EPTProposal to Revamp the Banlist - Page 9
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Scamp
United States1086 Posts
I appreciate the game of mafia because it is a game of deception and convincing. I continue to play because I want to test new things and experience new tactics. Nothing is more interesting than a new situation where I have to use my best judgement in order to make the best decisions. Nothing is more exciting than some new creative play that makes me re-evaluate all I thought I knew from previous experiences. None of this ties into being a complete and utter douche or attempting to cross the line of common decency. Moderators in recent games have had to come down harshly on off-topic spam, and that's nowhere even close to as bad a problem as ruthlessly attacking someone can be. I personally think that intentionally insulting someone even close to the line is inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances. Now, granted, I understand that it's hard to enforce because it is a judgment call. One person's line is different than another, and so on. But it certainly should be enforced. I do not appreciate the playing to win aspect of being a complete douchebag. I don't care if you think it'll help you win, it's blatantly inappropriate and in my opinion has no place in this game. I think that if you have to resort to these kinds of tactics that you are actually trying to destroy the game. I must defer that in this argument I am assuming that people know the difference between calling someone a moron and being highly inflammatory. The details could take several pages. tl;dr: I understand that it is subjective and difficult to enforce but being intentionally inflammatory beyond common decency has no place in this game, ever. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
If GMarshal suddenly becomes busy, disinterested, lynched or otherwise occupied, we cannot replace him and keep the system going. While using a normal banlist moderator, all that needs to be done is to copy and paste the content to a new thread and keep it going from there. On February 16 2012 10:20 Ver wrote: The real problem is that the banlist is basically entirely in the host's control because frankly I don't think (judging from his actions, haven't talked to him on this) Flamewheel wants to be the banlist moderator. Banlist moderator is a thankless job I doubt anyone wants in the first place. You have to do a bunch of annoying stuff and the only effect is having to deal with dumb drama and angry people occasionally. Then we just need to replace Flamewheel out of that position. Mig wanted to do it but he's gone missing. I would 100% support GMarshal into the position of a normal banlist moderator. I would even do it myself, but being kinda controversial in general I doubt people would like that much, and I think GM would be a much better choice. I am certain we have plenty of people that are willing to take the responsibility of the position. Flamewheel can either completely drop his position, or stay on as a record keeper/scribe, where he is in charge of recording bans and keeping the banlist updated, while another person (GM?) is responsible for making the judgement calls. It is probably a good idea to maintain a tag-team of two people in charge of the banlist, one for being the judge, and another for records and management. The reason being both are time-consuming. This is actually what I thought we were implementing when we voted Mig into office. I though Flamewheel would be updating the thread and managing people sittingout and such, while Mig was meant to read up on difficult situations, listen to arguments and make the right calls. But alas, it seems like we're stuck with a system where the hosts make the calls, and Flamewheel records them. This may be due to Mig having less time to devote to the Banlist than expected, so why not solve the problem in the simplest way? | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
| ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On February 17 2012 00:05 flamewheel wrote: I don't have any problem keeping track (scribing). GMarshal can be the Vader to my Palpatine. More like GM can be the CEO to your secretary. | ||
|
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
On February 17 2012 00:05 flamewheel wrote: I don't have any problem keeping track (scribing). GMarshal can be the Vader to my Palpatine. I need an adult... On topic: I like this solution more than the OP. | ||
|
Nameless Hero
Denmark15 Posts
On February 17 2012 00:05 flamewheel wrote: I don't have any problem keeping track (scribing). GMarshal can be the Vader to my Palpatine. The jokes on you, I'm recruiting Luke Skywalker! Viva la resistance! | ||
|
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On February 17 2012 00:12 redFF wrote: More like GM can be the CEO to your secretary. This sounds good to me. Tag team between flamewheel and GM sounds eminently reasonable if they're able to put in the time. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On February 17 2012 00:40 flamewheel wrote: Very well, this be war. And no damn ewoks will be helping ye this time. I knew this was coming. I warned all the dangers of accepting sith lightening user into high bastion of society, and now the darkness has befallen over the republic. Herein cometh the dark ages... + Show Spoiler + I'll agree with this decision for now since it is far better than council, but I will be once again be bringing up the necessity of this two-man rule when controversial event occurs that sparks forum-wide discussion. | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
That being said, I think there needs to be a system of foregoing bans/warnings. For example, if Zona's request on a ban for me went through it wouldn't be a 1 game, it would be a two game ban because I got modded by incognito for inactivity 2 years ago, There were outlying circumstances but that doesn't matter right now. I think for players that have proved themselves and their inactivity could be a fluke they DESERVE preferential treatment for playing in 20-30 games before getting modkilled. The way the current system is by just virtue of playing you are bound by laws of probability to eventually incur a ban and have to serve it out. There will be 3 days where your power is out and a host kills you even if everything around that was pure activity from you and quite frankly I don't think that does forum regulars justice and only hurts the games by disallowing active players for one minor infraction over 30 games. I'd be fine with a 1 game ban removal for every 5 games played. This obviously wouldn't apply to anything behavioral based. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On February 17 2012 04:15 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: I'd be fine with a 1 game ban removal for every 5 games played. This obviously wouldn't apply to anything behavioral based. I strongly agree with this, but I believe a 10 game increment rather than a 5 game increment would be more appropriate. I feel like 5 games isn't enough time to work off an inactivity ban, but 10 games shows some real commitment / forum regularity. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On February 17 2012 05:20 Blazinghand wrote: I strongly agree with this, but I believe a 10 game increment rather than a 5 game increment would be more appropriate. I feel like 5 games isn't enough time to work off an inactivity ban, but 10 games shows some real commitment / forum regularity. [EDIT]Nvm I agree with Blazinghand | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
[edit]<3 | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
| ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
Or if it just counts towards dismissing a whole ban, and not 10 games played = -1 game of ban, that could work. | ||
| ||
