EPTProposal to Revamp the Banlist - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 15 2012 13:49 EchelonTee wrote: I don't think making hard fast rules on behavior/insulting is a good idea. seems a bit too restrictive; in mafia you have to be able to criticize and call out people. my current game, NMM1 got more heated than usual, but it was easily tempered by GMarshal warning us. I haven't seen anything worse than my game yet, TBH. I don't think we should be putting hard and fast rules in place, rather it should be an attitude thing. As you said as soon as GM asked you to stop, you did. That is all it takes, hosts to ask and players to listen. | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
I think the requirement for a person to have hosted (or cohosted) a game on TL is a good one. Is that complicated? Yes. It might be needed for making sure fairness is felt as a main undertone to something like this. | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
On February 15 2012 13:28 redFF wrote: In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want. 100%. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
you guys act like the mafia forum is some kind of country or political entity or something. Its not that fucking complicated. Bottom line is. If I spend my time hosting a game I dont give a shit what someone on some "council" thinks about who should be punished in it or who shouldnt. Hosts get to decide who can play or who cant play in their games. keeping a modkill list for host reference is fine. Anything further than this is pretty much just people getting off on bossing people around. | ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
On February 15 2012 15:35 Coagulation wrote: out of respect to GM who requested I take it easy on the ban list... I will try to formulate this in as civil a manner as possible. you guys act like the mafia forum is some kind of country or political entity or something. Its not that fucking complicated. Bottom line is. If I spend my time hosting a game I dont give a shit what someone on some "council" thinks about who should be punished in it or who shouldnt. Hosts get to decide who can play or who cant play in their games. keeping a modkill list for host reference is fine. Anything further than this is pretty much just people getting off on bossing people around. That's pretty much how it is already. Hosts can choose to follow the banlist or not. I don't think you've ever had the experience of hosting but when someone gets modkilled or doesn't ever post or show any interest in the game it's infuriating that all your hard work goes to waste. The banlist is there for the hosts to be aware of who would ruin their games. You keep talking shit about the banlist for whatever reason you have but personally I (and I'm sure a lot of other people who put legitimate effort into playing/hosting Mafia here) would never play nor host a game if the banlist were gone. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
I disagree. Showing respect for other players is essential. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On February 15 2012 16:01 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I disagree. Showing respect for other players is essential. So just my 2 cents, one thing that I always thought there should be as little restriction on as possible was in-game activity, simply because mafia is a social game driven largely by social interaction. This means that how you act socially affects the game and I think you should be allowed to play however you think is best which may very well include being disrespectful in some instances intentionally. That said of course players should be stopped at outright abusing other players and if after the game it's clear that there was no goal to someone acting disrespectful and no conceivable gain from it they should be punished but I think during and in the game players should be allowed as much freedom as they can get in how they act. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
As such, someone may be less lenient towards inactive players while another may emphasize civility more. I would personally be extremely hostile towards players who constantly and quite likely willfully ignore activity requirements. Some hosts almost never issue a ban from inactivity and again we have variance/arbitrariness. As long as the requested bans are mostly in line with what is generally accepted, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to have variance, or what you seem to refer to as arbitrariness. Moreover, hosts are also allowed to ban players at will from the games they personally host, and I feel if we move towards the direction you propose, they may simply do that instead if they aren't satisfied with the decision of this council. I realize that you merely propose the council to handle difficult issues, but I do not think there is a way to define what that is. The emphasis should be on what the host wants as long as it is reasonable and not on what the "community" wants. The community defines general standards of conduct and sets limits as to what kind of rules are acceptable, but beyond that hosts should be given some leeway in applying these standards in practice. Players shouldn't take bans too seriously. Even if you are a respected, long-time member of the community, you shouldn't be offended if you for instance get a ban for inactivity. | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
I think Syllo hit the spot. Don't take bans to seriously. Games pop up rather often so stting out 1-3 games aren't that long a period of time anyway. As I understand no one have ever been banned for doing stuff inside the rules. That means that whoever gets a ban deserved it. The discussion is only about how low the ban should be or how severe the offence is (should they even get a ban?). If people just took bans less serious and when breaking a rule got banned without drama it would work fine. + Show Spoiler + The last drama I read was about RoL ban from Purgatory due to inactivity and other minor stuff. If RoL had just taken the ban and thought "meh" there would have been no drama. It's because the bans are veiwed as something aweful that the problem occured. It was only 1 game ban... The only thing I would change is that played games without rulebreaking should remove your ban history. I would get annoyed if I had a ban 1 year ago for something minor and then got another ban for something minor and the ban was longer because of my prior offence. No reason to remove history if people aren't playing as was pointed out by Mr. Wiggles. All in all I think the council is overkill. The small issues with the banlist does not warrent a council in my opinion. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5261 Posts
On February 15 2012 16:01 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I disagree. Showing respect for other players is essential. This area is pretty grey... 100% either way does not seem right. Which is why, I suppose, a lot of people are saying 'leave it to the hosts'. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
I agree with redFF that when in-game you should be able to post however you want. This is based on me seeing the game as a role-playing game. If I decide that it's in my benefit to role-play a dick, I'll be a dick. However, this needs to be at the discretion of the host of said game. I still agree that over the top insults and pointless flaming should be avoided at all costs. What everyone needs to understand is that when you sign up for a game, you are agreeing to obey to the host's rules. If you don't like those rules you are free to not sign up, and explain why you aren't willing to sign up. Once signed up, the game is at the host's discretion, and you need to follow his rules. And hosts differ very much in their opinion. I, just like syllogism, am not able to find these instances of people banning other people out of pure spite. It's mostly been down to slightly different opinions, or so it has looked to me. Coagulation and redFF are pushing a system where hosts themselves just decide whether or not people can play in their games. This is to an extent already the case, however you seem to be missing some of the downsides of that system. The banlist gives a centralized reference system that all hosts can "hide" behind when making decisions on who gets to play in their game. If I just decided that player X was a dick and I didn't want him in my game, then the only open game for signups is my game, player X might get really pissed off. This might actually increase the drama related to banlists, if every host starts managing their own. Another problem is that with the number of hosts here on TL, the effects of breaking rules will be much less severe if every host starts following their own idea of who should be allowed to play, since it might take months until you actually feel any downside to breaking rules. Think about this. It's completely up to the host of the game whether or not they use the banlist, yet almost every host on TL uses it. Seriously, if we closed down the banlist, I'd message some of the other hosts and ask them to help me create an unofficial centralized banlist where we share our resources, which would end up in exactly the same situation, except it'd be unofficial. The reason the banlist gets used is that the majority of people like the banlist. I am for example a big fan of it, and I try to contribute with my opinions as much as I can. About the council idea I'm kind of indifferent about it. I thought we voted Mig in to do exactly what the council seems to be supposed to doing, which is to decide after reading both the host's and the player's case, whether or not a punishment is in order, and how severe it should be. And I mean... sorry to say, but we already know which people would end up on this council. These people are already influential in the community anyway. So I don't see how much creating this council would change. Wouldn't the first step be to simply start using Mig to make these decisions, or replace him if he's too busy. I don't know how much background work he is doing. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On February 15 2012 23:22 Bill Murray wrote: i feel like i've been banned out of spite Haven't you cheated twice already? | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
Poll: Which method do you favor? Current system with the banlist kept as is. (10) The new proposal as outlined in this thread's opening post or a modified but very similar idea. (3) No banlist. Hosts choose to allow or not allow players into thier games without aid from a banlist. (2) 15 total votes Your vote: Which method do you favor? (Vote): Current system with the banlist kept as is. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
The idea of a community elected council sounds enticing. I would be in favor of this, but (and no offense to Qatol) I think GM should be the only permanent member, and there should only be three members. Three is a better number than five. Removing the banlist wouldn't serve any purpose since the banlist is an optional thing for hosts. I am in favor of the OP idea with only one permanent member and 3 total members ( 2 elected) with a work-release program for those on the banlist :D | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
Centralised banlist with possibility to discuss is the best banlist system ever invented. Decentralised banlist would suck so much I'd just go away from here. | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
| ||
