|
A rule that every game has, yet is rarely met with the consequence of a modkill the first time is the following:
7. Voting is mandatory. You may NOT abstain.
Most hosts, however, warn a player the first time, and modkill the second. I'm one of them. However, everyone is aware that not voting isn't allowed, which raises the question: Do we want to enforce this rule? What is its purpose?
How I see it, the rule has two purposes.
- Prevent inactivity
- Create accountability
For the first: I don't believe this achieves the goal. There are players that end up voting last minute whilst being inactive all game long. For the second, I believe this is something town should enforce by itself rather than attempt to enforce through a rule that isn't even enforced most of the time.
What I suggest is the removal of the requirement to vote combined with higher activity requirements.
I believe there should be stricter rules in terms of what kind of activity a host requires of its players. Having that in place would remove the requirement of mandatory voting. It might result in more modkills and more subjective hosting as to where you draw the line, but I think it would improve the game experience overall.
What are your views regarding the mandatory vote rule? Should it always be enforced the first time, is the current system fine or should we abandon it altogether?
|
If you want higher activity requirements - go for it.
Removing mandatory voting? Hell no.
|
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem.
|
miss 1 vote = warning that last x months in banlist thread
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 1 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 2 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
miss another vote = 3 game ban
.
.
.
Till banlist thingie resets.
|
x should equal around 2 for a warning. Maybe even 1.
|
On February 18 2016 21:35 Koshi wrote:
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem.
Pretty smart guy. But I would still modkill after the second missed vote.
|
When we start having games where 6 people out of 13 do not vote on a dayphase (it's not uncommon at all on other mafia forums) i am gonna point out to this post and say "i told you so".
There is a reason why the level of play on TL Mafia is high, and it is not because we allow people to not have any stances (especially) on D1. I understand someone will probably argue "non-mandatory voting does not equal not scumhunting" but you're wrong, it does. If there is one or two guys like that you can just policy the shit out of them but when enough people have the same mindset (above) you get crap quality games.
|
On February 18 2016 21:41 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 21:35 Koshi wrote:
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem. Pretty smart guy. But I would still modkill after the second missed vote.
nha. Because (s)he made at least a couple posts to not get modkilled for activity. Not voting never influences the game more than a modkill would.
+
missing 2 votes is already a 1 game ban at least.
Problem is that hosts tend to modkill people and then not ask for modkills. That is a true crime. But this crime happens to obscure the fact they modkilled like donkeys with a brain tumor for a brain. Or they modkilled to end their game because they realized that during their game they fucked up and want to end the game and then modkill people at random.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On February 18 2016 21:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:
When we start having games where 6 people out of 13 do not vote on a dayphase (it's not uncommon at all on other mafia forums) i am gonna point out to this post and say "i told you so".
There is a reason why the level of play on TL Mafia is high, and it is not because we allow people to not have any stances (especially) on D1. I understand someone will probably argue "non-mandatory voting does not equal not scumhunting" but you're wrong, it does. If there is one or two guys like that you can just policy the shit out of them but when enough people have the same mindset (above) you get crap quality games.
I agree. I'd be very against removing mandatory voting.
|
I'm fine with keeping mandatory voting, I just feel there should be a consequence for failing to vote the first time. Everyone knows the rule exists, yet it's still broken every single game.
|
On February 18 2016 22:02 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
I'm fine with keeping mandatory voting, I just feel there should be a consequence for failing to vote the first time. Everyone knows the rule exists, yet it's still broken every single game.
Yes, instant modkill and ban. If it ruins the game tough titties.
Otherwise it will not stop.
|
On February 18 2016 22:02 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
I'm fine with keeping mandatory voting, I just feel there should be a consequence for failing to vote the first time. Everyone knows the rule exists, yet it's still broken every single game.
Easy. Do what koshi says and warn/ban those people after the game.
|
On February 18 2016 22:03 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:02 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
I'm fine with keeping mandatory voting, I just feel there should be a consequence for failing to vote the first time. Everyone knows the rule exists, yet it's still broken every single game. Yes, instant modkill and ban. If it ruins the game tough titties. Otherwise it will not stop.
Do we also kill all the jews while we are at it?
|
On February 18 2016 22:06 Koshi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:03 raynpelikoneet wrote:On February 18 2016 22:02 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
I'm fine with keeping mandatory voting, I just feel there should be a consequence for failing to vote the first time. Everyone knows the rule exists, yet it's still broken every single game. Yes, instant modkill and ban. If it ruins the game tough titties. Otherwise it will not stop. Do we also kill all the jews while we are at it?
All of them. And filthy belgians too.
|
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that.
|
On February 18 2016 22:11 Koshi wrote:
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that.
That is an unfortunate event. Maybe he could take three minutes to PM the host, maybe not (i would not fault them for not tbh). It has nothing to do with this and should not be used as an example.
What if we are in D19 in a long ass game - 4v1, where Koshi decided they have been mistreated and they are furious and claim "fuck you all i am not gonna do anything, modkill me for not voting". Koshi has failed to vote on D1. What if i decide to not vote aswell because "Koshi is being an ass and the game is ruined"?
Do you modkill Koshi and let me live? Is it fair in your opinion?
|
On February 18 2016 22:21 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:11 Koshi wrote:
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that. That is an unfortunate event. Maybe he could take three minutes to PM the host, maybe not (i would not fault them for not tbh). It has nothing to do with this and should not be used as an example. What if we are in D19 in a long ass game - 4v1, where Koshi decided they have been mistreated and they are furious and claim "fuck you all i am not gonna do anything, modkill me for not voting". Koshi has failed to vote on D1. What if i decide to not vote aswell because "Koshi is being an ass and the game is ruined"? Do you modkill Koshi and let me live? Is it fair in your opinion?
I do not comprehend. Something about you being a dramaqueen on D19 because Koshi the Benevolent Ruler and best Belgian who ever lived and graced this beautiful earth didn't vote D1?
Sure. Be a dramaqueen and take the warning.
What if a lynchbait pretend to not be able to vote and gets himself strategically modkilled as town because for some reason the rules are that you are modkilled if you miss 1 vote even thought it is day 19 and you have a 75 page filter? And then you get a 1 game ban? Or maybe even a 0 game ban because the hosts are pussies and you have a good sobstory. (not that it is needed, banlist is filled with warnings after modkills)
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On February 18 2016 22:21 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:11 Koshi wrote:
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that. That is an unfortunate event. Maybe he could take three minutes to PM the host, maybe not (i would not fault them for not tbh). It has nothing to do with this and should not be used as an example. What if we are in D19 in a long ass game - 4v1, where Koshi decided they have been mistreated and they are furious and claim "fuck you all i am not gonna do anything, modkill me for not voting". Koshi has failed to vote on D1. What if i decide to not vote aswell because "Koshi is being an ass and the game is ruined"? Do you modkill Koshi and let me live? Is it fair in your opinion?
There is context. Not all no-votes are the same.
|
On February 18 2016 22:21 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:11 Koshi wrote:
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that. That is an unfortunate event. Maybe he could take three minutes to PM the host, maybe not (i would not fault them for not tbh). It has nothing to do with this and should not be used as an example. What if we are in D19 in a long ass game - 4v1, where Koshi decided they have been mistreated and they are furious and claim "fuck you all i am not gonna do anything, modkill me for not voting". Koshi has failed to vote on D1. What if i decide to not vote aswell because "Koshi is being an ass and the game is ruined"? Do you modkill Koshi and let me live? Is it fair in your opinion?
You have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with koshi that modkilling after the first failure will ruin a lot of games and it is not worth it - it just happens once in a while. If you do it twice you are a god damn retard though. So yes, I think it is fair.
|
On February 18 2016 22:26 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:21 raynpelikoneet wrote:On February 18 2016 22:11 Koshi wrote:
I would truly dislike the fact that a 2-week during game that got decently balanced got "ruined" and can't go to lylo because town loses 1 misslynch over a guy getting modkilled after his mother died 4 hours before the deadline and he had other things to do than vote on another guy who is setup wise 100% confirmed mafia and was leading votes 5-0.
But maybe I am crazy like that. That is an unfortunate event. Maybe he could take three minutes to PM the host, maybe not (i would not fault them for not tbh). It has nothing to do with this and should not be used as an example. What if we are in D19 in a long ass game - 4v1, where Koshi decided they have been mistreated and they are furious and claim "fuck you all i am not gonna do anything, modkill me for not voting". Koshi has failed to vote on D1. What if i decide to not vote aswell because "Koshi is being an ass and the game is ruined"? Do you modkill Koshi and let me live? Is it fair in your opinion? You have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with koshi that modkilling after the first failure will ruin a lot of games and it is not worth it - it just happens once in a while. If you do it twice you are a god damn retard though. So yes, I think it is fair.
I want to point out that you only agree with yourself and that I said that we should never modkill if you fail to vote. Only if you also fail to obey the activity rules you can get modkilled.
I understand it looks better for your argument if you add the "I agree with Koshi" line. But what would make you look really intelligent is just to copy Koshi his idea.
|
This thing is very simple Koshi. People who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game. It doesn't even matter if we are talking about voting, behavior, not sending in an action, or whatever. Your options are either replace the said player, modkill them, or let it slide.
Not modkilling them because "it will hurt one team" is not a valid argument, because replacing them or letting it slide STILL hurts one team more than the other. And modkilling them is the right answer because people who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game.
I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to vote. I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to follow the rules.
|
On February 18 2016 21:35 Koshi wrote:
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem.
I agree with this. I was stricter than that before but this is the way to go I think. Miss 1 vote => get warned, miss 2 votes => get modkilled.
After the game, 1 game ban if missed 1 vote during the game EXCEPT if sudden circumstances forced the player to miss that vote and the host has been warned about them.
Doing like that means game cannot be ruined by 1 unfortunate modkill, but there is a punishment even if there is no modkill.
|
On February 18 2016 22:26 justanothertownie wrote:
You have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with koshi that modkilling after the first failure will ruin a lot of games and it is not worth it - it just happens once in a while. If you do it twice you are a god damn retard though. So yes, I think it is fair.
Maybe the "retards" who do it in the first place wil leither change their behavior for getting blamed for ruining the game or stop joining the games to ruin them.
|
On February 18 2016 22:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:
This thing is very simple Koshi. People who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game. It doesn't even matter if we are talking about voting, behavior, not sending in an action, or whatever. Your options are either replace the said player, modkill them, or let it slide.
Not modkilling them because "it will hurt one team" is not a valid argument, because replacing them or letting it slide STILL hurts one team more than the other. And modkilling them is the right answer because people who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game.
I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to vote. I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to follow the rules.
It's not that I don't agree with how you feel here. Because I feel the same, or better said felt the same. But because people tend to break the rules 24/7 I just prefer to go with the more lenient rule set of never banning for not voting. Simply because rules or no rules, people forget to vote. I would just prefer them to be the inactive bastards that they are and cancer up the game, than them to be ticking timebombs and ruin/end games.
In an ideal world all players would be Koshi's. Active, funny, brilliant, intelligent and never missing a vote.
|
On February 18 2016 22:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:
This thing is very simple Koshi. People who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game. It doesn't even matter if we are talking about voting, behavior, not sending in an action, or whatever. Your options are either replace the said player, modkill them, or let it slide.
Not modkilling them because "it will hurt one team" is not a valid argument, because replacing them or letting it slide STILL hurts one team more than the other. And modkilling them is the right answer because people who do not play within the game's rules do not belong into the said game.
I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to vote. I agree with giving a ban to everyone who fails to follow the rules.
In an ideal world you would be right. But in the real world I don't want to have 2/3 of my games ruined because a guy forgot to vote. This is just not practical.
|
On February 18 2016 22:36 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 21:35 Koshi wrote:
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem. I agree with this. I was stricter than that before but this is the way to go I think. Miss 1 vote => get warned, miss 2 votes => get modkilled. After the game, 1 game ban if missed 1 vote during the game EXCEPT if sudden circumstances forced the player to miss that vote and the host has been warned about them. Doing like that means game cannot be ruined by 1 unfortunate modkill, but there is a punishment even if there is no modkill.
Another one who says he agrees with The Great and Brilliant Koshi but doesn't copy The Great and Brilliant Koshi his ideas and instead uses inferior ones.
|
Parrotman be parroting. Can already feel the koshi tunnel starting.
|
On February 18 2016 22:39 Koshi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:36 Rels wrote:On February 18 2016 21:35 Koshi wrote:
Voting should be mandatory.
Not voting or missing a vote could result in a ban after the game ended.
Not voting should never result in a modkill.
Solved the problem. I agree with this. I was stricter than that before but this is the way to go I think. Miss 1 vote => get warned, miss 2 votes => get modkilled. After the game, 1 game ban if missed 1 vote during the game EXCEPT if sudden circumstances forced the player to miss that vote and the host has been warned about them. Doing like that means game cannot be ruined by 1 unfortunate modkill, but there is a punishment even if there is no modkill. Another one who says he agrees with The Great and Brilliant Koshi but doesn't copy The Great and Brilliant Koshi his ideas and instead uses inferior ones.
The 1st book was brillant. The sequels were kind of meh.
|
On February 18 2016 22:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 22:26 justanothertownie wrote:
You have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with koshi that modkilling after the first failure will ruin a lot of games and it is not worth it - it just happens once in a while. If you do it twice you are a god damn retard though. So yes, I think it is fair. Maybe the "retards" who do it in the first place wil leither change their behavior for getting blamed for ruining the game or stop joining the games to ruin them.
Do you also believe in unicorns?
|
On February 18 2016 22:39 justanothertownie wrote:
In an ideal world you would be right. But in the real world I don't want to have 2/3 of my games ruined because a guy forgot to vote. This is just not practical.
I have said this before and i am gonna say that again.
The people who forget to vote or "forget to vote" (=don't give any shits about the game to play in) tend to come from same sort of "pool" of the players. People who are generally inactive and/or, as said, don't care about the games they play in.
For those people, why is it so fucking hard to do the following:
Every single dayphase, when you make your first post, when you don't know who you vote -- place your vote on yourself, or no-lynch. When you find a better target, then change your vote. In that way you can never ever possibly end up in "not voting" list. If you fail to post even once in a 48h day window you have broken another rule, activity one, aswell.
There should NEVER be anyone who doesn't place down a vote in a mafia game because the MAIN point of the game (aside roles) is to kill mafia by placing a vote on who you think is mafia, or pretend you are doing that. Whenever someone does not vote, they are literally playing against their win condition if they are town.
|
On February 18 2016 22:40 justanothertownie wrote:
Parrotman be parroting. Can already feel the koshi tunnel starting.
Unbelievable indeed.
|
Throwing in my input as a host that has run both the stricter and more lenient versions for voting -
My personal preference is to modkill on the first infraction. But Koshi and several others have complained about this rule and tracking my own games I am averaging one modkill for failure to vote, I am curious to hear from Blazinghand or other mods who modkill on the first go.
After community input and as I don't want modkills to ruin games, I've gone with two and then modkill.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
This isn't entirely relevant to the discussion, but I was curious. Apparently flamewheel is a savage and LSB is a pushover. Also if the trends hold true, Kurumi is a sure bet for the next banlist moderator.
Most Bloodthirsty Hosts
flamewheel 34 modkills
Blazinghand 26 modkills
Kurumi 23 modkills
DoctorHelvetica 22 modkills
GMarshal 18 modkills
Most Bloodthirsty Hosts Average (Min 5)
flamewheel 4.2500 modkills per game
Kurumi 3.8333 modkills per game
DoctorHelvetica 2.4444 modkills per game
Incognito 1.8750 modkills per game
GreYMisT 1.2308 modkills per game
Most Lenient Hosts Average (Min 5)
LSB 0.1429 modkills per game
wherebugsgo 0.2857 modkills per game
Palmar 0.3333 modkills per game
kitaman27 0.4375 modkills per game
deconduo 0.5000 modkills per game
|
Given feedback, here's my proposition.
Failure to vote once: Warning ingame, banlist warning that lasts at least 5 games. If player is already warned, 1-game ban.
Failure to vote twice: Modkill and 1-game ban. 2-game ban in case the player was already warned.
|
8 games and 34 modkills? Impressive.
|
On February 19 2016 00:44 Koshi wrote:
8 games and 34 modkills? Impressive.
The games were way bigger back then.
I see Artanis and Rels are already sheeping me. Good, good.
|
On February 19 2016 00:26 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Given feedback, here's my proposition.
Failure to vote once: Warning ingame, banlist warning that lasts at least 5 games. If player is already warned, 1-game ban.
Failure to vote twice: Modkill and 1-game ban. 2-game ban in case the player was already warned.
I'm more for a 1 game ban even for 1 missed vote with no special circumstances but otherwise that seems pretty good.
|
On February 19 2016 00:56 justanothertownie wrote:The games were way bigger back then. I see Artanis and Rels are already sheeping me. Good, good.
Sheeping the sheeper is the best sheep p:
|
On February 19 2016 01:01 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:56 justanothertownie wrote:On February 19 2016 00:44 Koshi wrote:
8 games and 34 modkills? Impressive. The games were way bigger back then. I see Artanis and Rels are already sheeping me. Good, good. Sheeping the sheeper is the best sheep p:
Didn't you listen to koshi? I only agree with myself. So I can't be sheeping him.
Koshis approach is too soft - gotta modkill those serial nonvoters.
|
On February 19 2016 01:00 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:26 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Given feedback, here's my proposition.
Failure to vote once: Warning ingame, banlist warning that lasts at least 5 games. If player is already warned, 1-game ban.
Failure to vote twice: Modkill and 1-game ban. 2-game ban in case the player was already warned.
I'm more for a 1 game ban even for 1 missed vote with no special circumstances but otherwise that seems pretty good.
I think people should get a warning the first time they do it at the least. There can be excusable circumstances and this is a catch-all way of doing it without getting anal and subjective.
|
My games generally do not have activity requirements or mandatory voting. Additionally, I do not replace people out unless it's in extreme circumstances. To balance this out I usually provide town with tools to get rid of worthless players (mislynches, vigis).
On the other hand, I'm surprised I modkill so little, one of my mantras in hosting has always been "Don't be afraid of modkilling people" I can and I will modkill people. Turns out I don't have to do it very often.
|
So essentially I disagree with everyone because FREEDOM!
My games will, generally, remain restrictions free. Government regulation is killing our liberties.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
On February 19 2016 01:25 marvellosity wrote:
such a communist
Palmar, the Trump supporting communist.
|
On February 19 2016 01:25 marvellosity wrote:
such a communist
Marv showing his lack of understanding of political ideology.
I take a lightly regulated approach to hosting and rely on the free market (town) to govern themselves -> calls me communist.
I'M FOR FREEDOM
MAKE TL MAFIA GREAT AGAIN
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
On February 19 2016 01:07 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:01 Rels wrote:On February 19 2016 00:56 justanothertownie wrote:On February 19 2016 00:44 Koshi wrote:
8 games and 34 modkills? Impressive. The games were way bigger back then. I see Artanis and Rels are already sheeping me. Good, good. Sheeping the sheeper is the best sheep p: Didn't you listen to koshi? I only agree with myself. So I can't be sheeping him. Koshis approach is too soft - gotta modkill those serial nonvoters.
My approach is equally to yours. The ban is the punishment.
Being modkilled for inactivity is not a punishment for the modkilled player but a punishment for the players playing with him most of the time.
|
On February 19 2016 01:53 Palmar wrote:Marv showing his lack of understanding of political ideology. I take a lightly regulated approach to hosting and rely on the free market (town) to govern themselves -> calls me communist. I'M FOR FREEDOM MAKE TL MAFIA GREAT AGAIN
THIS
JUST GIVE THE POPULATION ENOUGH GUNS TO ERADICATE THE INFIDELS
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 19 2016 01:59 Koshi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:53 Palmar wrote:On February 19 2016 01:25 marvellosity wrote:
such a communist Marv showing his lack of understanding of political ideology. I take a lightly regulated approach to hosting and rely on the free market (town) to govern themselves -> calls me communist. I'M FOR FREEDOM MAKE TL MAFIA GREAT AGAIN THIS JUST GIVE THE POPULATION ENOUGH GUNS TO ERADICATE THE INFIDELS
Clearly a flawless approach
|
On February 19 2016 02:00 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:59 Koshi wrote:On February 19 2016 01:53 Palmar wrote:On February 19 2016 01:25 marvellosity wrote:
such a communist Marv showing his lack of understanding of political ideology. I take a lightly regulated approach to hosting and rely on the free market (town) to govern themselves -> calls me communist. I'M FOR FREEDOM MAKE TL MAFIA GREAT AGAIN THIS JUST GIVE THE POPULATION ENOUGH GUNS TO ERADICATE THE INFIDELS Clearly a flawless approach
I especially liked the picture showing Koshi and a gun. Magnificient.
|
|
|
So we have seconds on edit timestamp but we're limited to minutes on post timestamp.
WHY TL WHY
|
|
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On February 19 2016 00:26 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Given feedback, here's my proposition.
Failure to vote once: Warning ingame, banlist warning that lasts at least 5 games. If player is already warned, 1-game ban.
Failure to vote twice: Modkill and 1-game ban. 2-game ban in case the player was already warned.
I approve of this.
On February 19 2016 01:16 Palmar wrote:
My games generally do not have activity requirements or mandatory voting. Additionally, I do not replace people out unless it's in extreme circumstances. To balance this out I usually provide town with tools to get rid of worthless players (mislynches, vigis).
On the other hand, I'm surprised I modkill so little, one of my mantras in hosting has always been "Don't be afraid of modkilling people" I can and I will modkill people. Turns out I don't have to do it very often.
Perhaps part of the reason you modkill so little is because you're open and straightforward about what is/isn't allowed in your games. People know what they're getting into and don't try to mess with it. I feel like the same thing could be applied to wherebugsgo as well. Though your more lenient requirements may also be a big factor.
|
On February 19 2016 01:53 Palmar wrote:Marv showing his lack of understanding of political ideology. I take a lightly regulated approach to hosting and rely on the free market (town) to govern themselves -> calls me communist. I'M FOR FREEDOM MAKE TL MAFIA GREAT AGAIN
I want to help!
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Hmm, there's a lot of theorycrafting going on in here about what a different voting requirement would do, and lots of disagreement. Why not have a couple hosts host a game with a different set of requirements? We could see it in action and see what we think about it. Remember, things like activity requirements are pretty much up to host discretion, and there's no hard and fast rule about what activity rules you need to have. It seems like there are some interesting ideas in this thread, so it could be worth trying out.
Maybe Artanis[xP], the next time you host a game you can give your idea a try? It looks like it has promise.
|
On February 19 2016 02:41 Blazinghand wrote:
Hmm, there's a lot of theorycrafting going on in here about what a different voting requirement would do, and lots of disagreement. Why not have a couple hosts host a game with a different set of requirements? We could see it in action and see what we think about it. Remember, things like activity requirements are pretty much up to host discretion, and there's no hard and fast rule about what activity rules you need to have. It seems like there are some interesting ideas in this thread, so it could be worth trying out.
Maybe Artanis[xP], the next time you host a game you can give your idea a try? It looks like it has promise.
My main gripe is simply that people continuously break the mandatory vote rule and that hosts all deal with it in their own way despite (usually) having the same ruleset. The main focus for the thread was to create a standard in the rules that all hosts apply unless stated otherwise. Whether voting continues to be mandatory or whether it's optional isn't really something I find all too important, just that we're clear on the what, the why, and the consequences.
Since most people discussing in the thread seem to agree upon a warning that lasts a significant amount of games on the first infaction, with a ban on any second infaction as well as a modkill should it happen twice in the same game, I'm happy to go along with that. I'd just like to reach a consensus so that everyone playing knows what they're signing up for.
As for activity, I find that more difficult to decide upon. Personally, I plan on enforcing modkills when it's clear someone doesn't give a shit for at least 72 hours. Subjective, but I think a large portion of the community would be in favour.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Hmm, alternatively, maybe the solution is fixing that people just writing down the wrong ruleset? People can run their games how they want imo (like Palmar who doesn't have activity requirements but gives town guns to sort out the lurkers) and as long as their rules are actually an accurate reflection of how they host, things should be fine right
|
I would like voting to be optional. You can read just as much into a non vote as a vote. Or you can collectively decide to plynch people for not voting.
|
if standard games were made to have no voting requirement i would abuse it. i know myself.
|
dont make crucial game relevant stuff unmandatory
|
Give breaks still due to extenuating circumstances but otherwise repeat offenders need to be banned
|
What I don't like is when you're town and you have to play the guessing game on if someone is gonna get modkilled or replaced.
Like if they will be replaced, then lynch them, if they will be modkilled, lynch someone else.
|
Shit happens in real life and game.
There is a small to medium sized group of people who play mafia where I think it goes beyond a hobby and it is an obsession to a degree. I admittedly am one of those people and there are several others in this thread.
We police the game pretty much in the thread all the time and we ride people who aren't decently hard in obs or the game itself.
I can't remember how many times I've seen a non vote get mod killed because of forgetting to vote or voting in thread Instead of the voting thread. And even if it doesn't' ruin' the game to some degree it is one of the most demoralizing thing to select especially if that person was decently active beforehand. Ie slam in ippo or SL in several gamed.
I think koshis idea of an escalating ban is the right way to go (sheeping). But I think I would be more lenient as there are irl things that happen, and if we were able to,change the typical rule set if we even have any activity requirements to something all hosts should adhere to in certain size games we would be better off I think.
|
On February 19 2016 05:16 ritoky wrote:
if standard games were made to have no voting requirement i would abuse it. i know myself.
same, the standard should be warning for 1st no vote and modkill + ban(s) for 2nd no vote but there should be more regulations against people that are notorious for breaking the rules. I would bend the rules in any way possible for mindgames and have done so in the past. So it would be justified for a mod to decide to modkill + ban me if I fail to vote for the 1st time rather than issuing a warning.
Basically one standard to set, but gradually stricter regulations for people that constantly cause problems.
|
What about "you need to have voted at least one hour prior to deadline to avoid being warned/modkilled"? You may change your vote after this though. That way you can circumvent the "is he going to be modkilled or not" insurance.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
|
|
On February 20 2016 08:27 boxerfred wrote:
no
Yes. It is not a terrible thought at first glance but in essence you are just introducing another unusual deadline which can be missed. Not to mention the extra work for the mods.
If someone fails to vote he will still fail to vote and eods could get even messier than they are right now.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
writing to say i love kitaman's stats
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://41.media.tumblr.com/efafaf997e0f8904ba0acc756936c0dc/tumblr_mkeqrx8DWV1re204ao1_500.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1aZCjwl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4X2R9hR.png)
