the mafia team making some blunder or other (probably Coag's epic chainsaw, can't really remember the details). He tells me he and Foolishness talked it over, and both of them agree revealing it now will cause a massive drama explosion in thread, which would be really undesirable. BC tells me both him and Foolishness recommend letting the game play out (at this point, we all assume Protact is going to get assassin'd night 2 anyway, so they won't be in the game much longer). After the game, I should make a thread, reveal the triple-play, and open it up for discussion as to what to do. Both BC and Foolishness wanted the three to go on the banlist, I was unsure I wanted to push for that, for two reasons (they hadn't broken any rules per se, and they hadn't ruined the game). I eventually decided I'd leave it up to the players of the game to decide the fate of the three. I also PM Protact asking "lol why are you guys all playing the same character and why didnt you tell me" and get kind of a non-answer in return.
(Note: my recollection of this is somewhat hazy due to the fact I was decently drunk when BC informed me. He probably has a better recollection of that conversation than me, so if I said it wrong, have BC correct me)
That was Wednesday night, anyway. Thursday, I was away at an Iron & Wine concert in Michigan (about 3 hours from where I live in Ohio), so I was gonna miss the lynch. I asked Meapak to please perform the lynch and flip for me, he agreed. This is where I failed: I forgot to inform Meapak that if GM pardoned, no lynch would happen, no matter what. GM assumed the entire time he would be able to stop the lynch for a whole day, which is the main reasoning behind his use of the pardon so early (which got him lynched obviously). So, that part was definitely my fault.
Anyway, I get back to see a thread explosion, and BC is telling me to read it cause shit went down. LW found out about Protact's triple life (how I still have no clue) and people have started calling them out. flame responds by saying "well brownbear knew so I won't get modkilled lol" which I consider to be a bit misleading, given I had only known for 24 hours and was definitely still open to some form of punishment for the three. So GM pardons, gets lynched, gets pissed, mafia threatens to ragequit (which I honestly understand, given they just found out 3 vets were gunning for them AND their most powerful member got wrongfully lynched), and... yeah.
So going forth from here, I'm not really sure what to do. On one hand, I definitely don't feel comfortable, as a relative newcomer to the mafia forum, asking for bans for such vets as Ver and Incog (at this point, I think flame deserves one for a) not telling me for so long and b) being intentionally misleading about how knowledgable I was of the situation). At the same time though, they did kind of ruin the game once they got discovered.
+ Show Spoiler [Meapak] +On Protactinium.
I knew that flamewheel was smurfing in this game. I didn’t know which player he was. I was unaware that Protactinuim was a known AKA. It was first brought to my attention that there was triple smurfing going on by Qatol. He told me who the other players were and told me that Ver had been part of the balancing of the game but that Ver had sworn he couldn’t remember the specifics. With Qatol’s assurance that the smurf didn’t have any information the players didn’t I PM’d BB and asked what our official response would be. We were both annoyed that they hadn’t told us but we decided just to keep things quiet and wait for the smurf to die before broaching the topic (at the time it appeared as though the smurf would be killed within 24 hours). If all had gone according to plan then once the smurf had died BB and I would have gone to the ban thread to open discussion. I wanted (and still do want) FW Ver and Incognito to be required to play two or three non smurf games before they could smurf again. They violated smurfing rules by not telling us about it but beyond that I don’t think they violated game rules as I am willing to trust Qatol that Ver knew nothing about the setup.
Unfortunately the thread got wind of this somehow. Now how this happened brings up an issue I’ll address further on but for now I’ll stick with the issue at hand. A LOT of people wanted the smurf to be killed right away; however BB and I had already made our decision so as far as I was concerned the case was closed. This really incensed the mafia team and a bunch of townies but I maintain that the right decision was made. Modkilling the smurf would have been a really unnecessary bit of tampering with a game that was volatile enough without the drama involved in a high profile modkill. Furthermore the smurf broke no game rules in any obvious manner. If you read the eight simple rules in the OP there are none that the smurf obviously violated. In the absence of a blatant rule break I simply cannot see the logic of a modkill in this situation.
+ Show Spoiler [Incognito] +
It is common knowledge that Protactinium is flamewheel’s account. The only thing that was hidden was that Ver, flamewheel, and I were playing on the same account. Thus, this debate is not about smurfing; it is about account sharing.
Coaching is a form of account sharing. It is not illegal to ask for advice, especially in a coaching game. Thus, the Protactinium case is no different than flamewheel playing the game and asking Ver/me for advice.
Account sharing is not in any way cheating. Having three people contribute on one account doesn’t give the players unfair information advantages. Even though we are three people, we still only have one vote, one voice, and the information that one person has – i.e. we know our own role and nobody else’s. Whereas signing up for a game with 2 accounts would give that player extra votes, extra voices, and knowledge of an extra role (and maybe even the entire mafia list), account sharing does no such thing. Since we all work with the same information and have no bonus votes, there is no abuse here.
Account sharing does not give us unfair advantages. What this merely does is increase our flexibility and ability to play the game in a serious manner. I do not have time to play on my normal account, as I do not have time to devote a solid 2 weeks to playing a game. My inability to be able to devote an entire 2 weeks to a game should not hinder me from playing a game. On my own, there is no way I could have the activity required to play a serious game looking how much activity is required. However, if I can share an account, I would be able to play the game. Given that I do not gain an unfair information advantage by sharing an account with flamewheel, there is no reason why I should be prohibited from doing so.
Having two people post on the same account is not unreasonable, given the enormous thread activity. Consider that some players like DH had 400+ posts, and players like GMarshal and chaoser had upwards of 240+ posts by the end of day 2. On the contrary, Protactinium only has around 75~ posts by the end of day 2. Even with powers combined, we still are not that active, and are clearly not spamming people off the thread.
Would anybody care if two inactives, say, MetalFace and Kenpachi, shared an account? The obvious answer is no. The case right now is that flamewheel, Ver, and Incognito shared an account. Furthermore, consider the following scenario: Replace Ver/Incognito with flamewheel’s brother or room mate. Logically, there is no difference between the three scenarios other than the people involved. And since scenarios 1 and 3 are not objectionable, it follows that the current situation is should also be allowed.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
+ Show Spoiler [Ver] +
Ver didn't actually send me anything, but I IMed with him a little bit about this. He basically said he feels that what he did is no different from private coaching.
|
Are you kidding? They didnt think it was wrong?
If there was nothing wrong about it why is there a thread addressing the issue in the first place. give me a break.
So im allowed to have Doch-pandain-kenpachi-jackal-gmarsh-bc-coagulation super account next game.
I think they should all get modkilled and banned for this. I was the person who had to deal with 3 players constantly barraging me with arguments and walls of text and accusations that no single player could be expected to deflect properly or fairly. If you guys throw everything thats wrong about it out there is still the undeniable fact that 3 people have more Time and Energy than 1 person. This alone should make it clear that there is an unfair advantage here. But i know its not my decision to make. I think im even more upset that the people who should have made the decision didnt make it and are now pushing it onto the players.
If theres one thing that absolutely should be learned from this whole situation is that we need to have stricter rules on smurfs and account sharing. So if there are rules instated specifically to prevent this sort of behavior that has occurred then it should be pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the actions to begin with.
|
I want you to give your opinion about what should happen to Flamewheel, Incognito, and Ver. I also want your opinion of whether you think this should be forbidden in the future.
I agree with Incognito's opinion on the fact that sharing an account isn't breaking any rules and is technically ok since, like he said, no one would give a damn if MetalFace and Kenpachi shared an account. Everyone's problem isn't that sharing an account happene but that three VETS shared an account. In that regard, I do think some wrong/blame can be dealt out.
You are all three high profile vetern players of mafia and to not disclose that you were all going to have a hand in the game is underhanded (pun not intended). I'm pretty sure that if there was a game where mafia was getting help from Bloodycobbler and Ace that people would be pretty upset as well. The very fact that you are well known vets and play the game well is what makes it different from say MetalFace and Kenpachi sharing an account.
I think the fact that Ver/Incognito/Flamewheel were going to be sharing an account should have been known to the players in the game ahead of time, just like how peopel knew Foolishness and BC were going to be coaching in the game. At the very least BB and MK should have been informed of this beforehand so that they can decide themselves whether they were ok with it or not, it IS their game after all.
Do I think private coaching should be allowed? Yes. Do I think three vet players pooling their experience and intelligence together to play in a game should be allowed via a shared account? Only if it's cleared ahead of time by the players in the game and by the host.
Warnings to all three for hiding the information and in the future a little common sense and transpancy is all that's needed to resolve problems like this. It's not like FW is a newbie player that needs basic help in playing the game. Be honest, you guys weren't "privately coaching him". That's just smoke and mirrors to hide that fact that you were all using one account to play the game.
Agree with GM on what he wrote, basically the question comes down to is account sharing the same as private coaching and I think the answer is no, it is not.
|
First I want to inform people that I wasn´t playing in the game.
The problem isn´t smurfing, if the GM knows who´s smurfing and with which account, but they should have informed the GM. I do not agree with incognito on that coaching is the same as sharing, coaching is giving tips and hints, but the coached player still has to play himself. Consider if one of the two extras got themselves banned from Mafia or TL by posting as Protactinium, Flamewheel would have taken the fall for it. Or the other way around, Flamewheel expects someone to use the smurfaccount, doesn´t post (like Ver), and gets FW modkilled and banned for low activity. It creates too many problems to be allowed in a normal game.
Consequences, I´m understanding that getting on the banlist means your breach is recorded and GMs are allowed to choose for themselves if they care about the breach or can look past it. Because of this, I think everyone involved in playing on the shared account should get on the list, because if I make a game, then I need to know that these 3 once treated a game like their personal playground which derailed the game.
|
I disagree that there is no advantage gained by having three people share an account. You have more combined time for that player if you have three people playing him.
Time is a valuable resource, and if you have enough of it, you can be much more vocal in the thread. Being vocal in the thread brings power (to some extent) and makes you a high profile player. If I had three people playing, we could all work on different analyses and do much better jobs on them. Time is valuable, and most definitely part of the game. The more time in a day the better for the town, and I see little difference here.
I have received much coaching in the past, but I think that there is a line between coaching, and account sharing that was crossed. Having BC give me opinions on what may or may not be good town play is different that him typing it up in the thread for me. Coaching helps you figure out what to say, but the most important thing, how you say it is, and should be, up to you.
I agree that what was done was not against the rules, but I think that it should be. The only thing done wrong was not being open about it with the mods, and not telling those who should have known.
In closing, I think that a warning, if anything, is appropriate. This sort of play should be made illegal from now on however, or at the very least "ok'd" by the host of the game. Qatol should be informed by the host if this happens.
|
United States22154 Posts
First of all, I am not angry that protac "nabbed" our godfather, its a situation similar to the one that occurred where RoL claimed jack of all trades and said he had checked Ace, when ace was the godfather. My rage had nothing to do with a ballsy well thought out claim. My rage comes at three players with an awesome skillset sharing an account.
Sure, it dosn't violate any rules, nor does me speaking in cyphers with other players, right? How about writing a cypher based on the townie PM that only greens could decrypt and using it to figure out the mafia team? None of that is written as a rule but it goes against the grain of the game.
Saying that sharing an account is harmless is just flat out wrong, sure you dont get any additional votes, instead what you get is three people who happen to be 100% sure of their alignment cooperating to rape one side, its stacking the deck against one side, and yes balance in games comes from properly judging the experience of players on both sides, not on just adjusting roles. theres no way a game with say, Ver, Qatol, fw, Ace, foolishness and BC on a mafia team would ever be balanced, because frankly, some people are better than others, and having them all on the same team sinergizes their power and can potentially break the game
Having three players sharing an account is almost as bad as facing all three players each on their own account, when they are on their own accounts they are unsure of each others alignment, and have to worry about analyzing each other, in this way they are all cooperating, sure of each others alignment, etc. Its not just playing against one vet (incredible as the vet in question may be) its three pairs of eyes sitting there, thinking, analyzing, cooperating, three brains, exchanging ideas, thinking, plotting. Thats one of the things that makes PM circles so powerful in games, the ability to gather information as a group. Here we have a group of highly experienced players working together, frankly it destroys the game for whoever is on the other side.
Imagine for a second that protac had gotten his wish and been allowed a DT. At that point the mafia might as well have called it quits, he is almost guaranteed the mayorship, and frankly no amount of epic play from our side would have saved us from well thought out and prepared analysis combined with insane town cred and a freaking DT. This was supposed to be a bootcampish game, with many new players learning how to play, I can only imagine their delight at having the town fed a victory by not one, but three veterans, rather than you know, working for it. I have nothing against a vet leading the town, where suspicion and mistrust might make him stumble, were another player might put him on tilt. When its three players emotional responses along with simple mistakes are very, very unlikely as you have people proofreading your posts, preparing arguments, analyzing things a single individual might miss.
Saying this is no different than private coaching is bs, and frankly we all know its against the spirit of the game, you can argue what you wish, but me IMing with BC is not the same thing as allowing him on my account to write up my posts.
My final question is if the people playing as protac didn't think it was against the rules or at all questionable, why did they not inform the mod right off the bat? Thats the usual procedure for mildly questionable actions, clear it with the mod, avoid shit like this. The only reason why you might not clear something like this with the mod is if you think you'll be able to get away with not saying anything.
Also on the "not enough time" issue, I understand that it can be frustrating to not be able to play, but having three players on one account means there is never a fatigue factor, I individually can get tired of arguing against someone and say "fuck it" and stop posting, however with three people they can just keep going and going, if one tires out another one can be subbed in.
Frankly whatever the outcome I want a rule against account sharing. Its against the grain of the game, I didn't think that obvious things like that would have to be written out but I guess we need to have it spelled out. And yes, its irrelevant if its Kenpachi, coag and Chezinu or Qatol, Foolishness and BC, allowing account sharing is going to lead to a broken game, and I dont want to see that.
As for bans, nothing they did goes against the rules as written, so I dont think a ban is justified, I do think what they did violates the spirit of the game and the rules as intended and I would understand a ban based on that, or on not informing the mod of their actions.
EDIT: TL:DR: Make a rule against account sharing, no bans for anyone.
|
My opinion has been recorded above, and is pretty much unchanged. However, after reading Incognito's take, I'm really disappointed that he seems to not only not think he's done nothing wrong, but is very much of the opinion that everyone should stop qq-ing. This is very frustrating to me for a number of reasons:
It is true that I allowed both BC and Foolishness to coach this game. The reason I allowed them to coach this game was because there were a significant number of new players in the game, many of whom had never played mafia before. The idea of player coaching was to give these players someone to turn to if they had any questions about strategy, analysis, that sort of thing, to give them a little boost up so that they wouldn't feel overwhelmed. Point being, player coaching, in my mind, is something for new players, to help them overcome the deficit they'll be playing from not knowing the game very well, the atmosphere, the way players interact with each other, etc.
You guys were not "coaching" each other, because none of you were new to mafia. In fact, you three are among the best town players on TL Mafia, you don't need any help learning how to play. So in the terms of the "coaching" I had set up in this game, you guys weren't coaching, you were playing together.
And here comes why I think the mafia team is mad, which I cannot believe you don't get. Sure, it sucks that you fingered Coag, but that's not the real reason - anyone with half a brain could see he was at least suspicious, if not scum, naturally anyone fakeclaiming DT would finger him as the most likely to be mafia. The real reason is that they learned, midway through the game, that there were 3 people all on one account, considered some of the best analyzers on TL, all gunning for them. Three of the players with the best town play known to us were trying to defeat them (which wasn't even their win condition), and they were trying to hide it from everyone. How can you not see how that would piss them off?
And also, you didn't even address why I feel frustrated, because you didn't tell me. Not only didn't you tell me, you didn't tell me after I had specifically asked in thread if there were any smurfs. And after flame had run IP CHECKS ON EVERYONE to make sure nobody was secretly smurfing, except you three!!! How did he not think to tell me then, "oh yeah btw, incog and ver are playing with me"? It really blows my mind that the three of you thought that what you were doing wasn't something the host of the motherfucking game should know about. I don't know whether it was honestly thinking what you were doing wasn't smurfing or against the rules, or you knowing on some level that it was wrong but trying to get away with it anyway, or just being arrogant enough to think I don't deserve to know, but I'd really like to know why.
So to go back to why you think people are mad: you're wrong. I'm also not MAD per se, just feeling very frustrated and upset that you guys were trying to hide this from me and also, once you were caught, acted like it was somehow everyone else's fault for being so sensitive, not yours for doing something that was, if not against the rules, at least against the spirit of the game.
And yet, I still have tremendous respect for you as a veteran player and a pillar of this community. I hope you still realize this, if nothing else. I am not going to ask for any of the three of you to be banned - I do realize I said flame might deserve one in my official stance, but I've since changed my mind. It's not fair to ban one and not all three, I have to either ban all three of you or none of you, and I honestly do not feel comfortable, as a relative newcomer and mediocre player, banning three of the best players in recent memory. I will, however, strongly push for multiple people playing on one account to be illegal and enshrined in the rules as cheating - because it is, I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but it is. So from now on, it will be modkillable and bannable. I just really hope you change your mind about feeling that what you did wasn't wrong at all, and I really hope you can come to realize just how many people you pissed off, and why, and I do want all three of you to apologize.
|
What you three SHOULD HAVE DONE is told me you were smurfing all together. I would have made it public knowledge in game and asked if it was okay before roles were assigned. If people had been okay with it, then roles would have been given out and the game would have continued as normal with Protact being publicly known as a 3-man team. Would it have been much harder for you? Absolutely, but then that's the handicap you'd have to play with for being able to pool your knowledge and analysis, as well as your curse for being well-known, talented players. Call it the Foolishness/Radfield curse if you will, it exists, and good players just have to deal with it.
Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple.
And for that, I now have to seriously consider whether to ask for bans for all three of you.
|
I know I haven't been here that long but I would like to share my opinion with all of you on this.
Mafia is by design a game of deceit, deception and dishonesty. We all know that when we sign up. We expect it. However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
On the issue of 3 people playing under one name.
Ya that's bull. From the OP of every game I've played here:
The game is typically very active, so the thread will get big quickly. However, it is essential to read the thread to play the game. If you do not have the time or patience to read the whole thread, do not play. I will not compensate for ignorance.
Lack of time is not an excuse. All 3 of them are aware of the time one must put in to play effectively.
As none of them "technically" did not break any forum rules what can you do?
Pretty much nothing. Let them know how we feel one way or another is about it.
Yes change the rules. Make it implicit that it is 1 player 1 account.
I would also perhaps consider making the host post at the bottom of his role list that there are smurfs active in the game. He doesn't have to ID them just let the other players be aware.
|
Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple.
I mean then all people who PMed Foolishness for help/analysis should be banned too.
Communication between the three of them isn't the problem, it's the fact that all three posted in the thread under one name that makes what they were doing different from what Foolishness and people in the thread PMing him for coaching were doing. If Flamewheel was merely asking for advice and being like, what do you think of this situation, I would be more ok with it than with what actually happened here which was three people writing up posts and then posting it from one account. You can clearly see the changes in voice between each post. That plus the fact that they didn't disclose this all to the host/people in the game makes me think they need a warning.
|
Ok, so here are my thoughts on Shared Accounts:
Firstly, I don't find it to be the same as coaching. From my own experience with the coaches, they'll just guide you, they won't explicitly tell you what to do. You are still an individual playing the game, and you still have to do the work yourself. This differs from sharing an account, in that you have multiple people all playing and contributing to the thought process without any kind of restriction at all.
I'm not going to comment on who the players are, because it shouldn't make a huge difference to how you'd handle this situation. That said, I will add, that having 3 forum veterans and good players on the same account, does seem to increase the severity of what a shared account is capable of, especially in a no PM game.
I feel there's a couple reasons for why sharing an account in general isn't very fair. First, it destroys any sort of meta analysis from being applied to you by others. This is a part of analysis, and it's unfair when you are incapable of using it against a player who has different and unknown meta depending on who's posting, when this same player may apply it to whomever they please. Second, let's say this happened in a no-coaching, no-pm game. Then, these players are again being given an unfair advantage, in that they can check their posts and run their ideas through multiple people playing the game, unlike any other player in that game. Next, depending on the players, it removes all restrictions of time. Let's say, I share an account, and I'm in Canada, someone else is in Europe, and the last person is in Asia. Then this means that the shared account, will always be active and able to respond to anything in the thread, whereas other people are limited by other non-game related factors in their ability to react to the game. I'd also like to add, that this gives a huge advantage to any team that might get the shared account. For example, say protact had ended up being mafia. Then that means that the mafia essentially gains an extra two members, if not in actual game mechanics, but in people who are contributing to their plans and ideas.
So, as it stands, I think that multiple people on one account should probably be prohibited. Even if my thoughts on why they're unfair aren't sufficient, I think they'd make games worse, because there's no good way to implement them. The host must know about it beforehand, but then he has the choice of notifying the other players or not. I know there's some people who wouldn't want to play with or against, a shared account. So, if the host doesn't tell them beforehand, they're going to be mad after the game is over and they find out about the shared account. However, even if the host notifies the players, then I still feel the game will be overtaken by people trying to find out the identities of the players using the shared account, as well as which player is shared.
Also, a couple thoughts in smurfing:
I think this really needs to be revamped. In the last few games I've been in, where there's been smurfs, a lot of them have quickly revealed themselves, or players have been aware there are smurfs, and this has made the games worse, in my eyes. I'm not against smurfing, but I think that players should have to put more effort into creating and upholding the anonymity of their smurf. What I mean by this, is that players should have to make their smurfs ahead of time, and not make any connection to their regular account, such that it is apparent who they are. Also, I think that trying to determine who smurfs are, or revealing who you are as a smurf, should be punishable. If people are smurfing to hide who they really are, they should try their best to remain anonymous, because that's pretty much the whole point of smurfing. When people start claiming who they are, or try to hunt for who a smurf is, it seems to add a lot of drama, and detract from the actual game play. When this happens, I always ask myself why they didn't just sign up with their normal account, if they're not going to make any attempt to hide their identity, as the thread simply degenerates into a guessing game of who a player really is, instead of actually playing mafia. I feel this would add a different dynamic to smurfing, as smurfs would be unable to have meta or reputation applied to them, but also wouldn't be able to rely on their past experiences in this forum for credentials and authority.
Punishments:
I have not hosted any games, and have never seen anything like this before, so I'm uncomfortable asking for any punishments. However, I feel something should be done, if at least for not notifying the host.
If anyone wants to add to or argue against my points, feel free. They're probably not as fleshed out or well explained as I'd like them to be, because I'm writing this pretty quickly as I have studying to do. :p
|
For the record, I didn't participate in the game, I only knew of the vague details as it happened and am only really up to speed after reading Qatol's OP.
I think that directly sharing an account is against the spirit of the game and should be specifically forbidden in the future. I do think that it's different from coaching because in the past, as far as I know, coaching has been offered to every player, and it doesn't actually put the coach in the game as that person. Having more than one person make posts also raises the possibility of completely destroying any reads based on personality and previous style. However, seeing as account sharing isn't currently forbidden, I don't think warnings or bans should be handed out for it.
I do think that warnings should be given out to the three players that shared the account for failing to inform the hosts and / or fellow players of the situation ahead of time. Their actions seem to say that they were trying to pull one over on everyone else involved in the game, which isn't okay.
|
On April 25 2011 07:22 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple. I mean then all people who PMed Foolishness for help/analysis should be banned too. Communication between the three of them isn't the problem, it's the fact that all three posted in the thread under one name that makes what they were doing different from what Foolishness and people in the thread PMing him for coaching were doing. If Flamewheel was merely asking for advice and being like, what do you think of this situation, I would be more ok with it than with what actually happened here which was three people writing up posts and then posting it from one account. You can clearly see the changes in voice between each post. That plus the fact that they didn't disclose this all to the host/people in the game makes me think they need a warning.
You raise a good point. However, I still think there's a difference, because Foolishness was not playing the game, and had a counterpart in BC, so that both sides had an outside source to bounce ideas off of. Adding in Ver and Incog was stacking the deck in town's favor (and nobody can deny they played extremely pro-town.
PMs between a player and a coach who wasn't playing? Acceptable. Between two players in the game, even if they were playing the same account? Not so much.
|
On April 25 2011 07:21 Jackal58 wrote:
However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
Hindsight is always perfect, after all. You are correct, I probably should have modkilled them the instant I found out, but at the time, I was thinking it would really badly disrupt the game, and also that they would die before it was found out that they were collaborating.
Quite obviously, i was wrong, they got found out, and that ended up disrupting the game a whole lot worse than if I'd just modkilled them straight up. A lapse in my judgement, and I hope you can forgive me.
(also, trust me. If I had known at the games beginning, I would have checked with people like BC/Foolishness/Qatol at first, and it probably would have been made public. Sadly, it was not to be.)
|
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL.
|
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
(Incognito)
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
I don't think this is true at all. As an assassin, I was happy to see you claim so early on (and unsuccessfully get mayor, too) and that's about it. I don't hold any grudges against any of you and I think I've only ever even played with incog.
Anyway, now that that's all off the table: I absolutely consider what was done by incog, ver, and fw to be cheating given how it was done. Had BB been informed and (silently or otherwise) okayed it, that would have been fine in my eyes and we'd be talking about how to handle account sharing in general instead of how to handle this specific instance. If he had gotten a response form fw when he asked if there were any smurfs, that would have been a bit questionable but probably more of an honest mistake. I don't see how actively hiding the fact that there were three (or two, whatever) players on the account could *not* be considered cheating, especially when the game is balanced around which players are on which teams. If protrac had been given DT like fw asked, the game would have been over, no question. Town would have two extra pairs of eyes analyzing the thread, and given how good the eyes would have been that would have pretty much destroyed the game entirely. Luckily protrac was given assassin, but even playing only for himself he got into a position where tearing mafia apart was in his best interest, which obviously he did pretty well.
Account sharing/unannounced smurfing like this can easily destroy game balance, and it needs to be explicitly banned from now on. Incog, fw, and ver deserve a warning at least and a one game ban at most imo-- more for not informing the host of what they were doing than anything else.
Oh, and the whole situation was handled well in the thread, so good job BB on that.
|
Alright. I've read through all of this and there are just a few things that I really agree with:
- This should definitely be against the rules. Sharing a account is in no way fair, no matter if you put newbies or veterans on the account. The worst thing about playing solo is that you'll often not notice your own mistakes where-as having a partner will make it much easier to find them. I experienced this first-hand in the games I played, where being in a town PM circle made things so much easier for me.
- It sets a really bad example for new people if we let three veterans who really should know better get away with this. Banning might be a bit over the top as a punishment, so i'd suggest something like this:
Flamewheel/Incognito/Ver will not be allowed to smurf for the next three games they play in, whether they request it or not. Any breaking of this rule results in a 1 (or even 3) game ban. Dedicated smurf games like RoL's expirement game are exempt from this rule.
|
Nothing. I'm not particularly bothered by the hydra.
Also, I'd suggest that people follow this smurfing rules
+ Show Spoiler +Smurf Rules
Undeclared smurf
While the game is in operation, you may not discuss the game with anyone on your real account at all.
All smurfs are considered undeclared unless declared
Declared Smurfs
You must declare your status, and real account to the mods prior to the game
You must inform people of who your smurf account is before discussing the game with your real account
|
Only rule I feel they broke was not informing the host. I have no problem with multiple people playing on one account, they don't get any extra information.
I feel like the only punishment that should be given is a warning, I don't think any serious wrongdoing occurred. When you have 3 of the most experienced players doing something and they didn't even think there was a problem with it, I don't see how bad it could be.
|
It's not like those three play a lot anymore... think it would be best to claim a ban for the sake that they will not do it again.
I'm just concerned as to why they would do that. It would be one thing if they just came in and said "lol we are assasins make us mayor" and we just go "protact you crazy!", then "lol no we'ze Dark templerz, coag is totally scum" and then we went on with our lives. But then making those HUUUGGEE posts that I had to read 4 times to get what they were saying. And then seeing actual analysis coag calling him scum like that was unfair to him. I think those three out of anyone should know the power of talking to other people, one of the big strengths the mafia team has that town doesn't.
Just seems against the spirit of the game, seeing as there was a lot of effort put in through that account. And GM and Coag should know that I think town tried to ignore protactinum for the most part and just treat it like a random DT check on Coag. I think that's what Dr. H and I did. Don't even think I bothered to read the analysis they made against coag.
This is never going to happen again so I'm not too worried about it, town played fine without three vets on one account.
|
On April 25 2011 07:32 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:21 Jackal58 wrote:
However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
Hindsight is always perfect, after all. You are correct, I probably should have modkilled them the instant I found out, but at the time, I was thinking it would really badly disrupt the game, and also that they would die before it was found out that they were collaborating. Quite obviously, i was wrong, they got found out, and that ended up disrupting the game a whole lot worse than if I'd just modkilled them straight up. A lapse in my judgement, and I hope you can forgive me. (also, trust me. If I had known at the games beginning, I would have checked with people like BC/Foolishness/Qatol at first, and it probably would have been made public. Sadly, it was not to be.)
I'm not mad at you. A situation arose and you made a decision. All anybody can ask for.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I'm going to try to refrain from posting a lot because I do not think I can post reasonably without getting angry and writing biased arguments (which will involve a lot of insults). I think most everyone knows how I feel about the situation.
No smurfing, no account sharing
Since I joined TL I have believed that smurfing should not be allowed. Among many reasons, smurfing is altering the course of the game. Let me provide an analogy:
Twenty to thirty years ago, the United States Chess Federation had a big problem. Many Russians were emigrating to the US, and as many of us know, Russians own at chess. The problem was that these Russians had only played in Russia and were only rated on the Russian system (which the Russians did not release to the outside world). What resulted is many Russian players would enter US tournaments severely underrated and would win every game, thus winning prize money and such.
Do you think it's fair that these Russian players can "smurf" and thus easily capture winnings and glory from players who actually studied and practiced hard to win? This is still a problem today (although not as big as it was under the Soviet regime), and as an experienced player I've had this happen to me. And it sucked to find out later that this guy I lost to should have been in a much higher section than me. If I had known that before I started the game with this guy, I would have played differently, and that's where the difference is.
If everyone in a game of mafia knows that someone is smurfing, the game will come out to a much different outcome. Had the mafia figured out that Ver was smurfing as Ser Aspi, they would have altered their plan as the game went on, instead of thinking he was just some random first time player. Instead Ver survived long enough to heavily damage the mafia. I think it's incredibly unfair that the mafia were legitimately trying hard to win only to realize after they lost that this person (Ser Aspi) who was supposed to be a new player and thus at a somewhat similar skill level was in fact an expert mafia hunter. It's the same as the Russian chess player. Had I known I was playing someone who was at a much level higher, I would have prepared a different opening to play.
I know that the situation at hand is about account sharing, but the way I see it if we're going to ban account sharing we should ban smurfing as well. If you guys want to smurf, make another smurf game (we don't have Showtime! around anymore to mess it up). Also a lot of people did not know that flamewheel == protactinium on account that they were relatively new players. And Ver's argument that "well they can just go look at his history and figure it out" seems very selfish to me but I got nothing to say to it.
If smurfing and account sharing is banned that I doubt those 3 will ever play again anyways.
|
On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL.
This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host.
As far as I am concerned, the only person moderately at fault if any would be flamewheel for being responsible for the IP checks but not letting the host know that 3 people were on protactinium. That could of been decided AFTER he checked the IPs though. That is the only potential "rule" broken. It isn't so much a rule as it is not fulfilling your responsibility when it benefits you.
As far as the 3 people on an account go. I think it is safe to say that it gives an obvious advantage and is NOT the same as coaching. I am not going to reiterate these points since others have already made it clear. But it is unfair, and saying it is like coaching is not a defense. However they don't need a defense because it is not right to retroactively punish someone for a rule that doesn't exist. If however there was a rule number 9 that was "Do not do anything that could be against the spirit of the game." we could interpret the 3 of them as breaking that rule, it's kind of like the elastic clause in the constitution, it's broad to account for situations we never anticipated. If we wanted to add that to the generic OP I would be fine with that, but as it is currently written we cannot punish them.
There should be a rule that bans multiple people playing on an account though, and that should be added.
Ultimately my conclusion on the scenario is this. We cannot retroactively punish people for rules that don't exist. We can however create rules to account for other scenarios like this. I would suggest adding two rules into the generic OP. 1. There is only one person allowed on an account unless otherwise specified. 2. Do not do anything that could be considered against "The spirit of the game." This is a purposely broad term, if you have a question about something you are doing ask the mod before doing it.
This will allow us to ban multiple people on an account, as well as allow us to be more flexible with future situations.
|
On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it should be host's right to know that someone is smurfing in their game, no matter what. It affects game balance and prevents teams from being too OP (what if BC, flame, Ace, and you all smurfed and didn't tell me, then got randomed into mafia? It would break the game).
|
BrownBear, why were they just given the role they wanted? Why can't everyone get this?
BB I was at least accepting of how you handled things but the new information in the OP annoys me.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
BrownBear:
Also, at this point in thread, I ask if there are any smurfs, for them to please PM me so that I know, as per standard. flame does not PM me letting me know of his group-project, so I assume it's just flame playing by his lonesome.
Smurfing as one person and three people smurfing on the one account are very different things. Flamewheel hasn't given you all the information. He's broken the rules. Saying that you told him you were smurfing and hence are ok is rubbish.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
Meapak: On Protactinium.
I knew that flamewheel was smurfing in this game. I didn’t know which player he was. I was unaware that Protactinuim was a known AKA. It was first brought to my attention that there was triple smurfing going on by Qatol. He told me who the other players were and told me that Ver had been part of the balancing of the game but that Ver had sworn he couldn’t remember the specifics. With Qatol’s assurance that the smurf didn’t have any information the players didn’t I PM’d BB and asked what our official response would be. We were both annoyed that they hadn’t told us but we decided just to keep things quiet and wait for the smurf to die before broaching the topic (at the time it appeared as though the smurf would be killed within 24 hours). If all had gone according to plan then once the smurf had died BB and I would have gone to the ban thread to open discussion. I wanted (and still do want) FW Ver and Incognito to be required to play two or three non smurf games before they could smurf again. They violated smurfing rules by not telling us about it but beyond that I don’t think they violated game rules as I am willing to trust Qatol that Ver knew nothing about the setup.
Unfortunately the thread got wind of this somehow. Now how this happened brings up an issue I’ll address further on but for now I’ll stick with the issue at hand. A LOT of people wanted the smurf to be killed right away; however BB and I had already made our decision so as far as I was concerned the case was closed. This really incensed the mafia team and a bunch of townies but I maintain that the right decision was made. Modkilling the smurf would have been a really unnecessary bit of tampering with a game that was volatile enough without the drama involved in a high profile modkill. Furthermore the smurf broke no game rules in any obvious manner. If you read the eight simple rules in the OP there are none that the smurf obviously violated. In the absence of a blatant rule break I simply cannot see the logic of a modkill in this situation.
You've got to be kidding! He was involved in balancing and was allowed to play? And this is because "he couldn't remember the specifics"? Pull the other one!
This is starting to reek of coverup.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
Incognito:
It is common knowledge that Protactinium is flamewheel’s account. The only thing that was hidden was that Ver, flamewheel, and I were playing on the same account. Thus, this debate is not about smurfing; it is about account sharing.
Coaching is a form of account sharing. It is not illegal to ask for advice, especially in a coaching game. Thus, the Protactinium case is no different than flamewheel playing the game and asking Ver/me for advice.
Account sharing is not in any way cheating. Having three people contribute on one account doesn’t give the players unfair information advantages. Even though we are three people, we still only have one vote, one voice, and the information that one person has – i.e. we know our own role and nobody else’s. Whereas signing up for a game with 2 accounts would give that player extra votes, extra voices, and knowledge of an extra role (and maybe even the entire mafia list), account sharing does no such thing. Since we all work with the same information and have no bonus votes, there is no abuse here.
Account sharing does not give us unfair advantages. What this merely does is increase our flexibility and ability to play the game in a serious manner. I do not have time to play on my normal account, as I do not have time to devote a solid 2 weeks to playing a game. My inability to be able to devote an entire 2 weeks to a game should not hinder me from playing a game. On my own, there is no way I could have the activity required to play a serious game looking how much activity is required. However, if I can share an account, I would be able to play the game. Given that I do not gain an unfair information advantage by sharing an account with flamewheel, there is no reason why I should be prohibited from doing so.
Having two people post on the same account is not unreasonable, given the enormous thread activity. Consider that some players like DH had 400+ posts, and players like GMarshal and chaoser had upwards of 240+ posts by the end of day 2. On the contrary, Protactinium only has around 75~ posts by the end of day 2. Even with powers combined, we still are not that active, and are clearly not spamming people off the thread.
Would anybody care if two inactives, say, MetalFace and Kenpachi, shared an account? The obvious answer is no. The case right now is that flamewheel, Ver, and Incognito shared an account. Furthermore, consider the following scenario: Replace Ver/Incognito with flamewheel’s brother or room mate. Logically, there is no difference between the three scenarios other than the people involved. And since scenarios 1 and 3 are not objectionable, it follows that the current situation is should also be allowed.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
First of all it's coaching according to you. TOWN ALREADY HAD A COACH IN FOOLISHNESS.
Why does Flamewheel need his own personal coach anyway? He's a veteran who has hosted numerous games.
It doesn't give you unfair advantages, but it lets you play with more flexibility and ability to play the game in a more serious manner? This sounds exactly like an unfair advantage to me!
You don't have time and therefore should be allowed? Noone else gets these special opportunities to participate! Tell this to Milkyst, or Robellicose, or M0nsterChef, or the many many other people who have been modkilled for inactivity over many games. Anyway, I note that you will be hosting a game soon, XXXIX. You have time for that but not to play in this game?
You don't post as much? Your average post length is probably at least 3 times as long as any other player in the game. It takes time to put those things together. Arguing that you had no major effect is an outright fallacy.
I would very much object to two inactives sharing an account. I like how you have singled out a newbie and someone who is renowned for not contributing much as your example. The fact of the matter is, with three people on the same account you have more time to sort through and process all the information and formulate your arguments than everyone else.
As for the last paragraph, you are trying to turn this back on everyone who is angry. I am angry because you seem to believe you have special privileges. IF YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS THEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY BIASED TREATMENT. You have been gifted a role. You have played with an advantage. You seem to believe you are completely above the rules.
After reading the arguments of all three involved I strongly believe that all three should be given a ban.
|
People can request roles. you dont always get it but its not unheard of or bad to request one.
|
United States2186 Posts
A few things for clarification. Nobody sent me anything about the game, as in I have no pm's from brownbear nor meapak so I had no idea about the setup. If I did I certainly would have said something about the screwy pardoner. Secondly, this is about two issues: 1) private coaching (giving advice without posting) and 2) account sharing (doing everything together). The first I don't feel there is anything wrong at all, the second is more gray but I still don't think it's a serious offense if it is within limits and the public coaching is endorsed.
For private coaching, where do you draw the line? You gonna say that nobody can ask anyone outside the game who has no outside information for advice? That's clearly ludicrous and impossible to enforce. As for my situation this game, I explained the assassin plan before the game effectively started, then twice gave my input on suspects, my thought process, and approaches before day 1 ended and voted once on request to cover for them having to run out. After that I didn't come online until days after the drama for good or bad.
Allow me to share another incident. In mafia 35 I was a public coach for the town. Day 2 RebirthofLegend came to me wanting to build a case against Insanious and LunarDestiny, who were both town. He asked what I thought about those two, and who I thought was mafia. I told him it was unlikely his suspects were mafia (from deduction, didn't know their roles) and that I was pretty certain Annul was mafia and gave reasons for each. RebirthofLegend immediately turned around and gunned for Annul with my reasoning and got him lynched. Annul flipped red, and moreover, was the only successful lynch of the entire game. I wonder if it ever would have happened the entire game if I didn't say anything. As I coach, I knew the identities of about 4-6 greens who had come to me, so I had more information than normal too. I very clearly affected the game in abnormal ways.
Even if he hadn't asked me my views or I refused to reply, I still was still colored in my talks with everyone that I knew certain town roles and thus had a much easier time deducing mafia or townies. This would naturally come out if say a townie was suspicious of someone I knew was innocent from them working with me too.
Which of these is the worse offense, if either is? I see the former (mafia 35 public coach) is much more egregious because I knew extra information unlike as a private coach where I know only 1 role, and hence why I have been very hesitant about public coaching again.
On April 25 2011 06:30 chaoser wrote:
Warnings to all three for hiding the information and in the future a little common sense and transpancy is all that's needed to resolve problems like this. It's not like FW is a newbie player that needs basic help in playing the game. Be honest, you guys weren't "privately coaching him". That's just smoke and mirrors to hide that fact that you were all using one account to play the game.
This is not true at all. If you don't post, how can it be said that you are account sharing. Moreover, I've privately coached several players to some degree or another at various points and I'm definitely not the only one either whose given key advice during games like that. All of them were players that showed promise and would certainly have been viewed as in the top 50% of players here or much much higher. My goal in doing so was not to train newbies but to train elite players, and I have been very pleased at these results. For example, you have been showing excellent play lately chaoser, have a solid history of growth, and I'd be happy to assist you in the future. On the other hand I wouldn't be willing to assist some newbie as a private coach if I don't have very good reasons why putting in my time would be justified.
This was just an explanation since a lot of things don't seem clear yet. I'll post specifically on the account sharing later.
|
On April 25 2011 10:53 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it should be host's right to know that someone is smurfing in their game, no matter what. It affects game balance and prevents teams from being too OP (what if BC, flame, Ace, and you all smurfed and didn't tell me, then got randomed into mafia? It would break the game).
I don't reveal my smurf to my mafia team, or anyone else. Plus the odds of that happening are extremely low. I don't feel like I should have to be biased against and hit/expected of day 1 every game. Sometimes I want to try out a different strategy, and it can get me fucked if I am on my main account. Smurfing is fine IMO, and I don't think you should have to tell the host because then you have to abandon that account after one game.
|
Ver your "coaching" sounds like playing on behalf of the other player.
This is what should be coaching. I pretended to be a town player and PMd Foolishness for help.
Yes, you should just ignore him. Asking whether Coag gave away 2 of the mafia is a big reverse psychology paradox that won't get you anywhere thinking about it. Your arguments against Kenpachi should be that Kenpachi is mafia because he has been posting in a way mafia would (i.e. he clearly doesn't care about the town, or he has some hidden agenda which is mafia favored, etc), and not Kenpachi is mafia because Coag might have given him away in an attempt to save him.
Not to mention, Milkyst was probably useless to the mafia as he was inactive and got modkilled for it. Most likely Coag put him in the list because he figured he was good as dead anyways, or he was pissed at him for being inactive.
If you can't shake the idea either way, pick the person who's second on your list of mafia and push him instead, then save Kenpachi for later.
Original Message From DropBear:
I'm a little confused. I was very solid on Kenpachi before.
Coag made some inflammatory comments on his way out. He pointed out LSB, Milkyst and Kenpachi as being teammates.
LSB died as a green and Milkyst was modkilled as a goon. That's one out of two. It could be two out of three. Should I just ignore Coag's raging?
Thanks again.
This is impartial, and suggests strategies not taking over.
|
Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints?
I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless 
As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against.
So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible.
|
Doing something against the spirit of the game should not be a rule. It should be a code inscribed on every TLers hearts.
|
On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible.
there was account sharing in pyp3?
|
Edited out, because I said things while pissed off. Sorry.
|
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.
|
On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:
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.
You're right, I apologize. I edited it out.
I'm going to take myself out of this thread for a while so I don't say stupid shit any more.
|
On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote: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.
|
On April 25 2011 12:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible. there was account sharing in pyp3?
Iirc yes. Incog/Ver shared an account. I'll wait for them to clarify because my memory may be off here.
But here is my official stance on the issue:
They shouldn't be banned because there isn't a rule against it. Now that the situation has happened though hosts, or the TL Mafia Forum at large, can make it explicit before games start if it's going to be illegal or not.
I know some people are upset but with no rule or precedent against this it is very hard to hand out punishment. Really it's a gray area at the moment, especially reading Ver's post since it seems he barely participated in the alleged account sharing.
|
On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 25 2011 14:06 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible. there was account sharing in pyp3? Iirc yes. Incog/Ver shared an account. I'll wait for them to clarify because my memory may be off here. But here is my official stance on the issue: They shouldn't be banned because there isn't a rule against it. Now that the situation has happened though hosts, or the TL Mafia Forum at large, can make it explicit before games start if it's going to be illegal or not. I know some people are upset but with no rule or precedent against this it is very hard to hand out punishment. Really it's a gray area at the moment, especially reading Ver's post since it seems he barely participated in the alleged account sharing.
Barely participating is still participating. If Ver was involved in the setup, it is even less acceptable for him to have played. I would like it to be cleared up exactly what role Ver played in the setup of this game.
|
On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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!
As far as I know, Ver was as involved as his post showed. Ver was technically involved in balancing the game because he reminded me why I don't like trackers and watchers. I think (I'm not 100% sure - we both lost our IM chats to reformats in the past month) he saw a draft setup we had, but I can tell from my PM conversation with BrownBear that the setup was changed after I talked with Ver (among other things, there were no elected players or assassins). That IM conversation was on March 9 (exactly one month before the game started). Ver swears he doesn't remember it and I don't see any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt on that at least.
Other than that conversation, Flamewheel, Incognito, and Ver are all saying that Ver did what his post showed.
|
All 3 have also apologized to me personally, so the "they don't show remorse" argument doesn't really hold water as much anymore. None of them were intentionally trying to break the game.
|
On April 26 2011 13:05 BrownBear wrote:
All 3 have also apologized to me personally, so the "they don't show remorse" argument doesn't really hold water as much anymore. None of them were intentionally trying to break the game.
You are only one of many they have to apologize to. Apologizing to you is cool, but they did it behind closed doors. They have yet to apologize to the coaches, the players, or even admit publically they did wrong. As I said, we retroactively perma banned a player in the way of showtime! for playing against the spirit of the game.
More Minerals was also banned retroactively I believe for going against the spirit of the game. Realistically if we have done it in the past, we should be doing so here. Letting vets get away with breaches like this sets a terrible precident.
|
On April 26 2011 13:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
More Minerals was also banned retroactively I believe for going against the spirit of the game.
More_minerals was banned retroactively for signing up for Mafia 5 with 2 accounts.
|
Canada7170 Posts
On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host.
Smurfs must PM the host because TL doesn't allow multiple accounts otherwise. If the host is unaware of smurfs, you (and/or your smurf) can be banned for having multiple accounts. I don't want to derail on this note though.
|
On April 26 2011 13:22 mikeymoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host. Smurfs must PM the host because TL doesn't allow multiple accounts otherwise. If the host is unaware of smurfs, you (and/or your smurf) can be banned for having multiple accounts. I don't want to derail on this note though.
Wow I actually didn't know this was a TL rule. I thought it was just a mafia rule that was bent a little from time to time. Thanks. I'll add it to the model OP.
|
Canada7170 Posts
We made an exception for that very first smurf mafia game. Everyone involved had to PM Plexa. There's been all sorts of confusion when someone forgets to log off their smurf and proceeds to make a bad post in the normal forums. This way, they can appeal to the mod in question and the host can vouch for them.
|
oh so you're too good to play with us now that you've got a hamma eh mikeymoo?
|
On April 26 2011 13:35 mikeymoo wrote:
We made an exception for that very first smurf mafia game. Everyone involved had to PM Plexa. There's been all sorts of confusion when someone forgets to log off their smurf and proceeds to make a bad post in the normal forums. This way, they can appeal to the mod in question and the host can vouch for them.
Yes I remember that there were problems with the staff for that game. I just didn't think about people forgetting to log off and posting on normal TL. Oh well enough derailing. If you want to keep talking about this, the model OP thread or PM is probably better. Let me know if you want me to reword the rule.
|
Anyways, I think I'll compile everything tomorrow evening. If there's anything you want to say, speak your piece before then.
EDIT: I have apparently misjudged the situation. I'll leave this open to discussion until at least Thursday sometime, Friday if I'm too tired to deal with this after my exam.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Mafia jargon is interesting. Before this situation, TL search tells me the phrase... "spirit of the game" was used by CubEDin, refuting my previous belief that it randomly spawned as a catchphrase for this thread. And frankly, I still just don't like the "spirit of the game" term. Also, this thread is just like a Mafia thread, for all the good and bad reasons.
Random tangents aside, I should probably actually say something of worth. First and foremost, let me apologize to all involved in the past game, with specificity given to the co-host (having already talked to BrownBear), coaches, and members of the Mafia. Regardless of whether or not the roots of this whole debacle are acceptable, the fact remains that I caused the hosts and players all sorts of trouble. And for that, allow me to offer my sincerest apologies. Of course, if repentance were the cure for problems, the world wouldn't be in such a state right now.
BloodyC0bbler brings up an interesting and salient point, that of TL Mafia having its precedence in retroactively punishing through rule adjustments. Last night, I was inclined to agree with RebirthOfLeGenD's point on not punishing because there wasn't a specific rule or set of rules dedicated to this, though I don't really mind whatever is thrown at me. Be it a ban, warning, or even the proverbial "slap on the wrist", something material should come of this, through the normal procedure of voting in the ban list thread. In no way should I be exempted from punishment, since I inherently place very little value in the words that comprise "I'm sorry"--it in itself is an empty phrase.
BrownBear sums it up perfectly for me. There were no rules broken. Was the "spirit of the game" broken? That depends on what the bloody phrase actually means. (On a random sidenote, if you google the phrase... "Demands good sportsmanship, kindly feeling, and honorable conduct." Hmm...) I am not directly sorry about the actual act of initiating the account sharing--I am sorry for the outcome that it caused, which stems from the origin. It's a weird train of thought.
I disagree with Ver and Incognito (to a lesser degree) taking the bans though. As already delineated by others in thread, Ver's activity was limited to one post and around 40 hours of play. I don't want to speak for Incognito conclusively now, but at this point I don't think he will care too much about taking the ban, seeing as he'll be taking an extended leave of absence from this subforum (and teamliquid in general, since I think this is the only part he frequents).
Smurfing exists to serve its purpose. I would not get rid of it.
In this thread, there are other things, issues, and people I would kind of like to address, but this is not the time or place.
|
So now Incognito is leaving? Jeez you guys really had to take it this far?
Sure the account sharing was bad but I don't think they had the intention of cheating to screw up the game. I mean seriously of all games to cheat in - why that one?
Where is the motive here? This could just be a case of coaching gone too far.
And now you guys made flamewheel claim he's scum.
God I hope that is a fake claim cuz if we mislynch we're in LYLO with Qatol as Mayor.
I don't need to tell you how that ends now do I?
|
I don´t see how the intention matters, they should have known it was a bad move to accountshare without telling the host.
Neither do I see the point in dropping it because no rules were broken. The only reason there isn´t a rule about accountsharing on smurf accounts is that this is the first time. PMing from a smurfaccount to discuss a game and find out someones identity is probably not forbidden in the rules, but that doesn´t mean it´s okay to do it.
EDIT: Okay, perhaps a bad example since smurfing is forbidden too, but my point is that the rules are only a few of the things that you shouldn´t do.
|
I would have expected better judgment from people who have been here so long and are rather pillars of the TLMafia community.
People also do dumb shit without thinking ahead sometimes and I expect that too, so whatever.
Account sharing is deceitful and unfair to the other players in the game who are playing an account with only one person's mental and temporal resources. I do not think it should be allowed in the future, but don't agree with retroactive banning as the solution to this particular incident.
|
It looks like Flamewheel will be the next mod along with Qatol. The discussion was in the banlist thread.
|
On May 09 2011 17:52 Forumite wrote:
It looks like Flamewheel will be the next mod along with Qatol. The discussion was in the banlist thread.
If you have a problem with it, please discuss it there, not here. Also, we are not mods.
|
Your humility will be your undoing!
|
United States22154 Posts
Am I the only one that feels like that line is incomplete?
I think what it said before Qatol edited it was
Also, we are not mods, we are more like GODS!
I also imagine he was munching on fresh human hearts while making this proclamation.
|
Ok, so I hate to be a drama queen, but I am done with tl mafia and that decision is based entirely on the way this situation was handled (and the fallout from it which has now carried into numerous threads/games). I didn't post in this thread because every argument I felt like making was made by someone else. The responses I have gotten on irc when attempting to discuss this were gems such as "Calm down" or "Shit happens"...as if that solves the problem. This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
I liked quite a few of you, but I'm done with mafia.
|
On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Ok, so I hate to be a drama queen, but I am done with tl mafia and that decision is based entirely on the way this situation was handled (and the fallout from it which has now carried into numerous threads/games). I didn't post in this thread because every argument I felt like making was made by someone else. The responses I have gotten on irc when attempting to discuss this were gems such as "Calm down" or "Shit happens"...as if that solves the problem. This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
I liked quite a few of you, but I'm done with mafia.
Ditto.
I would have added a few F bombs.
|
|
|
Wait so you're quitting as well Jackal?
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Ok, so I hate to be a drama queen, but I am done with tl mafia and that decision is based entirely on the way this situation was handled (and the fallout from it which has now carried into numerous threads/games). I didn't post in this thread because every argument I felt like making was made by someone else. The responses I have gotten on irc when attempting to discuss this were gems such as "Calm down" or "Shit happens"...as if that solves the problem. This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
I liked quite a few of you, but I'm done with mafia.
 I do want to clarify something though, the reason why I told you to calm down in IRC is because that is not the venue to discuss highly sensitive issues.
That said its a real tragedy to see you and jackal leave, I can honestly say I enjoyed playing with you.
|
Clearly there are deep-rooted problems that we need to look at
|
On May 09 2011 22:46 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 17:52 Forumite wrote:
It looks like Flamewheel will be the next mod along with Qatol. The discussion was in the banlist thread. If you have a problem with it, please discuss it there, not here. Also, we are not mods. I posted here only to improve visibility, not to discuss.
|
On May 11 2011 09:05 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 22:46 Qatol wrote:On May 09 2011 17:52 Forumite wrote:
It looks like Flamewheel will be the next mod along with Qatol. The discussion was in the banlist thread. If you have a problem with it, please discuss it there, not here. Also, we are not mods. I posted here only to improve visibility, not to discuss.
What was your goal in improving visibility?
To complain about it? That should be a discussion.
To call attention to it so other people will discuss it? This is a small community. If people aren't reading the ban list thread, they probably don't care how this forum is run and thus won't weigh in anyways.
I'm just trying to point out that you re-opened a lot of wounds that have not entirely healed by posting that here, so I'm wondering what you were trying to accomplish by doing that.
|
On May 11 2011 07:35 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Ok, so I hate to be a drama queen, but I am done with tl mafia and that decision is based entirely on the way this situation was handled (and the fallout from it which has now carried into numerous threads/games). I didn't post in this thread because every argument I felt like making was made by someone else. The responses I have gotten on irc when attempting to discuss this were gems such as "Calm down" or "Shit happens"...as if that solves the problem. This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
I liked quite a few of you, but I'm done with mafia. I do want to clarify something though, the reason why I told you to calm down in IRC is because that is not the venue to discuss highly sensitive issues. That said its a real tragedy to see you and jackal leave, I can honestly say I enjoyed playing with you.
Lemon, Jackal, I've only played a couple of games with you guys but you are fun and it would be a tragedy to see you leave. Take a hiatus instead or something and come back to the forum in a bit to see how it's running?
|
I just wanted to point out that the whole time during the discussion of the situation with qatol he had assured me that there would be no need to punish incog because he was leaving tlmafia anway. Now here is incog back without missing a step as if nothing happened playing in games.
So its pretty clear at this point that qatol has no desire to punish cheaters if they are his friends. Its been weeks now and I only see qatol trying to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets. So heres what im gonna do. Im gonna give qatol 24 hours to punish them for cheating in an unbiased and fair way that he would apply to any other player here caught cheating or im going to post this issue in the TL mod forum and see to it they can find some kind of resolution or at the very least let them be aware of the ineptitude of the situation going on in here. Its pretty obvious that people are not happy with how things are being handled here. And something needs to be done.
On May 11 2011 08:01 chaoser wrote:
Clearly there are deep-rooted problems that we need to look at
Its unfortunate that the only people who can do something about it are the problem.
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
Qatol made it pretty clear that he would feel uncomfortable being involved with this because of his bias. I was under the assumption that the majority had decided to make an amendment to the rules for future games, but thought it would be unfair to punish any of the three. I'm not sure what you would be trying to accomplish bringing it to the mod forum as this issue seemed pretty much resolved. If you wanted to discuss the PYP issue, then wouldn't it be better to open it up to discussion rather than running to the mods?
|
Heres the problem
On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
|
I think most people aren't happy with the way things went down kita but we're trying to move on with the decision made by BrownBear. Personally I feel like we never fully reserved the issue because people ended up storming off and "quitting" so we all hunkered down and tried to move past this to stem the issue of people who have been long time contributers to this subforum from leaving.
On April 26 2011 02:30 BrownBear wrote:
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 May 12 2011 03:07 Coagulation wrote:I just wanted to point out that the whole time during the discussion of the situation with qatol he had assured me that there would be no need to punish incog because he was leaving tlmafia anway. Now here is incog back without missing a step as if nothing happened playing in games. So its pretty clear at this point that qatol has no desire to punish cheaters if they are his friends. Its been weeks now and I only see qatol trying to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets. So heres what im gonna do. Im gonna give qatol 24 hours to punish them for cheating in an unbiased and fair way that he would apply to any other player here caught cheating or im going to post this issue in the TL mod forum and see to it they can find some kind of resolution or at the very least let them be aware of the ineptitude of the situation going on in here. Its pretty obvious that people are not happy with how things are being handled here. And something needs to be done. Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 08:01 chaoser wrote:
Clearly there are deep-rooted problems that we need to look at Its unfortunate that the only people who can do something about it are the problem.
I have not been given any authority on this forum by the TL staff. As a result, I don't feel comfortable punishing people unilaterally. Do not try to force me to do so. I won't. This has nothing to do with them being my friends or not.
If you read the thread, the majority of people do not want them punished with more than a warning (which they all know about but I forgot to edit onto the ban list, but will do so right now - my apologies) and do not consider them cheaters. Please do not call them that.
Also, when I told you that Incognito was leaving, I was under the impression that was true. Even though it was not true, it does not change anything (people voted for the same punishment for all 3 of them, it doesn't make any sense that this should change just because Incognito is not leaving the forum).
Here are the tallies:
+ Show Spoiler [Warning or no punishment: 14] +
Kavdragon
Node
Rean
LSB
deconduo
Meapak_Ziphh (cohost)
RebirthOfLegend
chaoser
bumatlarge
AirbladeOrange
BrownBear (host)
Ace
Infundibulum
Foolishness (he didn't ask for a punishment here, but I confirmed he wanted a warning via IM)
+ Show Spoiler [Somewhere in between: 2] +
Eiii (at least a warning and at most a 1 game ban)
Mr. Wiggles (uncomfortable about asking for punishments but feels like something should be done)
+ Show Spoiler [Ban: 5] +
DropBear
Forumite
GMarshal
Jackal58
Coagulation
BloodyC0bbler
Note that even if the people I labeled as being in between are all for bans, the total comes out 14-7.
If we go by the ban list voting procedure (I haven't gotten around to making a list of all of the people who can vote yet, but I can tell you now that the only people on that list who are voting ban are GMarshal and BC and at least RoL, LSB, Node, and Ace are also on that list) the ban votes are still outnumbered.
If this is not satisfactory to you, feel free to go to the TL mods. Otherwise, just let this drop please. This is all I will do.
|
On May 12 2011 03:23 Coagulation wrote:Heres the problem Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
Stop insulting people and spreading misinformation. Now.
|
On May 12 2011 03:07 Coagulation wrote:
I just wanted to point out that the whole time during the discussion of the situation with qatol he had assured me that there would be no need to punish incog because he was leaving tlmafia anway. Now here is incog back without missing a step as if nothing happened playing in games.
So its pretty clear at this point that qatol has no desire to punish cheaters if they are his friends. Its been weeks now and I only see qatol trying to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets. So heres what im gonna do. Im gonna give qatol 24 hours to punish them for cheating in an unbiased and fair way that he would apply to any other player here caught cheating or im going to post this issue in the TL mod forum and see to it they can find some kind of resolution or at the very least let them be aware of the ineptitude of the situation going on in here. Its pretty obvious that people are not happy with how things are being handled here. And something needs to be done.
On May 12 2011 03:23 Coagulation wrote:Heres the problem Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 06:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:
This subforum is run by an ingroup and whenever something goes against what they want they squash it and the majority of you circle-jerk about how awesome they are.
I was hoping to avoid commenting on this further, but apparently this isn't over. Allow me two cents.
You still have issues with it? Fine, then voice them. That's the purpose of this thread. When discussion tapers off and the majority of people are either not for bans or aren't willing to pursue the issue further, forgive them for thinking the issue might be dealt with.
But doing something akin to holding the forum hostage is, for lack of a better term, fucking ridiculous, and for it I've lost any ounce of respect I might have had for you. What makes you think the TL mods will come up with a better solution? You call someone a cheater and get them banned, but you know as well as I do that the issue is a lot more complicated than that.
Do you realize that without this "in-group" that you're decrying, this forum wouldn't exist? They've run the thing pretty damn well for quite awhile now, giving the users a place to easily host and play games, a standardized list of people they might not want to allow in your games, all sorts of tutorials and advice, and this is how you respond when something goes wrong? If you've got a problem with it, you've got the tools to do your own thing. You're welcome to host your own games, and you're welcome to ban whoever you damn well please from them. You're welcome to start your own ban list and hosting queue, and you're welcome to start a new procession of games that follow those regulations. You might find it one hell of a lot harder when you have to do everything on your own, but the point has never been to stop people from trying.
|
Wait, I thought this was dead and buried. Why is it coming back?
More importantly, why are a small group of people who got outvoted in the official tally trying to hold the forum hostage by threatening to leave?
LW, Jackal, Coag (i assume), you three are active players, and it would suck to see you go, but if you all are thinking you're going to change something by threatening to leave, you are sadly mistaken. Consider your bluff called.
|
On May 12 2011 04:50 BrownBear wrote:
Wait, I thought this was dead and buried. Why is it coming back?
More importantly, why are a small group of people who got outvoted in the official tally trying to hold the forum hostage by threatening to leave?
LW, Jackal, Coag (i assume), you three are active players, and it would suck to see you go, but if you all are thinking you're going to change something by threatening to leave, you are sadly mistaken. Consider your bluff called.
The issue was re-raised based on responses / actions of people in ver's thread to my knowledge. As someone who at the moment is staying as far the hell away from all this as possible I will merely say that based on a few actions in the last few days, wounds have been reopened for people.
I am not one of these, I am merely posting observations I have seen.
|
Do you realize that without this "in-group" that you're decrying, this forum wouldn't exist? They've run the thing pretty damn well for quite awhile now, giving the users a place to easily host and play games, a standardized list of people they might not want to allow in your games, all sorts of tutorials and advice, and this is how you respond when something goes wrong? If you've got a problem with it, you've got the tools to do your own thing. You're welcome to host your own games, and you're welcome to ban whoever you damn well please from them. You're welcome to start your own ban list and hosting queue, and you're welcome to start a new procession of games that follow those regulations. You might find it one hell of a lot harder when you have to do everything on your own, but the point has never been to stop people from trying.
This is pretty ridiculous, you should know how hard it would be to make your own new system and basically split the subforum into two, that's just not something that's possible. The point is that it's so hard that there's no use to even trying. It'd be much easier to look at the problems that DO exist and try to solve them.
Yeh the "in-group" has run things pretty well for a while and contributed a lot but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to give criticism and feedback where it's due. I do think that Cog threatening to take this whole thing to the TL Mods is taking it too far but we should at least acknowledge that there are problems with the system, no matter how far it's brought us, and that we can always make it better.
|
I would be lying if I said I didn't think there were problems with the system, but we do the best with what we have. I was torn on decisions, I don't think it is fair to punish retroactively for something so in the gray. On the other hand the way certain statements were made they seemed like a bit of bullshit.
I generally don't have a problem making a decision on an issue, but this one could of gone both ways and maybe I was just too biased towards not banning people, which I generally am.
Although I do agree with Qatol in that whether or not incog left or stayed should have absolutely no bearing on this.
|
On May 12 2011 04:50 BrownBear wrote:
Wait, I thought this was dead and buried. Why is it coming back?
More importantly, why are a small group of people who got outvoted in the official tally trying to hold the forum hostage by threatening to leave?
LW, Jackal, Coag (i assume), you three are active players, and it would suck to see you go, but if you all are thinking you're going to change something by threatening to leave, you are sadly mistaken. Consider your bluff called.
I'm not holding anybody hostage. I'm sure you will all continue along just fine without me. I don't particularly care if the three amigos received any punishment or not. I was in favor of them receiving the same punishment Coag got for blowing up or vice versa. It was a non-issue really. Until this post:
+ Show Spoiler +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. The same is the case with Bloodycobbler. Due to the clash they had that resulted in Qatol temporarily leaving the forum to get away, Qatol does not want to play with BC so it's an 'if he joins i don't play' situation. BC was banned at the time that Qatol joined (well before his signup in thread) so it was a clear 'sure no problem' kinda deal. Now that there's an initiative in the ban thread to get BC unbanned for this game, I have to put my foot down and say no, sorry. It sucks to be put in a situation where I have to essentially ban one friend no matter what but someone has to lose here it seems . This has nothing to do with the ban list, hosts always have the prerogative to ban who they choose (i,e Ace banning Bill Murray). In this case it's nothing I have personally against anyone but it's a situation where if party A joins party B/C/D/E etc quit. I assured the latter players and Qatol that their condition would be met (when circumstances were different and it didn't seem a big deal) so it would be unfair to go back on it now that circumstances have changed. I'm also going to close signups unless previously invited because Ace only was going to join the game if it was smaller and 24/25, depending on if FW plays or not, is already plenty. I recognize it sucks for you guys to be excluded like this so for my next game (probably going to be hosted late summer) you both have a guaranteed slot if you want in then. That's all I can offer. Please don't start a huge drama out of this, my decision isn't changing. Game starts Friday night.
It's the same wishful thinking that created the original problem. Let's just hope it goes away. But it didn't work out that way did it?
Ver should have sent a PM to Coag before the game started stating his intentions and why he felt that way. He should have also PMed Qatol and informed him before the game started. In effect Coag has been banned for 3 games due to the poor judgment and wishful thinking of others. Sleeper Cell, XXXIX and now PYP Insane. The last game all being played by the 3 amigos whose lack of judgment started this shitstorm and Qatol the guy that basically said gee shucks. Suck it up Coag. And then to post that bs in the PYP thread looked exactly like a clique of 8th grade bitches on pms.
I'm not leaving due to a lack of punishment for Ver, Incognito and Flamewheel. I'm leaving because there is an obvious double standard at work.
I truly enjoyed playing with most of you guys. I will remember most of you fondly. I sincerely hope though that you all step back and take a look at what has occurred over the last month or so and realize that you can't just sit back and hope things work out. Shit never works out. Be assertive and prevent shit like this from happening again.
Good luck.
|
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving
|
On May 12 2011 06:18 chaoser wrote:
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving
Let's just say I'll not be playing for a while until people get their collective shit sorted out. I don't care to watch as many people I have genuinely grown to like have a pissing contest over something that never should have happened. My life has enough drama in it atm.
|
Not gonna lie, I poke for drama regardless of the consequences, but seeing people leave over it is kinda upsetting. Remember the the purpose of mafia is to have fun
|
I know here is not my place, but I would like to drop my 2 cents as well.
Bumatlarge has a point. The purpose of Mafia is to have fun. People are making such a big deal over this. Personally, the fact that 3 vets joined on a smurf acount would only make the game more fun to me. Mafia is about challenge and improving your own skills, it's not about proving you are the best mafia player. I fail to see how having three people under a smurf acount would detract from the fun of other players. This should only make the game more interesting.
|
On May 12 2011 06:42 bumatlarge wrote:Not gonna lie, I poke for drama regardless of the consequences, but seeing people leave over it is kinda upsetting. Remember the the purpose of mafia is to have fun
That is why I'm leaving. I am not 'threatening to leave to get you guys to change things', I am leaving. I think I told either BC or coag yesterday that I joined mafia to have fun, and while I have had some fun because of it, I've had more drama than fun. It just isn't worth it to me anymore. I like you guys and I'll probably continue lurking/making bad jokes in the irc channel. This isn't a power play or anything, I'm a 3 game newbie, I don't expect to change things.
|
On May 12 2011 06:18 chaoser wrote:
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving
Just reading this, after a few months away....And I have one question for you:
Coag's ban sits well with you?
On May 12 2011 06:57 sandroba wrote:
I know here is not my place, but I would like to drop my 2 cents as well.
Bumatlarge has a point. The purpose of Mafia is to have fun. People are making such a big deal over this. Personally, the fact that 3 vets joined on a smurf acount would only make the game more fun to me. Mafia is about challenge and improving your own skills, it's not about proving you are the best mafia player. I fail to see how having three people under a smurf acount would detract from the fun of other players. This should only make the game more interesting.
I'm fond of games being fair.
3 players time (I guess Ver doesn't count, cuz he only contributed, what? 40 Hours in 2 days worth of in game time....so 40 hours out of 144 hours? 5/18 total time....Seems like a lot...) Anyway, I wasn't affected by it, but I don't want to see people quit over this BS.
And Qatol, that circle jerk thing...really...What was it? BC was the only person I found reasonable about it. The only thing I was thinking reading this entire thing, what the rest of TL Mafia should of been thinking, "What would all of these vets, I just spared, have decided and voted (ban/noban/warning) if I had L, Bill, and/or Showtime! posting on my account with me?"
Do you think they would of spared you? -__-
|
On May 12 2011 10:33 ~OpZ~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:18 chaoser wrote:
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving Just reading this, after a few months away....And I have one question for you: Coag's ban sits well with you? Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:57 sandroba wrote:
I know here is not my place, but I would like to drop my 2 cents as well.
Bumatlarge has a point. The purpose of Mafia is to have fun. People are making such a big deal over this. Personally, the fact that 3 vets joined on a smurf acount would only make the game more fun to me. Mafia is about challenge and improving your own skills, it's not about proving you are the best mafia player. I fail to see how having three people under a smurf acount would detract from the fun of other players. This should only make the game more interesting. I'm fond of games being fair. 3 players time (I guess Ver doesn't count, cuz he only contributed, what? 40 Hours in 2 days worth of in game time....so 40 hours out of 144 hours? 5/18 total time....Seems like a lot...) Anyway, I wasn't affected by it, but I don't want to see people quit over this BS. And Qatol, that circle jerk thing...really...What was it? BC was the only person I found reasonable about it. The only thing I was thinking reading this entire thing, what the rest of TL Mafia should of been thinking, "What would all of these vets, I just spared, have decided and voted (ban/noban/warning) if I had L, Bill, and/or Showtime! posting on my account with me?" Do you think they would of spared you? -__-
Excuse me? I didn't weigh in on this. I don't believe you even know my opinion. I compiled the opinion of the majority. Do NOT act like I have done something wrong here.
And all 3 players you mentioned are on the ban list (2 are permabanned), so your hypothetical situation isn't even close to similar.
EDIT: I completely misunderstood what he was saying. I apologize for reacting like that Here is my real reply to this:
The "circle jerk" thing was because the group coag is accusing of running the forum doesn't get their way all the time. It has even happened with respect to him. He's just mad because that didn't happen this time. Also, I find the term "circle jerking" to be quite vulgar and offensive.
Also, if you did something like that, you might not get found out in the first game you did it, but you would eventually. Flamewheel has a banling run IP checks on everyone signed up for a game every now and then. I do not think that this community would have spared me for getting those players to play with me, but only because I'm helping banned players get around their bans.
|
On May 12 2011 11:17 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 10:33 ~OpZ~ wrote:On May 12 2011 06:18 chaoser wrote:
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving Just reading this, after a few months away....And I have one question for you: Coag's ban sits well with you? On May 12 2011 06:57 sandroba wrote:
I know here is not my place, but I would like to drop my 2 cents as well.
Bumatlarge has a point. The purpose of Mafia is to have fun. People are making such a big deal over this. Personally, the fact that 3 vets joined on a smurf acount would only make the game more fun to me. Mafia is about challenge and improving your own skills, it's not about proving you are the best mafia player. I fail to see how having three people under a smurf acount would detract from the fun of other players. This should only make the game more interesting. I'm fond of games being fair. 3 players time (I guess Ver doesn't count, cuz he only contributed, what? 40 Hours in 2 days worth of in game time....so 40 hours out of 144 hours? 5/18 total time....Seems like a lot...) Anyway, I wasn't affected by it, but I don't want to see people quit over this BS. And Qatol, that circle jerk thing...really...What was it? BC was the only person I found reasonable about it. The only thing I was thinking reading this entire thing, what the rest of TL Mafia should of been thinking, "What would all of these vets, I just spared, have decided and voted (ban/noban/warning) if I had L, Bill, and/or Showtime! posting on my account with me?" Do you think they would of spared you? -__- Excuse me? I didn't weigh in on this. I don't believe you even know my opinion. I compiled the opinion of the majority. Do NOT act like I have done something wrong here. And all 3 players you mentioned are on the ban list (2 are permabanned), so your hypothetical situation isn't even close to similar.
Plz do not get cross, and tell me how to act good sir. I meant no disrespect to you, and I will PM you about this. I think you misunderstood my post, and I think I need to work on my writing.
|
Hi OpZ, long time no see
|
On May 13 2011 06:59 ~OpZ~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 11:17 Qatol wrote:On May 12 2011 10:33 ~OpZ~ wrote:On May 12 2011 06:18 chaoser wrote:
how is leaving solving anything? You're being as much of a 8th grader by just leaving Just reading this, after a few months away....And I have one question for you: Coag's ban sits well with you? On May 12 2011 06:57 sandroba wrote:
I know here is not my place, but I would like to drop my 2 cents as well.
Bumatlarge has a point. The purpose of Mafia is to have fun. People are making such a big deal over this. Personally, the fact that 3 vets joined on a smurf acount would only make the game more fun to me. Mafia is about challenge and improving your own skills, it's not about proving you are the best mafia player. I fail to see how having three people under a smurf acount would detract from the fun of other players. This should only make the game more interesting. I'm fond of games being fair. 3 players time (I guess Ver doesn't count, cuz he only contributed, what? 40 Hours in 2 days worth of in game time....so 40 hours out of 144 hours? 5/18 total time....Seems like a lot...) Anyway, I wasn't affected by it, but I don't want to see people quit over this BS. And Qatol, that circle jerk thing...really...What was it? BC was the only person I found reasonable about it. The only thing I was thinking reading this entire thing, what the rest of TL Mafia should of been thinking, "What would all of these vets, I just spared, have decided and voted (ban/noban/warning) if I had L, Bill, and/or Showtime! posting on my account with me?" Do you think they would of spared you? -__- Excuse me? I didn't weigh in on this. I don't believe you even know my opinion. I compiled the opinion of the majority. Do NOT act like I have done something wrong here. And all 3 players you mentioned are on the ban list (2 are permabanned), so your hypothetical situation isn't even close to similar. Plz do not get cross, and tell me how to act good sir. I meant no disrespect to you, and I will PM you about this. I think you misunderstood my post, and I think I need to work on my writing.
I did misunderstand and I apologize for overreacting. Hopefully everyone can just put this thread behind us and we can get back to playing the game.
|
To me, the problem isn´t that Flamewheel, Incog and Ver got off with only a warning, I can accept that, the problem I have is that Flamewheel became second in command over TL-mafia. From having 30% of people speaking up want to ban him, he got a role that Qatol himself emphasized require someone whom the whole forum respect. It doesn´t feel like a punishment, more like a reward. There wasn´t a majority to ban him, so that matter was dropped, forgotten. This will probably not affect the game at all, FW will do well, but it´s still not quite right to me.
I suspect Qatol will rage even more so I´ll stop here. I´ve said what I wanted to say and if people don´t want to listen then I won´t try to change that.
|
On May 13 2011 08:26 Forumite wrote:
To me, the problem isn´t that Flamewheel, Incog and Ver got off with only a warning, I can accept that, the problem I have is that Flamewheel became second in command over TL-mafia. From having 30% of people speaking up want to ban him, he got a role that Qatol himself emphasized require someone whom the whole forum respect. It doesn´t feel like a punishment, more like a reward. There wasn´t a majority to ban him, so that matter was dropped, forgotten. This will probably not affect the game at all, FW will do well, but it´s still not quite right to me.
I suspect Qatol will rage even more so I´ll stop here. I´ve said what I wanted to say and if people don´t want to listen then I won´t try to change that.
No I'm not angry. I understand where you're coming from. This was a major concern of mine when nominating him for that position. This was why I asked people about their opinions on him before he got that. However, the responses were overwhelmingly positive. There were only 2 people who spoke up against him when I brought it up and a huge amount of support for him. If you still feel uncomfortable about him handling things, I can handle any ban discussion involving you (knock on wood) if you wish.
|
This had come up again after Ver's PYP Insane game, where Coagulation and Bloody_C0bbler have been prevented from playing.
I was strongly for Incog and Ver getting bans but as Qatol has said, the majority decision was not to ban them. I disagree, but this was the majority decision.
Coag, PYP Insane is Ver's game. Whether you like it or not, whether it is fair or not, it is Ver's game. He hasn't been banned, neither has Incognito, neither has Flamewheel. He doesn't break the ban list by allowing them and he isn't prevented from making a game.
On May 04 2011 03:27 Ver wrote:
Signups: This game is open to anyone. Priority is given to some players over others. There is not currently a set player limit, I will see how the signups go and judge from there. If you wish, specify what size of game you would prefer.
Game-specific rules: Modkills:This game follows the TL Mafia Ban List. If you are modkilled, your punishment will go beyond being eliminated from this game. Please refer to it for questions about your punishment.
Priority is given to some players over others. He, as host, reserves the right to accept or reject players. Is it unfair? In my opinion, yes it is unfair that Coag is being prevented from playing. But Ver is allowed to do it as host. Arguing that Coag has been banned for three games is incorrect, Ver is choosing not to allow him. They are different things.
Coag I think you should drop this and just play in the next game, one which will not be hosted by Ver. You are doing good things by being a coach in XXXIX, if you drop this threat to bring in the TL mods you will gain a lot of respect from a lot of people.
You are angry and upset about being singled out. This is completely understandable, but I say this: move on. I wanted you banned much much longer than a single game for XXXVIII. I wanted Incog, flamewheel and Ver banned as well. None of this happened. I moved on and am doing my best in XXXIX. Move on.
As for Flamewheel replacing Incognito as ban list moderator, Flamewheel provided an unqualified apology for his actions. Incognito on the other hand denied any responsibility and ragequit the forum. I think FW for Incog is a pretty good trade.
|
we really should just close this thread lol...
|
Yeah this thread has been going on long enough, people have had more their fare share. However I feel like it would be REALLY bad to ask a mod to close this so instead I propose that we as a community simply stop posting here.
Starting now. Let this thread die.
|
On May 13 2011 14:56 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Yeah this thread has been going on long enough, people have had more their fare share. However I feel like it would be REALLY bad to ask a mod to close this so instead I propose that we as a community simply stop posting here.
Starting now. Let this thread die.
We never had that grudgematch, did we Meapak  ?
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't going to go away if we sweep it under the carpet guys. It happened once already and it's reared it's head again.
Argue this how you like, the Coagulation ban and the Protactinium issue are inextricably linked. The actions of the Protact trio severely pissed off Coagulation and this anger led to his poor behaviour and hence his ban. He deserved the ban, but their actions contributed to it.
I want to point this out:
On April 26 2011 13:05 BrownBear wrote:
All 3 have also apologized to me personally, so the "they don't show remorse" argument doesn't really hold water as much anymore. None of them were intentionally trying to break the game.
They can apologise to BrownBear but not to the players? This is an admittance of fault. Why can't they stand up and give this to everyone? The community has decided not to ban them and that's fair enough but something needs to happen.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY FOR THIS TO BE RESOLVED. INCOGNITO AND VER NEED TO MAKE A PUBLIC APOLOGY IN THIS THREAD TO ALL THE PLAYERS INVOLVED.
If they do this, the following things happen.
1. Coagulation no longer feels that he has been made the sole scapegoat of XXXVIII. Hopefully this will mollify him to some extent.
2. Incognito and Ver regain some of the respect lost out of this affair.
3. Qatol no longer has to deal with his conflict of interest.
4. Jackal and LemonWalrus feel more comfortable about staying on.
5. Everyone playing gets some sort of closure.
6. We don't need to bring the TL mods in and possibly bomb the whole forum.
The two of you are veterans and important figures of this forum. Time to stand up and be accountable. Everyone wins if you do this, including yourselves.
Apologise to all the players publically, not just the host,
Apologise to the mafia team.
Apologise to Coagulation personally.
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 13 2011 18:02 DropBear wrote:
6. We don't need to bring the TL mods in and possibly bomb the whole forum.
Where the *hell* did this come from? No one is bringing in the mods, no one is bombing the whole forum. I thought this situation was resolved already and we as a community had decided to move on? A mistake was made, it was somewhat rectified, theres no need to drag this on any further as far as I am concerned. Move on now, the only thing that continuing to push this will cause is more drama, and as you well know the mafia forums already have enough of that as it is. Flamewheel apologized. Let it rest.
Let this topic die, its not going anywhere, at best you are going to get a token apology that means nothing. Words are simply words, an apology that is not sincerely meant is a worthless token. Dont fight for something worthless, its not worth the struggle.
Let it die, nothing good can come of perusing this topic any more.
People can feel free to disagree with me on this one, but as I see it this is beating a dead horse.
|
Marsh, Coag is talking about bringing in the mods.
This hasn't been resolved at all. The PYP Insane game has brought it up again. Lemon and Jackal are talking about quitting.
And I disagree that an apology would be token words.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On May 13 2011 21:58 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Please show me where in the access thread Bill Murray has posted.
|
United States22154 Posts
|
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.
|
Where's that Meapak/DropBear grudgematch? I really want to commentate it (we can get deconduo back in to host it!)
|
As a newcomer to the mafia subforum I want to express my opinion on this matter too.
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.
|
Doublepost.
Hit quote on accident.
|
This issue has been dealt with/is in some sort of resolved state, please stop posting in there!
|
In each game, the rules are explained in the OP. That Rules Sticky doesn't look like it's been updated recently, and like I said, all relevant rules are posted at the beginning of each game. We've already made provisions and changes to the rules template for game OPs. Here's the relevant part:
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: Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 13:22 mikeymoo wrote:
Smurfs must PM the host because TL doesn't allow multiple accounts otherwise. If the host is unaware of smurfs, you (and/or your smurf) can be banned for having multiple accounts.
So yes, it has been addressed.
Anyways, welcome to TL mafia. :p
|
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!
|
United States1967 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
