Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmmmm]

I don't agree with any kind of punishment or assuming anything about UOS's disappearance. However I do think the result is unfair on Town. It just meant we had 0% chance of winning. Subbing doesn't seem like a good solution either though. I guess the only fair solution I can think of is to call the game off, since a bunch of players now have no chance of winning through no fault of their own.

Maybe something we could do in general is ask 1-2 people to sign up to a game as sub, and at least somewhat follow the game so that they are ready to sub in for situations like this.

Do you truly believe all lurkers should just be allowed to lurk?  You don't agree that lurking is truly a problem for these games?

No punishment?  I just can't understand that stance at all.

Like, what if he's in hospital or worse? What if he's had a family tragedy? There are many more important things than online games. Also, even if he did just decide he couldn't be bothered showing up for a while, who here has the right to punish people? If you simply mean refusing to be involved in any game he's in, then no one can stop you from doing that. But that's just a personal thing; punishment implies some kind of authority.

[ashersky]

I don't agree with any kind of punishment or assuming anything about UOS's disappearance. However I do think the result is unfair on Town. It just meant we had 0% chance of winning. Subbing doesn't seem like a good solution either though. I guess the only fair solution I can think of is to call the game off, since a bunch of players now have no chance of winning through no fault of their own.

Maybe something we could do in general is ask 1-2 people to sign up to a game as sub, and at least somewhat follow the game so that they are ready to sub in for situations like this.

Do you truly believe all lurkers should just be allowed to lurk?  You don't agree that lurking is truly a problem for these games?

No punishment?  I just can't understand that stance at all.

Like, what if he's in hospital or worse? What if he's had a family tragedy? There are many more important things than online games. Also, even if he did just decide he couldn't be bothered showing up for a while, who here has the right to punish people? If you simply mean refusing to be involved in any game he's in, then no one can stop you from doing that. But that's just a personal thing; punishment implies some kind of authority.

The mod does have authority.  It's his game.

You are absolutely in the wrong if you believe a mod, or even the other players in the game, have no right to take action against a lurker in a game.

Yes, something bad might have happened to UOS.  That would be terrible.  But you arguing that we can't modkill him is just incomprehensible.  If you think that isn't right because he might be sick, you should also believe we couldn't have lynched him, either.

You are straight up arguing that we take zero action in a game if someone lurks.  We used to have Lynch All Lurkers as an idea here, even if not a practice.  You honestly think we should let all lurking slide with zero action taken in all games?  Why even have rules for posting, or why have prods, then?  You could always drop the "maybe hospital" card.

You must also hate on Faust for replacing him in his game, if we go by your reasoning that punishment should be applied in mafia games for lurking because something bad may have happened.

In my opinion, if something bad happened to UOS, when he comes back, he will not be upset at all that he was mod killed here (had that happened) or replaced in the other game. 

You arguing in favor or removing punishments for lurking in mafia games seems like trying to help yourself, given you've been known to lurk on occasion.

If you disagree with my use of punishments including prods, loss of vote/power, and up to modkills to deal with inactivity, I guess you don't have to sign up for my games.

[Jimmmmm]

I wasn't at all arguing against modkills etc. I thought you were arguing for more community-wide punishment.

[Awaclus]

The real question is why does silver think that Emmure is really awful. They're super good.

[ashersky]

I wasn't at all arguing against modkills etc. I thought you were arguing for more community-wide punishment.

Oh, no, not at all.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Jimmmmm]

Now about the UoS thing: I am shocked and blatantly insulted at ash's reaction, and anyone who agrees with him. Where is your respect or loyalty towards UoS as a person? Why does he need to be punished so badly when you have no idea why he is absent? This is not a case of someone lurking because of laziness. The attitude of treating everyone equally upon the slightest rule violation regardless of context is one I wholeheartedly despise. I will not have it in my games.

I guess I was responding to this. I'm not sure exactly what ss was referring to that you said, but I figured it went further than normal in-game consequences (which is more to make the game work than to punish the person, and I don't like the word punishment in this case but I guess that's just semantics), since ss was arguing against it and he is obviously not against modkilling (not that he should be).

[ashersky]

Now about the UoS thing: I am shocked and blatantly insulted at ash's reaction, and anyone who agrees with him. Where is your respect or loyalty towards UoS as a person? Why does he need to be punished so badly when you have no idea why he is absent? This is not a case of someone lurking because of laziness. The attitude of treating everyone equally upon the slightest rule violation regardless of context is one I wholeheartedly despise. I will not have it in my games.

I guess I was responding to this. I'm not sure exactly what ss was referring to that you said, but I figured it went further than normal in-game consequences (which is more to make the game work than to punish the person, and I don't like the word punishment in this case but I guess that's just semantics), since ss was arguing against it and he is obviously not against modkilling (not that he should be).

We exchanged a few PMs, but I never mentioned punishment outside the game.

In response to SS, for him to believe that any authority should apply laws differently depending on the person is just hard for me to swallow.

If a homeless man murders someone for his sandwich, should we let it go without punishment due to "context?"

Changing the way laws apply to people depending on the person goes against a lot of my core beliefs as a human being...including everyone should be treated the same regardless of who they are.  I loathe the idea that some people deserve special treatment (like letting them break the law because of context, or more brutally applying it because of who they are) just based on their circumstances.

Change out "circumstances" with race/gender/religion, etc. and you have all the -isms we discuss in RSP.

If SS wants to write his mafia game rules so that they favor some players over others based on favoritism, "context" or anything else, I won't be signing up, and I will argue against their inclusion on this site as a forum mod.

[silverspawn]

it's not about what people are, it's about what people do. UoS usually doesn't lurk, that's why a VLA has a different weight than it might have from other players.

[ashersky]

it's not about what people are, it's about what people do. UoS usually doesn't lurk, that's why a VLA has a different weight than it might have from other players.

Next time he's scum, he'll be sure to abuse that.

You can't play favorites as a mod.  Are you going to list the players who get rules exceptions in your rules post?

11. Dead Players may not post (except for Scott_Pilgrim and Faust because they are smarter than the rest).

Seems great.

[silverspawn]

it's not about what people are, it's about what people do. UoS usually doesn't lurk, that's why a VLA has a different weight than it might have from other players.

Next time he's scum, he'll be sure to abuse that.

You can't play favorites as a mod.  Are you going to list the players who get rules exceptions in your rules post?

11. Dead Players may not post (except for Scott_Pilgrim and Faust because they are smarter than the rest).

Seems great.

no-one gets any exception. I didn't violate any rules.

If a player becomes inactive, other players may request prods on him. In extreme cases, further actions may be taken based on the mod's discretion.

this is what I did. It's in the setup.

I guess I did not technically include possible deadline changes in the setup. what a great crime.

[faust]

In response to SS, for him to believe that any authority should apply laws differently depending on the person is just hard for me to swallow.

If a homeless man murders someone for his sandwich, should we let it go without punishment due to "context?"

We shouldn't discuss this too far probably, this is RSP territory. But there is such a thing as extenuating circumstances (at least in German law), and I think that's good. But to discuss this further we would have to go into "Why do we punish at all?" and such questions and this pretty certainly isn't the right place.

[faust]

As far as mafia games are concerned, in general I agree that players should be treated equally regardless of whether or not they have a history of lurking. But I also see no problem in way silver dealt with the UoS situation and would have agreed with the decision if it were applied to any other player.

[skip wooznum]

11. Dead Players may not post (except for Scott_Pilgrim and Faust because they are smarter than the rest).

I would soo play in this game

[Witherweaver]

Also, I'm not sure they're smarter than the rest.  Though specifically smarter at Mafia I might agree.

[Awaclus]

Also, I'm not sure they're smarter than the rest.

They are, it's in the rules.