A handful of the long-time members of the TL Mafia forum have recently been discussing the state of the banlist, and we are all of the opinion that some sort of change needs to take place.
The banlist used to be a place where people would actively discuss and share their opinions until a consensus was reached. These days the ban list is an incredible eye sore to read. People demand ridiculous punishments seemingly out of pure spite, discussion seems to be one extreme argument versus another, and because of a lack of community input, flamewheel has just been letting hosts have the final word. While the banlist is still serving its original purpose (keeping the pesky inactive players in check) everyone seems to feel that the banlist is not properly fulfilling its duty towards behavior bans.
While there is no easy answer to fix this problem we feel that there are some concepts we want to preserve while trying to revamp the ban list. As I stated above, the banlist on TL Mafia has always emphasized the "community decision" over one person deciding the outcome every single time. As it has always been, people should be able to freely express their opinions on any of the matters at hand. Furthermore, we want a system that should be flexible to growth should our forum expand.
Right now a lot of punishments feel so arbitrary as the hosts are the ones handing out the bans, and it's impossible to know how the host feels about each issue. That said, continuity should be an important part of our system. We want to put the emphasis on the players instead of the host, so that the players know exactly what to expect out of the banlist. And of course if it doesn't work out we can always revert back and learn from the experience.
Our proposal is to create a council of a few members who are quality users of our forum to decide the outcome of the bans. These members would be the decision makers for each of the bans in question. Of course this is only needed when we have bans where the punishment is not obvious (the council need not worry about simple inactivity bans). Anybody is free to put in their opinion, and it's the council's responsibility for considering all the points of view before making a decision.
Currently the thought is that the council will have five members. Qatol and GMarshal have both agreed to be members, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with either of these two being on. The remaining three members will be elected from the community by vote. Anyone who has hosted a game is able to run. The banlist moderator no longer has a decision making role unless he chooses to run for a position on the council, otherwise his job is merely to record the decisions of the council (and of course dealing with all the bans the council is not needed for).
Remember, the council only exists to settle bans (mostly behavioral) which the punishment is not obvious for. And not all the members of the council need to comment on every issue that is presented. We also reserve the right to replace people on the council if they aren't being responsible about the job (though the exact criterion for this has not been decided).
--Foolishness
Note: please keep the discussion in this topic related to the banlist and the idea of the council. We always have a list of things that need to be changed/improved, but we want to stay focused on this idea for now. Of course, if you have suggestions/ideas for improving something else about the forum (such as the queue, hosting games, the library, writing guides, etc) do not hesitate to PM me.
If this actually passes through all people on said council need to be elected. People being able to proxy into this setup just will prompt similar annoyance with the banlist thread in here as it will seem like the same people running the stuff again, just instead of 1 person it would be 5.
Either all are elected or find a new setup. Also a host should still IMO have complete control on insta pushing forward warnings in this system. If he wants someone warned council should auto put it through provided its not a reason like "i hate this guy".
Bans are usually always the controversial issue and usually its the severity in which minor infractions purposeful or not can bring.
From my understanding surely a way for bans/warnings to expire and keeping the current system is optimal. I mean hosts should have the right to have a say in how punishments from their games are carried out. I think the issue is that warnings etc stay on the list forever. Surely better to have an amnesty after a couple of months or something. It makes the list easier to handle and means that people who leave the forum due to a ban can come back and play if they waited long enough. Making them sitout games seems unnecessary to me if they haven't played in ages.
As for this council thing, I don't see how it is much different from what is currently in place. To me the most important thing is that the host gets a say. Aside from that, I am pretty easy.
1. council members rotate out (like beginning of each year or something. year is a long time) 2. for important "council decisions", all 5 council members need to have an opinion. that ensures that decisions come from a decent variation of viewpoints. Otherwise, if there is an issue, and someone on the council does not like the person in question while the rest of the council is indifferent, that one council member could invoke the ban if the other 4 aren't free to comment/don't care.
I don't mind being elected (I'm actually kinda confused about why I'm being proxied in), but I think GMarshal should be put in automatically because of his position in the staff as our staff liason. The whole point of this group is to deal with the situations which are extremely emotional and likely to require TL staff intervention. This group needs a solid working relationship with the TL staff, and I think having GMarshal as part of it will ease that.
I'm not going to comment on the actual proposal here because I'm still undecided on whether I like it. Will comment later after thinking about it more.
On February 15 2012 12:15 Probulous wrote: Newbie here.
From my understanding surely a way for bans/warnings to expire and keeping the current system is optimal. I mean hosts should have the right to have a say in how punishments from their games are carried out. I think the issue is that warnings etc stay on the list forever. Surely better to have an amnesty after a couple of months or something. It makes the list easier to handle and means that people who leave the forum due to a ban can come back and play if they waited long enough. Making them sitout games seems unnecessary to me if they haven't played in ages.
As for this council thing, I don't see how it is much different from what is currently in place. To me the most important thing is that the host gets a say. Aside from that, I am pretty easy.
The problem with players getting off with time, is that you get players who get modkilled, and then come back later, only to be modkilled again. Sitting out games means they actually have to care enough to come back and get removed from the banned game list. Then, if they get modkilled again, anyways, they have to care enough to sit out three games, and so on. It stops things like people from showing up on their christmas break, getting modkilled, showing up again on summer break, getting modkilled, etc.
I'd be fine removing warnings/ban counts based on games played without incident since they were issued, though. That shows that someone's actually playing and caring enough to not get modkilled.
@RedFF:
I don't really like the idea of WOTC, since it can introduce certain players not being able to play simply due to personality or playstyle, and it feels like it can be abused.
I'm fine with host blacklists, though, and don't they already exist? I know some hosts won't let some players play in their games.
On-topic:
I"m not sure how much I like the idea of a council deciding punishments. Would all decision making processes of the council be made public? For example, PM logs, IRC logs, or however they decide on something? Would their decision making meetings be able to be sat in on by unrelated people to ensure consistency? How often would they be elected, and how often would they be changed? Do they have to keep any minimum level of activity and effort?
There's a lot of questions I feel need to be addressed, to ensure transparency, consistency, and fairness, if we wanted to do a council.
I don't like the idea of a council, we should restrict it to people who saw the game Discuss the bans post-game and then talk about them here (ie talk about them in the game thread) A council here after the initial discussion could work.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
I really like that you're trying to make the ban list more democratic, but I'm not sure that making a small council of people (even if they are popularly elected) is the way to do it. It still strikes me as a kind of insular arrangement, as it would just create a small oligarchy to make major decisions, which isn't really much more democratic than having the host decide. Thus, I don't think having a council would really make the ban list that much less contentious. In addition, behavior bans really don't come up all that often, though I know that when they do pop up, they cause a lot of discussion and drama. The vast majority of bans are handed out due to inactivity and failing to vote, though. So, it seems kind of like overkill to go through the trouble of electing people to the council on a regular basis, just to handle possible drama maybe once every few months.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
Well this is where we disagree. It isn't my decision but I would be happy if we could stomp it out.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
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.
The best method is simply for hosts to choose whether or not they want a player in their game. Have a post-game discussion thread or keep track of players who are modkilled for not voting and let them make their own appeals. Hosts can use their own judgment to decide whether they want to let a player in their game or not.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
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.
I think there needs to be members that are regulars on this council and there needs to also be 'elected from the community' members. This will help keep the forum from becoming to divided among new and old. The elected members should be replaced without allowing back to back reelection at a repeating interval of like 1-6 months (don't know what is ideal).
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.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
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.
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.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
100%.
I disagree. Showing respect for other players is essential.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
100%.
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.
I do not agree that hosts have been demanding ridiculous punishments "seemingly out of pure spite". Unless you are referring to something much older, the recent issues have been matters of slight differences in opinion. Obviously when the ban lengths are mostly left to the discretion of the host, there will be some variance. I however feel that this is acceptable, as hosts are also allowed to have their own rules and get players banned for breaking them. When you join a game, you should also understand that a similar rule may have a different significance to a different host. Of course, ideally the host should make that clear.
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.
I'm quite new here and don't know much about the banlist-drama that you talk about. I will however spill my thought..
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.
On February 15 2012 12:54 redFF wrote: just keep the current format and only ban for modkills or specifically playing against wincon/ruining the game.
Any bm can be handled by hosts and other players fine.
The games in here can get aggressive enough as it is. This would probably lead to worse insulting and general shitty play. I am all for hosts clamping down on people insulting others. The general feelings that insults are fine here is the one thing that annoys me about the mafia forum. I would be really happy if we could stamp them out.
In game is in game and you should be able to post how you want.
100%.
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'.
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.
Why not just have a voting system preformed by all the people in the game where the accused did said punishable deed. Or if the ban has been a long time coming extend the vote to past games as well, it'll be just like lynching.
The new proposal as outlined in this thread's opening post or a modified but very similar idea. (3)
20%
No banlist. Hosts choose to allow or not allow players into thier games without aid from a banlist. (2)
13%
15 total votes
Your vote: Which method do you favor?
(Vote): Current system with the banlist kept as is. (Vote): The new proposal as outlined in this thread's opening post or a modified but very similar idea. (Vote): No banlist. Hosts choose to allow or not allow players into thier games without aid from a banlist.
In my (limited) experience so far, the banlist seems to be serving its function. I'd like to see some sort of amnesty deal for accumulated bans based on games played-- if I should for example get banned once, then play 15 or so games, then get banned a second time or something.
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
How about no? 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.
I think Palmar hit it on the head. It seems to be doing it's intended job, as far as I can tell. Rules and guidelines are there for a reason. I'd like to think that, if nothing else, the Banlist keeps this forum from turning into a shithole. I think the sanctions are fine, and I think the reasons that warnings/bans occur are fine, too.
I think a council would be good. I think my ideal situation would be similar to what Foolishness proposed, but I would like to detail my idea as well.
There are two lists. Call them what you will, but for the purpose of this, I will detail it as "Class A" and "Class B."
Host A bans Player A for being inactive and not voting in the thread. Host A decides to place a One-Game Ban for Player A. This situation is pretty cut and dry. The rule [must vote each cycle] was broken. This rule could be classified as a "Class A" rule. It's cut and dry. No if's, and's, or but's. You broke it. Jig is up. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Sit out you're ban, come back in two weeks.
The "Class B" scenario is something a bit more complex. These could be rule infractions involved around disrespect, ruining games, leaking parts of you're Role PM when specified in the rules not to; things that are up in the air and subjective to each person. In this case, the issue would be resolved by the individuals on the council. It would go to them, they would vote, and decide on whether it was reasonable to say that the offense took place.
This is just my personal opinion, but beyond the set-up, I think a few things need to be installed in the system if a council would be instituted.
First, I think there should be one or two alternate's elected as well. These players have no say in anything, unless one of the players on the Council is involved in the game somehow.
To open old wounds, if iGrok was on the council, and redFF was banned in his game, iGrok should be subbed out for an alternate. Impartiality is key. Also, I think the key number in the situation would have to be three or five people. Seven is too much. Lastly, rotating players out is going to have to be a must. People shouldn't be able to hold the position for too long.
In my experience, the more complicated the system the less effective that it is; and systems like these always end up complicated. This "democratic" council system would need countless provisions; what if someone on the council is misbehaving (i.e. going light on their friends)? Is there a way to remove them? Is there an arbitration process for this? What if one goes in active, what if they resign; can "special elections" be held? Are the 3 elected members rotating? And if so when are elections, are there term limits? Is campaigning allowed? Can a member of the council play games, and if so what happens if they get banned? Does the council have a quorum? What happens if someone doesn't show up and the vote is 2-2?
See, before you know it you've got 20 pages of Council bylaws and a compicated nominaions and elections process. And with good reason, systems like this need that much consideration or an unforseen event can send the whole thing into stagnation or worse.
Remember: KiSS.
Also this whole thread is filled with unintentional references to LoTRs, Babylon 5, and Mass Effect. I'm such a nerd. :D
Mayor: Er, Master Betty, what is the Evil Council's plan? Master Betty: Nyah. Haha. It is EVIL, it is so EVIL. It is a bad, bad plan, which will hurt many... people... who are good. I think it's great that it's so bad.
On February 16 2012 03:29 TheToast wrote: In my experience, the more complicated the system the less effective that it is; and systems like these always end up complicated. This "democratic" council system would need countless provisions; what if someone on the council is misbehaving (i.e. going light on their friends)? Is there a way to remove them? Is there an arbitration process for this? What if one goes in active, what if they resign; can "special elections" be held? Are the 3 elected members rotating? And if so when are elections, are there term limits? Is campaigning allowed? Can a member of the council play games, and if so what happens if they get banned? Does the council have a quorum? What happens if someone doesn't show up and the vote is 2-2?
See, before you know it you've got 20 pages of Council bylaws and a compicated nominaions and elections process. And with good reason, systems like this need that much consideration or an unforseen event can send the whole thing into stagnation or worse.
Well see this is why we have the other branch of the TL Mafia government-- a judicial branch. After each set of elections, GMarshal nominates (or confirms) the Supreme Justice. The other two Councillors can veto GMarshal's nomination if they are both against it.
If there is an idea that someone on the council is misbehaving, the Supreme Justice may initiate a pro tempore suspension of the member pending investigation by the provisional Ethics Committee, which will be elected in the event this happens. Also, this can be done by a 10+ person petition to the Supreme Justice. During a period of suspension, the Supreme Justice will cast tie-breaking votes in the Council.
Elections will be every 6 months-- each Councillor has a 6 month term, and may be re-elected once before having to sit out for a 6 month term. Members of the Council may play games, but anything involving those games will require them to sit out and for the Supreme Justice to cast the third vote in their place. Two members of the Council may not play in the same game.
The Council has a quorum of 2 members, the minimum necessary to pass a vote. The 2nd member may be the Supreme Justice, but only if the first member is an elected Councillor.
EDIT: like, this sounds complicated, but it's really not. We just have a guy around to resolve issues and break ties basically
[10:48] BH: but honestly you'd need a "tie breaker" dude [10:48] BH: who could resolve issues [10:48] BH: if we were gonna implement this [10:48] V7: honestly it should be if a host requests ban or warning for something from a game [10:48] V7: he does just that [10:48] V7: lol [10:56] V7: i think 7 months is too long of a councillor term [10:56] V7: 6* [10:56] BH: maybe 3? [10:56] V7: I think it should 101 days and 2 hours [10:56] BH: wat [10:56] V7: trust me [10:57] BH: why 2 hours [10:57] V7: because 3 would be fucking dumb [10:57] V7: -_- [10:57] BH: >.> [10:57] V7: duh. [10:59] V7: should take a 26 person petition so that no single group from 1 game can overwhelm the system [10:59] V7: we also need to have a system [11:00] V7: to ensure no smufs get ellected [11:00] V7: thats simple cuz TL tracks that already [11:00] V7: but it needs to be in there [11:00] V7: we should probably require an age check to be elected [11:00] V7: just cuz you are a regular user [11:00] V7: doesnt mean your 15 year old mind is gonna make calls for everyone [11:01] V7: we would need an offical record of decisions too [11:01] V7: cant like have one decision made in one way and then another way [11:01] BH: we should have an official secretary [11:01] V7: that way appointed 'lawyers' can help people that dont get the system [11:01] BH: and an archives section of the library [11:01] BH: yeah we'd beed 4-5 lawyers i imagine [11:01] BH: who maintain and understand the archives [11:02] V7: these lawyers would have to be properly trained [11:02] V7: and able to produce certificates proving so upon request [11:02] V7: now for enforcement [11:02] V7: we need guns [11:02] V7: lots of them. [11:02] V7: and a dungeon [11:02] BH: well not a dungeon [11:02] BH: more of a holding pen [11:03] V7: whatever makes you sleep better at night [11:03] BH: lol
[11:04] V7: i think the point is valid that a system like this just [11:04] V7: either is too small [11:04] V7: or too big [11:04] V7: you cant make it 'just right'
So.. The current banlist hands out bans for offences such as inactivity. These offences are simple to deal with as they are a case of a player breaking a rule and receiving the punishment for breaking that rule. The proposal will not change this.
With some offences, like behavioural offences the punishment is less clear cut and individuals can have wildly different opinions.The way these offences are currently being dealt with is largely down to the host in question, which results in inconsistency and leads to drama. It is being proposed that we introduce a council of players that players will choose to make the decisions. This council will then make the decisions about contentious bans.Since the same people will make all of the contentious decisions, there will be more consistency in the decisions that are reached.By electing the members of the council it is hoped that the decisions will not only be fairer but that they will reflect the wishes of the community.
I think that this is a fairly good idea. For me the main question is whether or not it is worth taking these steps to deal with issues that do not arise very often.
Would elections for council members be done in a separate thread?
On February 16 2012 03:01 Jitsu wrote: First, I think there should be one or two alternate's elected as well. These players have no say in anything, unless one of the players on the Council is involved in the game somehow.
To open old wounds, if iGrok was on the council, and redFF was banned in his game, iGrok should be subbed out for an alternate. Impartiality is key. Also, I think the key number in the situation would have to be three or five people. Seven is too much. Lastly, rotating players out is going to have to be a must. People shouldn't be able to hold the position for too long.
This is important.
Simplifying my opinion here: PRO * Ensures that people making the verdict do not have direct interest on the matter. * Their decision has legitimacy due to the fact they have been elected.
CON * Complicated. * Difficult system to sustain over long periods of time.
Hesmyrr kinda just made it clear why this will be hard to male work. Different small aspects of this will be very important to different people. For this sysmte to be good it needs to precise and big enough to handle all of those issues while being small enough that it doesn't take on a mind of its own. I dont think we will find a solution that offers both at the same time so it will be flawed from the start.
On February 16 2012 02:15 Kurumi wrote: How about no? 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.
this
no council you power hungry idiots. The banlist is working fine.
Just realized I wasn't clear on my position. I think while there are benefits, there is no need to deviate from 'everyone discuss at ban thread in order to make decision' pattern here. I understand it can place severe burden on the individual maintaining the list, but he could temporarily give his duties to someone in order to take a break.
The "Council" is an over-complicated, ineffective solution to a mostly non-existent problem.
As someone said before me, if people would stop seeing a ban as the end of the world, we'd be fine. For example, RoL fighting so hard about a warning was completely unnecessary - just take the warning, it doesn't have any impact if you want to play. A one ban game is roughly 2 weeks - thats not all that long, suck it up.
Hosts are already allowed to decide not to follow the banlist, or ban specific players from joining their games (though I think myself and possibly Zona are the only people to have host blacklists).
In summary, don't fix what ain't broke, and take your punishment like a man.
On February 16 2012 04:52 Jitsu wrote: I'll be District Attorney.
Hesmyrr is going down.
I think we've just come up with a great new game theme: TL Mafia forum Mafia game.
Roles so far:
Supreme Councilor Vanilla TL'er GMarshal
Inactive Player Lawyer
Also @redFF, pre-Marius reform Ancient Rome used "Consuls" not councilors. A consul was also actually like a commander-in-cheif of the armed forces on behalf of the Roman Senate.
I pretty much agree with Syllo/Dirkzor/Palmar. The only change I'd like to see to the current banlist is something along the lines of after x games with no bans/warnings, a prior ban/warning is removed from your record on the banlist. This change seems terribly complicated and unnecessary, and I am far from convinced that it will actually be any better than the current system.
On February 16 2012 05:11 Hesmyrr wrote: Don't like how it is automatic though. If I wanted to know which thread I posted in, I could just click 'Post' and be done with it.
I think as you say a small group of carefully chosen people could handle these rare cases. 3 might be to few and 7 would be to many but 5 veteran members known to be fair sounds good. They could likely do an impeccable job and I don't see any problem with a council-process when it comes to making sure the correct decision is reached.
I'm for it if the idea is to create a thread for this purpose. "Disputable Banlist/Punnishment Discussion" or something along those lines and run by the council. These special cases would be appealed here and discussed publicly here. It would provide a simple way for members wanting to weigh in. There will be people not chosen who will have sensible opinions and they should in my opinion always be encouraged to express them. In the end the council will have the undisputed final word.
As for the election process I don't like the idea of sitting in periods. Being on the council is a responsibilty, some of the people here seems to mistake it for power and status. It's just extra work. As such I think it would keep a higher quality without those sort of limitations. They should sit as long as they are the best for the job. I have trust that if a councilmember feels that he is not longer optimal for the job due to various reasons, for example not having enough time or if someone else could do a better job he would voluntarily step down. If a councilmember doesn't and the forum feels he should a confidence vote could resolve it.
How are the 5 choosen and what prerequisites must they fullfil? How should that thread be structured, who can post in it, who would maintain the OP? Explain how you bring an appeal before the council. Can a council overturn a previous ruling? what is the procedure for a council member stepping down? How do we start the process of a no confodence vote?
Keep in mind we are people that like to play a game that is centered on abusing small print while leading/manipulating others to do our will. These things have to be clear before anything can go into effect.
The Ban List as currently constructed is really good imo. It's so damn hard to even GET on the ban list that ending up on it multiple times probably means you deserve it. Just about every game from what I remember had 24 hour or even 48 hour phases and only required you to post once and vote.
Keep it as is. It's optional and lets everyone know who the unreliable players are at a glance.
On February 16 2012 05:29 vaderseven wrote: @risknuke
How are the 5 choosen and what prerequisites must they fullfil? How should that thread be structured, who can post in it, who would maintain the OP? Explain how you bring an appeal before the council. Can a council overturn a previous ruling? what is the procedure for a council member stepping down? How do we start the process of a no confodence vote?
Keep in mind we are people that like to play a game that is centered on abusing small print while leading/manipulating others to do our will. These things have to be clear before anything can go into effect.
I'll try to answer your questions to the best of what I can think of but I am not in charge of this idea and I am only sharing my thoughts on it. + Show Spoiler +
How are the 5 choosen and what prerequisites must they fullfil? Reread the original OP.+ Show Spoiler +
Currently the thought is that the council will have five members. Qatol and GMarshal have both agreed to be members, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with either of these two being on. The remaining three members will be elected from the community by vote. Anyone who has hosted a game is able to run. The banlist moderator no longer has a decision making role unless he chooses to run for a position on the council, otherwise his job is merely to record the decisions of the council (and of course dealing with all the bans the council is not needed for).
How should that thread be structured? The OP should include the information about what the thread is for and maybe provide helping guidelines for how you should structure your appeal. You then post your appeal in the thread.
How do you bring an appeal before the council? Post your appeal in the thread.
Who would maintain the OP? The current council would maintain the OP.
Who can post in the thread? Everyone. However continuous inappropriate posting here should not be tolerated.
Can a council overturn a previous ruling? Yes, I think it should be within their rights.
What is the procedure for a council member stepping down? The member in question announces it. This is voluntary work. There will then be an election process for the open position.
How do we start the process of a no confidence vote? I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be. Possible posting it in the thread.
Keep in mind we are people that like to play a game that is centered on abusing small print while leading/manipulating others to do our will.
On February 16 2012 05:29 vaderseven wrote: @risknuke
How are the 5 choosen and what prerequisites must they fullfil? How should that thread be structured, who can post in it, who would maintain the OP? Explain how you bring an appeal before the council. Can a council overturn a previous ruling? what is the procedure for a council member stepping down? How do we start the process of a no confodence vote?
Keep in mind we are people that like to play a game that is centered on abusing small print while leading/manipulating others to do our will. These things have to be clear before anything can go into effect.
I'll try to answer your questions to the best of what I can think of but I am not in charge of this idea and I am only sharing my thoughts on it. + Show Spoiler +
How are the 5 choosen and what prerequisites must they fullfil? Reread the original OP.+ Show Spoiler +
Currently the thought is that the council will have five members. Qatol and GMarshal have both agreed to be members, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with either of these two being on. The remaining three members will be elected from the community by vote. Anyone who has hosted a game is able to run. The banlist moderator no longer has a decision making role unless he chooses to run for a position on the council, otherwise his job is merely to record the decisions of the council (and of course dealing with all the bans the council is not needed for).
How should that thread be structured? The OP should include the information about what the thread is for and maybe provide helping guidelines for how you should structure your appeal. You then post your appeal in the thread.
How do you bring an appeal before the council? Post your appeal in the thread.
Who would maintain the OP? The current council would maintain the OP.
Who can post in the thread? Everyone. However continuous inappropriate posting here should not be tolerated.
Can a council overturn a previous ruling? Yes, I think it should be within their rights.
What is the procedure for a council member stepping down? The member in question announces it. This is voluntary work. There will then be an election process for the open position.
How do we start the process of a no confidence vote? I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be. Possible posting it in the thread.
We should convene a constitutional convention of regulars to see if we can achieve a quorum for to implement a new set of rules, then draft and ratify them, then submit to the general TL Mafia electorate to see if this sort of thing is reasonable (since even non-veterans should have something of a say imo)
On February 16 2012 06:59 Blazinghand wrote: We should convene a constitutional convention of regulars to see if we can achieve a quorum for to implement a new set of rules, then draft and ratify them, then submit to the general TL Mafia electorate to see if this sort of thing is reasonable (since even non-veterans should have something of a say imo)
We shall call those men, those special individuals, the Founding Forumers. We will succeed from TL, and the blasted Redhammer won't be able to suppress us.
On February 16 2012 06:59 Blazinghand wrote: We should convene a constitutional convention of regulars to see if we can achieve a quorum for to implement a new set of rules, then draft and ratify them, then submit to the general TL Mafia electorate to see if this sort of thing is reasonable (since even non-veterans should have something of a say imo)
We shall call those men, those special individuals, the Founding Forumers. We will succeed from TL, and the blasted Redhammer won't be able to suppress us.
Wat I might be a little over the top but I do think that there should be two phases to revamping the banlist. The first should be seeing if the majority of vets are for it-- then, these vet should make some amendments, then we can see what the general TL Mafia public thinks. I think this is totes reasonable.
to be clear, I also like the current system actually having read the debates. I would like some sort of work-release thing for people who have played a lot since their last ban or whatever though
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
for a banlist to work, favoritism and cutting corners should not happen. Banlist is a banlist. an abuse is an abuse. I also dont like permaban unless the infraction was ridiculously offensive to the community or deliberate attempts to ruin experiences, etc etc. I dont like banning for insults, Mafia is intense but control on it is necessary regardless
i think what i say is sensible so i'll leave it at that. no problem otherwise
On February 16 2012 07:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I can't tell who's trolling or not.
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
goddamn this is hilarious
but its sad in that this is similar to what qatol and foolishness want
How about we just appoint GMarshal as Supreme Ruler of the mafia subforum. He'll love and tolerate us all. In exchange for his benevolent leadership, all mafia forum member's landmark posts (every 1K posts) must include a tribute to his glory.
On February 16 2012 07:17 Kenpachi wrote: for a banlist to work, favoritism and cutting corners should not happen. Banlist is a banlist. an abuse is an abuse. I also dont like permaban unless the infraction was ridiculously offensive to the community or deliberate attempts to ruin experiences, etc etc. I dont like banning for insults, Mafia is intense but control on it is necessary regardless
i think what i say is sensible so i'll leave it at that. no problem otherwise
Arest this man, he is an enemy of the TL mafia state!
On a real note:
If people in the community can forward with a complete and clear proposal that outli.es everything it needs to outline then we can really talk. What the OP is currently suggesting is a vague group that can step in and declare law when they see the need to. Vets can pretty much already do that and I just cant see what problems this sytem would fix that don't already resolve themselves. I am left feeling like this would just give an air of seperation between one type of user and another and while that naturally occurs anyway it is not something to promote as a rule or policy.
To bring a very recent debate up for pure example reasons if Redff had decided to constantly troll igrol on the forum, irc, and via whatever means he thought of we would have resolved it without a council of mafai rule meisters. I just dont get really what this actually accomplishes beyond being a status enhancement for some users.
Stop the trolling the guys; this is an honest effort to improve our forum. This forum should be a place where masterminds and geniuses meet to play a competitive game. The responses in this thread heavily indicate what kind of community this has become though, and that's not something to be proud of. There's a reason this is one of the best places to play forum mafia, and everyone should be striving to make it better. Reading the thread I'm disappointed more than anything (and I'm not saying that cause the general consensus disagrees with the idea) at the overall behavior.
On February 16 2012 04:14 layabout wrote: So.. The current banlist hands out bans for offences such as inactivity. These offences are simple to deal with as they are a case of a player breaking a rule and receiving the punishment for breaking that rule. The proposal will not change this.
With some offences, like behavioural offences the punishment is less clear cut and individuals can have wildly different opinions.The way these offences are currently being dealt with is largely down to the host in question, which results in inconsistency and leads to drama. It is being proposed that we introduce a council of players that players will choose to make the decisions. This council will then make the decisions about contentious bans.Since the same people will make all of the contentious decisions, there will be more consistency in the decisions that are reached.By electing the members of the council it is hoped that the decisions will not only be fairer but that they will reflect the wishes of the community.
I think that this is a fairly good idea. For me the main question is whether or not it is worth taking these steps to deal with issues that do not arise very often.
Would elections for council members be done in a separate thread?
I'm bringing up this post because it's a very accurate summary of what is trying to get accomplished here, and I think many people are getting bogged down in the semantics of it all. This is not supposed to be as complicated as people are making it out to be.
A few people don't seem to realize that the problem we're addressing is actually a problem. I would like to say in regards to it that we have lost members (good ones to) because of these issues (DoctorHelvetica is the name that immediately comes to mind here). It seems that people who keep up with the banlist and are reading up on all the cases realize that this is a problem (don't mean to judge here). So to say that this isn't really a problem is not a fair assessment of the situation.
You proposed that some people de facto get on the banlist which just doesn't work. All of them need to be elected.
Like i said though you are attempting to address a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know why, maybe its because you feel like you have to "do something" even though there is no need to.
Ban for inactivity Ban for game ruining
Encourage hosts to not let people play if they don't like the way they behave in games.
I wouldn't mind a change in the way the banlist works. I just think have 3 people rather than 5 people judging these things makes it simpler, and it would be easier to find volunteers. In terms of term length maybe 3 months instead of 6 months is more reasonable, since it's a certain amount of work (possibly) and may restrict your ability to play games.
I'd also be hesitant to remove the banlist because it's an optional feature at the moment.
On February 16 2012 07:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I can't tell who's trolling or not.
I think instead we should elect 3 judges to arbitrate, and then when something like drama or a behaviour ban goes down, we RNG 15 random TL users who have no connection to the mafia forum to serve as a jury. If someone refuses, we RNG a new person until we have 15.
The host and the offending player each have the choice to find another person not playing in their game to help represent them.
Then we start the trial.
Players in the game and anyone who's posted in the mafia forum in the last month, are responsible to be available to serve as witnesses, or be held in contempt of the court and banned from TL for 90 days. If either party or any of the jurors misbehave, they will face a 2 day temp ban, followed by a 90 day temp ban for further infractions.
First, we just have to draft laws and punishment guidelines for everything. If something else comes up during a trial, the result will set a precedent. If the jury can't come to a decision after 2 weeks of deliberation, then the judges will decide amongst themselves the result of the trial.
All player representatives must be reimbursed for their services unless they agree otherwise.
This system seems completely effective and simple.
On February 16 2012 09:14 redFF wrote: 1You proposed that some people de facto get on the banlist which just doesn't work. All of them need to be elected.
2Like i said though you are attempting to address a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know why, maybe its because you feel like you have to "do something" even though there is no need to.
Ban for inactivity Ban for game ruining
3Encourage hosts to not let people play if they don't like the way they behave in games.
there done
1 That's a legitimate concern and others have mentioned that as well, and will definitely be considered if this gets implemented.
2 I addressed this in my previous post. There is a problem, and good players refuse to play in the forum because of it. That should be sufficient for trying something.
3 Many people are divided on whether hosts should be allowed to do such a thing. Is it fair for a host to kick me out of a game cause he hates my guts even if I don't break the rules? I would say no, but I may be biased cause when I first started playing here I was hated by a lot of people (and still am to a degree) cause I was a big troll at the time. When the hosts have that say, it leads to the situation we are in. They go to the banlist, demand a ridiculous punishment and it gets granted.
The system we have right now is that a host requests the ban postgame. If its reasonable, then the player accepts the ban and moves on. If its unreasonable, the player questions the ban and it is opened to discussion. Anyone who has been following the situation is allowed to comment and at the end, everyone's opinions are taken into account and a decision is made by flamewheel, taking into account past precedent as well.
From what I can tell, the only difference between the current system and the "council" system is that rather than having the final decision come from a tabulation of everyone, its limited to a group of five players, who may or may not be following the game in question. If flamewheel has decided he would prefer not to make the final decision on every issue, then the change seems reasonable, but otherwise I'm not sure how it is much of an improvement from what we already have.
On February 16 2012 09:21 Foolishness wrote: 3 Many people are divided on whether hosts should be allowed to do such a thing. Is it fair for a host to kick me out of a game cause he hates my guts even if I don't break the rules? I would say no, but I may be biased cause when I first started playing here I was hated by a lot of people (and still am to a degree) cause I was a big troll at the time. When the hosts have that say, it leads to the situation we are in. They go to the banlist, demand a ridiculous punishment and it gets granted.
yes because its their game and you have no inherent right to play in it without their permission.
I don't see how electing members to a council will ensure more consistency and representation of the community than what we see now.
It will be more consistent, if only because it's the same people making the decisions. However, without answering how often the council is likely to be changed, this might not actually be consistent with the wishes of the community, which are likely to change with time and flux in the player-base. So, depending on the permanency of the council, they might not actually reflect what the community desires, and instead impose their own decisions based on their own rationale.
Secondly, I fail to see how this would represent the community better than an open forum where the entire community has the opportunity to voice their opinion and have it accounted for. With this system, it seems like you can voice your opinion, but it will be devalued, because in the end, you have no influence over the decision as a community member besides when you voted people in.
Next, I don't understand how this will bring anything different to the table from what we have now. The council will end up being formed nearly completely of veterans or active players, and these same people are the players who would comment on a ban anyways, and whose words would be more respected due to that status. All I see the council doing is cutting off everyone who doesn't get elected.
Finally, this system introduces problems and complications of its own that need to be addressed. I and others have brought some of these up, but just off the top of my head:
Will the decision making process of the council be made entirely transparent?
Who will ensure consistency, effort, and transparency from the council?
How will we avoid favoritism or unfair persecution when there's only a small group making the decisions?
How often will the council change to reflect the wishes of the community?
Which makes it a hassle to use, and in my eyes undesirable. Instead, I think that we just need to structure ban list discussion better, and stick to actually using the rules of the ban-list, if we're going to keep it.
First, discussion should be a lot more organized. For contentious issues, we should open up discussion one by one. Then, we get a statement of what happened factually (1) from the host, then their take/impressions on the situation (2), and finally, what they want to do about it (3) (punishments, warnings, etc.). Then, the player being accused should respond if what the host said was factual (1), and then give their own interpretation of the situation (2), and then if they disagree with the asked for punishment (3). Then, the host and the player should both shut up while everyone else discusses it. If they need to comment again a little later, they can. I honestly feel one of the biggest problems with ban discussion is the people involved keep yelling back and forth about it, and it makes discussion a lot harder. They should each just state their side, then wait while people decide who's in the right. Keep in mind, this is only for things like behaviour or 'ruining game' bans, not inactivity or the like.
So, we could go from:
Host: Player X ruined my game, please ban him.
Player X: No I didn't, you're just a bad host and hate me!
Host: What lies! 5 Games!
To something like:
Host: Player X made the following posts in the game (1):
I think this is unacceptable behaviour, and made the game less enjoyable for others playing. (2)
I'm requesting a standard ban (3).
Player X: I did make those posts. (1)
They were made in the heat of the moment, and I don't agree that they made the game worse for others to play (2)
I don't think I deserve any kind of punishment (3)
And then they both stop posting while it's discussed, unless input is needed from them.
If hosts don't want to go through the effort of actually explaining what happened with all relevant evidence when trying to ban someone for behaviour, then they probably shouldn't be hosting, as it takes a bare minimum of effort and makes discussion a lot better. These two posts could then be cataloged if need be to use as reference in the future.
Secondly, people need to actually start following the ban list, with ratifications possibly made to how the punishments work and how games played affect future bans. When I joined, it was the first time you get banned, 1 game, the second, 3 games, the third, 5 games, and that was that. Now, I see hosts asking for specific ban counts for specific players based on what happened, or basing bans on what happened without reference to any past ban history. If you feel that hosts asking for specific punishments is a problem, stop letting them. I'm not sure when, but at some point, punishments changed from how often you were banned in the past, to the whim of the host, or with the old system being applied haphazardly. So, we should either revert back to bans being based on previous ban count, or if there's some underlying issue that's making hosts ask for specific bans for different infractions, then we should address that. Everyone should be held to the same standards, and any bans should be consistent. They shouldn't be up to the host to decide if he's feeling nice or doesn't like a certain player, they should be normalized.
I feel like a lot of people want to actually change how bans work out, but that's a discussion for a thread of its own. All I'm saying is that it should follow guidelines, not be up for a case-by-case basis that has no assured consistency between different players and hosts.
On February 16 2012 04:45 redFF wrote: This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council.
Im glad im not the only one that thinks this is silly.
Gmarsh is a mod he should have 100% control. Anyone else on some "council" is laughable at best.
like after the council concludes its session they gonna go outside pick up sticks and play cops and robbers.
However from what I can tell there is some precedent for self-moderation and a certain amount of internal autonomy for the TL Mafia board regarding these things
I'll refer to my previous post in the matter. I would be happy with either the current system or the council as long as it follows certain parameters.
1. The system needs to be impartial. Anyone that is influenced in one way or another about the possible ban needs to be replaced by a uninvolved party. Blazinghand is a friend of mine, and if he is possibly being banned, I should have no say in his case, per say.
2. There should be an odd amount of number of people, and there should be certain parameters for those people to be elected, and tht way should be agreed on. Is it a public community vote? Are the positions appointed? I feel that three people with two alternative council members would be ideal.
3. The people in the council must be cycled out after each term. Period. Men in power only want more power. It needs to be recycled in order to get new blood and new ideas into the positions.
4. Lastly, people need to honor and respect the system. Take you're licks and take the punches if you fuck up.
Ill agree to either position as long as those at met.
Look at my first post in this thread to refer back too.
On February 16 2012 10:06 redFF wrote: who are all these random people i've never seen before posting walls about shit when they've been here for like 2 weeks.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate Jitsu's point.
Again, if my post makes sense and speaks truth, what's the point of downplaying it? I've been here for a more then two weeks. Stop trying to discredit my opinion by perceiving that I've even here for less than a month.
All this would lead to is the usual tlmafia circlejerk featuring all the characters we know and love and shit would be exactly the same as before except they would get to circlejerk even harder in their private ban conversations.
On February 16 2012 09:56 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I don't see how electing members to a council will ensure more consistency and representation of the community than what we see now.
It will be more consistent, if only because it's the same people making the decisions. However, without answering how often the council is likely to be changed, this might not actually be consistent with the wishes of the community, which are likely to change with time and flux in the player-base. So, depending on the permanency of the council, they might not actually reflect what the community desires, and instead impose their own decisions based on their own rationale.
Secondly, I fail to see how this would represent the community better than an open forum where the entire community has the opportunity to voice their opinion and have it accounted for. With this system, it seems like you can voice your opinion, but it will be devalued, because in the end, you have no influence over the decision as a community member besides when you voted people in.
Next, I don't understand how this will bring anything different to the table from what we have now. The council will end up being formed nearly completely of veterans or active players, and these same people are the players who would comment on a ban anyways, and whose words would be more respected due to that status. All I see the council doing is cutting off everyone who doesn't get elected.
Finally, this system introduces problems and complications of its own that need to be addressed. I and others have brought some of these up, but just off the top of my head:
Will the decision making process of the council be made entirely transparent?
Who will ensure consistency, effort, and transparency from the council?
How will we avoid favoritism or unfair persecution when there's only a small group making the decisions?
How often will the council change to reflect the wishes of the community?
Which makes it a hassle to use, and in my eyes undesirable. Instead, I think that we just need to structure ban list discussion better, and stick to actually using the rules of the ban-list, if we're going to keep it.
First, discussion should be a lot more organized. For contentious issues, we should open up discussion one by one. Then, we get a statement of what happened factually (1) from the host, then their take/impressions on the situation (2), and finally, what they want to do about it (3) (punishments, warnings, etc.). Then, the player being accused should respond if what the host said was factual (1), and then give their own interpretation of the situation (2), and then if they disagree with the asked for punishment (3). Then, the host and the player should both shut up while everyone else discusses it. If they need to comment again a little later, they can. I honestly feel one of the biggest problems with ban discussion is the people involved keep yelling back and forth about it, and it makes discussion a lot harder. They should each just state their side, then wait while people decide who's in the right. Keep in mind, this is only for things like behaviour or 'ruining game' bans, not inactivity or the like.
They were made in the heat of the moment, and I don't agree that they made the game worse for others to play (2)
I don't think I deserve any kind of punishment (3)
And then they both stop posting while it's discussed, unless input is needed from them.
If hosts don't want to go through the effort of actually explaining what happened with all relevant evidence when trying to ban someone for behaviour, then they probably shouldn't be hosting, as it takes a bare minimum of effort and makes discussion a lot better. These two posts could then be cataloged if need be to use as reference in the future.
Secondly, people need to actually start following the ban list, with ratifications possibly made to how the punishments work and how games played affect future bans. When I joined, it was the first time you get banned, 1 game, the second, 3 games, the third, 5 games, and that was that. Now, I see hosts asking for specific ban counts for specific players based on what happened, or basing bans on what happened without reference to any past ban history. If you feel that hosts asking for specific punishments is a problem, stop letting them. I'm not sure when, but at some point, punishments changed from how often you were banned in the past, to the whim of the host, or with the old system being applied haphazardly. So, we should either revert back to bans being based on previous ban count, or if there's some underlying issue that's making hosts ask for specific bans for different infractions, then we should address that. Everyone should be held to the same standards, and any bans should be consistent. They shouldn't be up to the host to decide if he's feeling nice or doesn't like a certain player, they should be normalized.
I feel like a lot of people want to actually change how bans work out, but that's a discussion for a thread of its own. All I'm saying is that it should follow guidelines, not be up for a case-by-case basis that has no assured consistency between different players and hosts.
/rant
This. THIS RIGHT HERE! Wiggles is on it. Wiggles GOT THIS BRO.
As someone who does NOT follow the banlist all that closely (that is, unless I'm on it) I was under the impression that the old way was THE way, and I had NO problem with it as it was. I had no idea that the issues Wiggles is talking about (I'm assuming the issues you're trying to address) were occurring, but I know how the public banlist discussion works, and I think it SHOULD work given the type of people that play Mafia here, and I think it WILL work if we structure the discussion better (as Wiggles suggests). What about this: create a template for any who wish to post in the banlist thread similar to the game OP. Anyone is welcome to take part in the community discussion of bans post-game, but they HAVE to be in the format provided or they won't count period. In this way, it allows whoever is modding the Banlist at the time to easily filter out irrelevant discussion (if any persists once this is implemented anyway) and gather the necessary information quickly.
Really? I'm pretty confident that I've contributed more to the problem then you have as of yet. Whatever, If my opinion isn't worth it, i won't post in here then.
A piece of advice redFF; just be because you get a warning for being a dick in a mafia game, and can't take it like a man, doesn't give you license to berate other people for coming up with legitimate solutions.
On February 16 2012 10:17 Jitsu wrote: Really? I'm pretty confident that I've contributed more to the problem then you have as of yet. Whatever, If my opinion isn't worth it, i won't post in here then.
GOOD
A piece of advice redFF; just be because you get a warning for being a dick in a mafia game, and can't take it like a man, doesn't give you license to berate other people for coming up with legitimate solutions.
The reason this seems silly is b/c foolishness is just trying to play nice and being like a vague bureaucrat as a result. 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. The result is that he tries to get through this without offending anyone or creating any drama, which means basically always doing nothing until everyone agrees to do what the host says then recording that. I don't blame him for this; I'd do the same if I got stuck there, but the effect is still there and afaik that's what spurned this post.
That said, I don't agree with a council, as while it might be ok now, it could very easily lead to problems down the road. Just doesn't seem like a good solution and mostly unnecessary. I agree with Ace mostly in that the banlist is fine, though it does need some slight tweaks even outside of the moderator position.
There are two similar problems: one, atm the host basically can do whatever they want for bans and unless it's absurdly flagrant (like Ace in the 80 person game) most people won't bother doing anything about it for a variety of reasons. Honestly pretty much everyone just wants to play and not deal with this nonsense except the offended parties. This wasn't a problem in the past with qatol but atm it seems we either need a new banlist moderator or bigger community involvement. I don't think hosts should have the almost absolute control over post-game bans they do now.
The other problem is while like syllo said individual bans/warnings are no big deal at all, there's no way to get rid of them over time and stuff compounds. So let's say even if RoL's ban wasn't deserved, if he just mans up and accepts it, then gets slapped with another undeserved one down the road even years later, he has to sit out 3 games which gets annoying. I know there's been talk about doing something about this before but nothing got solved and there's no reason why that should be put off any longer. Either a straight system of warnings/bans go away after something like 3/5 or people talk about it, but there's no reason to keep bans permanent.
Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
There's something like that in place in the Sc2 Strategy forum (due to some unusually poor strategy advice, IIRC).
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
Not at the moment, I'll talk with R1CH, but in the meantime, I think TL bans might be a good way to enforce behavior.
I trust and respect GM more than anyone else in this forum and have no doubt that he will handle any bans fairly and consistently. He doesn't put up with shit and he doesn't sulk or run away from DRAMA.
GM handling stuff according to laid out guidelines that we all agree upon would be best.
Also, if the issue is indeed that Flamewheel no longer wants to be the banlist moderator, I would have no issues with having some form of election for a new banlist moderator in order to maintain approximately the current system, nor would I have an issue with GMarshal just taking the role if he is willing (seeing as he is also an official TL moderator).
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
On February 16 2012 07:32 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: How about we just appoint GMarshal as Supreme Ruler of the mafia subforum. He'll love and tolerate us all. In exchange for his benevolent leadership, all mafia forum member's landmark posts (every 1K posts) must include a tribute to his glory.
You already have my support :-D (Tributes could be made optional, of course)
Going to keep this short because I should be studying.
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. The result is that he tries to get through this without offending anyone or creating any drama, which means basically always doing nothing until everyone agrees to do what the host says then recording that. I don't blame him for this; I'd do the same if I got stuck there, but the effect is still there and afaik that's what spurned this post.
Somewhat this. Life is busy and online life is a second thought. I'd prefer to be absolutely strict, but that kind of stone-cold system is a bit alienating. Since GMarshal is now a banling, there's no need for me as a link.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
This is fine.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
Disagreed on this though. I don't like it when people can just leave for a period of time and then come back and say "yo I can be removed now". Being distanced is the reason someone is banned for inactivity in the first place.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
Not at the moment, I'll talk with R1CH, but in the meantime, I think TL bans might be a good way to enforce behavior.
Yeah I don't think forum-specific bans outside of strategy are implemented right now.
Flamewheel, when I say "three games played" I mean, after that person has sat out the ban, and played three other games (not Minis, full 20+ person games) of mafia to their conclusion, he gets the ban struck from the record. Three was a hypothetical number, it could be five, or seven depending on what we decide.
As I understand it they have to play in 3 games without a problem which seems to be the opposite of letting them just leave the forum for a while, maybe it should be more than 3 games but I do think a lot of people have voiced support for there to be a way to stop warnings/bans from building on each other if you've been good for a long time.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
Not at the moment, I'll talk with R1CH, but in the meantime, I think TL bans might be a good way to enforce behavior.
What is banworthy? Would you ban me for my behavior in the Sleeper Cell post game thread?
I think GM was referring to 3 games played with no incidents and the previous bans expire - that's how I read it anyway. It forces them to shape up if they want to play, and allows their good behavior to reduce bans they might receive as a result of a relapse or whatever.
On February 16 2012 10:47 GMarshal wrote: Flamewheel, when I say "three games played" I mean, after that person has sat out the ban, and played three other games of mafia to their conclusion, he gets the ban struck from the record. Three was a hypothetical number, it could be five, or seven depending on what we decide.
10 is a good round number. Inactivity kills games, punishments should be severe.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?
Not at the moment, I'll talk with R1CH, but in the meantime, I think TL bans might be a good way to enforce behavior.
What is banworthy? Would you ban me for my behavior in the Sleeper Cell post game thread?
Probably not, what was determined there was a warning, right? You'd probably get a slap on the wrist from me in the form of a warning, and me telling you to please respect the host's wishes in the future. Something around the lines of
This is a Warning!
Come on, you know better than to post like that... If the host tell you to cut it out, then please listen to him, if you want to complain about how the game was run, do so respectfully. If a host refuses to listen or says something like "never criticize me or I'll lobby to get you banned!" then PM me, but a host's thread is pretty much sacred ground.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation GMarshal
Of course if it happened again, then it would probably be banworthy.
On February 16 2012 10:47 GMarshal wrote: Flamewheel, when I say "three games played" I mean, after that person has sat out the ban, and played three other games of mafia to their conclusion, he gets the ban struck from the record. Three was a hypothetical number, it could be five, or seven depending on what we decide.
10 is a good round number. Inactivity kills games, punishments should be severe.
10 is probably way too high, most people who are "vets" here haven't played more than say 20, 3-5 is more the range I was thinking of.
On February 16 2012 10:47 GMarshal wrote: Flamewheel, when I say "three games played" I mean, after that person has sat out the ban, and played three other games (not Minis, full 20+ person games) of mafia to their conclusion, he gets the ban struck from the record. Three was a hypothetical number, it could be five, or seven depending on what we decide.
On February 16 2012 10:54 redFF wrote: and how long would bans you hand out be.
Depends on the severity of the offense, past history, etc.
Probably a base 2 day ban, but it depends.
In the instance of someone being active in another game of mafia at the time, what would the policy be? Would the ban be stayed to the end of the game? If so I think it would be great.
On February 16 2012 10:56 redFF wrote: You'd take past history outside mafia into account?
Depends on how long you've been in tl mafia, I've you've been here for 15 games and have shown generally good behavior, but one day you flip out, then I'd take that into account, if you are a PBU, with 17 bans/warnings for flaming and balance whining and this is your second game, then yes, that will weigh against you.
On February 16 2012 10:54 redFF wrote: and how long would bans you hand out be.
Depends on the severity of the offense, past history, etc.
Probably a base 2 day ban, but it depends.
In the instance of someone being active in another game of mafia at the time, what would the policy be? Would the ban be stayed to the end of the game? If so I think it would be great.
Yes, of course, it wouldn't do to sabotage another game.
On February 16 2012 10:58 prplhz wrote: Wait ... are you planning on moderating game behavior with forum wide bans or just out-of-game behavior?
If you get bans for behavior in a game, I intend to enforce it with TL wide bans, this is still part of TL, although some standards may be relaxed in game (e.g. image macros), some things, like say flaming the host during the game repeatedly, can still get you tl bans.
Would you would only ban in the event someone is modkilled in a game, or for general behaviour? To clarify, are you saying you'll apply TL standards to all posts at your own discrection, or that if someone's modkilled for behaviour, you'll also temp them?
Some hosts are more lenient than others when it comes to behaviour, so I'm wondering if you'd be interrupting game flow, or if this would only be after the host has decided to modkill someone.
On February 16 2012 11:04 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Would you would only ban in the event someone is modkilled in a game, or for general behaviour? To clarify, are you saying you'll apply TL standards to all posts at your own discrection, or that if someone's modkilled for behaviour, you'll also temp them?
Some hosts are more lenient than others when it comes to behaviour, so I'm wondering if you'd be interrupting game flow, or if this would only be after the host has decided to modkill someone.
I thought the idea was that if a host modkills someone for bad behavior, or there's some serious badness happening there would be a TL temp ban. For inactivity and stuff it would just be a mafia ban, and of course there is a certain amount of trash-talk in game that you wouldn't see say in Sc2 General?
On February 16 2012 11:07 redFF wrote: But then we have to go back to the point about what is and isn't acceptable.
I think calling someone an idiot and cursing is perfectly acceptable.
I've definitely called people morons in the context of a game, and I have also cursed, and in what I consider an acceptable fashion.
On February 16 2012 11:04 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Would you would only ban in the event someone is modkilled in a game, or for general behaviour? To clarify, are you saying you'll apply TL standards to all posts at your own discrection, or that if someone's modkilled for behaviour, you'll also temp them?
Some hosts are more lenient than others when it comes to behaviour, so I'm wondering if you'd be interrupting game flow, or if this would only be after the host has decided to modkill someone.
Like all bans this would be post game.
E.G. say Ver is hosting Pants on Head Mafia!, and he had to modkill Qatol for repeatedly calling flamewheel a "qtp2e" after being asked to stop four times, he then posts in the ban list "Qatol did ____! and I had to modkill him for it", then I look into it and see if it merits a tl ban or just a temporary ban from TL Mafia, depending on how clear cut it is, we put it up for general discussion.
Well, my opinion is that the current system works kind of well but if flamewheel is busy then replacing him with like five people who are involved, interested, experienced, and collectively representative of this sub forum to moderate ban list discussion and make final decision on behavior bans is a good idea. How they're elected isn't really important to me but I imagine it is going to be some sort of semi-democratic process.
I don't like the GMarshal As Supreme Benign Overlord plan because I don't think he's representative of the entire population of this sub forum at all. He is definitely material for any smaller committee.
I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
On February 16 2012 11:11 prplhz wrote: I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
Go try it in sc2 strategy and see if you get away with it :-P
Bans would be for over the top stuff or when someone does it repeatedly after being asked to stop.
I don't mind being called stupid repeatedly, but it drives newbies away, and its unacceptable on the rest of tl, so if a host feels the need to enforce rules against it in his game, and a player refuses to listen, I have no issue banning.
On February 16 2012 11:04 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Would you would only ban in the event someone is modkilled in a game, or for general behaviour? To clarify, are you saying you'll apply TL standards to all posts at your own discrection, or that if someone's modkilled for behaviour, you'll also temp them?
Some hosts are more lenient than others when it comes to behaviour, so I'm wondering if you'd be interrupting game flow, or if this would only be after the host has decided to modkill someone.
Like all bans this would be post game.
E.G. say Ver is hosting Pants on Head Mafia!, and he had to modkill Qatol for repeatedly calling flamewheel a "qtp2e" after being asked to stop four times, he then posts in the ban list "Qatol did ____! and I had to modkill him for it", then I look into it and see if it merits a tl ban or just a temporary ban from TL Mafia, depending on how clear cut it is, we put it up for general discussion.
Horrible horrible idea. If Qatol does something Ver finds unacceptable then Ver should just modkill him. If Qatol continues being a nuisance after having been modkilled then swing dat hammer, but in-game stuff should stay on this sub forum.
On February 16 2012 11:07 redFF wrote: But then we have to go back to the point about what is and isn't acceptable.
I think calling someone an idiot and cursing is perfectly acceptable.
I assume you are talking about a significant amount of it. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone cursing one time.
There's a reason people complain about it. It ruins the atmosphere of the games and raises the overall anger level in the game. And what does it add to the game? Absolutely nothing. It isn't right that a few people should be able to ruin the game experience for everyone else for something that has no positive or useful effect on the game at all.
The ONLY strategic effect I could see it having on a game is to put a player on tilt so they reveal something about their alignment. However, that generally leads to those players leaving the forum. It isn't worth it to lose good players over something like that.
On February 16 2012 11:07 redFF wrote: But then we have to go back to the point about what is and isn't acceptable.
I think calling someone an idiot and cursing is perfectly acceptable.
I assume you are talking about a significant amount of it. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone cursing one time.
There's a reason people complain about it. It ruins the atmosphere of the games and raises the overall anger level in the game. And what does it add to the game? Absolutely nothing. It isn't right that a few people should be able to ruin the game experience for everyone else for something that has no positive or useful effect on the game at all.
The ONLY strategic effect I could see it having on a game is to put a player on tilt so they reveal something about their alignment. However, that generally leads to those players leaving the forum. It isn't worth it to lose good players over something like that.
I disagree, it's a play style, just like making only wall posts is a playstyle.
If someone only posts huge blocks of useless text, which makes people angry because they have to read a bunch of useless shit, and has no positive or useful effect on the game, should we ban that?
On February 16 2012 11:07 redFF wrote: But then we have to go back to the point about what is and isn't acceptable.
I think calling someone an idiot and cursing is perfectly acceptable.
I assume you are talking about a significant amount of it. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone cursing one time.
There's a reason people complain about it. It ruins the atmosphere of the games and raises the overall anger level in the game. And what does it add to the game? Absolutely nothing. It isn't right that a few people should be able to ruin the game experience for everyone else for something that has no positive or useful effect on the game at all.
The ONLY strategic effect I could see it having on a game is to put a player on tilt so they reveal something about their alignment. However, that generally leads to those players leaving the forum. It isn't worth it to lose good players over something like that.
I disagree, it's a play style, just like making only wall posts is a playstyle.
If someone only posts huge blocks of useless text, which makes people angry because they have to read a bunch of useless shit, and has no positive or useful effect on the game, should we ban that?
Those examples have two different goals though. The purpose of excessive cursing/name calling is to make someone angry. The purpose of posting walls of texts is to make it look like you are doing work.
On February 16 2012 11:07 redFF wrote: But then we have to go back to the point about what is and isn't acceptable.
I think calling someone an idiot and cursing is perfectly acceptable.
I assume you are talking about a significant amount of it. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone cursing one time.
There's a reason people complain about it. It ruins the atmosphere of the games and raises the overall anger level in the game. And what does it add to the game? Absolutely nothing. It isn't right that a few people should be able to ruin the game experience for everyone else for something that has no positive or useful effect on the game at all.
The ONLY strategic effect I could see it having on a game is to put a player on tilt so they reveal something about their alignment. However, that generally leads to those players leaving the forum. It isn't worth it to lose good players over something like that.
I disagree, it's a play style, just like making only wall posts is a playstyle.
If someone only posts huge blocks of useless text, which makes people angry because they have to read a bunch of useless shit, and has no positive or useful effect on the game, should we ban that?
Does said player know its useless? are they trying to contribute?
Seriously dude, I am near one of the most aggressive players on this forum, and the attitude you suggest is inappropriate once the mod says stop. There are ways to put people on tilt without resorting to insults or being a total asshole. People get heated, shit happens and overall if its not a huge ongoing thing hosts are fine. The moment it becomes your main style its an issue.
On February 16 2012 10:20 Ver wrote: The other problem is while like syllo said individual bans/warnings are no big deal at all, there's no way to get rid of them over time and stuff compounds. So let's say even if RoL's ban wasn't deserved, if he just mans up and accepts it, then gets slapped with another undeserved one down the road even years later, he has to sit out 3 games which gets annoying. I know there's been talk about doing something about this before but nothing got solved and there's no reason why that should be put off any longer. Either a straight system of warnings/bans go away after something like 3/5 or people talk about it, but there's no reason to keep bans permanent.
I think behavior-type bans should be changed to a time based system. Unlike inactivity bans, where sitting out games is supposed to show that you are committed and wont go inactive again, there is no benefit to formally sitting out games for behavior bans. Mostly, in those dramatic situations, people just need some time to cool off. Time bans wouldn't be too difficult to implement, all you'd have to do is put a time stamp on every behavior ban, and leave it up to the player in question to post in the thread to get their name off the list.
Behavior bans and inactivity bans quite frankly have no correlation, but right now they're treated as if they are. (Ban lengths go up regardless what the original reasons were). This shouldn't be the case. I have no problem with increasing ban lengths for inactivity bans, but it just doesn't make sense for behavior bans. If you are banned multiple times for behavior, chances are you have bigger issues, or that TL bans are deserved. And with GMarshal as banling now, hopefully the inappropriate behavior can tone down.
Warnings and behavior bans should just be time based. After a set amount of time they go away (provided the player in question reminds the ban list moderator to change the record). Simple, easy to implement, and doesn't much administrative overhead. As for how bans are handed out, I dont really care what institutions are in place as long as the people making the decisions are being reasonable. That's the most important part.
As for appropriate in game behavior, I really don't like the idea that "its just a game, I should be able to act however I want". Contrary to what you may think, being an asshole in game doesn't actually produce results. Its fine to be aggressive, but you can certainly do so without personally attacking people. When people are strongly convicted by a certain idea, they tend to take ownership of it. If you attack their ideas, they will feel as if you were actually attacking them personally. Of course, no personal attacks actually take place, but it has the desired effect of having the other person react. You don't have to attack someone personally to play the game of mafia, and I think its been a bad thing that we've let this philosophy seep into the forum culture. Bad atmosphere has frequently made games unpleasant to play in, and have driven many people away from the site. Its not that difficult to show respect to other players, and it really isnt such a limiting factor that some people make it out to be.
On February 16 2012 11:30 redFF wrote: Well yes if the mod warns you then you should stop. I'm trying to figure out where that line should be.
Maybe that line should be determined by each mod, and if you don't stop and you get modkilled, THEN and only then GM will step in after the game is over and evaluate if a TL ban is neccessary?
On February 16 2012 11:30 redFF wrote: Well yes if the mod warns you then you should stop. I'm trying to figure out where that line should be.
somewhere when the level of aggression turns from "you are posting stupid nonsensical arguments that are only hurting the game" to "you are a total retard, stop posting as you make my eyes bleed"
On February 16 2012 11:11 prplhz wrote: I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
Go try it in sc2 strategy and see if you get away with it :-P
Bans would be for over the top stuff or when someone does it repeatedly after being asked to stop.
I don't mind being called stupid repeatedly, but it drives newbies away, and its unacceptable on the rest of tl, so if a host feels the need to enforce rules against it in his game, and a player refuses to listen, I have no issue banning.
But this isn't the StarCraft 2 Strategy sub forum, we also don't have to post replays with every question we ask.
The mafia sub forum has, as far as I understood it, always enjoyed some autonomy because it's generally accepted that it's perfectly normal for discussions to get heated in this game. Mafia is a role playing game and sometimes it is advantageous for you to play the role of an asshole. If a host wants to host a game where people don't swear, or whatever, then he can just put a rule in the OP about it and start handing out warnings and modkills. This will fix the issue right there. I have no idea why you think it is a good idea with forum wide bans for anything done in-game.
On February 16 2012 11:11 prplhz wrote: I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
Go try it in sc2 strategy and see if you get away with it :-P
Bans would be for over the top stuff or when someone does it repeatedly after being asked to stop.
I don't mind being called stupid repeatedly, but it drives newbies away, and its unacceptable on the rest of tl, so if a host feels the need to enforce rules against it in his game, and a player refuses to listen, I have no issue banning.
But this isn't the StarCraft 2 Strategy sub forum, we also don't have to post replays with every question we ask.
The mafia sub forum has, as far as I understood it, always enjoyed some autonomy because it's generally accepted that it's perfectly normal for discussions to get heated in this game. Mafia is a role playing game and sometimes it is advantageous for you to play the role of an asshole. If a host wants to host a game where people don't swear, or whatever, then he can just put a rule in the OP about it and start handing out warnings and modkills. This will fix the issue right there. I have no idea why you think it is necessary with forum wide bans for anything done in-game.
I'm not talking about banning someone for saying "you moron" or "fuck" once or twice or twelve times, I'm looking at people like grtrs in SNMMIV, where he was entirely out of line and didn't get modkilled because I was way too conservative about it, but he should have. Again, host discretion, I'm not going to go into a thread during the game and ban anyone, but if post game a host wants me to look into it, I will.
On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote: Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.
Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.
On February 16 2012 11:30 redFF wrote: Well yes if the mod warns you then you should stop. I'm trying to figure out where that line should be.
Maybe that line should be determined by each mod, and if you don't stop and you get modkilled, THEN and only then GM will step in after the game is over and evaluate if a TL ban is neccessary?
I think this is best.
I honestly can't believe there is a debate about aggressive play styles going on. Depending on your particualr personality, alignment, role, and your relations with other people in the game (aka meta), being aggressive to the point of ALMOST crossing a line is not just normal but it can be even classified as good play. I think Palmar said it really well when he said its like a role playing game.
With that said, that role ends when you leave the game thread or when the game ends.
The only time I have ever even considered something had maybe crossed the line was when Redff posted in multiple threads after a game was done about a problem he had with iGrok in a way that was not 'civil'. Even then, I don't think it was a big deal and as I predicted it passed QUICKLY with time.
On February 16 2012 11:44 prplhz wrote: The mafia sub forum has, as far as I understood it, always enjoyed some autonomy because it's generally accepted that it's perfectly normal for discussions to get heated in this game.
This is not true. The real reason why the mafia subforum has had more autonomy is because it was originally a private forum. You had to ask for access to be able to even see it. As a result, TL mafia was a small closely knit community, where we didnt need large scale moderation to keep things reasonable. The fact that everyone knew each other was generally enough to keep things from getting out of control.
On February 16 2012 11:11 prplhz wrote: I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
Go try it in sc2 strategy and see if you get away with it :-P
Bans would be for over the top stuff or when someone does it repeatedly after being asked to stop.
I don't mind being called stupid repeatedly, but it drives newbies away, and its unacceptable on the rest of tl, so if a host feels the need to enforce rules against it in his game, and a player refuses to listen, I have no issue banning.
But this isn't the StarCraft 2 Strategy sub forum, we also don't have to post replays with every question we ask.
The mafia sub forum has, as far as I understood it, always enjoyed some autonomy because it's generally accepted that it's perfectly normal for discussions to get heated in this game. Mafia is a role playing game and sometimes it is advantageous for you to play the role of an asshole. If a host wants to host a game where people don't swear, or whatever, then he can just put a rule in the OP about it and start handing out warnings and modkills. This will fix the issue right there. I have no idea why you think it is necessary with forum wide bans for anything done in-game.
I'm not talking about banning someone for saying "you moron" or "fuck" once or twice or twelve times, I'm looking at people like grtrs in SNMMIV, where he was entirely out of line and didn't get modkilled because I was way too conservative about it, but he should have. Again, host discretion, I'm not going to go into a thread during the game and ban anyone, but if post game a host wants me to look into it, I will.
If you're not going to ban for "fuck you" or "moron" and you have to go all the way back to a game like SNMMIV to find something you would forum wide ban for, and you're going to get host's approval for it first, then it's not really a problem with me. I still think that big part of the problem was that the host was too lenient, even considering that hosting is difficult business (like what happened in XLVII with the Ace-betting-controversy).
It would really suck to go all the way through a game without getting warned/modkilled and then host asks GMarshal to give you 30 days forum wide because you said something in the game that host just let slip for the moment but kinda still wanted to punish you for.
On February 16 2012 11:11 prplhz wrote: I think forum wide bans for anything done in a game of mafia is absolutely unnecessary and a very bad idea. Modkill them and then if they still act up when they've been modkilled, then swing the hammer. Getting 2 days forum wide for calling somebody a moron is ludicrous, and I've been called moron my fair share of times.
Go try it in sc2 strategy and see if you get away with it :-P
Bans would be for over the top stuff or when someone does it repeatedly after being asked to stop.
I don't mind being called stupid repeatedly, but it drives newbies away, and its unacceptable on the rest of tl, so if a host feels the need to enforce rules against it in his game, and a player refuses to listen, I have no issue banning.
But this isn't the StarCraft 2 Strategy sub forum, we also don't have to post replays with every question we ask.
The mafia sub forum has, as far as I understood it, always enjoyed some autonomy because it's generally accepted that it's perfectly normal for discussions to get heated in this game. Mafia is a role playing game and sometimes it is advantageous for you to play the role of an asshole. If a host wants to host a game where people don't swear, or whatever, then he can just put a rule in the OP about it and start handing out warnings and modkills. This will fix the issue right there. I have no idea why you think it is necessary with forum wide bans for anything done in-game.
I'm not talking about banning someone for saying "you moron" or "fuck" once or twice or twelve times, I'm looking at people like grtrs in SNMMIV, where he was entirely out of line and didn't get modkilled because I was way too conservative about it, but he should have. Again, host discretion, I'm not going to go into a thread during the game and ban anyone, but if post game a host wants me to look into it, I will.
If you're not going to ban for "fuck you" or "moron" and you have to go all the way back to a game like SNMMIV to find something you would forum wide ban for, and you're going to get host's approval for it first, then it's not really a problem with me. I still think that big part of the problem was that the host was too lenient, even considering that hosting is difficult business (like what happened in XLVII with the Ace-betting-controversy).
It would really suck to go all the way through a game without getting warned/modkilled and then host asks GMarshal to give you 30 days forum wide because you said something in the game that host just let slip for the moment but kinda still wanted to punish you for.
I'm not going to do whatever the host asks, lol, I'm going to look at it if the host asks and use my judgement, but the host only gets to call me in, I'm not 30 day banning because a host is peeved if its not appropriate.
Stop the trolling the guys; this is an honest effort to improve our forum. This forum should be a place where masterminds and geniuses meet to play a competitive game. The responses in this thread heavily indicate what kind of community this has become though, and that's not something to be proud of.
This is a forum that has origins in Fakesteve, Caller, and other colourful personalities. I agree the need for greater moderation with increase in members, but I hate it when people argue having fun as sign of deterioration in community. Moreover satire is an acceptable form of expressing dissent; to my knowledge none of us have decided to troll about the council whilst not believing the idea to be hopelessly and unnecessarily complicated.
I understand the problem of letting host have the final say on punishment, but I believe the community have so far been successful in reigning the impulsive decisions into place. When their choice is ambiguous enough to be widely controversial (no majority concensus), I see no problem with letting host have the final decision. Note that I am not granting ANYONE the absolute authority. The mod should be over-ridden if they stay dogmatic even if most of the community argue for alternative option. I have enough faith on current players to rise against blatant abuses.
Also about GMarshal's post, I find myself beffudled. Has not been obvious that people's behaviour on this thread is also subject to moderation? I personally considered reporting redFF's post when his misbehaviour was at its peak. Why raise GMarshal to pedestral of absolute authority in order to do it? Just report him or, if you feel uncomfortable about bringing the matter up to 'outsider', Just complain to GMarshal if you feel that the player's behavior is unsuitable for standards of the community, don't see the need to raise him to the pedestal of absolute leader.
On February 16 2012 12:13 Hesmyrr wrote: Also about GMarshal's post, I find myself beffudled. Has not been obvious that people's behaviour on this thread is also subject to moderation? I personally considered reporting redFF's post when his misbehaviour was at its peak. Why raise GMarshal to pedestral of absolute authority in order to do it? Just report him or, if you feel uncomfortable about bringing the matter up to 'outsider', complain to GMarshal that the player's behavior is unsuitable for standards of the community.
From the model OP:
Reporting posts: The report button is a nice feature for regular TL, but not for this forum. We prefer to deal with things in house if possible to avoid confusion among the TL staff. If you have a problem with how someone is posting, talk to the host, co-host, Flamewheel, or Mig before using your report button. Please do not use your report button for anything other than inappropriate posts which you feel are not being dealt with adequately.
I agree with the general idea of allowing people to play however they want but I draw the line at insults and inflammatory remarks. This is not a 'win at all costs' game and I don't want it to be. I appreciate the idea of doing whatever it takes to win, similar to putting it all out on the field. And, theoretically it should stay in the game and not have any repercussions outside of it. But that's not the way it works.
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.
The only problem I have with GMarshal's plan is the fact it's not... sustainable.
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?
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.
I might be a little late for commentary, but I don't think the system needs a complete overhaul. The main issue as stated in the OP is that in its current form its just the hosts making up a ban and flamewheel carrying it out by writing it in. I think the way we have it now as far as punishment increments and warnings is just fine and allowing everyone to comment makes sure a host doesn't overstep bounds with a ban.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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