mark

+Ancient Moderoid
  • Content count

    4623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2832 Godly

5 Followers

About mark

  • Rank
    ALL THE OUTS
  • Birthday 08/03/95

Recent Profile Visitors

6775 profile views
  1. mark (Zoodiac) beat the_B(e)ast (ghostrick paleozoic)
  2. I honestly don't know what's true anymore but I was under the assumption that the official result was a draw?
  3. I'm saying this is very vague Like "making a bad play" and "intentionally gamethrowing" are no where near the same thing And I'm not even sure if this was a bad play to begin with. In fact it was a genius play, if you had perfect info, so we're literally punishing someone for making the best play (note: maybe not the optimal play)
  4. Then wasn't it brilliant from Wunterslaus to do this, and by doing this he made Malcolm keep his word in order to not feel bad? Really we are discussing what the optimal play was, which should show that the area is subjective if someone like rei made this play no one would've had a problem with it and they'd call him genius for calling out francis' wincon perfectly and for negotiating the draw with scum over the loss
  5. I think Sophocles actually brings up good points (which says a lot coming from me, I can't remember the last time I agreed with him on anything)
  6. My main issue really is we're banning someone for making a play that resulted into a draw over a loss just because we think it was a bad play. Like wtf?
  7. Scum convinced him that the outcome would be better, which it was. I'm not sure how a scenario would look like where scum could convince someone that self voting is beneficial, but if such a thing was possible to the point where they think self voting improves the odds they win the game (idk, maybe they're old dirty bastard? I can barely imagine this crazy scenario), then the intent to throw wouldn't be there. I'm not really sticking up for an IRL friend, I just think toxicity is more punishable than his last day lynch, although I'll admit reading back it looks worse than I initially thought. I really don't know how to feel about it, but I felt like I had to defend him because he did such a poor job of defending himself, which made his position look worse than it actually was. The main point I'm trying to make is we can't make playing bad punishable, we can't ban everyone, and we have to take the rules as guidelines when it comes to this.
  8. I think people underestimate the psychological factor of being in-game, Malcolm promising a tie, saying francis would steal the win anyway, and talking wunter up how he'd be looked up to in the aftergame etc. Malcolm manipulated wunter into making this play.
  9. Not going to lie, this make him look bad. However let's look at his in-game post; Admits there's a slight chance to win for town if he stays alive. However, also says "tie is most likely the best outcome". Interpret it as you will.
  10. This is quite literally how we run the site. I'm not saying the rules are perfect. I'm saying the rules should be clear and indicative, and the fact that both mafioso and players have divided opinions on the matter shows that the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. If you want to warn wunter for using toxic language by telling everyone to suck his dick etc, be my guest. But don't call it game throwing.
  11. The thing is, Wunter thought it was clear, or Malcolm as scum manipulated him to think that, so him assuming that is playing the game. You are literally arguing for hypothetical scenarios that didn't took place, you can't judge how others play the game: within his mind, he thought it was clear, so he didn't intentionally throw. And no I don't think you can prove that either, because if they lynch you what if Sophocles dies as well and maybe Malcolm even dies because he has some stupid kind of role that he dies if he can't do X. We've had stupid roles like that, and this game wasn't particularly "standard" either. The point is this is all subjective. The intent to throw wasn't there. The result that cause to harm his section wasn't there. So if both the intent and the result weren't there, then what it? Really this is you thinking he should do what you would've done if you were in his position - aka you're trying to make playing "bad" a punishable offense. And wunter throwing a fit / being angry and defending himself poorly.
  12. I interpret it as his reasoning of voting francis given the fact that neither lynch would be "better" for town. He said he thought town had lost already. Ok let me play devils advocate to show the other side of the coin: voting malcolm here would've been game throwing and should have been punished. the fact winter wanted this, means winter should be banned. It was clear Francis would steal the win which he did, and Malcolm offered a draw which he got. You can't prove there was still a chance to win, because there quite literally wasn't, and by saying otherwise you're basically making "playing bad" a punishable offense, the same way lynching a townie could be a punishable offense if we go that way, except "playing bad" means "playing good". Yes it sucks a lot that Malcolm outplayed Francis here in convincing Wunter, and yes Wunters defense has been horrible, but that doesn't change the fact that punishing him for this is beyond rediculous.
  13. Note: next 2 matches must be in current, to make quota, before either format can be played again (since Harmless is on 2 hearts).
  14. As far as discussing the rules go, neither "we always ruled it X way" or "other sites do it" is a solid argument, the only real concern is: what's best for the player base? That said, there should be a distinction between suggesting new rules, and using your own agenda to justify punishments based on rules that don't exist yet.