|
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^
Also when the game you're sitting out is over!
~GMarshal |
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On March 08 2014 09:36 Aquanim wrote:
@Blazinghand:
It's a ban based on Geript's behaviour, but it is a method of defining unacceptable behavior that very few other people use.
If Geript had not been unpleasant to other players for the entirety of the game my viewpoint here might be somewhat different.
mainly because it's totally silly. if this ban goes through it's just a travesty. BH had it right, modkill to your heart's content in your own games, but trying to ban for what is otherwise completely normal is not good.
|
On March 08 2014 09:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:38 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Here is the best solution:
Geript will never play in an Aquanim game again. Seems like a win-win to me. Oh, that was happening anyway.
Only because Aquanim should never host again
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On March 08 2014 09:36 Aquanim wrote:
@Blazinghand:
It's a ban based on Geript's behaviour, but it is a method of defining unacceptable behavior that very few other people use.
If Geript had not been unpleasant to other players for the entirety of the game my viewpoint here might be somewhat different.
Not to coach you too hard here, but you modkilled geript for violating a rule that other people don't use, which is fine, but if you want to request a ban it has to be on the common values shared on TLMafia. When I push for a ban on someone, even if it's an edge case like the recent kush ban, I do my best to frame it in a way that other hosts and players will understand.
Imagine this example: I really really hate it when people take action X (say, typing in all caps or doing something similarly annoying/bad but not against normal mafia rules). I make a rule against typing in all caps in my games. I enforce it vigorously with warnings, and eventually a modkill.
If I want that modkill to turn into a ban, I need to demonstrate to people who don't give a crap about ALLCAPS that games will be better if I am allowed to request bans for people who type in ALLCAPS. Saying "I have a different definition of unacceptable behavior" is not convincing. I'm on the fence, and your post here does not convince me. Show me how this ties into the broader goals of TL Mafia behavior bans, or I won't change my mind.
|
Well maybe that will have to suffice aqua.
|
On March 08 2014 09:30 Coagulation wrote:
Aquanim are you 25yrs old?
Im not.
I am older.
Do you have a point?
|
Geript signed up to play under my rules; he broke those rules, forcing me to modkill him, which had a negative impact on the game.
If that's not a ban, so be it.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
lol he did not "force" you.
|
On March 08 2014 09:41 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:36 Aquanim wrote:
@Blazinghand:
It's a ban based on Geript's behaviour, but it is a method of defining unacceptable behavior that very few other people use.
If Geript had not been unpleasant to other players for the entirety of the game my viewpoint here might be somewhat different. Not to coach you too hard here, but you modkilled geript for violating a rule that other people don't use, which is fine, but if you want to request a ban it has to be on the common values shared on TLMafia. When I push for a ban on someone, even if it's an edge case like the recent kush ban, I do my best to frame it in a way that other hosts and players will understand. Imagine this example: I really really hate it when people take action X (say, typing in all caps or doing something similarly annoying/bad but not against normal mafia rules). I make a rule against typing in all caps in my games. I enforce it vigorously with warnings, and eventually a modkill. If I want that modkill to turn into a ban, I need to demonstrate to people who don't give a crap about ALLCAPS that games will be better if I am allowed to request bans for people who type in ALLCAPS. Saying "I have a different definition of unacceptable behavior" is not convincing. I'm on the fence, and your post here does not convince me. Show me how this ties into the broader goals of TL Mafia behavior bans, or I won't change my mind.
Okay then.
I think that a player threatening, or saying that he would be willing to, abuse his host powers in another game to punish another player for their play in the current game is a terrible precedent if it's allowed.
|
Are you just heckling, marv?
|
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED, TL?
IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?
|
On March 08 2014 09:33 Blazinghand wrote:
There is a way this can cross a line though, and that would be if Geript and theChyz were both playing in 2 games at once, and Geript threatened in one game to vote or shoot theChyz in the other game. This would be a violation of the ongoing games talking rule. But that is not what happened. The second thing Geript wrote is imo more problematic, but again, theChyz isn't actually IN geript's game so geript isn't offering him out-of-game compensation or betting out-of-game things (which would be against the rules).
It would be against your rules, in your game.
It would be aginst the rules in the game I first played as that was this rule.
This game, had the rules in the OP.
Are you judging whetehr geript broke those rules or yours.
|
On March 08 2014 09:36 Aquanim wrote:
@Blazinghand:
It's a ban based on Geript's behaviour, but it is a method of defining unacceptable behavior that very few other people use.
If Geript had not been unpleasant to other players for the entirety of the game my viewpoint here might be somewhat different.
Look, when you're playing really really well and you know it, you post a towny seal and get modconfirmed town only to have town try to lynch you then of course anyone would get salty in that situation. When you try to propose multiple exceptionally protown plans and everyone completely fucking ignores then then anyone would get salty. I have no problem getting a warning for what I said earlier and I would've had no problem taking a ban for it because I definitely crossed the line there. Like idgaf about that. But this push is ridiculous.
|
Im gonna host a game. And in the op there is only going to be 1 rule. "anyone posting in the thread will be modkilled" and then im gonna request bans for everyone who posts in the thread.
|
On March 08 2014 09:43 marvellosity wrote:
lol he did not "force" you.
Did mocsta self kill himself when he specifically broke a rule?
Geript directly violated the rules in the OP.
If he wasnt modkilled you could be in here complaining that Aqua wouldnt even enforce his own rules.
|
On March 08 2014 09:47 Coagulation wrote:
Im gonna host a game. And in the op there is only going to be 1 rule. "anyone posting in the thread will be modkilled" and then im gonna request bans for everyone who posts in the thread.
And if people sign up to play that game then perhaps that would be autodarwination in action.
|
On March 08 2014 09:46 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:36 Aquanim wrote:
@Blazinghand:
It's a ban based on Geript's behaviour, but it is a method of defining unacceptable behavior that very few other people use.
If Geript had not been unpleasant to other players for the entirety of the game my viewpoint here might be somewhat different. Look, when you're playing really really well and you know it, you post a towny seal and get modconfirmed town only to have town try to lynch you then of course anyone would get salty in that situation. When you try to propose multiple exceptionally protown plans and everyone completely fucking ignores then then anyone would get salty. I have no problem getting a warning for what I said earlier and I would've had no problem taking a ban for it because I definitely crossed the line there. Like idgaf about that. But this push is ridiculous.
I'm not interested in your opinion of whether you were toxic and unpleasant to the other players in the game, I'm interested in theirs.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On March 08 2014 09:45 AxleGreaser wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:33 Blazinghand wrote:
There is a way this can cross a line though, and that would be if Geript and theChyz were both playing in 2 games at once, and Geript threatened in one game to vote or shoot theChyz in the other game. This would be a violation of the ongoing games talking rule. But that is not what happened. The second thing Geript wrote is imo more problematic, but again, theChyz isn't actually IN geript's game so geript isn't offering him out-of-game compensation or betting out-of-game things (which would be against the rules).
It would be against your rules, in your game. It would be aginst the rules in the game I first played as that was this rule. This game, had the rules in the OP. Are you judging whetehr geript broke those rules or yours.
I don't understand what you are saying here, I'm sorry 
Let me rephrase since there seems to be some miscommunication: Aqua has asked for a specific ban based on a modkill he was totally justified in making. The specific rule he is invoking seems to be a rule that few other hosts use. Therefore, I am not inclined to personally support such a ban (though I do not have a say in the actual process). However, I do support Aqua's right to modkill people based on his rule. Maybe a ban actually is appropriate here, if we take into account some of geript's more onerous posts in the game (like this one (link)). That being said, I was not spectating or hosting Aqua's game so I don't know if a post like that was par for the course in that thread in general, or if geript was running wild in the thread making inappropriate statements, and Aqua banned him just to get him to stop or whatever.
In any case, pending further info, blah blah you get it
|
lol GM gonna come back, see 200 new posts in the Ban List 2.0 thread and go, 'Oh god what did you fucking idiots do this time?'
|
I don't see a problem with the ban at all. Like I said in the gamethread the OP was insanely strict. When you sign up for the game you read the OP and you know it's insanely strict. At that point you either don't sign up if you don't like it or you go along with the different-than-normal rules.
Those are the two posts that it's about and there's more than these:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 06 2014 14:42 geript wrote:
I'm totes gonna shoot/lynch you in any and every game I can from now on. On March 06 2014 14:49 geript wrote:
I really wish you were playing in my game right now. Because I'd totes modkill you and ban you for any little reason. Like if you're town I'm not going to do anything to help you because you're not even trying to win the game. You deserve to be lynched right after me. 100%. Like you're not even trying to figure out if I'm town or scum. You've shot down each and every attempt to try and reach any understanding. You've tried to shoot down each and every attempt to actually get people to discuss reads. Lynch him on day whatever Lylo is. Because if you lynch me he'll be there because he's scum.
Add to that he was playing like an asshole the whole game, add to that that he has been skating close to the modkill border with other posts anyways and I completly agree with the ban.
Like I said in the obs-QT, if this was another game I'd probably be fine with a warning on geript and telling him to stop it but with how strict the OP was I certainly want people to restrict themselves and try to follow these rules.
|
Look, if you like, I can add up all the incremental pieces of dickassery Geript posted in my game, which in combination with the above add up to my present state of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
