|
On January 11 2013 23:47 syllogism wrote:
I think the claim was perfectly fine and necessary as from his perspective just pushing jackal lynch could get him day vigged and I'm not sure if town could be trusted to lynch jackal just based on him flipping 1-shot cop. I guess really obviously breadcrumbing it could have worked, but I would have claimed the check as well. Actually he could have been shot before claiming the check OR pushing to get jackal lynched.
wbgs decicion was fine, the mistake was that the town got paralyzed.
|
|
|
There's a reason I wanted to delay the jackal lynch a cycle, although I guess the problem would have remained.
|
On January 12 2013 00:20 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:11 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
I duly apologize for being inactive. I put in for a replacement pretty early but apparently the host wasn't getting my PMs or something. Don't think it would have made a difference though..
lynch was between all townies the other day.
I did not get any pms from you.
I sent 3 to sloosh, in hindsight i should have sent them to co-hosts as well.
And yes, I'm pretty sure you can replace if you know you're not going to be active. Regardless, sorryz
|
No, you can only replace out if you have a legitimate reason and "losing interest" while posting in another game definitely isn't one. When you join a game you commit to finishing it. The fact you refuse to understand just highlights the fact you aren't going to change your attitude and should be banned.
|
On January 12 2013 00:48 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:20 Kurumi wrote:On January 12 2013 00:11 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
I duly apologize for being inactive. I put in for a replacement pretty early but apparently the host wasn't getting my PMs or something. Don't think it would have made a difference though..
lynch was between all townies the other day.
I did not get any pms from you. I sent 3 to sloosh, in hindsight i should have sent them to co-hosts as well. And yes, I'm pretty sure you can replace if you know you're not going to be active. Regardless, sorryz
Well Sloosh was the co-host and I am the host, so I have the final and maybe the only vote regarding replacements.
|
On January 12 2013 00:52 syllogism wrote:
No, you can only replace out if you have a legitimate reason and "losing interest" while posting in another game definitely isn't one. When you join a game you commit to finishing it. The fact you refuse to understand just highlights the fact you aren't going to change your attitude and should be banned.
Why are you not advertising an equally strong punishment for marv and ve?
If marv gets a 1-game, I don't see where CC warrants a stronger punishment.
|
CC, froggynoddy, toadesstern, marv all played innacceptabel.
for the future we need a much harder punishment for these kind of plays.
i guess VE rage outburst shouldnt be punished further... the modkill is enough punishment. he played the game and wanted to win. he had one inapropriate moment.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On January 12 2013 00:58 supersoft wrote:
CC, froggynoddy, toadesstern, marv all played innacceptabel.
for the future we need a much harder punishment for these kind of plays.
i guess VE rage outburst shouldnt be punished further... the modkill is enough punishment. he played the game and wanted to win. he had one inapropriate moment.
Calling for modkills of other players (VE) in-thread isn't acceptable either, dear.
|
On January 12 2013 00:58 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:52 syllogism wrote:
No, you can only replace out if you have a legitimate reason and "losing interest" while posting in another game definitely isn't one. When you join a game you commit to finishing it. The fact you refuse to understand just highlights the fact you aren't going to change your attitude and should be banned. Why are you not advertising an equally strong punishment for marv and ve? If marv gets a 1-game, I don't see where CC warrants a stronger punishment.
Marv and VE are players with a history of contributing in every game and even in this game they were highly active. I don't know what VE even did other than complained a bit. Marv could definitely get away with a warning as well as he was modkilled before it was even clear whether he truly quit or was just venting.
The purpose of the ban list isn't to punish players per se, but to discourage the kind of rule breaking/conduct that truly ruins games from mafia (the game) point of view. Non-contributing, rule breaking players who show no interest in improving their conduct should be kept out of games, not players who are highly active unless they are also highly disruptive.
|
On January 12 2013 01:03 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:58 supersoft wrote:
CC, froggynoddy, toadesstern, marv all played innacceptabel.
for the future we need a much harder punishment for these kind of plays.
i guess VE rage outburst shouldnt be punished further... the modkill is enough punishment. he played the game and wanted to win. he had one inapropriate moment. Calling for modkills of other players (VE) in-thread isn't acceptable either, dear.
Maybe not, but I don't particularly think its banworthy, either.
|
On January 11 2013 22:25 thrawn2112 wrote:
vivax having notes on hand really helped us out too. he was nearly fucked there for a little bit
I think me and palmar both said they weren't really notes at all at the time.
We kind of ignored him though because he at least had something. We probably should have pushed that harder.
|
On January 12 2013 01:03 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:58 supersoft wrote:
CC, froggynoddy, toadesstern, marv all played innacceptabel.
for the future we need a much harder punishment for these kind of plays.
i guess VE rage outburst shouldnt be punished further... the modkill is enough punishment. he played the game and wanted to win. he had one inapropriate moment. Calling for modkills of other players (VE) in-thread isn't acceptable either, dear.
so you think i should have been modkilled?
|
On January 12 2013 01:07 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 00:58 Dandel Ion wrote:On January 12 2013 00:52 syllogism wrote:
No, you can only replace out if you have a legitimate reason and "losing interest" while posting in another game definitely isn't one. When you join a game you commit to finishing it. The fact you refuse to understand just highlights the fact you aren't going to change your attitude and should be banned. Why are you not advertising an equally strong punishment for marv and ve? If marv gets a 1-game, I don't see where CC warrants a stronger punishment. Marv and VE are players with a history of contributing in every game and even in this game they were highly active. I don't know what VE even did other than complained a bit. Marv could definitely get away with a warning as well as he was modkilled before it was even clear whether he truly quit or was just venting. The purpose of the ban list isn't to punish players per se, but to discourage the kind of rule breaking/conduct that ruins games from mafia (the game) point of view. Non-contributing, rule breaking players who show no interest in improving their conduct should be kept out of games, not players who are highly active unless they are highly disruptive.
Ragequitting is still quitting, which makes the game less fun for the other players. Whether or not you were active before you quit is irrelevant, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I have no ill feelings towards marv. He's one of my favorite people around TL. I can imagine I would have been super frustrated too.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On January 12 2013 01:14 supersoft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 01:03 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2013 00:58 supersoft wrote:
CC, froggynoddy, toadesstern, marv all played innacceptabel.
for the future we need a much harder punishment for these kind of plays.
i guess VE rage outburst shouldnt be punished further... the modkill is enough punishment. he played the game and wanted to win. he had one inapropriate moment. Calling for modkills of other players (VE) in-thread isn't acceptable either, dear. so you think i should have been modkilled?
no, I don't, of course. What I did was banworthy and what you did wasn't, although you probably know you should have taken it to the host in PMs rather than the thread 
|
On January 09 2013 08:44 supersoft wrote:You just don't get it right? You provoked Kurumi to modconfirm you as a townie. As if a scumplayer doesn't know how the KP work at this point of time and even if you had been scum, I highly doubt, Kurumi would have been explaining this stuff to you in this thread right here. I can write that here, because I am like 100% sure that if there is at least one decent scumplayer in this game here, he is just writing the same stuff to Kurumi and is asking for your modkill. The modkill I honestly believe you deserve for your shit right here. You overdone it: Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 07:28 VisceraEyes wrote:On January 09 2013 07:26 Kurumi wrote:On January 09 2013 07:23 VisceraEyes wrote:
What are you talking about?
The KP formula? It's explicit in the OP
Scum# / 2 rounded up
That means that with 5 members, scum get
5/2=2.5=3 KP to play with during N2.
Not 2.5 KP. That insinuates that scum lost .5 KP during N2, when the OP explicitly states otherwise. Wrong. Scum KP is rounded up after using roles. I didn't say anything about using roles. I stated the rule I read in the OP. Is that rule incorrect?
How many KP did scum have during N2 before any roles were used? This is well within your ability to answer without giving anything away. Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 07:32 VisceraEyes wrote:
IT STATES EXPLICITLY IN THE OP THAT THE SCUM KP FORMULA IS #/2 ROUNDED UP. PERHAPS IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE AND THE FORMULA IS #/2 THEN THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE OP YES?! Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 07:35 VisceraEyes wrote:
Yeah, rule-changing D3 is beyond my ability to cope with right now.
It doesn't even matter if this is the way it's been calculated since the beginning of the game, what matters is that I've been operating under a false pretense this entire fucking game up to now.
I'm done with this for now...maybe the OP will be finished when I get back. Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 07:53 VisceraEyes wrote:On January 09 2013 07:49 Kurumi wrote:On January 09 2013 07:35 VisceraEyes wrote:
Yeah, rule-changing D3 is beyond my ability to cope with right now.
It doesn't even matter if this is the way it's been calculated since the beginning of the game, what matters is that I've been operating under a false pretense this entire fucking game up to now.
I'm done with this for now...maybe the OP will be finished when I get back. I'd like you to keep playing or I am going to modkill you for playing against your wincon. I'd like you to define "keep playing". I thought it was pretty evident in the post you quoted that I'd be back, it wasn't anything like a ragequit, so I'd like you to quantify your statement so I don't get mod-lightning for no reason.
Because the rules are subject to change at any moment, this is important for my team to win - knowing exactly how much inactivity is deemed "playing against your win condition".
i didnt even ask for a modkill.
|
isnt saying you deserve a mod kill the same thing as asking for one?
|
On January 12 2013 01:15 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 01:07 syllogism wrote:On January 12 2013 00:58 Dandel Ion wrote:On January 12 2013 00:52 syllogism wrote:
No, you can only replace out if you have a legitimate reason and "losing interest" while posting in another game definitely isn't one. When you join a game you commit to finishing it. The fact you refuse to understand just highlights the fact you aren't going to change your attitude and should be banned. Why are you not advertising an equally strong punishment for marv and ve? If marv gets a 1-game, I don't see where CC warrants a stronger punishment. Marv and VE are players with a history of contributing in every game and even in this game they were highly active. I don't know what VE even did other than complained a bit. Marv could definitely get away with a warning as well as he was modkilled before it was even clear whether he truly quit or was just venting. The purpose of the ban list isn't to punish players per se, but to discourage the kind of rule breaking/conduct that ruins games from mafia (the game) point of view. Non-contributing, rule breaking players who show no interest in improving their conduct should be kept out of games, not players who are highly active unless they are highly disruptive. Ragequitting is still quitting, which makes the game less fun for the other players. Whether or not you were active before you quit is irrelevant, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I have no ill feelings towards marv. He's one of my favorite people around TL. I can imagine I would have been super frustrated too.
I don't really care whether it is a warning or 1 game ban, the main point is that the ban list should not be, and I don't think it is, a strict normative system that treats everyone equally. Players who don't have a history of good behavior and show the wrong kind of attitude after the mod kill should be treated differently than players who do.
|
On January 12 2013 01:19 iamperfection wrote:
isnt saying you deserve a mod kill the same thing as asking for one?
...if you say it out loud: maybe :D
|
I agree with most of what you've said syllogism, the only thing I don't really like is the fact that you voiced your concerns when it came to modkilling/replacing while the game was technically still going. Could've just done that in pms
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
