|
On May 02 2011 23:29 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 06:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On May 02 2011 06:19 Forumite wrote:On May 01 2011 23:51 chaoser wrote:On May 01 2011 21:14 Forumite wrote:
I would not be comfortable with Flamewheel in that position, not after he invited two others to use his smurf-account to play in the same game.
About Zorkmid, I want to know what really happened, that it should be discussed openly, after the game he played in is over of course. I would also like that whole TL-ban thing cleared up, and removed, so he can, if he wants to, come here and defend himself. Getting him banned and then accusing and badmouthing is not a fair tactic. We always discuss bans after games and the details will be made clear. In regards to the ban, I stand by it due to him intentionally trying to ruin the game, both in thread and out, as well as many other actions that I touched upon on a post already. I didn't want him causing any more trouble and potentially just outright ruining the game so I asked for the TL ban. The accusations are justified in evidence and I find it kind of insulting that I'm being accused of badmouthing someone for unfounded reasons and the incendiary/accusatory tone that's in that post, to both me and this subforum as a whole. We run a smooth ship here and while some problems do pop up from time to time, we handle things things well. Like I said previously, all details will be made clear after the game ends so let's not talk about it anymore. It wasn´t an attack against you Chaoser, actually I was not aware of who got Zorkmid banned. I suspected taht it might have been a host, but I didn´t find posts of anyone claiming to have requested the ban, so I assumed it was an anonymous tip that got him banned. My apologies. I still object to talking about Zorkmid without him getting a chance to talk back, but that´s a general complaint to many on this forum. Did he state in that final post in the game thread that he wanted to stop playing Mafia? Even if he did, I think he should get the chance to come back here to defend himself once we start discussing the ban. If he doesn´t want to come, then that´s the end of it, give him a semi-permanent ban and move, but if he´s cooled down and want another chance to play mafia then he should be allowed a chance to defend himself. He will be given his opportunity to speak. In the heat of the moment and the confusion over the banlist they requested that he get ousted to a mod. The ban won't be discussed until the game is over. He has an account (green2) that can access this forum and respond to us if he wishes. In any case he can respond on his Zorkmid account in around a week anyway. So he will be heard and we don't generally try to railroad people. At the same time we don't know the entire story because the game is still going on. When it is over we will consider all evidence and make a decision. He´s an old TL-user, so he will probably come back to TL, but him getting banned from TL is probably a large part of why he doesn´t want to join Mafia here anymore, which is why I disagree with getting him banned in the first place. I can see why it happened, but it doesn´t solve any problems, if Zorkmid wanted to post again, then he could have posted with green2. Banning the Zorkmid account only means the problem in Mafia spilled over into TL. IMO his TL-ban should be lifted, even if his Mafia-access is removed. The damage is done, he´s out of TL-Mafia, but there´s no point in keeping him out of TL anymore.
He won't post with green2 until after his ban is lifted. The mods watch for posts of banned users on smurf accounts. It's called ban dodging and it's an easy way to get your smurf banned and your main account's ban extended.
As RoL said, we don't have the authority to lift TL bans. Even if we did, we don't have the authority to overrule Hot_Bid (only Nazgul, Meat, and maybe R1ch do). And that is all assuming that they want to remove his ban. Hot_Bid thought a ban was justified. That's good enough for me to agree that it was justified.
|
Oh btw just to let everyone know - /sitout mafia 39! Already posted in thread.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
If you'll have me.
I'll be around.
|
On May 04 2011 03:47 flamewheel wrote:
If you'll have me.
I'll be around.
I don't see anyone other than Coagulation and Forumite objecting, and I think I'm going to go with the majority here. So welcome to Hell.
|
On May 01 2011 21:14 Forumite wrote:
I would not be comfortable with Flamewheel in that position, not after he invited two others to use his smurf-account to play in the same game.
About Zorkmid, I want to know what really happened, that it should be discussed openly, after the game he played in is over of course. I would also like that whole TL-ban thing cleared up, and removed, so he can, if he wants to, come here and defend himself. Getting him banned and then accusing and badmouthing is not a fair tactic.
qatol loves to make me seem like an outcast
|
On May 04 2011 04:13 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2011 21:14 Forumite wrote:
I would not be comfortable with Flamewheel in that position, not after he invited two others to use his smurf-account to play in the same game.
About Zorkmid, I want to know what really happened, that it should be discussed openly, after the game he played in is over of course. I would also like that whole TL-ban thing cleared up, and removed, so he can, if he wants to, come here and defend himself. Getting him banned and then accusing and badmouthing is not a fair tactic. qatol loves to make me seem like an outcast
No, Qatol just didn't check and forgot that Forumite posted that. I fixed it, okay? Now please stop whining. You know what I meant.
|
United States22154 Posts
|
On May 04 2011 04:28 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 04:13 Coagulation wrote:On May 01 2011 21:14 Forumite wrote:
I would not be comfortable with Flamewheel in that position, not after he invited two others to use his smurf-account to play in the same game.
About Zorkmid, I want to know what really happened, that it should be discussed openly, after the game he played in is over of course. I would also like that whole TL-ban thing cleared up, and removed, so he can, if he wants to, come here and defend himself. Getting him banned and then accusing and badmouthing is not a fair tactic. qatol loves to make me seem like an outcast No, Qatol just didn't check and forgot that Forumite posted that. I fixed it, okay? Now please stop acting like a baby. You know what I meant.
just making sure no ones input gets overlooked.
|
After discussing things with people on IRC, I am going to switch youngminii's sit out game from Survivor to Sleeper Cell because Survivor is looking like it will last an extremely long amount of time (to the point where it seems unfair to make him wait for it to finish).
|
Problem with the current ruleset
I'd like to point out a problem I have with the current rules.
Right now, if you get a one game ban, you're very likely to have to miss out on multiple games as there's many games going on at once. Especially if you sit out longer games you could miss out on quite a few smaller games.
In particular, i'm in the same situation now. With the current ruleset, i'm missing out on both XXXIX and PYP Insane, and they are not even counting to my banned game counts, which means i'll miss out on another game after that, and any games that start during the game i'm sitting out. That's already a three game ban, potentially even more, despite only receiving a ban for one game.
Proposed change
Modifying the current system to the following ruleset:
- When you receive a ban, you have to sit out the appropriate amount of games according to your ban.
- Sitting out a game will count as playing in it.
- As soon as the game you are sitting out starts, it will count towards your bancount. If you have no bans remaining you're free to sign up for other games, even if they start during the period that the game you're sitting out is going on.
- You cannot sit out multiple games at once. This is meant to keep the purpose of multiple game bans intact: to punish repeat offenders more severely. Letting them sit out 3 games going at once would defeat the intent of multi-game bans: to give a more severe punishment for a longer period of time.
If there are questions about this, i'd love to hear it.
|
On May 04 2011 07:30 Rean wrote:
Problem with the current ruleset
I'd like to point out a problem I have with the current rules.
Right now, if you get a one game ban, you're very likely to have to miss out on multiple games as there's many games going on at once. Especially if you sit out longer games you could miss out on quite a few smaller games.
In particular, i'm in the same situation now. With the current ruleset, i'm missing out on both XXXIX and PYP Insane, and they are not even counting to my banned game counts, which means i'll miss out on another game after that, and any games that start during the game i'm sitting out. That's already a three game ban, potentially even more, despite only receiving a ban for one game.
Proposed change
Modifying the current system to the following ruleset:
- When you receive a ban, you have to sit out the appropriate amount of games according to your ban.
- Sitting out a game will count as playing in it.
- As soon as the game you are sitting out starts, it will count towards your bancount. If you have no bans remaining you're free to sign up for other games, even if they start during the period that the game you're sitting out is going on.
- You cannot sit out multiple games at once. This is meant to keep the purpose of multiple game bans intact: to punish repeat offenders more severely. Letting them sit out 3 games going at once would defeat the intent of multi-game bans: to give a more severe punishment for a longer period of time.
If there are questions about this, i'd love to hear it.
A plausible solution could be a time based ban. 1 week 2 weeks etc.
That removes the apparent double jeopardy issue. It would also allow Qatol and company to spend less time trying to keep track of who sat out what.
Banned player has a date that he can return. No more people showing up a year later to contest a ban.
|
It sounds reasonable, especially since it seems to cater towards active players who occasionally lose track of time...
<_<
|
On May 04 2011 08:53 bumatlarge wrote:
It sounds reasonable, especially since it seems to cater towards active players who occasionally lose track of time...
<_<
That's exactly what the changes I proposed are meant for ^^
|
On May 04 2011 08:53 bumatlarge wrote:
It sounds reasonable, especially since it seems to cater towards active players who occasionally lose track of time...
<_<
Give them time to wind their watch.
It would also eliminate that excruciatingly long ban list. Do your time and move on.
I am aware that some games do take more than a week to fill. So the time based ban may end up being a non ban in some cases. First offense 2 weeks?
I'll await Qatol's input. This is his baby.
|
Though, the mafia forums are really active, there might be a case where there are no new games being hosted in a certain amount of time if you do a timed ban but my solution is having the person sit out of 1 game that starts (while they can join other games while the game is going on if they already did their time)
2 weeks seems too high for a first ban so id say 1 week..
|
There could also be a system that combines both time and number of games. So a 1 game ban would be: 1 game ban, or 1 week ban (whichever is more/less). A 3 game ban could be: 3 game ban, or 3 week ban (whichever is more/less). It might account for the individual problems with each system, though it would also likely be harder to keep track of.
|
Time based bans aren't going to happen for 2 reasons:
1. I'm not keeping track of that. At least with game-based bans, I only have to take people off the ban list when games end. I'm not checking the ban list every day to see which players I have to take off. That's too much work. For the same reason, I don't like jaminiz's suggestion.
2. It doesn't solve the problem of people who only play every now and then but get themselves modkilled (QuickStriker is an example). These people simply will not have any motivation to avoid modkills if they're going to die anyways.
Rean's idea has potential (with a little tweaking). Now if we simply had a system of "sitting out a game = playing in it," that still keeps to the spirit of "not playing in a game you otherwise would have played in." Additionally, it caps the amount of games someone can sit out at a time because of the limits as to how many games you can play in at a time. We can just assume that you will not be incredibly active if a host has a requirement like what Ver is doing right now.
With this, I don't see why this rule:
- As soon as the game you are sitting out starts, it will count towards your bancount. If you have no bans remaining you're free to sign up for other games, even if they start during the period that the game you're sitting out is going on.
is necessary. If you're counted as playing in too many games, you can't play in others. I mean, I can update the ban list when games start, but you're still counted as playing in the game you're sitting out, so it might be useful to keep on the list until the games end so the next host can know how many games you are "playing in."
As for the disparity with ban lengths due to the length of mini games, maybe we should just disallow sitouts on mini games?
|
My only objection to this system, is it seems that if you get a 1 game ban, you aren't being punished very much if you can just sit-out one game, and play in another at the same time. Sure, if you were planning on playing in both it's a bit of a punishment, but it seems like the severity of it is greatly lessened because you don't really get banned from playing at all. That will only come once you get your second ban for 3 games.
Also, would this allow sitting out multiple games at the same time? The maximum would be two, because that's the amount of games you can play in at once. I feel this would help with bans after the first for members who are active and want to play, but have to sit out three game and higher bans.
|
ok so as per Qatol's suggestions: /sitout PYP mafia
|
On May 04 2011 12:22 Qatol wrote:
Time based bans aren't going to happen for 2 reasons:
1. I'm not keeping track of that. At least with game-based bans, I only have to take people off the ban list when games end. I'm not checking the ban list every day to see which players I have to take off. That's too much work. For the same reason, I don't like jaminiz's suggestion.
That's the thing though. They get banned and you put a date on it. The date passes and they're no longer banned. Much less work for you actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
