|
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^
Also when the game you're sitting out is over!
~GMarshal |
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.
I wont coach you too hard either
On September 04 2013 04:42 GMarshal wrote:For archival purposes, the original banlist is hereIntroductionThis thread helps the hosts keep track of banned players for the mafia games. People get added to this list by breaking the rules of the mafia game they were playing in, usually by going inactive, or otherwise ruining the game.
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).
In that case I suggest you get GM to modify the OP of this thread to indicate there there actually is a set rules and not imply what is indicated above
-----
It has been pointed out that the usual ways that happen is through the common actions of "going inactive, or otherwise ruining the game." and AFKing is common they are not the only ways.
Posting your role PM for instance, while not usual way to get banned and is only against some specific hosts games rules but it gets you banned.
|
On March 08 2014 09:49 AxleGreaser wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I bet I could get at least 5 modkills.. This IS TLMAFIA we are talking about.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 08 2014 09:50 WaveofShadow wrote:
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?'
Poor GM. Well, I've said my bit, I'm going to stop posting unless someone else is confused by my position or specifically requests some help, clarification, or mediation from me. I recommend we all do so as well after we have said what we needed to say. Repeating arguments against the same people or whatever is a waste of thread space and makes GM's life harder.
Let's keep it concise, to the point, and maybe a little undramatic 
|
On March 08 2014 09:52 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:49 AxleGreaser wrote: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. I bet I could get at least 5 modkills.. This IS TLMAFIA we are talking about.
I probably agree you could. I suspect at least 5 people would sign up without reading the OP.
|
On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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.
Only if you also compile the context.
|
On March 08 2014 09:58 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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. Only if you also compile the context.
Well in that case people may as well go and read your filter.
Being annoyed with the game is an excuse, not a justification, for crossing the line.
|
On March 08 2014 09:52 Blazinghand wrote:Let's keep it concise, to the point, and maybe a little undramatic
Thats good idea.
This will at least provide clarity on one point.
Does the ban list support the rules of individual hosts or is just some other less well defined set of code rules that you get banned for.
The common rule is that all hosts and players should support is that when you sign up to game you sign up to play by that hosts rules. If you don't want to play by them you don't sign up.
I think it is dangerous precedent. I for instance would feel entirely unwelcome to host game here as my game would have similar rules and if anyone broke them... then well that it Im on my own jack.
When hosts dont follow the ban list, they cant ask for bans, this is a good idea because it is a two way street.
So is it a two way street?
Does this forum want hosts with rules like that to host games here.
I am quite willing to simply not bother.
|
|
|
On March 08 2014 10:01 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 09:58 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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. Only if you also compile the context. Well in that case people may as well go and read your filter. Being annoyed with the game is an excuse, not a justification, for crossing the line.
So are you requesting action against anyone for failing to play to win? I'm not sure Ange ever really tried. Hell most of town didn't bother to think let alone read or reread on Day 1 and did ever less after that. I played my ass off this game; I put loads of time in and had great reads. So if it's unfair for me to, according to you, act unacceptably based on annoyance why weren't you and why aren't you following up on them?
|
I misread the 2nd geript quote and I'm sorry.
|
On March 08 2014 10:10 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 10:01 Aquanim wrote:On March 08 2014 09:58 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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. Only if you also compile the context. Well in that case people may as well go and read your filter. Being annoyed with the game is an excuse, not a justification, for crossing the line. So are you requesting action against anyone for failing to play to win? I'm not sure Ange ever really tried. Hell most of town didn't bother to think let alone read or reread on Day 1 and did ever less after that. I played my ass off this game; I put loads of time in and had great reads. So if it's unfair for me to, according to you, act unacceptably based on annoyance why weren't you and why aren't you following up on them?
They didn't play against their wincon. Ange made it clear before the game her time would be limited and people wanted her to play despite that. They made their reads as best they could, and tried to get the best lynch they could to happen every day.
If anyone this game played against their wincon, it was you refusing to switch to either of the relevant wagons day 1 - a townie who you had a townread on was very nearly lynched over a scum who you had a scumread on because you were too stubborn/arrogant to switch off Toad.
EDIT: If I in fact thought that was sufficient evidence for you playing against wincon, I'd be warning you for that too. I don't so I haven't. But in my view it was the closest thing to playing against wincon which happened in the game.
|
On March 08 2014 10:15 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 10:10 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 10:01 Aquanim wrote:On March 08 2014 09:58 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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. Only if you also compile the context. Well in that case people may as well go and read your filter. Being annoyed with the game is an excuse, not a justification, for crossing the line. So are you requesting action against anyone for failing to play to win? I'm not sure Ange ever really tried. Hell most of town didn't bother to think let alone read or reread on Day 1 and did ever less after that. I played my ass off this game; I put loads of time in and had great reads. So if it's unfair for me to, according to you, act unacceptably based on annoyance why weren't you and why aren't you following up on them? They didn't play against their wincon. Ange made it clear before the game her time would be limited and people wanted her to play despite that. They made their reads as best they could, and tried to get the best lynch they could to happen every day. If anyone this game played against their wincon, it was you refusing to switch to either of the relevant wagons day 1 - a townie who you had a townread on was very nearly lynched over a scum who you had a scumread on because you were too stubborn/arrogant to switch off Toad.
Did you even read the game? I've stated multiple times that I would've switched to Suki to save Mocsta. There's nothing wrong with refusing to move off of 100% scum to switch to a weaker case. That's not against win-con to show people how sure you are of your read that you don't join a wagon on a null read. Like that's against win con. Y u so silly water.
|
On March 08 2014 10:22 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 10:15 Aquanim wrote:On March 08 2014 10:10 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 10:01 Aquanim wrote:On March 08 2014 09:58 geript wrote:On March 08 2014 09:52 Aquanim wrote:
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. Only if you also compile the context. Well in that case people may as well go and read your filter. Being annoyed with the game is an excuse, not a justification, for crossing the line. So are you requesting action against anyone for failing to play to win? I'm not sure Ange ever really tried. Hell most of town didn't bother to think let alone read or reread on Day 1 and did ever less after that. I played my ass off this game; I put loads of time in and had great reads. So if it's unfair for me to, according to you, act unacceptably based on annoyance why weren't you and why aren't you following up on them? They didn't play against their wincon. Ange made it clear before the game her time would be limited and people wanted her to play despite that. They made their reads as best they could, and tried to get the best lynch they could to happen every day. If anyone this game played against their wincon, it was you refusing to switch to either of the relevant wagons day 1 - a townie who you had a townread on was very nearly lynched over a scum who you had a scumread on because you were too stubborn/arrogant to switch off Toad. Did you even read the game? I've stated multiple times that I would've switched to Suki to save Mocsta. There's nothing wrong with refusing to move off of 100% scum to switch to a weaker case. That's not against win-con to show people how sure you are of your read that you don't join a wagon on a null read. Like that's against win con. Y u so silly water.
The wagons were on equal votes at deadline. If somebody had made another vote for Mocsta or unvoted Suki, your vote could no longer have made Suki the leading wagon (due to plurality rules). If this is true, you should have voted Suki when the wagons became equal.
Like you say, though, there is room for doubt - which is why I did not and am not warning you for it.
|
moc is getting off light. What he did is something that shouldn't be tolerated at all and it was extremely malicious. Those kind of things should get significant bans and consideration for even possible perms.
|
On March 08 2014 10:30 iamperfection wrote:
moc is getting off light. What he did is something that shouldn't be tolerated at all and it was extremely malicious. Those kind of things should get significant bans and consideration for even possible perms.
I agree with this. He definitely deserves at least a 4 game ban.
|
On March 08 2014 10:30 iamperfection wrote:
moc is getting off light. What he did is something that shouldn't be tolerated at all and it was extremely malicious. Those kind of things should get significant bans and consideration for even possible perms.
I'm willing to reconsider the duration of the Mocsta ban.
I did consider a longer ban, but since he would have been within his rights to privately request a replacement based on his IRL commitments I brought it down somewhat. The way I look at it is as follows:
1 game ban for requesting to leave the game in the thread
Another game for forcing me to do it by posting his role PM
Not a 1 game ban for leaving the game without cause
I could add on another game for forcing me to modkill him rather than replace him.
|
It's possible I've significantly underestimated the impact of one of those, and the ban should be even longer. Like I said, I'm quite willing to discuss it and change that request.
|
1 game ban for first offense is standard. Even if you don't like it that standard has been set a few times and multiple people have gotten off with less. Moc should be 1 game not more.
Edit: Basically just because someone isn't popular or isn't well liked doesn't mean they should get worse treatment.
|
On March 08 2014 10:47 geript wrote:
1 game ban for first offense is standard. Even if you don't like it that standard has been set a few times and multiple people have gotten off with less. Moc should be 1 game not more.
There's "offences" and then there's "posting your role PM in the thread".
|
On March 08 2014 10:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 10:30 iamperfection wrote:
moc is getting off light. What he did is something that shouldn't be tolerated at all and it was extremely malicious. Those kind of things should get significant bans and consideration for even possible perms.
I did consider a longer ban, but since he would have been within his rights to privately request a replacement based on his IRL commitments I brought it down somewhat.
Irrelevant. No excuse for purposely ruining a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dnvD2Xd.jpg)
