EPTTL Mafia Ban List 2.0 - Page 26
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! ~GMarshal | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:45 geript wrote: You can't ban for bad play. It's not for bad play-- it's for playing against wincon. The reason this is up for discussion is because it's not clear to me whether we should consider it playing against wincon. Your statement that I can't ban for bad play is irrelevant and meaningless because the reason we're having this discussion is to figure out if it was bad play or antiwincon play. Unless you have an opinion on that, and are willing to spend some effort trying to convince people, stop posting. In the same sense, I would ban someone who voted for his top townread in LYLO, hammering him, because he "thought it was a mayoral election" when in fact there was nothing in the setup anywhere indicating it was a mayoral election on day 3, and nobody had said it was that, EVEN if the guy genuinely thought it was a mayoral election. Being aware of the gamestate (is it a mayoral election? is it LYLO?) is imo REQUIRED for playing to your wincon. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:45 marvellosity wrote: it's nothing to do with bad play, learn to read Banning for ignorance of the game state? Is this only applicable in IM games then? Because I can think of quite a few examples of 'ingame ignorance' that happen all the time. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:50 WaveofShadow wrote: Banning for ignorance of the game state? Is this only applicable in IM games then? Because I can think of quite a few examples of 'ingame ignorance' that happen all the time. Yeah this is where my reservations are. After all, I've definitely made a case on my confirmed-town mason partner (though I immediately retracted) and you could say that remembering who your confirmed-town mason partner is required and not remembering it is playing against your wincon-- but I legit FORGOT. This is where my hesitance is. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:47 Blazinghand wrote: [...]someone who voted for his top townread in LYLO, hammering him, because he "thought it was a mayoral election" when in fact there was nothing in the setup anywhere indicating it was a mayoral election on day 3, and nobody had said it was that, EVEN if the guy genuinely thought it was a mayoral election. Please tell me this never actually happened | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:52 Sn0_Man wrote: Please tell me this never actually happened Oh no that was a hypothetical. I'm just trying to say there are situations of bad play that I would consider banworthy. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:47 Blazinghand wrote: It's not for bad play-- it's for playing against wincon. The reason this is up for discussion is because it's not clear to me whether we should consider it playing against wincon. Your statement that I can't ban for bad play is irrelevant and meaningless because the reason we're having this discussion is to figure out if it was bad play or antiwincon play. Unless you have an opinion on that, and are willing to spend some effort trying to convince people, stop posting. In the same sense, I would ban someone who voted for his top townread in LYLO, hammering him, because he "thought it was a mayoral election" when in fact there was nothing in the setup anywhere indicating it was a mayoral election on day 3, and nobody had said it was that, EVEN if the guy genuinely thought it was a mayoral election. Being aware of the gamestate (is it a mayoral election? is it LYLO?) is imo REQUIRED for playing to your wincon. I was under the impression that while coag knew what was going on in the games, he just didn't really give a shit. This game demonstrates that he barely reads the thread or gives any critical thought to any of his actions (as town at least). I wouldn't want to play with him again unless I could be sure that he would actually be giving a shit. Coag, is there some IRL situation that drew your attention away from the game (which would be completely understandable) or did you just not care? | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:52 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah this is where my reservations are. After all, I've definitely made a case on my confirmed-town mason partner (though I immediately retracted) and you could say that remembering who your confirmed-town mason partner is required and not remembering it is playing against your wincon-- but I legit FORGOT. This is where my hesitance is. Well that action didnt cause irreparable harm to the game, and you had the opportunity to correct that mistake. Furthermore, that could have been "tactics" (I know it wasnt) whereas coag's actions could not since the game ended as a result. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:52 Hopeless1der wrote: I was under the impression that while coag knew what was going on in the games, he just didn't really give a shit. This game demonstrates that he barely reads the thread or gives any critical thought to any of his actions (as town at least). I wouldn't want to play with him again unless I could be sure that he would actually be giving a shit. Coag, is there some IRL situation that drew your attention away from the game (which would be completely understandable) or did you just not care? See we;'re opening up yet another can of worms here because if we can start banning people for not giving a shit..... | ||
|
justanothertownie
16320 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:55 WaveofShadow wrote: See we;'re opening up yet another can of worms here because if we can start banning people for not giving a shit..... No I don't think its necessarily bannable, but for WOTC purposes or just general knowledge of 'fuck that guy, he doesnt care' its useful | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:57 Hopeless1der wrote: No I don't think its necessarily bannable, but for WOTC purposes or just general knowledge of 'fuck that guy, he doesnt care' its useful Eh, I don't think WotC in it's current form works but that's neither here nor there. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:58 WaveofShadow wrote: Eh, I don't think WotC in it's current form works but that's neither here nor there. WOTC in its current form seems to be a vendetta list against people who insulted you, not a "this player will cause the game as a whole to suck" list. Frankly, I could be WOTC because I lurk like a little shit, but I'm not particularly abusive so to the best of my knowledge, no one is that strung up about keeping me out of their game. | ||
|
VayneAuthority
United States8983 Posts
| ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On January 09 2014 05:03 Hopeless1der wrote: WOTC in its current form seems to be a vendetta list against people who insulted you, not a "this player will cause the game as a whole to suck" list. Frankly, I could be WOTC because I lurk like a little shit, but I'm not particularly abusive so to the best of my knowledge, no one is that strung up about keeping me out of their game. I don't think that's true at all, but the point remains I don't think WotC will ever be a realistic factor (at least not likely in a mini) because it is doubtful that there will be 5 people who care enough about removing potential problem players from the game. Which is fine, but these issues will continue to crop up every single game, and the status quo will be upheld. We're treading into 'get this out of the banlist thread' territory so if you want to continue discussing we should move it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440154 | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 09 2014 05:07 VayneAuthority wrote: I believe he already agreed to a 1 game ban so case closed eh? the discussion is probably better suited to the thread opened by obviousone YUP! | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 09 2014 04:55 WaveofShadow wrote: See we;'re opening up yet another can of worms here because if we can start banning people for not giving a shit..... Thing is right, there's not giving a shit, then there's not giving a shit and self-hammering, then there's not giving a shit and self-hammering at MYLO to instantly lose the game for your entire team. Probably at some point you can go "this is just too much". It's never going to be black and white with "play to wincon" rules, but if there's some random line that no-one can agree on, it seems hard to believe that coag isn't on a specific side of it in this instance, if you see what I'm saying. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
/sitout | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
| ||
