| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message Blazinghand if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:30 raynpelikoneet wrote: Dude i am jsut figuring out who i could have as my lawyer or not and my choices are HF + geript, other people are delusional. As long as you don't try to defend yourself you should be ok :D | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
 | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
It results in people saying "well okay then, nothing bad was done"? rly...?  | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:38 raynpelikoneet wrote: srsly? does it matter if BH says mr X has been banned in year A??+ It results in people saying "well okay then, nothing bad was done"? rly...? No, but it obviously means the game wasn't using the banlist which means it is irrelevant as far as warnings and bans are concerned. You are lucky if he counts your sitout. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On May 21 2016 01:55 Blazinghand wrote: All requests for ban list action are denied, since if Thrawn2112 was in your game ... :p i like this, gimme more to popcorn! | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
User was warned for this post. Sorry, can't have NSFW stuff like this. Go back to enjoying mafia  | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:54 Holyflare wrote: Hmm, next time I commit a crime I'll make sure to do it with a criminal so it doesn't count! Even if I didn't know he was a criminal until half way through our crime. I mean, basically it's just on the host to do the super cursory check of reading the ban list and asking any smurfs what their IDs are. This is like a 2 minute thing the host has to do. Otherwise, it's not actually a ban list game. Anyways, these were just warnings, and rayn still gets his sitout. Maybe I can suggest a fix? I could manually do the banlist verification myself (instead of having the hosts do it) at the start of each game, if people would prefer that. I don't really play or host any more so this wouldn't be too much of a burden on me. Hosts could just PM me at the start and I'd compare the two lists, if they wanted. I'm not sure this would actually work better, but it's a thought. What do you think, HF? | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:54 Holyflare wrote: Hmm, next time I commit a crime I'll make sure to do it with a criminal so it doesn't count! Even if I didn't know he was a criminal until half way through our crime. Pretty bad analogy. And the problem is that it was in the thread that Dr.P was thrawn way before the game started. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
If they knew that then they did not mention it to the host and that's sneaky and disingenuous. If they did not know that then they possess the mens rea of the faults. Strictly speaking they knew what they were doing was wrong and thought it was a banlist game and should be punished appropriately. Thrawn doubly so perhaps. I know it's just a warning and I don't even want them warned because what they did was pretty standard IMO but to discredit the game in such a way seems a bit arbitrary and would set a precedent which I don't think we should be setting. Also, no, you checking is entirely time consuming and dumb but perhaps a punishment for the player signing up is better? Don't really want to punish hosts. Maybe a host warning so they get babysitting for the next hosting they do and if they fail a warning they need to cohost one. Dunno seems like making rules for the sake of making rules. Just a slap on the hand and be careful seems more appropriate. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16342 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:01 Holyflare wrote: For real though, everyone in that game signed up knowing full well it was a banlist game. Nobody in that game thought "Hey, I know Thrawn was in this game therefore despite it saying it's a banlist game, it's actually not." If they knew that then they did not mention it to the host and that's sneaky and disingenuous. If they did not know that then they possess the mens rea of the faults. Strictly speaking they knew what they were doing was wrong and thought it was a banlist game and should be punished appropriately. Thrawn doubly so perhaps. I agree. But we would need to change the rules. | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:58 Blazinghand wrote: I mean, basically it's just on the host to do the super cursory check of reading the ban list and asking any smurfs what their IDs are. ![[image loading]](http://orig14.deviantart.net/3c8b/f/2012/251/8/f/phoenix_wright_gs5_objection__sprite_by_superaj3-d5dz40t.png){kind=icon} I object! In 2011, milkymoo clearly ruled that the burden of identification lies with the player, not the host. On April 26 2011 13:22 mikeymoo wrote: Smurfs must PM the host because TL doesn't allow multiple accounts otherwise. I hereby motion for an appeal. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:08 justanothertownie wrote: I agree. But we would need to change the rules. We could do this! If people think this is reasonable there's no reason we can't change the rules. How about we open a thread to discuss it and see what the community thinks? | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12973 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:01 Holyflare wrote: For real though, everyone in that game signed up knowing full well it was a banlist game. Nobody in that game thought "Hey, I know Thrawn was in this game therefore despite it saying it's a banlist game, it's actually not." If they knew that then they did not mention it to the host and that's sneaky and disingenuous. If they did not know that then they possess the mens rea of the faults. Strictly speaking they knew what they were doing was wrong and thought it was a banlist game and should be punished appropriately. Thrawn doubly so perhaps. I know it's just a warning and I don't even want them warned because what they did was pretty standard IMO but to discredit the game in such a way seems a bit arbitrary and would set a precedent which I don't think we should be setting. Also, no, you checking is entirely time consuming and dumb but perhaps a punishment for the player signing up is better? Don't really want to punish hosts. Maybe a host warning so they get babysitting for the next hosting they do and if they fail a warning they need to cohost one. Dunno seems like making rules for the sake of making rules. Just a slap on the hand and be careful seems more appropriate. Pretty much agree with all of this. | ||
|
Damdred
15669 Posts
Hell people who were banned and have set out and done other thing were in games with Kush alts and went through the ban process and bh didn't say anything then. So I really dont understand how this is different | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On May 21 2016 05:04 Damdred wrote: It doesn't really matter with thawn though since Kush was banned and played in the game with his alt he's been using for months and no host has said two words about it. Hell people who were banned and have set out and done other thing were in games with Kush alts and went through the ban process and bh didn't say anything then. So I really dont understand how this is different Ah, sorry, I probably just didn't notice. The only reason I noticed thrawn was in that game was that he happened to be mentioned in the post and I ALSO happened to look at the ban list to remove rayn's banned game count and saw him there. As a general rule I assume (perhaps incorrectly, now that you bring this up) that hosts who request bans follow the ban list, and nobody in their games isn't on the ban list. I didn't happen to give you extra scrutiny, if that's what you're asking. EDIT: so, since Kush has been banned (link), there have been two ban list actions. The first was Normal Game for JAT: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/491693-tl-mafia-ban-list-30?page=42#830 which did not have kush playing in it The second was newbie student XX http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/491693-tl-mafia-ban-list-30?page=38#752 which also did not have kush playing in it So, given that I don't actually play in games or host in games any more, in the past 2 months since Kush has been banned, no instance of him playing in a game has crossed my desk in a way for me to say "well this game didn't actually follow the ban list" So I don't think your last bit about people being in games with kush alts is true. That being said, again, I generally assume that hosts check their player lists agains the ban list, and also check the smurfs and ask them who they are. Maybe this is not a correct assumption. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
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. Oh shut up you ass. You know you had me set up for Lylo and that's the only reason you're bitching loudest. I took the appearance of a perfect scum game away from you, boo hoo. | ||
| ||
|
Kung Fu Cup
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Mixu vs TBD
Spirit vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Rush
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
