EPTOn March 08 2014 17:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Just to clarify i am not trying to bash anyone for any reason.
Just to clarify i am not trying to bash anyone for any reason.
I just think people should be treated equally based on the rules the host of a game has set up.
Then you will be glad to hear
People were treated equally, as I understand the rules.
Apparently while some people did understand the rules and found them to be quite clear
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=20941966 and apparently could even see how they are, in my view, in fact, just a clearer specification of what the general rules already say. (dont be a dick, except this defines a specific way of being one kind of dick.)
A number of posters and you in particular seem to have no end of trouble understanding them and seem to have the opinion that you know what they should have been.
You were paying attention when Aqua indicated he was asleep when that(gumshoes post) happened. So you are comparing at best the actions of one host to another. (hint that meaans they are likely to be little different in style at least.) Also even if say I had been hosting and active at that time of both Gumshoes & Geripts posts, I would have judged gumshoes post to not fall outside the rules _in the same way_ that Geripts do. Yes Gumshoes language was overly strong and I think Id have PMd to tone it down. That is not the issue with Geripts post. Gumshoes post does not refer to things "Basically, posts which aren't about the current game".
Perhaps if I say it several times in row? "Basically, posts which aren't about the current game"."Basically, posts which aren't about the current game"."Basically, posts which aren't about the current game"."Basically, posts which aren't about the current game"."Basically, posts which aren't about the current game". {edit: How about taking it to RL(out of, not about, game), or indicating that you will means that you lost it, (and that _you_ not the person offended by you, are taking this way too seriously) and _you_ probably should not have signed up (The host may/will now mercy kill you (maybe even for more than 1 game).) }
When a player starts doing that they have lost perspective, or they're faking that. (as town or scum) From that point things typically rapidly escalate. This is why that is a good and almost more importantly definable place (hence impartially enforceable) place to the draw line in the sand. If I host game then posts in it must not "Basically, posts which aren't about the current game". Apparently my gauging of ban list thread sentiment is that if I do that (foolishly host game) then any old troll will be free to turn up shit post (by my rules) in my game in a way they can know will get them modkilled, and then the combined wisdom of the other hosts will be LOL nope your rules are different(not mine) the ban list does not support the idea that all players that sign up to all games regardless of whether that games rules are like mine or not, MUST adhere to the basic rule that when you sign up to a game, you have in some sense entered into a social contract with the other players to at least try a bit.
You have also, and I thought way more obviously, entered into a social contract with that host to play by the rules you agreed to.
As I see it:
Breaking that social contract with the host is the only real way people get a ban in the ban list and why, whether the rules are like yours or not and whether you personally want to play by those rules or not, other hosts should enforce that all players play by, and are then judged by the rules they agree to.
That you or other people understand the recent rules differently or rather more accurately claim the hosts should not have those rules in the first place and should have different rules is not the point I am making, the rules that I understood were applied fairly and evenly.
That is then doubly true when you rationally consider what is possible given when hosts are actually awake.
That you are persisting in claiming otherwise betrays your own biased view, and given you were the target of gumshoes posts its not actually surprising. What does surprise me is that you seem unaware that you are the aggrieved person and hence least able to judge if the decision on Gumshoe was fair and by the rules.
That you do not see this for yourself is entirely understandable you were the aggrieved party of Gumshoes posts, but of course your judgment will be coloured by that.
I am personally kind of disappointed.
I firmly believe that if players are required to keep one foot on the rational floor of "I will not rant about what I will do after the game" or if "I was hosting a game with that player in it." That would I believe significantly reduce the casualty rate of playing mafia. The forum would keep more of the newbies. Fewer of its long time players would burn out.
Various people are straw manning these rules and claiming they aim for a kindergarten game of patter cake handies and players should just man up.
That is only true when they get to make up (straw man) what the rules actually mean. The rules didn't mean Gumshoe's posts were well outside the line, but they did mean Geripts were . The game can be played quite stridently and forcefully, Strong language can be used in moderation and context. What you cant do is you cant lose it and start making claims about what you would do if you could. Or what you will do after the game.
What I am disappointed by is the people who cant see the wisdom of that, and resort to "rules stated in the OP are dumb " which as an insightful analysis of whether or not the rules add to the long term benefit of the game or not, is to borrow a phrase dumb. Although that singles out a single post & poster, it is an inaccurate reflection of my views, as i am not that disappointed that that was Darths analysis. It seems in line with his previously expressed opinions.
The disappointment
I had however thought there was some agreement by some people that the forum needed to tone down (in at least some games) what was acceptable behavior from players and that hosts ought step up to the challenge and do it.
The odds on that happening again anytime soon just plummeted.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XePfwhX.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
Some people have indicated they don't want to play under those rules. Big fat hairy deal? Some people don't want to play under the existing ones. Is there some reason the forum cant host games that cater to range of likes and interests. I'd have thought larger more diverse range of players would be more fun.
But if you want that you are going to have become adults and accept that some games will be run by rules you don't want to play by. And that when people signup to those games but then don't play by those rules You will back that hosts right to have and enforce rules and that host will back yours. To borrow another phrase you will defend to the death that hosts right to run the game by their rules, and have consequences for breaches of them, even when you don't like what the rules say.
But if you want that you are going to have become adults and accept that some games will be run by rules you don't want to play by. And that when people signup to those games but then don't play by those rules You will back that hosts right to have and enforce rules and that host will back yours. To borrow another phrase you will defend to the death that hosts right to run the game by their rules, and have consequences for breaches of them, even when you don't like what the rules say.
