TL Mafia Ban List 3.0 - Page 61

On July 18 2016 20:29 Half the Sky wrote:
My understanding of three to semiperm is that it's the same as a semiperm in that you are semipermmed and if you want to come back, you sit out three games formally before you even have a chance of doing so. Straight semiperm (i.e. Robik) basically means don't bother from what I've seen (and why it's called semi, when you are fully banned, I have no idea tbh).

Three-games is just that, three games and you are back in.

And yeah JAT, if you want to use the final argument (where he was unprovoked and posted whilst dead) you can argue for the tougher/(semi)perm end of the range here.

On July 19 2016 04:26 Palmar wrote:

three to semiperm is simply a range (traditionally).

Meaning, the minimum suggested ban is 3 games. The maximum suggested ban is semi-perm.

The reason semi-perm is called semi-perm is because it's almost always negotiable after a period. The goal of the banlist is not to be a authoritarian tool for vengeance. It's simply a tool created by us, flawed as it may be, to help minimize the amount of ruined, boring or depressive games, and maximize the amount of fun, engaging and successful games.

The goal is not to cut people off, which is also why semi-permanent bans should be used sparingly. They should only be used when the actions of a person are actively ruining games and hurting he community.

Generally, I personally seem to be on the more lenient end of things, especially if people sound even remotely remorseful about what they did, or acknowledge they did something wrong.

Just coming to the ban-list thread or post-game and saying "Look guys, I'm sorry I shouldn't have done that" means to me that the person should probably not be semi-permanently banned.

I don't know, I'm just ranting.

On July 19 2016 04:49 Palmar wrote:
Also, to be entirely sure, this seems to be something that a lot of people (including Snickers in this case) don't understand.

The host of a game is basically a god within his own game. He can do whatever he wants to do. There are almost no general rules that apply to every game, but most hosts will usually refer to the model OP for things their specific rules don't cover. As long as people don't break the website's general rules, the host can really do whatever he wants in his game. And we have many different hosts and many different methodologies.

A player is always free to not sign up to a particular host's game.

For example, in this case, Onegu is completely within his right to choose to not modkill for failing to vote, because he is the host of the game. He is also the sole authority on whether or not someone crosses the line in terms of language and personal attacks (I actually agree with Onegu, there was no problem with that post by Skynx).

When you join a game, you submit yourself to the decisions of the host completely. You have no right and no way to challenge the host. You shut up and do as you're told, and if you don't agree with a host decisions, tough shit. Yes, I have strongly disagreed with hosts in past games, but the point is, you don't take it public, because in the end, it's not up to you or the community, the host runs his game as he sees fit.

Some people have suggested we need some way to rein in the power of the hosts. The only system we currently have is the requirement for a host to have served as a co-host for a set amount of games before he can host one of his own. I'm not entirely opposed to such a system, but I also believe it to be unnecessary. I can't remember a game in a long time where host incompetence caused any serious problem. I guess I'm of the "don't fix it if it ain't broken" school of thought.

On July 19 2016 05:18 marvellosity wrote:
There are definitely hosts I prefer playing in their games and hosts I'm reluctant to play in their games.

But it's not easy being a host and you often have to make quite marginal calls. Certainly in the games I've (co)hosted, if I'm unsure about something then I'll try to not interfere. Maybe for the sake of the game Onegu decided not to modkill Shapelog even if he could or even should have. Maybe that was incorrect (or not) or maybe you don't like it, but you don't end the game for everyone else based on your convictions.

And in the end, hosts are (usually ) doing the players a favour by actually giving them a game to play in.

In reality, the playerbase is shrinking and I don't think it's because TL Mafia itself is doing anything particularly wrong. The standard of play is (very) good and there are a lot of players who are very fun to play with. But with a shrinking playerbase arguments that are normally at most a bitpart sideshow become the main attraction and everyone pontificates on what needs to be changed. But the hosting is not worse than it used to be in the halcyon days, players are not more vicious, there is no endemic pattern that wasn't there when we had a huge playerbase. But a few years ago, there would be a few games running and you just wouldn't notice this sort of thing anywhere near as much.

On July 19 2016 04:49 Palmar wrote:
Also, to be entirely sure, this seems to be something that a lot of people (including Snickers in this case) don't understand.

The host of a game is basically a god within his own game. He can do whatever he wants to do. There are almost no general rules that apply to every game, but most hosts will usually refer to the model OP for things their specific rules don't cover. As long as people don't break the website's general rules, the host can really do whatever he wants in his game. And we have many different hosts and many different methodologies.

A player is always free to not sign up to a particular host's game.

For example, in this case, Onegu is completely within his right to choose to not modkill for failing to vote, because he is the host of the game. He is also the sole authority on whether or not someone crosses the line in terms of language and personal attacks (I actually agree with Onegu, there was no problem with that post by Skynx).

When you join a game, you submit yourself to the decisions of the host completely. You have no right and no way to challenge the host. You shut up and do as you're told, and if you don't agree with a host decisions, tough shit. Yes, I have strongly disagreed with hosts in past games, but the point is, you don't take it public, because in the end, it's not up to you or the community, the host runs his game as he sees fit.

Some people have suggested we need some way to rein in the power of the hosts. The only system we currently have is the requirement for a host to have served as a co-host for a set amount of games before he can host one of his own. I'm not entirely opposed to such a system, but I also believe it to be unnecessary. I can't remember a game in a long time where host incompetence caused any serious problem. I guess I'm of the "don't fix it if it ain't broken" school of thought.

On July 19 2016 05:31 Snickers wrote:
Its hilarious how close to zero posts since this happened have been thought out.