PSK

Mafioso
  • Content count

    3906
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3855 Godly

6 Followers

About PSK

  • Rank
    Literal Blue Balls
  • Birthday 06/15/93

Contact Methods

  • Skype papasmurfkof

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Dublin

Recent Profile Visitors

5259 profile views
  1. Malcolm (our representative) is from Zambia so you can add that to your list.
  2. need a sub. pm me or zeropassion if youre available pls.
  3. would you guys like to trial the @The Antagonist and @JC. separate host thing?
  4. >matrix6 >9 players :thonkung: (lol 69)
  5. I feel like there's some misunderstanding to the timeline for these rules. We have been giving suspensions to players for misconduct based on rules that existed in the section. For clarity, we decided to draw up a list of rules to make it easier for players to reference so that they would not be blindsided by a suspension. While most of the rules should be self evident, there were still complaints and instances of "but it doesn't say that in the rules". Drunk Mafia was an absolute mess. It felt like having to babysit some people. There was obscenely personal attacks used, claiming as a strategy being discussed and then implemented later, people forgetting that omgus posts are to remain a neutral force, and people actively attempting to throw the game. I do not think some of you understand the level of shit game hosts have to put up with at times, and unfortunately, Faint was made very aware of this. I only hope he will continue to host games as I thought he did a great job for his first time but I would also not blame him if he was dissuaded by the actions of people playing. Following from Drunk Mafia, I discussed the suspension of multiple players with the other Mafioso. I raised the issue of not being sure whether to provide them a suspension or just talk to them about it. I was edging towards suspension because the section has been getting progressively worse in terms of people showing any amount of self control. This is when the idea was put forward to use warnings. It coincided with the rulings being redone and allowed for us to reevaluate the punishment imposed on those we were already going to suspend. Perhaps it is due to the fact that we released the rules first and then followed up with the game punishments after that people are questioning the order? Let me ensure you, those that are currently sitting on a warning or a suspension were to be in that position regardless of the new system. Some of those that have warning points are individuals that usually show some level of restraint and we accept may have simply had a lapse of judgment. Others have shown some restraint after being contacted by a member of the Mafioso. Those on a suspension have shown a pattern of destructive behaviour or clearly showed intent during Drunk Mafia to take a rule breaking action before doing so. As the rules and punishments system was created after decisions were discussed about the Drunk Mafia game, previous games were not taken into consideration. If people acted poorly in a previous game, they were handled at that point in time, whether that be publicly or privately. I would seriously question the motives of someone seeking punishments for previous games given what I have just explained as the order of events. Those of you with warnings, as stated in the OP, they will be removed after three games of normal play. As others have said, these rules are not difficult to follow; you would have to go out of your way to commit a rule break imo, and as I have said myself, I suspect these were just cases of lapse of judgment and have full faith those on warnings will have them removed within that three game timeframe.
  6. for what? link pls? its not retroactive. we dont suddenly have rules since yesterday. they were going to receive suspensions and that is what spurred the discussion on warning system.
  7. @Sophocles You can start sign-ups now if you're good to go
  8. OP has been updated to include warnings and suspensions for last game. Silver: 1 game suspension for intentional claiming followed by game relevant OMGUS. Markus: 1 game suspension for intentionally throwing game. Self-voting. Not submitting night action. Pattern of signing up and not contributing. Sophocles: 1 warning point for game relevant OMGUS. SageRhapsody: 1 warning point for game relevant OMGUS. mark: 1 warning point for aggressive behaviour including personal insults and negstalking. Jazz: 1 warning point for aggressive and toxic behaviour.
  9. Yes, we will be using this thread for that. The role fishing rule was to avoid stuff like "if you were the scanner, would you have already scanned person X that you currently have a vote on?". Extreme situations like that. We'll talk it over though. It's more about the severity of the rule break rather than what rule it is.
  10. ok ill be sure to change up the wording to reflect that
  11. i assume the neg was for the lack of omgus before i edited it to a separate post so more people would actually see it
  12. 1. Do people want OMGUS? pos this post for yes, neg for no.
  13. 2. Dare you to try it then lul 3. Okie we can change up the wording. As for the approval thing, we should have enough mafioso now for there to be a secondary quick look over the game by a second mafioso in each case. This isn't really related so I'll leave it at that but remind me to come back to it at another time.
  14. why would you quote the entire post to highlight 4 lines
  15. if either have 2 warning points you can say no to whoever you want. they put themselves in that situation by breaking the rules. if they don't have the warning points then you have to say yes to both. if necessary, we may make it the case that the host needs to run any exclusions by the mafioso that approved the game / JC or Antag if they're in charge of the hosting stuff to ensure theres actually a valid reason for it and not just a case of favouritism