| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
Table of contents
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25304 Posts
Once, not too long ago, I was hosting a game. A player stopped posting for about 24 hours (I required a post every 48 in this game), so I PMed him asking what's up and reminding him to post. He replied that his sister had a medical emergency and he wasn't really able to play any more. He asked if he could be replaced. Either it was past the D3 replacement deadline, or we were out of replacements. I modkilled him for inactivity-- he was a VT. There was no way he would contribute or vote for the rest of the game. I did not request a ban for him. I knew him from previous games and some other interactions, and it's not like he CHOSE for his sister to be hospitalized, or he signed up for a game knowing she would get injured beforehand. I deliberately gave him preferential treatment based entirely on what I knew about him as a person and the fact that in my personal, expert opinion as a host, the ban would serve no purpose. I've done this kind of thing before, and I'll do it again in the same circumstance. In my opinion, it's the right thing to do. If the rules are changed so that all modkills must result in some kind of punishment, I'll only ask for warnings instead of bans for what I think are reasonable reasons for inactivity and/or quitting. I'll decide what's reasonable in my own games. I think that "preferential treatment" is "host discretion" and I think that being able to call things on a case-by-case basis (as a supplement to using our rule-based system) is righteous and just. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
Ultimately ban REQUESTS are up to the hosts. There may be extenuating circumstances where a player will seek a ban against another player but those matters don't seem to be particularly frequent and can be more appropriately and privately addressed with the hosts as an intermediary, or if it comes to it discussing directly with GMarshal or his appointed representative. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On January 06 2014 15:34 ObviousOne wrote: The purpose of this thread is to stop derailing the actual ban thread. Continue your discussion here and stop shitting up the actual ban list thread. One axle greaser point. OO++. I have previously/recently not posted anything in the ban list thread no matter what I thought, as when I read it back before pressing post and I asked myself this question. This is the ban list thread. Is this post about a game I hosted or played and the ban of player that is under discussion? On those previous occasions as neither what I was saying nor the post I was replying to appeared to be part of the banlist thread topic I didn't post it. I got weak. On January 06 2014 05:37 Corazon wrote: But this sub-forum isn't moderated by TL rules. It's moderated in-house. So the commandments aren't really valid here. If they were, then we would have to ban a lot more people that we do. I don't know about that. + Show Spoiler + The adversarial combative nature of playing game means some aspects of the rules, are different, but that is due tot he topic of the thread (being a competitive game). The our house rule, TBMK stands and for good reason. Whether or not any people who benefit from it abuse the privilege, and whether they then actually get shorter shrift when it comes to bans... is at best a personal estimate. I know any person that plays like trooper twice then goes splat in the third game, is more likely to be assumed to have had RL issues, in my games. Life >>>everywhere<<< has swings and merry go rounds. When on any well moderated forum someone starts a thread, the thread has a topic, OT stuff is binned and repeated offenders sin binned. He who starts the thread in some sense owns the thread. Game threads are that way too. When I host game, there will be a sense in which I own the thread, and in that thread it will be my house. There are no simple rules for personal conduct especially in a confrontational emotional adversarial game such as mafia. The reason I dont want general TL mods to make decisions in these threads is it requires way too much context to see what is out of line. For the same reason any possible set of explicit simple do this you get that punishment rules is unworkable. Considering why it is an absolute requirement that people such as Geript cant have some set of rules where they know all there is to know about why people were and were not banned. It may simply be none of their damn business. Even knowing that there is or is not some other RL reason that explains it is none of Other peoples damn business. I have in my RL been in positions of authority over other people. Lots of things turn out to be nobody elses business. I am not, but if I was dying of cancer and didn't want people _here_ to know (so I could have one set of normal social interactions), and quit out of a game because of chemo... no one except GM would know. Not event the host, whose game I quit out of might know they'd just get GMs word. 'yep that one is sorted'. That probably wont come up, which is why I chose it, basically stuff happens people I trust fix them, I am 'blissfully' happy. I like being blissfully ignorant of anything I don't need to know. I am sorry but I just don't know what sort of fanciful rules bound world some people want to live in. Read my posting history I love me some rules, I have indicated that I think players ought pay more attention to them than they, seemed at that time, to me, to. Sticking the rule deciders in straight jacket however is an entirely daft rule. Rules are like electric fences player shouldn't go near the edges, GM ought be bored shitless. sigh TLDR? On January 06 2014 15:30 Oatsmaster wrote: ..... Nope. Just dont break the rules and you are fine. If you accidentally do... suck it up princess? Sorted? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland39242 Posts
That, i think, actually is a problem and i don't see how someone having played 3 games or 100 games on this forum or being a fried of someone has anything to do with how hosts should treat equal rule violations. If you break a rule you get a punishment, why do different people get different pushishment for breaking the same rule in a similar manner? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On January 06 2014 15:51 raynpelikoneet wrote: Blazinghand, the scenario you pointed out in your post is not a problem and everyone understands that. The problem is when player A and player B ragequit a game in a similar manner, and only one of the players gets a ban and the other one does not, even from a same host... That, i think, actually is a problem and i don't see how someone having played 3 games or 100 games on this forum or being a fried of someone has anything to do with how hosts should treat equal rule violations. If you break a rule you get a punishment, why do different people get different pushishment for breaking the same rule in a similar manner? Question? Do you know why someone rage quit? Could there be any other contributing factors you dont know about? (I got few potential candidates) Is it always any of your damn business to know why or even that there was why? | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On January 06 2014 15:51 raynpelikoneet wrote: Blazinghand, the scenario you pointed out in your post is not a problem and everyone understands that. The problem is when player A and player B ragequit a game in a similar manner, and only one of the players gets a ban and the other one does not, even from a same host... That, i think, actually is a problem and i don't see how someone having played 3 games or 100 games on this forum or being a fried of someone has anything to do with how hosts should treat equal rule violations. If you break a rule you get a punishment, why do different people get different pushishment for breaking the same rule in a similar manner? On December 24 2013 03:33 WaveofShadow wrote: Alright so now that PYP: LoL is finally over, it's ban time. Bans for Kurumi, OdinofPergo, geript, nyxnyxnyx, Storrzerg, Kenpachi, Bill Murray, gtrsrs, Onegu, and Roffles. Geript, Odin, and Kurumi are the ragequitters (the rest are inactivity modkills) I believe so I'm wondering if they need harsher bans or not (or whether or not that's up to me). I'm not sure that all of the inactivity modkills should be the same punishment as the ragequitters. Not sure if any warnings beside all this needs to go out---BC and marv are excused from bans due to extenuating circumstances. This game has been going on for a long time so I've messed something up here or people feel the need to appeal, by all means let me know. Is this post by WoS the source of this discussion? I'm trying to get things sorted out here because I feel we'll soon be running in circles (which might end the discussion but leave things unresolved and that's bad juju). Let's get our narrative clearly defined instead of using pronouns and vague examples so we can have a sensible discussion. Edit: I mean basically I have no idea what the root cause of this discussion is because the ban list thread is so shitted up I don't even think it's readable. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia6844 Posts
On January 06 2014 15:51 raynpelikoneet wrote: Blazinghand, the scenario you pointed out in your post is not a problem and everyone understands that. The problem is when player A and player B ragequit a game in a similar manner, and only one of the players gets a ban and the other one does not, even from a same host... That, i think, actually is a problem and i don't see how someone having played 3 games or 100 games on this forum or being a fried of someone has anything to do with how hosts should treat equal rule violations. If you break a rule you get a punishment, why do different people get different pushishment for breaking the same rule in a similar manner? Can you point out where this happened? Geript was complaining about me also quitting TL noir. But the circumstances were still different. I asked for a replacement in pms on day one. And MZ agreed to replace me. Geript rage quit by telling the host to fuck off in order to force a modkill and was generally FAR more disruptive to the game than I was in his rage quit. Not the same situation. In fact most situations are not going to be the same which is why there is host discretion in the first place. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland39242 Posts
EDIT: It's not even the point if it has happened or not (and i know it has happened). The point is that's what the discussion was in the ban thread. I don't agree with it. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia6844 Posts
On January 06 2014 15:59 raynpelikoneet wrote: Okay why the fuck do i even try.. Whatever. EDIT: It's not even the point if it has happened or not (and i know it has happened). The point is that's what the discussion was in the ban thread. I don't agree with it. Could you link me to a game in which it did happen? Cause I haven't seen it. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland39242 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland39242 Posts
On January 06 2014 16:02 DarthPunk wrote: Could you link me to a game in which it did happen? Cause I haven't seen it. No i won't. It does not matter because it does not achieve anything. It'll only make people angry and start another useless discussion that will tear this community apart. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On January 06 2014 16:02 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am saying in my opinion all people should be treated equally under same circumstances. That is what at least some vets are against. I think we've been working on establishing, as a concept, that there really is no such thing as "same circumstances". Show me where two people did the same thing and were treated very differently so we can dissect the situation. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland39242 Posts
It's fucking impossible to even discuss these things without having to make someone angry and having to make a 1000 word case because you are trying to prove a simple point. Here is what are similar circumstances: "I did not like my role", "I did not like what player X said about me", "I got angry because of whatever", "I can't talk myself out of the lynch", "I don't like how people are playing the game", "my allies are fucking stupid". Those are similar situations. You choose to quit the game because you can't deal with something in the game. The way you do it doesn't make a difference. Instead of trying to handle the situation in game you chose to chicken out and quit. Maybe you asked for a replacement, maybe you did just plain out ragequit, who the fuck cares - the bottom line is you quit. Don't break the rules, don't whine about bans if you break the rules. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia6844 Posts
By building up that social capital they should get more leeway than someone who is new and has not been a positive part of the community for years already. Is it fair in the very narrowest sense. No. Is it fair in a broader sense whilst considering the context of that person and the social capital they have built by being a part of the community for a long time. Fucking yes it is. Geript rage quit 2 games in row and is a newer player and got a 3 game ban. DrH did the same and has the social capital of being a vet here for many years and also hosting many games, starting the podcast initiative etc. And he did not get a 3 game for rage quitting games. I view that as contextually fair. Things like this are not black and white, nor should they be. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia6844 Posts
On January 06 2014 16:14 raynpelikoneet wrote: Okay i'll stop. What-the-fuck-ever.. It's fucking impossible to even discuss these things without having to make someone angry and having to make a 1000 word case because you are trying to prove a simple point. Here is what are similar circumstances: "I did not like my role", "I did not like what player X said about me", "I got angry because of whatever", "I can't talk myself out of the lynch", "I don't like how people are playing the game", "my allies are fucking stupid". Those are similar situations. You choose to quit the game because you can't deal with something in the game. The way you do it doesn't make a difference. Instead of trying to handle the situation in game you chose to chicken out and quit. Maybe you asked for a replacement, maybe you did just plain out ragequit, who the fuck cares - the bottom line is you quit. Don't break the rules, don't whine about bans if you break the rules. OK i just flat out disagree with those being similar things. But that is ok. I still love you. | ||
|
Oatsmaster
United States15771 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25304 Posts
On January 06 2014 16:19 Oatsmaster wrote: Also DrH just left TL mafia for like 4-5 months. Is it objectively fair to make him serve his 3 game ban when he got back? Sure. Does it make sense? Nope. I was under the impression (though I could be wrong) that the ban list reset happened between DrH's bans and his return, which was the reason he wasn't banned. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike: Global Offensive StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 |
|
Alpha X Series
Patience vs SpeCial
Ultimate Battle
Flash vs Bisu
Online Event
CreightonOlsen Tournament
Best of the Best Tour
Bonyth vs Dewalt
trutaCz vs vOddy
Dandy vs OyAji
Alpha Pro Series
Lillekanin vs Babymarine
AqueroN vs PappiJoe
Grand Platypus Open
Champions Brawl
BSL 2v2 Tournament
BW Jeez Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
