|
On February 17 2012 08:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I'd be fine with 10, but as a reference point, lets say you are on ban #2 = 3 games. Only a handful of people have 30 games, I believe tis something like me, Ace, BumAtLarge, and Amber.
Or if it just counts towards dismissing a whole ban, and not 10 games played = -1 game of ban, that could work.
and me.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On February 17 2012 08:43 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 08:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I'd be fine with 10, but as a reference point, lets say you are on ban #2 = 3 games. Only a handful of people have 30 games, I believe tis something like me, Ace, BumAtLarge, and Amber.
Or if it just counts towards dismissing a whole ban, and not 10 games played = -1 game of ban, that could work. and me.
I meant it as "10 games of ban = 1 ban annulled" as opposed to "1 game of ban annulled" but I could be convinced the latter would be a better way of doing things. I feel like the former is more reasonable, however.
|
On February 17 2012 08:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I'd be fine with 10, but as a reference point, lets say you are on ban #2 = 3 games. Only a handful of people have 30 games, I believe tis something like me, Ace, BumAtLarge, and Amber.
Or if it just counts towards dismissing a whole ban, and not 10 games played = -1 game of ban, that could work.
why did you forget about me?!?! =[
I got 32+
|
I was pointing out I have over 30 games bh
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
oh lol reading comprehension fail ;_; my bad
but yeah basically I was thinking 10 games / ban sounded reasonable
|
USA5860 Posts
I read the list like 3 months ago at which point neither of you were on it?!?!
Dunno, I did it off the top of my head, I manly remembered that those 3 had more games than me. I think I forgot fishball too.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
And thus GMarshal is now the new moderator of the banlist. flamewheel will retain control of the thread and be the scribe. Council idea is scrapped for now.
Warning List
Update: we are implementing a simple system to get people off of the warning list. This system goes hand in hand with the proposal to change punishment for behavior bans which is detailed below.
How it works is as follows. If you receive a warning from a game for whatever reason, you're name will be put on the list along with the game you received the warning for. If you then play 3 mafia games (don't matter which kind) without incident your name will be cleared from the list. However, it is up to you, the player, to get your name cleared. Once you have played your 3 games, you must PM flamewheel or post in the thread that you have played your 3 games and list each of them. This is obviously being done so that flamewheel/GM will not have to go through the enormous amount of work of tracking players and seeing if they have played enough games.
Remember this is only for the warning list. Anyone who is currently on the warning list can get off by playing in 3 games starting now (any ongoing games you are in at time of writing are fine as well).
Time Bans
When Qatol gave up control of the banlist to fulfill his plans of world domination, we discussed changing behavior bans to be time based instead of game based. We want to bring back that idea and see what other people think of it.
The preliminary proposal is as follows: the default time ban for a behavioral offense is 3 weeks (3 weeks = 1 week of signups + 2 weeks average game length, so roughly the equivalent of sitting out one game). Obviously if the situation calls for it GMarshal can decide to lessen or extend the ban. Your time ban of three weeks will not increase for multiple offenses. If you get time banned from a game, flamewheel will add you to the list along with the date the game in question ended (as sometimes it takes a day or two to update the list and/or discuss the ban, and the player should not have to suffer from that time).
Any thoughts/concerns/comments appreciated.
|
No. Bans are game bans. If you sit out a game which goes unreasonably long, appeal it maybe... otherwise keep it at games.
|
Although... Immediately after posting that I started to like this idea a lot more for some reason
|
hmm.. I think it should be game based instead of time. I like the fact that it forces people to still be an active part of the forum if they want to play again. They have to find a game that starts soon, post in the ban thread and sit it out. Then wait til game is over and then they can play again.
With a time ban all they have to do is rage quit the forum and come back 3 weeks later and do the same thing all over.
|
So long as they have to request the sitout, I'm fine with time bans.
|
Why don't you just have a database of people who are modkilled and index it by reason. That's something hosts can reference if they want a person in their game or not. If someone was inactive and got modkilled but told me they had a personal issue and do have the time for my game, I'd let them in. I wouldn't however, allow cheaters or excessive players in a game even if they were unbanned. This gives more power to the host, holds people accountable for their action or inaction, and it would free up a lot of activity on the board I think.
Time bans and "sitting out" games I think is pointless. It may make people, especially newer players, want to quit TL Mafia. Especially if they are newer and forgot or had a personal issue then come to find out they're banned for 2 games (or like me, got a 3 game ban for requesting replacement in 2 games when I had personal issues) it makes them not want to play at all. I see no serious downside to a system like this.
Hosts can choose not to follow the banlist anyway so why not make it easier on hosts? I'm much more interested in why someone is banned or warned instead of for how long. Calling it a ban might not be best either, something like a "Modkill/Warning Database"
Even warnings such as "X player warned Y times for flaming in Z game" could be logged.
I don't like hosting games where players flame a lot or are very hostile to each other. Palmar doesn't seem to mind that at all. I think both of us should be able to host games on our own terms and having a reason based "banlist" without mandatory sit outs would work best imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
