EPTTL Mafia Ban List 3.0 - Page 50
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message Blazinghand if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
| ||
|
Tubesock
United States2726 Posts
On May 21 2016 09:32 Koshi wrote: I got banned twice. I played a shitton of games. How am I banned constantly? First time 1 game. The second time I got totally unjustified banned for 3 games. I think we already went over that enough. I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
| ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
edit cuz I always respectthe rules: I am focusing on me. And I am everything that is correct in this world. So I am pretty sure I am per definition focusing on the correct thing. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16319 Posts
On May 21 2016 09:24 Tubesock wrote: I've been thinking for awhile that banning is silly. Especially when it was always like Robik or Koshi, they'd get banned constantly and then just come back and it never seemed to matter. Now, someone gets banned and especially if it's a new person they just won't come back. I guess that's ok for any justice seekers but I think it's bad for the community cause it's hard enough to actually fill up a game now. Banning Fazers may result in him never coming back. And also sends another message to any other newbies who see it and is likely discouraging. Fazer played as little as 10 other people in that game. Him voting himself wasn't what ruined the game. I told Marv to vote me, not a lot different than voting myself. He's not going to vote himself again whether or not you warn or ban him. The incentive to change is outside of this ban list. I think there has to be another solution. I have a couple ideas, which have holes to be fleshed out but might be worth a try. Why not have a separate "lynch" for people who didn't vote or didn't post the minimum expected posts? So, say on D1 we have players X who doesn't vote, and Y who posts once but votes. So during N1 (or D2) the players can vote to kill X and/or Y. It can be majority, super majority, just town voters, public or PM votes. Maybe those players don't flip for a cycle, or only 1 flips per cycle or something. Or maybe instead of a "ban" we have probation. Like I cuss out someone and am a total ass during game 1. Well, for game 2, I play in maybe there can be a host initiated kill vote on me. So, I start misbehaving and the host decides it's getting bad (or maybe the players) and then via public/PM vote I can just be killed? There's got to be something to motivate people to behave if you will and still allow games to continue on. TL Mafia seems to be on the death throws so limiting our playerbase seems counter productive. I pretty much disagree with all of this. First of all you probably haven't really read anything that was discussed since noone is calling for a ban for fazers. Sure banned people come back but at least there were a few games were people could play without that shit. And instead of some kind of resocialization the bans are supposed to be a deterrent. So you have 0 knowledge how well they worked. Also I think the people who actually get banned are a way bigger reason to stop playing mafia/to not join games than bans because to actually get a ban someone has to do something pretty bad. To stop banning people means to have 0 means of punishing someone for ruining a game. People who ruin a game don't care if they get modkilled in there or whatever it is you are suggesting. You should keep things like this out of the game 100 %. It will be exploited in some way I guarantee it and it will become really complicated for the hosts to manage. It will also become unfair to uninvolved people. Example: Someone is on probation for behaviour. According to your proposal he gets killed because he does it again. So what did you actually achieve? You let the guy ruin another game and you punished his teammates in one game but not in the other one which is really really unfair. I really see 0 problem with the way things are regarding bans. The only thing that could be discussed is the question when a game is considered to follow the banlist. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
Rels
France13467 Posts
| ||
|
Damdred
15669 Posts
To bh bad mannered behavior lines are far shorter than what I would classify them. He modkilled for outbursts while I warn if I think the line is much further out. Either way I don't think you can take the subjective out of some rules unless you crack down super hard and make people be civil much sooner | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
But i don't think there is anything subjective about clear rules, like you are allowed or not allowed to vote for yourself. That's it, if you are allowed to vote for yourself, in my opinion that is considered a legitmate action people are allowed to make and cannot be "overrode" with another rule. If voting for yourself is considered playing against your wincondition, why is not voting at all then? I mean you can't really say you are helping your team when you are not voting to kill mafia. It's literally the most important thing in a game of mafia. Put down a vote on someone you think is scum. Noone can really argue against that... If people doing those things get a ban or a warning it is irrelevant, although i don't really understand warnings either (outside behavioral banlist actions). You either broke the rules or you didn't. Why would someone get a warning??? For breaking the rules "just a little"?? rofl idk even know what that is. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16319 Posts
On May 21 2016 23:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: I understand being bad mannered is something where drawing the line is quite hard, although i definitely do not agree some of the decisions. Same goes with things like playing against your wincon. But i don't think there is anything subjective about clear rules, like you are allowed or not allowed to vote for yourself. That's it, if you are allowed to vote for yourself, in my opinion that is considered a legitmate action people are allowed to make and cannot be "overrode" with another rule. If voting for yourself is considered playing against your wincondition, why is not voting at all then? I mean you can't really say you are helping your team when you are not voting to kill mafia. It's literally the most important thing in a game of mafia. Put down a vote on someone you think is scum. Noone can really argue against that... If people doing those things get a ban or a warning it is irrelevant, although i don't really understand warnings either (outside behavioral banlist actions). You either broke the rules or you didn't. Why would someone get a warning??? For breaking the rules "just a little"?? rofl idk even know what that is. We had the novote discussion very recently and the consensus was that you should be warned for it. And it's remarkable how you still haven't understood anything that I said yesterday. Edit: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/504254-not-voting-and-the-enforcement | ||
|
Damdred
15669 Posts
I've gotten a warning before, I probably would get one again because I don't have much of a record and generally don't try to ruin games. And those grey areas not voting etc deserve warnings if the rules aren't specific over bans. It's partially why I asked for warnings, I didn't want to see someone banned when they could learn but it was against the spirit of the rules so something had to be done. In any case most things are subjective in the rules. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On May 22 2016 00:09 justanothertownie wrote: And it's remarkable how you still haven't understood anything that I said yesterday. It's remarkable how, regardless of it is right or wrong, democracy works for you. It's only a tool to solve problems when it works in your favor. Can you, or can you not see that there are more people here defending Fazers/Slam than people in favor of them getting a punishment? I suggest YOU read the thread and the arguments again if you can't understand that. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16319 Posts
On May 22 2016 00:51 raynpelikoneet wrote: It's remarkable how, regardless of it is right or wrong, democracy works for you. It's only a tool to solve problems when it works in your favor. Can you, or can you not see that there are more people here defending Fazers/Slam than people in favor of them getting a punishment? I suggest YOU read the thread and the arguments again if you can't understand that. bla bla bla bla I am just giving my opinion. What happens in the end is not my decision - I have no idea how you come up with things like this democracy horseshit. Am I supposed to agree with you just because 2-3 people came in here saying they wouldn't warn fazers mostly for completely different reasons than you do? Anyways, I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is clearly not even interested in the issue at hand and just wants to stirr up shit because he feels he was treated unfairly in the past. | ||
|
Rels
France13467 Posts
On May 22 2016 01:04 justanothertownie wrote: Anyways, I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is clearly not even interested in the issue at hand and just wants to stirr up shit because he feels he was treated unfairly in the past. Dat lie. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
 | ||
|
justanothertownie
16319 Posts
On May 22 2016 02:02 raynpelikoneet wrote: You would make a great politician JAT, you should consider that.. No thanks. I prefer staying a scientist. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On May 21 2016 09:37 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I think anyone with more than 4 pages of filter in the ban list thread should just be banned forever. Which ban list thread? | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
Heheheheheheheeheeh | ||
|
nnn_thekushmountains
1501 Posts
| ||
|
nnn_thekushmountains
1501 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:53 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: /sitout | ||
| ||
