Reading through the raised points, I feel like SL should be banned for 1 vet game and 2 more newbie games. If that is possible.
On June 04 2015 21:06 plotspot wrote: I kinda feel I'm also responsible for this indirectly with me testing out stuff. So in my opinion it was really not malicious intent from SL but rather impatience and a sudden surprise, when he thought the game was pretty much over, that led to this. SL already implied he wanted that game over early into N4.
This is the first time I played with SL. Although I believed in his honour, as it will also be reflected in this future games, I couldn't be 100% sure. If I knew him any longer I'm pretty sure I'd just leave it at the BF block, and not perceive him as an dangerous element in the off-chance he is the mafia.
Sure I think SL PMing BF was wrong, but it was for reasons of impatience, maybe a bit of anger, but not malicious intent. 2 Gane-Ban is fine?
I don't think so. It's a newbie game, you're supposed to try and find out what's good or bad.
On June 04 2015 21:24 sicklucker wrote: Thats just him being a sore loser
The only ounce of symphony I have is that it was in a newbie game.
Wow.
____
I don't want to brawl here now. I don't know how punishments work. But also imagine I wouldn't have been scum but a townie and Disinformation would've been the true mastermind. My CC would be a stupid newbie move because I was tunneling on you. With your PM to me, you would've confirmed your town alignment to me. There are so many scenarios where your behaviour would've damaged the game even more than it did, lots were mentioned already. Please concider that. Remember D3, when Plots was all sure tics is scum and I am mason? Terribly wrong but he insisted on having solved the game. You went down the same road. Imagine you were wrong :/.
On June 04 2015 21:37 boxerfred wrote: Reading through the raised points, I feel like SL should be banned for 1 vet game and 2 more newbie games. If that is possible.
Don't think that's possible. This is the way I see it: The ban HAS to be more than 1 game long because this is definitely a worse offense then let's say an inactivity modkill. So at least 2 3 games and I think 3 would be better. If BH is right and the warning makes it so that the ban needs to be longer -> 3-4 games. 4 I agree is probably too much. Just make it 3 in total and I don't think he can complain about that result.
Why would a town ever do that when we had auto no one really cared the order we lynched . Like it didnt matter. If you didnt lose I doubt you complain to the mod and get me banned. Oh well ;p
Like if I received this msg no one would have ever heard about it because it was between us
So like. Mafia clearly complained to the host because of the 40 minute delay and the conference and all that. Then when the game is mathematically over for mafia you decided to go 1on1 with me when disinfo would have been the easier lynch.
I was probably wrong but at the time I took it as a personal attack/ sore loser play that after I won the game by surviving the mafias last ditch effort push on me. You target me of all people in a pointless effort.
I was also in a shitty mood due to perosnal shit.
Whatever no regrets ban me forever for all I care its just a game ill keep on playin as long as it fun
I was probably wrong but at the time I took it as a personal attack/ sore loser play that after I won the game by surviving the mafias last ditch effort push on me. You target me of all people in a pointless effort.
I was also in a shitty mood due to perosnal shit. ...
But really, you don't get to complain about someone taking something overly-personally when you did the same damn thing yourself.
On June 04 2015 22:18 sicklucker wrote: If you didnt lose I doubt you complain to the mod and get me banned. Oh well ;p
At no point did I, personally, receive a direct complaint from boxerfred. Nor did cakepie or Kelsier as far as I know. To my knowledge the first we heard about the PM was when he conceded in-thread stating that he was fed up of being harassed over it. And there was very much a feeling of "oh crap, surely he didn't..." when we heard about it.
Like if I received this msg no one would have ever heard about it because it was between us
Your argument is that if it was the other way around then he'd have gotten away with breaking the rules because you wouldn't have said anything. This is somewhat nonsensical to me since even if he had gotten away with it its still against the rules. Just because nobody finds out doesn't mean rules haven't been broken and they're there for a reason.
On June 04 2015 22:24 sicklucker wrote: So like. Mafia clearly complained to the host because of the 40 minute delay and the conference and all that.
What 40 minute delay are you talking about here? Genuinely confused. The only real delay in the game I can think of resulting from an actual game-related issue that required some discussion was when BF made the vote between bunnies and you even and there was brief scare because comments made in scum QT made it look like the rules in the OP had been messed up somehow; so we double-checked them to make sure the tie-break rules were absolutely clear. And that was twenty minutes at most.
In any case from my perspective I think justanothertownie has it right. We came to the conclusion of a request for 3-game ban was suitable given the fact its a fairly serious explicit breaking of the rules, coupled with the incidental effects on newbies. The quoted warning makes it +1 but 4 sounds way too many. Although the thing with HtS makes it even worse than we'd first thought.
I'm with Half the Sky from a few pages ago. It was awfully disappointing to see things go this way, especially from someone who I honestly thought was better than that. I'm sure it was just a mistake, a few moments of lack of judgement, but ultimately the rules are there to be followed. :-\
On June 05 2015 00:16 -Celestial- wrote: In any case from my perspective I think justanothertownie has it right. We came to the conclusion of a request for 3-game ban was suitable given the fact its a fairly serious explicit breaking of the rules, coupled with the incidental effects on newbies. The quoted warning makes it +1 but 4 sounds way too many. Although the thing with HtS makes it even worse than we'd first thought.
If 3 is the ideal amount, and 4 is "way too many", what is a bit too much? Slightly too many? 3.42?
On June 05 2015 00:16 -Celestial- wrote: In any case from my perspective I think justanothertownie has it right. We came to the conclusion of a request for 3-game ban was suitable given the fact its a fairly serious explicit breaking of the rules, coupled with the incidental effects on newbies. The quoted warning makes it +1 but 4 sounds way too many. Although the thing with HtS makes it even worse than we'd first thought.
If 3 is the ideal amount, and 4 is "way too many", what is a bit too much? Slightly too many? 3.42?
If 3 is the ideal amount and 3.42 is slightly too many, what is slightly slightly too much?
On June 05 2015 00:30 batsnacks wrote: 3 is a minimum 6 week ban that's crazy. SL believed the game was over this was the same as sending a PM post game from his pov.
While the game may have been effectively over barring immense stupidity, it wasn't over. You can't try to argue that he's thinking that either. His PM is with the intention to get someone to concede.
EPT
