TL Mafia Ban List 3.0 - Page 43

On May 05 2016 02:47 Coagulation wrote:


probably a warning that stays on record for 5 games or some equally asinine statistic that assumes (A) people hosting are idiots that dont pay attention to who is joining games and (B) banninghand has nothing better to do than moderate a glorified butt hurt list.

On April 21 2016 16:58 DarthPunk wrote:
Being an arsehole is just a part of the culture that was established here. The newbies learn by emulating the established players, who are assholes, and the cycle repeats itself.

If I recall correctly part of the reason that Blazinghand started the Community Thread was to interact with one another outside of mafia so that people could come to the realization that this behavior is just a part of the game.

Mafia is dying here because SC2 is dying basically. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong correlation between peak mafia years and the popularity of SC2.

All the people who joined as students ~2010 have jobs and real life commitments now which are not conducive to playing mafia. So we moved on and their are fewer freshers to replace us.

Perhaps the TL staff took too long in giving mafia a fighting chance to acquire new blood through their other sites. Maybe now they have done something about it there will be new growth, maybe not.

I do Know that the time I spent as a part of this community was really special to me. Even if we were all assholes. :D Which is why I keep checking in even though I will probably never play again.

On May 20 2016 16:37 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Damdred i am a bit puzzled in why you are requesting a ban for self-voting when you yourself allowed self-voting in the game? Is it anti-town? Yes. Against the rules? No. In a same manner you could request a ban to Palmar and sandroba for playing a terrible scumgame. Or to all the townies in LYLO for not posting at all for the first 46 hours or so...

On May 20 2016 16:48 Koshi wrote:
I have not read a single post in that game but Slam self voting probably made him town.

On May 20 2016 21:11 justanothertownie wrote:

None if this changes the fact that it was clearly against their wincon and like I said - if actively working towards your own mislynch isn't playing against your wincon then what could possibly be? What is the point of that rule then?

And yeah, you are right. Sandro probably deserves a warning or something too but mostly for inactivity. His play was a disgrace but at least he didn't actively encourage town to kill him.

On May 20 2016 22:05 raynpelikoneet wrote:

I understand the point.

I however do not understand the point that for example self-voting is allowed in a game and then the host seeks ban for a self-voter. What's the point of a self-vote if it is not killing yourself for whatever reason?

I totally get the idea of playing against your wincon and i mostly agree with your view of the situation but it is not so black and white. For example i understand Slam's train of though perfectly fine and while i do not agree with it at all, who is to say what is an "appropriate" solution a player should take to situations (especially emotional ones) and what is not? Hell it's even perfectly possible that you would have won way more easier if Slam (or Fazers) was not lynched the day he was.

People giving up and getting themselves lynched has happened and will happen in the future. I don't really remember a case where that has resulted in a ban or even a warning. The "actively playing against you wincon" is really hard thing to draw a line to. For example i consider people not posting anything game-relevant for 40 first hours in LYLO just as much playing against wincon than what Slam did. I also consider people not addressing arguments against them or answering them with "fuck you i am not gonna talk to you" 's playing as much "against wincon"... Those things happen though, if not every game, at least almost every game.

For this particular situation and people:
- Slam's explanation for his actions is perfectly valid, there is nothing wrong with it.
- Fazers self-vote cannot possibly be considered playing against his wincon in itself because Damdred HAD ALLOWED self-voting in the game. If something is against playing your wincon or against rules why the fuck do you allow it then? It's like saying "cursing in this game is fine" and when someone does it you go on and seek a ban for him because they cursed.... Seems fair? Also the activity argument doesn't really hold water either since Fazers met the activity requirements (even better than certain other players) and there is no rule about how "informative" or "in depth" your posting is supposed to be.

Did they screw over town? Sure they did. Did they break any rules? No.

I mean, one could make an argumet that BH should get a ban from game X because he promoted a D1 random lynch. kitaman's statistics clearly show that TL towns lynch mafia more often on D1 based on educated guessing than a random lynch does. So BH is playing against his wincon if he is town, right? This is actually a logically sound argument, yet imo it sounds just as stupid as the argument on Slam and Fazers...

I am known to be a wild card. If I had made it to Lylo, there is no way I would not have been lynched before JAT. Beyond that, anyone else in that game who would have been scum could have simply said that I somehow avoided being lynched by being slam and therefore must be scum because I hard defended palmar.

On May 20 2016 22:34 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I mean i don't see the difference in if that person who should be lynched is you or someone else, if you don't think they are mafia. Unless it is LYLO ofc where the result is obviously a loss for your team if you are lynched. In a same way conceding as mafia should be punished? Because if you concede you cannot possibly help your team to win?

Where do you wanna draw the line?

On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.