|
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^
Also when the game you're sitting out is over!
~GMarshal |
On January 09 2014 06:11 geript wrote:
Honestly, this ban is bullshit. He's not the first person to self hammer. As a matter of fact iirc BH and Marv defended the guy last time. Yah, it's a fuck up but not close to ban worthy.
For me it is. Luckily this is a small game but if somebody pulled that shit after a 3 week game I would be pretty pissed.
|
Or at least it is not a bullshit ban. More like a "damn this is next level being careless ban"
|
United Kingdom36160 Posts
"context"
i even said it wasn't the self-hammering...
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 09 2014 06:11 geript wrote:
Honestly, this ban is bullshit. He's not the first person to self hammer. As a matter of fact iirc BH and Marv defended the guy last time. Yah, it's a fuck up but not close to ban worthy.
This is a misrepresentation of what I am saying, because the situation with Onegu's vote is different than coag's vote. Onegu's self-vote avoided a potentially disastrous nolynch. Coag's self-vote instantly caused town to lose on the spot.
Let me be 100% clear: Onegu's self-vote in Witchcraft could be construed as the right thing to do because it was not LYLO. Take a look at what I say here:
On November 15 2013 07:54 Blazinghand wrote:
onegus play is not against the rules. I explicitly allow self vote in that OP.
And contrast that with what I say here:
On January 09 2014 04:28 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 04:25 WaveofShadow wrote:
Why was that game so unbelievably short?
Also is there a reason why it being MYLO matters specifically?
I don't think there should be any reason it's ok for town to hammer themselves really... The thing about town hammering themselves, is that at a non-LYLO situation there MIGHT be a reason for it. For example, if you KNOW you can't argue your way out, you've said what you needed to say, and the only way for discussion to move on is if you're dead. I can see it happen. Even if it's not what's best for town, if you THINK it's what's best for town, that's what matters-- you're playing to your wincon to the best of your abilities, including your ability to judge what the right move is. Just like a cop claiming on D2 for a bad reason isn't playing against his wincon, a self-hammer at the right time is fine. At MYLO, though, a self-hammer can ONLY instantly end the game in a loss for town unless you REALLY think town vigi and doctor or something are gonna save you. This can't be acceptable.
And it should be absolutely clear that I don't think self-voting or self-hammering is playing against your win con. It is self-hammering in LYLO, which can ONLY result in a loss for town, which is playing against your win con.
Onegu's play was not at LYLO. His play was to avoid a no-lynch in a majority game, which would have screwed town.
On November 15 2013 08:16 Blazinghand wrote:
also given that a nolynch was conceivably possible and would be very bad for town, onegu did the manly and righteous thing and voted for himself. we are not gonna punish him for doing what he thought was best rofl
So as you can see, you are incorrect and my policy on self-votes and self-hammer is consistently and clearly stated. You have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresenting me, or I have misunderstood you. Take some time to read the actual reason for the ban request. Thanks! :D
|
United Kingdom36160 Posts
thank you for providing actual substance to my lazy posts BH
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 09 2014 06:18 marvellosity wrote:
thank you for providing actual substance to my lazy posts BH
No problem! I am glad to rehash my policy here so that people understand and know when they can self-vote in my games. Here's my policy: It's plausible to do this while playing to your wincon. However, there are times (IML LYLO, you are a townie at L-1 for example) when literally the only thing a self-vote can do is instantly cause your team to lose. Don't do that.
edit: I'll add this to my OPs from now on too just so there's no confusion.
|
I disagree with the Onegu thing, I don't think that was considered properly by him at all, and the game was disastrous anyway.
If he had actually played rather than scumclaimed and given up there is no reason why we couldn't have gotten another lynch off.
|
the whole discussion is moot because
#1 I was going to be lynched regardless where I put my vote.
#2 I dont mind the ban anyway.
|
United States22154 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.
If you allow people to self-vote, you can not then ban them for doing something you explicitly allowed in the rules. Would you ban a cop for claiming day 1?
The case is close because both host and banee have agreed to the ban, so it flies, but generally I don't think you can include in the rules "you can vote for yourself" and then ban when people do it. Mistakes happen, it wouldn't be the first time someone has not realized the game isn't over as mafia and gloated for example.
|
|
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
I'm fine without ban list action here if we think that's okay. My rules do explicitly allow self voting (and I think it can be good at times to self-hammer in IML). AND, for what it's worth, coag was getting lynched anyways, about an hour or so later the other scum guy returned to the thread and would have hammered him.
|
United Kingdom36160 Posts
I'm curious when any ban action would ever be taken for "playing against wincon" if not here.
|
im fine without the ban as well for what its worth. I just accepted the ban asap to minimize any arguing and fighting that could result from me contesting it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 09 2014 08:41 marvellosity wrote:
I'm curious when any ban action would ever be taken for "playing against wincon" if not here.
Perhaps if as the scum you hammered yourself in LYLO instead of your opponent?
example:
player A is scum
player B is town
player C is town
instant majority lynch, open setup
B votes A, and C votes for B.
A votes for A, killing himself and losing the game, instead of voting for B.
E: in any case let's go for "not ban coag" then
|
United States22154 Posts
On January 09 2014 08:42 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 08:41 marvellosity wrote:
I'm curious when any ban action would ever be taken for "playing against wincon" if not here. Perhaps if as the scum you hammered yourself in LYLO instead of your opponent? example: player A is scum player B is town player C is town instant majority lynch, open setup B votes A, and C votes for B. A votes for A, killing himself and losing the game, instead of voting for B. E: in any case let's go for "not ban coag" then
That example works, self voting in LYLO and MYLO could be considered playing against your wincondition *if* you're aware that its LYLO or MYLO, intent matters, and misunderstanding the state of the game falls under "harmless mistake" more than "active game ruining". The "play to win" condition there is to stop things like claiming your mafia team because you're frustrated at them. My line of thought is that voting for yourself is a little like using your cop check on yourself, or forgetting to submit night actions, its *awful* play, but its not punishably awful unless its malicious.
EDIT: Done
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
being in a position where he had to self hammer at lylo because he hadn't really played the game anyway is playing against your win-con IMO
edit: although you can't totally blame him because the town ended the day within like 2 minutes everyday
|
United States22154 Posts
On January 09 2014 08:59 Holyflare wrote:
being in a position where he had to self hammer at lylo because he hadn't really played the game anyway is playing against your win-con IMO
And how do you measure "not really playing the game"? This discussion comes up in the banlist every so often, and I'm happy to have it, but other than activity requirements we have no way of measuring "really playing". If a host wants to include something like "I'll be reading through the game, and if I see that your post reflects no effort or investment in the game you will be punished accordingly." that would be totally fine, but as of right now, there is no metric for it, and if we open that can of worms, every time town loses we're going to see a few annoyed people claiming X Y and Z didn't put enough effort in the game and should be banned.
EDIT: Basically, this is an easy fix, if people want to start seeing bans for "lack of effort" its up to the hosts ^_^
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
It is worth noting that coag played a pretty awful town game, but I am not requesting an inactivity modkill for him. He voted every day and posted about 20 times over the course of the 64 hours the game ran, even if most of his posts were one-liners. It's worth noting that Day 1 was 7 hours and Day 3 was 2 hours so there wasn't time for some kind of big discourse except for people piling on the Yamato lynch Day 2 while yamato was at work.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
When people are actively trying to figure out the game by asking questions of other people and the majority of those questions remain unanswered for an entirety of a day-2 days or the person is asked if they are around but they respond with 1 or 2 lines of non helpful words then I question the commitment of said player to actually solving/playing the game. I understand that questions can be missed but a lot of the time it's just seemingly lack of caring. I get people have RL issues and time constraints but when it is a repetitive issue then something should be discussed.
This isn't just for this case specifically because it applies to several instances in different games with different people and I don't know what can be done about it either because people are way too "nice" to go balls deep and punish it or come up with ideas about it because they don't want to step on peoples toes.
edit: can move to OO's thread if this is clogging up ban list thread
|
United States22154 Posts
On January 09 2014 09:15 Holyflare wrote:
When people are actively trying to figure out the game by asking questions of other people and the majority of those questions remain unanswered for an entirety of a day-2 days or the person is asked if they are around but they respond with 1 or 2 lines of non helpful words then I question the commitment of said player to actually solving/playing the game. I understand that questions can be missed but a lot of the time it's just seemingly lack of caring. I get people have RL issues and time constraints but when it is a repetitive issue then something should be discussed.
This isn't just for this case specifically because it applies to several instances in different games with different people and I don't know what can be done about it either because people are way too "nice" to go balls deep and punish it or come up with ideas about it because they don't want to step on peoples toes.
edit: can move to OO's thread if this is clogging up ban list thread
I'd be ok with having it in OO's thread ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
