|
On April 25 2011 07:32 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:21 Jackal58 wrote:
However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
Hindsight is always perfect, after all. You are correct, I probably should have modkilled them the instant I found out, but at the time, I was thinking it would really badly disrupt the game, and also that they would die before it was found out that they were collaborating. Quite obviously, i was wrong, they got found out, and that ended up disrupting the game a whole lot worse than if I'd just modkilled them straight up. A lapse in my judgement, and I hope you can forgive me. (also, trust me. If I had known at the games beginning, I would have checked with people like BC/Foolishness/Qatol at first, and it probably would have been made public. Sadly, it was not to be.)
I'm not mad at you. A situation arose and you made a decision. All anybody can ask for.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I'm going to try to refrain from posting a lot because I do not think I can post reasonably without getting angry and writing biased arguments (which will involve a lot of insults). I think most everyone knows how I feel about the situation.
No smurfing, no account sharing
Since I joined TL I have believed that smurfing should not be allowed. Among many reasons, smurfing is altering the course of the game. Let me provide an analogy:
Twenty to thirty years ago, the United States Chess Federation had a big problem. Many Russians were emigrating to the US, and as many of us know, Russians own at chess. The problem was that these Russians had only played in Russia and were only rated on the Russian system (which the Russians did not release to the outside world). What resulted is many Russian players would enter US tournaments severely underrated and would win every game, thus winning prize money and such.
Do you think it's fair that these Russian players can "smurf" and thus easily capture winnings and glory from players who actually studied and practiced hard to win? This is still a problem today (although not as big as it was under the Soviet regime), and as an experienced player I've had this happen to me. And it sucked to find out later that this guy I lost to should have been in a much higher section than me. If I had known that before I started the game with this guy, I would have played differently, and that's where the difference is.
If everyone in a game of mafia knows that someone is smurfing, the game will come out to a much different outcome. Had the mafia figured out that Ver was smurfing as Ser Aspi, they would have altered their plan as the game went on, instead of thinking he was just some random first time player. Instead Ver survived long enough to heavily damage the mafia. I think it's incredibly unfair that the mafia were legitimately trying hard to win only to realize after they lost that this person (Ser Aspi) who was supposed to be a new player and thus at a somewhat similar skill level was in fact an expert mafia hunter. It's the same as the Russian chess player. Had I known I was playing someone who was at a much level higher, I would have prepared a different opening to play.
I know that the situation at hand is about account sharing, but the way I see it if we're going to ban account sharing we should ban smurfing as well. If you guys want to smurf, make another smurf game (we don't have Showtime! around anymore to mess it up). Also a lot of people did not know that flamewheel == protactinium on account that they were relatively new players. And Ver's argument that "well they can just go look at his history and figure it out" seems very selfish to me but I got nothing to say to it.
If smurfing and account sharing is banned that I doubt those 3 will ever play again anyways.
|
On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL.
This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host.
As far as I am concerned, the only person moderately at fault if any would be flamewheel for being responsible for the IP checks but not letting the host know that 3 people were on protactinium. That could of been decided AFTER he checked the IPs though. That is the only potential "rule" broken. It isn't so much a rule as it is not fulfilling your responsibility when it benefits you.
As far as the 3 people on an account go. I think it is safe to say that it gives an obvious advantage and is NOT the same as coaching. I am not going to reiterate these points since others have already made it clear. But it is unfair, and saying it is like coaching is not a defense. However they don't need a defense because it is not right to retroactively punish someone for a rule that doesn't exist. If however there was a rule number 9 that was "Do not do anything that could be against the spirit of the game." we could interpret the 3 of them as breaking that rule, it's kind of like the elastic clause in the constitution, it's broad to account for situations we never anticipated. If we wanted to add that to the generic OP I would be fine with that, but as it is currently written we cannot punish them.
There should be a rule that bans multiple people playing on an account though, and that should be added.
Ultimately my conclusion on the scenario is this. We cannot retroactively punish people for rules that don't exist. We can however create rules to account for other scenarios like this. I would suggest adding two rules into the generic OP. 1. There is only one person allowed on an account unless otherwise specified. 2. Do not do anything that could be considered against "The spirit of the game." This is a purposely broad term, if you have a question about something you are doing ask the mod before doing it.
This will allow us to ban multiple people on an account, as well as allow us to be more flexible with future situations.
|
On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it should be host's right to know that someone is smurfing in their game, no matter what. It affects game balance and prevents teams from being too OP (what if BC, flame, Ace, and you all smurfed and didn't tell me, then got randomed into mafia? It would break the game).
|
BrownBear, why were they just given the role they wanted? Why can't everyone get this?
BB I was at least accepting of how you handled things but the new information in the OP annoys me.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
BrownBear:
Also, at this point in thread, I ask if there are any smurfs, for them to please PM me so that I know, as per standard. flame does not PM me letting me know of his group-project, so I assume it's just flame playing by his lonesome.
Smurfing as one person and three people smurfing on the one account are very different things. Flamewheel hasn't given you all the information. He's broken the rules. Saying that you told him you were smurfing and hence are ok is rubbish.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
Meapak: On Protactinium.
I knew that flamewheel was smurfing in this game. I didn’t know which player he was. I was unaware that Protactinuim was a known AKA. It was first brought to my attention that there was triple smurfing going on by Qatol. He told me who the other players were and told me that Ver had been part of the balancing of the game but that Ver had sworn he couldn’t remember the specifics. With Qatol’s assurance that the smurf didn’t have any information the players didn’t I PM’d BB and asked what our official response would be. We were both annoyed that they hadn’t told us but we decided just to keep things quiet and wait for the smurf to die before broaching the topic (at the time it appeared as though the smurf would be killed within 24 hours). If all had gone according to plan then once the smurf had died BB and I would have gone to the ban thread to open discussion. I wanted (and still do want) FW Ver and Incognito to be required to play two or three non smurf games before they could smurf again. They violated smurfing rules by not telling us about it but beyond that I don’t think they violated game rules as I am willing to trust Qatol that Ver knew nothing about the setup.
Unfortunately the thread got wind of this somehow. Now how this happened brings up an issue I’ll address further on but for now I’ll stick with the issue at hand. A LOT of people wanted the smurf to be killed right away; however BB and I had already made our decision so as far as I was concerned the case was closed. This really incensed the mafia team and a bunch of townies but I maintain that the right decision was made. Modkilling the smurf would have been a really unnecessary bit of tampering with a game that was volatile enough without the drama involved in a high profile modkill. Furthermore the smurf broke no game rules in any obvious manner. If you read the eight simple rules in the OP there are none that the smurf obviously violated. In the absence of a blatant rule break I simply cannot see the logic of a modkill in this situation.
You've got to be kidding! He was involved in balancing and was allowed to play? And this is because "he couldn't remember the specifics"? Pull the other one!
This is starting to reek of coverup.
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
Incognito:
It is common knowledge that Protactinium is flamewheel’s account. The only thing that was hidden was that Ver, flamewheel, and I were playing on the same account. Thus, this debate is not about smurfing; it is about account sharing.
Coaching is a form of account sharing. It is not illegal to ask for advice, especially in a coaching game. Thus, the Protactinium case is no different than flamewheel playing the game and asking Ver/me for advice.
Account sharing is not in any way cheating. Having three people contribute on one account doesn’t give the players unfair information advantages. Even though we are three people, we still only have one vote, one voice, and the information that one person has – i.e. we know our own role and nobody else’s. Whereas signing up for a game with 2 accounts would give that player extra votes, extra voices, and knowledge of an extra role (and maybe even the entire mafia list), account sharing does no such thing. Since we all work with the same information and have no bonus votes, there is no abuse here.
Account sharing does not give us unfair advantages. What this merely does is increase our flexibility and ability to play the game in a serious manner. I do not have time to play on my normal account, as I do not have time to devote a solid 2 weeks to playing a game. My inability to be able to devote an entire 2 weeks to a game should not hinder me from playing a game. On my own, there is no way I could have the activity required to play a serious game looking how much activity is required. However, if I can share an account, I would be able to play the game. Given that I do not gain an unfair information advantage by sharing an account with flamewheel, there is no reason why I should be prohibited from doing so.
Having two people post on the same account is not unreasonable, given the enormous thread activity. Consider that some players like DH had 400+ posts, and players like GMarshal and chaoser had upwards of 240+ posts by the end of day 2. On the contrary, Protactinium only has around 75~ posts by the end of day 2. Even with powers combined, we still are not that active, and are clearly not spamming people off the thread.
Would anybody care if two inactives, say, MetalFace and Kenpachi, shared an account? The obvious answer is no. The case right now is that flamewheel, Ver, and Incognito shared an account. Furthermore, consider the following scenario: Replace Ver/Incognito with flamewheel’s brother or room mate. Logically, there is no difference between the three scenarios other than the people involved. And since scenarios 1 and 3 are not objectionable, it follows that the current situation is should also be allowed.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
First of all it's coaching according to you. TOWN ALREADY HAD A COACH IN FOOLISHNESS.
Why does Flamewheel need his own personal coach anyway? He's a veteran who has hosted numerous games.
It doesn't give you unfair advantages, but it lets you play with more flexibility and ability to play the game in a more serious manner? This sounds exactly like an unfair advantage to me!
You don't have time and therefore should be allowed? Noone else gets these special opportunities to participate! Tell this to Milkyst, or Robellicose, or M0nsterChef, or the many many other people who have been modkilled for inactivity over many games. Anyway, I note that you will be hosting a game soon, XXXIX. You have time for that but not to play in this game?
You don't post as much? Your average post length is probably at least 3 times as long as any other player in the game. It takes time to put those things together. Arguing that you had no major effect is an outright fallacy.
I would very much object to two inactives sharing an account. I like how you have singled out a newbie and someone who is renowned for not contributing much as your example. The fact of the matter is, with three people on the same account you have more time to sort through and process all the information and formulate your arguments than everyone else.
As for the last paragraph, you are trying to turn this back on everyone who is angry. I am angry because you seem to believe you have special privileges. IF YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS THEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY BIASED TREATMENT. You have been gifted a role. You have played with an advantage. You seem to believe you are completely above the rules.
After reading the arguments of all three involved I strongly believe that all three should be given a ban.
|
People can request roles. you dont always get it but its not unheard of or bad to request one.
|
United States2186 Posts
A few things for clarification. Nobody sent me anything about the game, as in I have no pm's from brownbear nor meapak so I had no idea about the setup. If I did I certainly would have said something about the screwy pardoner. Secondly, this is about two issues: 1) private coaching (giving advice without posting) and 2) account sharing (doing everything together). The first I don't feel there is anything wrong at all, the second is more gray but I still don't think it's a serious offense if it is within limits and the public coaching is endorsed.
For private coaching, where do you draw the line? You gonna say that nobody can ask anyone outside the game who has no outside information for advice? That's clearly ludicrous and impossible to enforce. As for my situation this game, I explained the assassin plan before the game effectively started, then twice gave my input on suspects, my thought process, and approaches before day 1 ended and voted once on request to cover for them having to run out. After that I didn't come online until days after the drama for good or bad.
Allow me to share another incident. In mafia 35 I was a public coach for the town. Day 2 RebirthofLegend came to me wanting to build a case against Insanious and LunarDestiny, who were both town. He asked what I thought about those two, and who I thought was mafia. I told him it was unlikely his suspects were mafia (from deduction, didn't know their roles) and that I was pretty certain Annul was mafia and gave reasons for each. RebirthofLegend immediately turned around and gunned for Annul with my reasoning and got him lynched. Annul flipped red, and moreover, was the only successful lynch of the entire game. I wonder if it ever would have happened the entire game if I didn't say anything. As I coach, I knew the identities of about 4-6 greens who had come to me, so I had more information than normal too. I very clearly affected the game in abnormal ways.
Even if he hadn't asked me my views or I refused to reply, I still was still colored in my talks with everyone that I knew certain town roles and thus had a much easier time deducing mafia or townies. This would naturally come out if say a townie was suspicious of someone I knew was innocent from them working with me too.
Which of these is the worse offense, if either is? I see the former (mafia 35 public coach) is much more egregious because I knew extra information unlike as a private coach where I know only 1 role, and hence why I have been very hesitant about public coaching again.
On April 25 2011 06:30 chaoser wrote:
Warnings to all three for hiding the information and in the future a little common sense and transpancy is all that's needed to resolve problems like this. It's not like FW is a newbie player that needs basic help in playing the game. Be honest, you guys weren't "privately coaching him". That's just smoke and mirrors to hide that fact that you were all using one account to play the game.
This is not true at all. If you don't post, how can it be said that you are account sharing. Moreover, I've privately coached several players to some degree or another at various points and I'm definitely not the only one either whose given key advice during games like that. All of them were players that showed promise and would certainly have been viewed as in the top 50% of players here or much much higher. My goal in doing so was not to train newbies but to train elite players, and I have been very pleased at these results. For example, you have been showing excellent play lately chaoser, have a solid history of growth, and I'd be happy to assist you in the future. On the other hand I wouldn't be willing to assist some newbie as a private coach if I don't have very good reasons why putting in my time would be justified.
This was just an explanation since a lot of things don't seem clear yet. I'll post specifically on the account sharing later.
|
On April 25 2011 10:53 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 10:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 25 2011 07:35 BrownBear wrote:
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL. This is something I have a problem with. When I smurf, I won't tell anyone. I would want to use a smurf as many times as I can, not going through the trouble of making smurfs on multiple occasions. Smurfs should NOT have to PM the host. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it should be host's right to know that someone is smurfing in their game, no matter what. It affects game balance and prevents teams from being too OP (what if BC, flame, Ace, and you all smurfed and didn't tell me, then got randomed into mafia? It would break the game).
I don't reveal my smurf to my mafia team, or anyone else. Plus the odds of that happening are extremely low. I don't feel like I should have to be biased against and hit/expected of day 1 every game. Sometimes I want to try out a different strategy, and it can get me fucked if I am on my main account. Smurfing is fine IMO, and I don't think you should have to tell the host because then you have to abandon that account after one game.
|
Ver your "coaching" sounds like playing on behalf of the other player.
This is what should be coaching. I pretended to be a town player and PMd Foolishness for help.
Yes, you should just ignore him. Asking whether Coag gave away 2 of the mafia is a big reverse psychology paradox that won't get you anywhere thinking about it. Your arguments against Kenpachi should be that Kenpachi is mafia because he has been posting in a way mafia would (i.e. he clearly doesn't care about the town, or he has some hidden agenda which is mafia favored, etc), and not Kenpachi is mafia because Coag might have given him away in an attempt to save him.
Not to mention, Milkyst was probably useless to the mafia as he was inactive and got modkilled for it. Most likely Coag put him in the list because he figured he was good as dead anyways, or he was pissed at him for being inactive.
If you can't shake the idea either way, pick the person who's second on your list of mafia and push him instead, then save Kenpachi for later.
Original Message From DropBear:
I'm a little confused. I was very solid on Kenpachi before.
Coag made some inflammatory comments on his way out. He pointed out LSB, Milkyst and Kenpachi as being teammates.
LSB died as a green and Milkyst was modkilled as a goon. That's one out of two. It could be two out of three. Should I just ignore Coag's raging?
Thanks again.
This is impartial, and suggests strategies not taking over.
|
Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints?
I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless 
As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against.
So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible.
|
Doing something against the spirit of the game should not be a rule. It should be a code inscribed on every TLers hearts.
|
On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible.
there was account sharing in pyp3?
|
Edited out, because I said things while pissed off. Sorry.
|
On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting
Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning.
|
On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:
Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning.
You're right, I apologize. I edited it out.
I'm going to take myself out of this thread for a while so I don't say stupid shit any more.
|
On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning.
Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist.
|
On April 25 2011 12:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible. there was account sharing in pyp3?
Iirc yes. Incog/Ver shared an account. I'll wait for them to clarify because my memory may be off here.
But here is my official stance on the issue:
They shouldn't be banned because there isn't a rule against it. Now that the situation has happened though hosts, or the TL Mafia Forum at large, can make it explicit before games start if it's going to be illegal or not.
I know some people are upset but with no rule or precedent against this it is very hard to hand out punishment. Really it's a gray area at the moment, especially reading Ver's post since it seems he barely participated in the alleged account sharing.
|
On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist.
Because it isn't. Ver writes guides for everyone to learn from. He just doesn't devote his attention to people until they show that they are committed enough to actually read his guides and try to learn from them (which is enough to get people to the level where he is willing to coach one on one).
Besides, calling him elitist is just mean. Also, what BrownBear said was a lot worse than just "elitist." He probably would have gotten at least a warning from the TL staff if anyone had reported that post.
|
On April 25 2011 14:06 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On April 25 2011 12:19 Ace wrote:Didn't this happen in PYP 3 (account sharing) with no complaints? I'm not against smurfing, but I do think it's pretty useless As for the current situation I think 3 ppl sharing an account is unfair the way GM put it. 3 pairs of eyes is really hard to battle against. So Inc, FW and Ver rolled Mason and started killing people. Incredible. there was account sharing in pyp3? Iirc yes. Incog/Ver shared an account. I'll wait for them to clarify because my memory may be off here. But here is my official stance on the issue: They shouldn't be banned because there isn't a rule against it. Now that the situation has happened though hosts, or the TL Mafia Forum at large, can make it explicit before games start if it's going to be illegal or not. I know some people are upset but with no rule or precedent against this it is very hard to hand out punishment. Really it's a gray area at the moment, especially reading Ver's post since it seems he barely participated in the alleged account sharing.
Barely participating is still participating. If Ver was involved in the setup, it is even less acceptable for him to have played. I would like it to be cleared up exactly what role Ver played in the setup of this game.
|
On April 25 2011 13:50 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 12:42 Qatol wrote:On April 25 2011 12:35 BrownBear wrote:
Enraged ranting Calm down. I don't care if you ARE the host of the game in question, that isn't an excuse to talk like this. This will be your only warning. Why is what he said wrong exactly? Ver's attitude IS elitist.
No, actually it makes sense. It's a very nuanced issue and not at all black and white. Here DropBear, let's say me, bum, you, kita, DTA, TS, and AO were the last players in the game. Me, you, kita, and bum had been PMing Foolishness all game for coaching. We ask him if he thinks bum is mafia. Do you really think he's going to give an impartial response? It's basically impossible. In that regard, I agree with Ver, coaching has inherent issues. But at the same time it's extremely valuable. Private coaching would be better than public coaching since you're only talking with one person and so not privy to private info on others. I never had problems with private coaching though and so now it's basically "If you're for public coaching, who is that any less worse than account sharing" is the main question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
