EPTTL Mafia Ban List 2.0 - Page 130
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! ~GMarshal | ||
|
Half the Sky
Germany9029 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On July 04 2015 22:30 raynpelikoneet wrote: I think you should do what you think is appropriate. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
On June 25 2015 12:10 VayneAuthority wrote: how did i know that clown wouldnt be able to leave the game without saying something incredibly stupid and game altering It also occurred a substantial time after he flipped so it could look like he got the information from the obs thread and used it - drunk - to post in the thread. Either way, I think a warning is more appropriate since he's not an idiot and knows what he did was bad but it's not so trivial that it should get away with nothing. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
It's not like there is anything "debatable" in this situation except for should rule breaking always result in a ban. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
Like what if me / you do something like that the next time for some reason? Is it more "justified" to give a ban? Why? EDIT: I mean, the rules are rules. People who play mafia (especially on TL) are smart enough people to read the rules. I just don't think "because someone was in X mindset instead of Y" or "because someone will learn from A instead of B aswell" is a reasonable reason to make decisions. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
I mean, the rule is under "cheating" and cheating requires malicious intent which wasn't located in GB's post, it was simply frustration, being drunk and being an idiot with no malicious intent to break the game. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
1. Posting after death. You may have one polite goodbye post, but it may not contain any potentially game-changing information. I do not think the post GB made was a "polite goodbye post". That's my interpretation. I don't think it matters much if people thought his post makes a difference game-wise or not. I think it's undeniably true that it potentially does. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
Disregarding that, you could also use the lame basic defence to everything - Intoxication. GB was so drunk that he was not in control of his actions and could not form the reasonable intent to commit said crime. Which is a partial defence and not a full one. Disregarding the fact that he had no intent, based on my sick research skills that should definitely have been published if I wasn't so lazy, the rate of re-offending when given retributive justice (bans/prison, same thing) is substantially higher than when the person is subjected to restorative justice (face to face talks about what he did was wrong and how he won't do it again and the effect it had on people, or as the Aboriginals used to do - sentencing circles, which is actually pretty similar to the banlist). It is my professional opinion that what GB did was wrong, but as he did not have the stated intent and has partial defences to his name I recommend that the original sentencing of a ban be reduced to simply a warning which inhibits his bad behaviour for the future. Furthermore, GB is a silly poopy head and has much to live for, he is a young man that has the world ahead of him and most definitely has family to look after and a career that if tarnished by a ban could end his spotless life, his non-existent wife will look down upon him and his child shall forever refer to him as the cheating guy that got banned. I do not think this is fair to the man. He should also reflect on his actions and hopefully learn from what we - the people - are saying. Good day. | ||
|
rsoultin
Netherlands15308 Posts
eh, i don't get how the post was game-altering at all if it's about being "polite" in a good-bye post...which is the only real offense that i can see...sorry bugs or whoever but va's response to his post puzzled me in-thread, and there are always going to be players who read way too much into things (i.e. host wifom on replacements and vote counts, etc.) plus...gb was already outed as cop and had already claimed his checks? so i'm not sure where any of this is coming from? he'd checked ls and hf. it stands to reason that he knew at least ls was town and i'm pretty sure there were more than four players on that wagon (though i haven't actually checked) so by definition there were town on him? i dunnae. maybe i'm too lenient or whatever but i think it's more on the TOWNIES reading too much into his post than his post, when there's no obvious info in there at all. it's not like gb would be the first town player to be salty at being mislynched and go out with a "you idiots" type post lol >< | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On July 04 2015 23:44 rsoultin wrote: lol hf the lawyer eh, i don't get how the post was game-altering at all if it's about being "polite" in a good-bye post...which is the only real offense that i can see...sorry bugs or whoever but va's response to his post puzzled me in-thread, and there are always going to be players who read way too much into things (i.e. host wifom on replacements and vote counts, etc.) i dunnae. maybe i'm too lenient or whatever but i think it's more on the TOWNIES reading too much into his post than his post, when there's no obvious info in there at all. it's not like gb would be the first town player to be salty at being mislynched and go out with a "you idiots" type post lol >< Well, if even one townie is somehow influenced by the post then it IS game altering by definition and VA said he felt this way. How silly or dumb that is is not the question here. That's why posts like the one GB made are forbidden and the rules are clear about that. So, it is clear that he broke the rules - the only question is if HTS thinks it is worthy of a ban and I can understand the arguments of both sides here. | ||
|
rsoultin
Netherlands15308 Posts
On July 05 2015 00:01 justanothertownie wrote: Well, if even one townie is somehow influenced by the post then it IS game altering by definition and VA said he felt this way. How silly or dumb that is is not the question here. That's why posts like the one GB made are forbidden and the rules are clear about that. So, it is clear that he broke the rules - the only question is if HTS thinks it is worthy of a ban and I can understand the arguments of both sides here. i get the by definition yada yada thing but it also brings to mind sandroba thinking that it meant anything that when i think it was damdy replaced in for someone in hts' last game and the votes were reset that he must be town for that? like the real benchmark shouldn't be did anyone think it had game-breaking information; it should be is there a reasonable expectation for a player to believe it had game-breaking information. with his checks already outed, i'd say no so for me this degenerates into a "was his post polite or not" discussion. sure, warn him, but if you start banning people for impolite posts that's going to become ridiculous very quickly obviously it's up to hts but i think most rational players are not going to read into gb's post there and the only reason va did was 1) he wasn't following the thread closely and 2) he was already upset at gb -shrugs- | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On July 05 2015 00:13 rsoultin wrote: i get the by definition yada yada thing but it also brings to mind sandroba thinking that it meant anything that when i think it was damdy replaced in for someone in hts' last game and the votes were reset that he must be town for that? like the real benchmark shouldn't be did anyone think it had game-breaking information; it should be is there a reasonable expectation for a player to believe it had game-breaking information. with his checks already outed, i'd say no so for me this degenerates into a "was his post polite or not" discussion. sure, warn him, but if you start banning people for impolite posts that's going to become ridiculous very quickly obviously it's up to hts but i think most rational players are not going to read into gb's post there and the only reason va did was 1) he wasn't following the thread closely and 2) he was already upset at gb -shrugs- It is literally (:p) completely irrelevant if you think most rational players are not going to read anything into it - if one player does then it altered the game. That's why this is absolutely not about him being polite or not because if that was a case then he would probably not even get a warning. | ||
|
rsoultin
Netherlands15308 Posts
i could read whatever the hell i want into whatever post i want? it's not about that. it's about whether or not what gb posted was against the rules. it's like the sexual harassment shit. you can't just say the "perpetrator" is automatically guilty because the "victim" feels harassed. that feeling has to be reasonable given the circumstances if i say "my cat got out  " in my death post and someone decides i'm trying to write in code and plays under that assumption, that's just stupid | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On July 05 2015 00:26 rsoultin wrote: it's not completely irrelevant? i could read whatever the hell i want into whatever post i want? it's not about that. it's about whether or not what gb posted was against the rules. it's like the sexual harassment shit. you can't just say the "perpetrator" is automatically guilty because the "victim" feels harassed. that feeling has to be reasonable given the circumstances if i say "my cat got out " in my death post and someone decides i'm trying to write in code and plays under that assumption, that's just stupidIt may be stupid but technically you broke the rules doing that. You just do not write anything except for "gg" or "go team" or similar stuff in your goodbye post. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On July 05 2015 00:29 marvellosity wrote: i'm with hf, warning is fine, people have too many hard-ons for random punishments for no good reason tbh this has nothing to do with "hard punishment" or "no good reason". | ||
|
GlowingBear
Brazil12446 Posts
HF, where do I sign so you can be my lawyer for life? | ||
|
GlowingBear
Brazil12446 Posts
I shouldn't be one to be talking about this, but I'll drop an argument in my defense because I think it's cool  Some theorists say that a rule of Law is a conduct rule that has an accessory rule, which is the punishment. So you have a conduct you want someone to have (or to abstain from), and this rule is broken. Then, the punishment is applied. The problem is that the Mafia rules have all the conduct ones, but lacks the punishment ones. What in those rules says that if someone post after dead, they will be banned for one game? Nothing. Which means bans are arbitrary. So it will depend on jurisprudence, mostly, if this was really a very strict common law system. If it depends on jurisprudence, you will have to either apply what has being done in similar cases, or discuss if that is actually what should be done. So, you either argue that I should be banned because people were banned that way in the past, or say that you think a certain punishment is proportional to the intent for any reason. What CAN'T be argued is that if you break a rule, you get a 1 game ban, because this isn't stated anywhere, | ||
| ||
