We can all agree replacing out is bad for the game right? But being mod-killed is worse and repeat behavior is even worse than that.
Basically there might be mitigating factors that the host is aware of that should go into the final decision.
Should someone be banned because they got ill and cannot play so they got modkilled? no.
Should someone be banned because they got mad and Pm'd their role to every player in the game and then got modkilled? Yes.
They are both the same fundamental thing. (getting modkilled) but we are humans and can distinguish that the context of the final result (modkill) is different.
I don't see geript yelling that promethelax should be banned for an inactivity modkill in Titanic II. So clearly he just has a personal issue with me because I said he should get 3 games for grievously rage quitting back to back games.
Does anyone disagree with geript getting 3 games for back to back ragequits?
Does anyone disagree with Promethelax not getting banned for getting modkilled in Titanic II?
Cause basically people are suggesting these things should be weighted equally and that makes absolutely zero fucking sense to me to be honest.
We can continue this discussion when people who feel like they are bad as scum and prefer town start replacing out of games because they rolled mafia, not once, but often. As it's not punished.
On January 06 2014 17:50 raynpelikoneet wrote: We can continue this discussion when people who feel like they are bad as scum and prefer town start replacing out of games because they rolled mafia, not once, but often. As it's not punished.
Are you moving the target or are you providing another example? Who does this, how often, can you prove it was because they rolled scum and not something they discussed with the hosts, etc etc?
And if it's the case that they are not punished, is it an oversight because it's not documented well or do you think there is a conspiracy of some sort?
On January 06 2014 17:53 ObviousOne wrote: And if it's the case that they are not punished, is it an oversight because it's not documented well or do you think there is a conspiracy of some sort?
On January 06 2014 17:50 raynpelikoneet wrote: We can continue this discussion when people who feel like they are bad as scum and prefer town start replacing out of games because they rolled mafia, not once, but often. As it's not punished.
It's happened before. Talismania did it. Was never a fucking disaster to be honest.
On January 06 2014 17:50 raynpelikoneet wrote: We can continue this discussion when people who feel like they are bad as scum and prefer town start replacing out of games because they rolled mafia, not once, but often. As it's not punished.
I was punished. I got a warning. If I did it again I imagine I would receive a 3 game ban as I have a warning already.
Is this really a case of people not knowing that you may be punished more harshly when you offend directly after a previous offense?
Edit: I have read lots of pages of the ban list so I was aware of this in the back of my mind and never thought twice about it. Is this expounded upon within the OP of Ban list 1.0?
Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
Then your quest shall be to seek amendment the Model OP to add a rule for hosts to enforce regarding moderating rage quits at all stages of the game. Or to only support hosts that do so. Otherwise you get the hosts' discretion.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
No that's not what happens.
Like i literally just posted examples of 4 games where people intentionally broke the rules. Half of the people were banned and the other half was not. I am not trying to get anyone banned here or blame anyone. I am just pointing out irrational behavior regarding bans.
On January 06 2014 18:12 ObviousOne wrote: Then your quest shall be to seek amendment the Model OP to add a rule for hosts to enforce regarding moderating rage quits at all stages of the game. Or to only support hosts that do so. Otherwise you get the hosts' discretion.
And 99% of the time the hosts uses this discretion based on things shared between the host and the player have shared in Pm's.
Generally real life stuff getting in the way.
If we are asking that hosts justify their decisions to the community and air the content of peoples private discussions with them in the pursuit of 'justice' or 'fairness' then I don't agree with that at all.
And I also believe that a persons track record within the community is a perfectly valid thing to consider a mitigating factor.
Hells the LEGAL SYSTEM considers shit like this when deciding sentences. So I don;t understand the problem with us also doing so.
Also this:
On September 13 2004 22:42 mensrea wrote: THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS All other things being equal, we will give preferential treatment to site members who have been with us longer (as reflected in their post count + length of time with us as a registered member). It's a simple recognition of the quality of these people. Longevity and contribution are prized commodities around here. In a similar vein, "known" pro/semi-pro players will also be treated with deference (yes, quite a few hang out here). Don't complain - these guys have earned it.
Remember: we ban little kids all the time because they sign on thinking they can say and do whatever they want to whomever they want right from the get-go - just like they're used to doing at other sites. That attitude won't work here. That's a promise. As far as new users are concerned (i.e. anyone with less than 1000 or so quality posts to their name), this site is Holy Ground. The veterans are the users who've consistently shown respect to the site and to others and that's why they're still here. Show them some respect.
In practice, this policy means a user who has thousands of posts may be able to get away with a few minor transgressions in etiquette with just a warning. If you're at 50 posts and you try the same kind of stunt, then we may just ban you. Harsh? Yes. Unfair? Most definitely. But that's the way life is. Learn to live with it.
This also means you should think twice before calling that guy with 5000+ posts a jackass. If the guy's been with us that long, chances are YOU'RE the one being an idiot. Some battles are just not worth fighting - just move on.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
If I was on a comp I would post your tirade prior.
You know.
The one where you openly state that vets who obrain social cred should be given leniency towards punishable infractions.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
No that's not what happens.
Like i literally just posted examples of 4 games where people intentionally broke the rules. Half of the people were banned and the other half was not. I am not trying to get anyone banned here or blame anyone. I am just pointing out irrational behavior regarding bans.
Hosts discretion. Some things were worse or had a different context. That is the exact reason the hosts have discretion in the first place, and that has been the way it has operated for years.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
No that's not what happens.
Like i literally just posted examples of 4 games where people intentionally broke the rules. Half of the people were banned and the other half was not. I am not trying to get anyone banned here or blame anyone. I am just pointing out irrational behavior regarding bans.
Hosts discretion. Some things were worse or had a different context. That is the exact reason the hosts have discretion in the first place, and that has been the way it has operated for years.
They seem to be arguing against hosts using discretion and instead being very rule-abiding rule-for-everything type of thing. If you don't have a rule for everything, you need hosts' discretion. If you don't want hosts' discretion, you need a rule for everything. I'm not sure that many people would host, at least not as many as now, if every game was run like a prison camp with a rule and a role for everything.
On January 06 2014 18:06 Mocsta wrote: Dp U r doing a great job if misinterpretting the argument.
To the best of my limited literacy skills, I have not noticed any one arguing that wgenuine real life issues resulting in an inactivity modkill should be banned... Unless we are talking about repeat offenders. E.g stutters.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation where newbie x and vet y both rage quit.
Both should be banned. That is the justice wagon being thrown about.
Then why are we even arguing about that, because that is already exactly what happens?
No that's not what happens.
Like i literally just posted examples of 4 games where people intentionally broke the rules. Half of the people were banned and the other half was not. I am not trying to get anyone banned here or blame anyone. I am just pointing out irrational behavior regarding bans.
Hosts discretion. Some things were worse or had a different context. That is the exact reason the hosts have discretion in the first place, and that has been the way it has operated for years.
And this is why host discretion is bullshit. This is all about how people in that game feel about things. You can't possibly say i should not feel offended or should feel less offended for someone breaking rule X instead of rule Y.
Do you think geript is legitmately bullshitting and does not feel robbed because someone broke rules like he did and he got a different punishment than the other person? Like do you really think he just has some personal issues against someone which are so strong he feels like he needs to bring the issue up to everyone and argue against everyone about it? Because i don't, and i completely understand him regarding the ban thingy.
This is why it should go like this: Mods set the rules for the games -> you sign up you agree to the rules -> if you break the rules you get a ban -> if you repeatedly break the rules in games you get a more severe ban (like 2nd time, 3-game ban, 3rd time 5-game ban, etc etc). It should not matter if you are a newbie or a vet, because regardless of your status you should know the rules and by signing up to a game you agree to follow the rules, whatever they are. It really is that simple.
Given that the way hosts decide to modkill or replace people or whatever is entirely discretionary (or at least someone discretionary) though we gotta say to an extent we gotta let the host ban request be discretionary. It might make sense to put some kind of system into place more formally to deal with appeals or something, but the current "discuss your ban with GM" thing seems reasonable enough.
Like I guess what I'm saying is, rayn your flow chart makes sense but it's really like this if we implement you system: Host sets rules -> signupers agree to rules -> if players break the rules, the mod decides what to do with them in game, to warn you or to modkill you or to ignore you -> players who got modkilled get punishments in a standardized fashion.
Like let's say for example, ParthDunk asks for a replace out during day 1 and I think his reason is something bullshitty and he just got mad that he rolled town. I could force-replace him and treat it as a modkill, submitting it to the ban list. But if my bro DarthPunk asks for a replace out during day 1 and I think his reason is reasonable, I could just say it's "extenuating circumstances" based entirely on my own judgement. This is true whether or not we make mandatory punishments / ban requests.
Even worse, let's say Goaculation is being super inactive and I modkill him for posting once every 48 hours and barely keeping up with the game. If I do that, he gets automatically sent to the ban list. Now let's say my friend TechelonEee is being super inactive so I just post a warning in the game for him so he only gets a warning, or I just ignore his inactivity. Or I run a game with softer inactivity rules specifically worded to give me discretion on it, so the rule is like "try to post every 48 hours, there are no hard and fast rules, but if you post less than once ever 48 hours i may modkill you" or something
I guess what I'm getting at is if you standardize punishment more heavily, that's fine, but we should try to standardize what constitutes inactivity. I regularly run games with a 24-hour posting requirement rather than 48, and I usually slightly scale back the bans/warnings I ask for inactivity when the guy is a guy who I know doesn't usually get bans for inactivity. blah blah blah you get the idea
EPT
