EPTTL Mafia Ban List 3.0 - Page 86
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Message Blazinghand if you request a ban please ^_^ Also when the game you're sitting out is over! | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
| ||
|
Onegu
United States9699 Posts
On July 06 2017 17:30 Koshi wrote: You should be able to sit out games that you host. This should actually be a thing | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
LightningStrike
United States14277 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
Poll: Should BH be banned from playing until he finishes his analysis? Yes (32) No (Also, I am Blazinghand) (4) 36 total votes Your vote: Should BH be banned from playing until he finishes his analysis? Based on community feedback, I would like to submit a semi-permanent ban on Blazinghand. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
beentheredonethat
2934 Posts
I might consider a ban list action for Vivax. He replaced in but did not play. However, he hasn't returned to TL.net ever since so I assume some RL stuff is going on, so no immediate action. LightningStrike has completed the /sitout of Generic III. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
beentheredonethat
2934 Posts
On July 27 2017 03:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: Did Vivax break any rules? If you use an arbitary "he did not play" as a reason i can also point out like 4 other people who meet the "criteria". As in the OP of Generic III: If the host deems a player is inactive, they may be warned or removed from the game. Hadn't the slot been lynched, I would've at least warned if not modkilled him. The fact that he was lynched kinda took that decision off of me. I think replacing in and then not playing at all is clearly against what is to be expected from a mafia player and especially from a replacement and I will seek a warning for him should it turn out that he, like, got drunk and forgot about TL mafia all of a sudden. I do think there are some real life issues going on though since he totally disappeared. Can we please discuss potential ban list actions as soon as there are any proposals? If you want to discuss this right now, feel free to PM me. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
You could argue Rels didn't play (definitely played less D1 and D2 than Vivax did D2 and D3). You could argue rsoultin didn't play. You could argue noone played on D4. How do you draw the line that Vivax, specifically, did not play? I mean he met the activity requirements and if you have arbitary one's then i must say you should also request a ban for everyone that was alive on D4. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
Something that is bad in this world is that rules always need to be written down so that there are no backdoors etc etc while common sense is completely disregarded. In this case. Vivax didn't meet most people their criteria of playing. Those other 3 did. A warning is more than justified. Especially because the host changed the basic rules set in a ruleset that allows him to go for a warning here. It is on BH to make a decision but btdt isn't in fault at all. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
btdt needs to type the request out or not mention it imo. Asking if it is ok to warn somebody as host is lame. | ||
|
Rels
France13467 Posts
On July 27 2017 08:25 raynpelikoneet wrote: You could argue that Koshi didn't play. You could argue Rels didn't play (definitely played less D1 and D2 than Vivax did D2 and D3). You could argue rsoultin didn't play. You could argue noone played on D4. How do you draw the line that Vivax, specifically, did not play? I mean he met the activity requirements and if you have arbitary one's then i must say you should also request a ban for everyone that was alive on D4. I played more D1 or D2 even taken alone than all of Vivax' days combined. He had 5 posts. I had 22 posts D1 and 96 posts D2. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
beentheredonethat
2934 Posts
Really, it's super annoying right now. Someone replaced in and did not play, not in qt nor in thread, and was lynched a cycle later although he was widely regarded as town (for retarded modconfirmation reasons though). imho, that was detrimental for the scum team and absolutely is warnable or bannable if there is no good reason. It also is in the rules as I quoted, I deem it appropriate and Koshi pointed out the differences between Vivax and eg. Rels. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
And regardless, he didn't get lynched for inactivity (although that plays a small part because it's his scum meta or whatever) but the main reason he was lynched is because he was called out with inconsistencies from a post he made. Ironically, if he posted LESS content I'd be less likely to lynch him that cycle. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On July 27 2017 17:07 Blazinghand wrote: So currently what I'm seeing is "no banlist actions requested" and nobody is objecting to that. There's a pretty strong consensus on a semi-perm ban actually. | ||
| ||
