EPTTL Mafia Ban List 2.0 - Page 49
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message GMarshal if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! ~GMarshal | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12972 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 10 2014 09:37 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I feel like Gumshoe should be warned rather than Yamato. I understand this point; my reasoning for not giving a warning to Gumshoe but asking for one for Yamato was the fact that Gumshoe tried to get into the thread and then he basically got called out for spreading poop all over the walls. I think he made an honest attempt. Conversely, yamato's whole attempt in my opinion was "I'm not going to try right now but I may later." I'm fine with both getting a warning, neither getting a warning or just yamato getting a warning. I'd just like some more input. | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
| ||
|
Balla24
2322 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12972 Posts
On March 10 2014 09:40 geript wrote: I understand this point; my reasoning for not giving a warning to Gumshoe but asking for one for Yamato was the fact that Gumshoe tried to get into the thread and then he basically got called out for spreading poop all over the walls. I think he made an honest attempt. Conversely, yamato's whole attempt in my opinion was "I'm not going to try right now but I may later." I'm fine with both getting a warning, neither getting a warning or just yamato getting a warning. I'd just like some more input. I don't feel like Gumshoe got called out that much, he was simply pushed because he didn't really do anything. There was nothing he said that was truly scummy. I feel like he didn't put much of an effort into the game at all and he went afk for over 48 hours. I don't find that acceptable behaviour. I don't really have a problem with Yamato as he only lived to D1 and still had just over 2 pages of filter. Gumshoe lived about twice as long and barely breached into 2. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 10 2014 11:20 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I don't feel like Gumshoe got called out that much, he was simply pushed because he didn't really do anything. There was nothing he said that was truly scummy. I feel like he didn't put much of an effort into the game at all and he went afk for over 48 hours. I don't find that acceptable behaviour. I don't really have a problem with Yamato as he only lived to D1 and still had just over 2 pages of filter. Gumshoe lived about twice as long and barely breached into 2. That's fine. I'll correct to request warnings for both yamato and gumshoe. Prome do you agree with these or disagree? If he doesn't agree I'd prefer to request nothing. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10857 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
On March 10 2014 12:05 geript wrote: That's fine. I'll correct to request warnings for both yamato and gumshoe. Prome do you agree with these or disagree? If he doesn't agree I'd prefer to request nothing. I think that both players played within the letter of the law. While I was disappointed by them both individually and wish there was some way to improve their future play I'm not sure that a warning is appropriate. Both can argue that they attempted to play to the best of their abilities but were demoralized due to a well organized town; i dont believe they did play to the best of their abiltiies but there is no proof of that. i dont beleive in pinitive justice theough the ban thread, instead i think of it as restorative justice. so along with asking yourself whther they deserve a ban or a warning (the answer to which is a resounding maybe) ask yourself what they as individuals and tl as a whole gain from their ban/warning (nothing. i think these two put in the same situation will act in the same manner with or qithout a warning). if we punish for pathetic bad play where does it end? Because at some point what you are arguing for turns the restorative justice ideals that are inherent in the tl mafia banlist into useless mumbo jumbo and replaces those ideals with a strict and harsh rule set that does not attempt to improve the game of mafia on to but instead attempts to dole out punishment to those who play sub optimally. What I would urge: no warnings to result from this game but for hosts to keep an eye on both these players (and others who stumble when rolling scum) and remind them that for a game of mafia to work both factions must work their hardest and to simply give up when rolling one faction ruins the game for others who must live without the pleasure of a well fought victory. It is our goal to have good games which are a challenge to both teams and if one side simply gives up upon the start of the game than what we have is neither challenging or fun. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On March 10 2014 21:35 Promethelax wrote: What I would urge: no warnings to result from this game but for hosts to keep an eye on both these players (and others who stumble when rolling scum) and remind them that for a game of mafia to work both factions must work their hardest and to simply give up when rolling one faction ruins the game for others who must live without the pleasure of a well fought victory. It is our goal to have good games which are a challenge to both teams and if one side simply gives up upon the start of the game than what we have is neither challenging or fun. If hosts should keep an eye on them Perhaps we should keep a "list" that hosts can look at which notes an "alert" or based on these players' past behavior Perhaps we could note this "alert" or "warning", which comes with no punitive effect but serves solely as a note for hosts, in the already-existing disciplinary thread we conveniently have... | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
I personally made the mistake of ignoring that when I hosted my game, but I don't think all hosts do. | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
On March 10 2014 23:38 strongandbig wrote: If hosts should keep an eye on them Perhaps we should keep a "list" that hosts can look at which notes an "alert" or based on these players' past behavior Perhaps we could note this "alert" or "warning", which comes with no punitive effect but serves solely as a note for hosts, in the already-existing disciplinary thread we conveniently have... Your sarcasm is duly noted. However I believe that the warning is against the player and not for the benefit of hosts. These players did nothing to break the rules; they are should not be warned when their behavior was technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. However their behaviour was not good for the game or beneficial to their team, hence the idea that they should be reminded of the necessity of effort from all sides in a mafia game. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12972 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On March 11 2014 03:15 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I'm still waiting for the day "geripting" becomes a term. You just made that day today. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12972 Posts
We're gonna need a proper definition for it though. | ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
On March 10 2014 23:43 WaveofShadow wrote: I think hosts know which players are those who play and those who don't. I personally made the mistake of ignoring that when I hosted my game, but I don't think all hosts do. It varies from game to game for almost everyone, so I dont see how you can know. | ||
| ||
