Francis J Underwood

Mafia God
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Francis J Underwood

  1. I did this with MBA and scum rei (then known as Island) thought the same things. Essentially it goes into reading too much into it. Some people read that as believing you are calling them bad town rather than scum because they would not suck if you thought they were scum since they did their job. It's somewhat valid and does alter the game if its construed as a read on a player and factored in to analysis, but as I've said with a number of things, people just read too much into it.
  2. Self-Voting is not the issue. Self-Voting As Maf to Actively fuck over your teammates is the issue. Teamwork is crucial to maf. You can't win without it. I told Slickz why I was bussing him, but he would have none of it and because he was mad he self-voted in an effort to fuck us over (if you read the logs, I told him I figured my vote would draw heat off and get markus lynched) Self-voting as town is dumb and arguable game throw, but at least its understandable in the sense that town is an individual game. Yes you need to convince and persuade people, but you never truly know the other's alignment or what they are thinking. You have no reason to trust them. That doesn't apply to Slickz who knew exactly why what was being done was done and actively tried to fuck it up. If you had intentionally voted yourself so that maf could win. Different story
  3. What rei did, we actually used to punish. We just had it on a multiple offender scale because everyone did it. @Top_LADD knows better than anyone. Voting Yourself In An Effort To Get Yourself Killed To Hurt Your Faction When Your Faction Is Mafia Is Pretty Evidently GT. Further, he did this when the vote was tied or to tie the vote near EOD. Do you understand the distinction? One is negligent The other is intentional I don't have any problems with punishing Markus. I have an issue with selectively punishing him and not another player who did something that was arguably worse and/or the same with no apparent/justifiable reason behind it.
  4. To be fair, what he is probably upset with is that many of your responses have tried to shut down discussion or were otherwise inadequate. He's not wrong in that i am right to call out the use of discretion on Slickz as opposed to strict enforcement here. Not going to go back and quote but some of the reasons you alluded to in dealing with Slickz were - Not wanting to ban him, but not having a system that dealt out less punishment - Not sure if this is even true considering I think we had a system originally but w/e. I don't agree since what he did was right up there with mascis but that's neither here nor there. This doesn't fly here because you didn't have a system before drunk mafia either. You expressly created one because of it and applied it retroactively. - Decisions were previously made under discretion and now they are made under hard rules This is just inherently contradictory. Selectively enforcing rules is discretion and while you didn't mean it to come off this way, it's essentially the equivalent of what we didn't want to ban Slickz, but we want to hit everyone from last game
  5. Discretion is part of the problem because it creates situations like this and the one you bitch about in the last line. Because We Are Trying To Implement A System Of Rules To Make The Section Better And How We Enforce Those Rules Matters To That Cause. See Line 1 And Too Bad That Rule Is Never Enforced.
  6. To be fair this is a bad argument since you only started bitching about it after you got hit. I don't have that problem so idk why Slickz is saying I'm biased. Yeah he fucked me over but its pretty evident that 1. He broke the rule by voting himself with presumably the purpose of getting himself killed (gamethrow). 2. Breaking the Rules Usually Triggers Punishment
  7. Slickz then why shouldn't you have been banned or warned two games ago? Explain to us why this okay given we aren't using a new set of rules. The problem with discretion is it's unfair and it creates situations where people aren't sure how their conduct is going to be affected. Take Posting During the Night Phase For Example It's against the rules, but not one ever punishes it if its non-ogi. However, if one person gets punished for it (say me) and someone else does it all the time (say Mason), then how is that fair?
  8. Edit: this because I accidentally hit enter before I finished it This is not what I am saying at all. The Rationale For Punishing the Five People Here Is One Of Two Things. 1. This thread is a clarification of or restatement of rules already in effect and the mods are punishing under those rules just using a different system. I have no problem with this at all. However, if that is the case, then they at the very least have to explain why punishment is being doled out in an inconsistent manner. The example I chose was iSlickz because the mods never explained it anywhere and never handed down any punishment or announced a lack thereof. I AM NOT SAYING THE MODS DID THIS: but the way that was handled makes it seem like Slickz got a pass and the mods are just trying to sweep it under the rug (for lack of a better phrase- I'm not throwing shade here despite the negative connotation) and move on. By not providing transparency as to why Slickz was not punished and then punishing Markus, the punishment seems inconsistent and is without a reasonable explanation for it is inconsistent. Why choose to enforce the rule against Markus, but not Slickz? Discretion is not a valid explanation. First of all, discretion is a dangerous tool in itself. Second of all, if discretion was used there has to be transparency so that people have a chance to voice their opinions. I am personally of the opinion that the rules just need to be strictly enforced against everyone, but the mods in claiming discretion did not take this approach and without an adequate reason why, this is inherently unfair. 2. These are new rules Not the case, but in the event it is, it is unfair to punish retroactively.
  9. Again, this is a problem. Punishment shouldn't be discretionary. If its arbitrary to go back two games to punish someone, its just as arbitrary to go back and only punish people for last game. Yes The Slickz Thing Was Handled. IMO, in light of what just happened, it's really hard to justify punishing people for last game under the old rules (claiming the new ones are a restatement) when no punishment was doled out for a worse offense two games ago. This makes people question the legitimacy of the rules and moreso the people enforcing them. Yes Drunk Mafia was a shit show. But punishment isn't based on how many ppl committed the infraction in a given game. It's based on whether X broke the rule. Retroactive punishment isn't the right way to deal with it. You can't claim to punish them under the old rules, but then use discretion as to who gets punished under those rules and who doesn't. That's inherently unfair. Either everyone gets punished or no one gets punished. Strict Enforcement of Said Rules From Here On Out Is The Right Way To Deal With This IMO The fact that the infractions will be removed in a few games is of no consequence. This is about X getting punished and Y not getting punished for committing the same infractions and a lack of transparency as to why this transpired.
  10. FTR I provided the entire chat log so I'm not taking shit out of context. Given the fact that he voted himself afterwards, I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation to take at all. But thats besides the point, like I said I don't think any of the five should be punished at all because these rules weren't here prior to last game If you want to argue they are a restatement of the old rules, then only punishing them is arbitrary and the fair thing to do is punish everyone who violated the rules after the mascis ban including Slickz because what he did was worse than what anyone else here did as far as I can tell I'm obv for the former option.
  11. Again let's go to the screen shot of what you said and then compare it to you voting yourself itt. Considering I provided the chat logs and quicktopic, I'd love to see how youre going to justify this one. Again, I'm not advocating for your ban. I asked why nothing happened to you. Got a response. Realized that response was inconsitent with what they applied to the other 5 and am now arguing that either you have to not apply it to the other 5, or apply it to you to be consistent and that being consistent is the only way these rules have legitmacy under those expected to follow them
  12. Stop trying to spin this when you stated directly in the chat logs that you were throwing "I am playing against scum and town." - That's an admission of game throw So why does Markus get a hit when the same principle applies to him. See above Yeah its called preferential treatment. Taking the entirety of the night phase is fine whether its intentional or not. Would mods prefer they submit night actions in the deadline and beforehand? Yes but taking the entire time (purposeful or not) isn't a big deal. That's the reason we have the deadline Again this is crap if you are doling out punishment to Markus and the like. FTR I'm not advocating going after Slickz, but if you are going after them then Slickz and others basically have to be hit. IMO: There is no reasonable justification for not hitting Slickz especially when he straight up admitted to throwing. Underrated post.
  13. Re: Slickz see above and here Given this list was just posted, I don't know if you could deem notice sufficient to punish them for what they did prior to this thread. Yes we had general game rules which included the conduct evidenced in the last game, but several other players in the previous game who did the same thing are not on that list. So I believe that if you are going to dole out retroactive punishment, you can't limit it the event that triggered this thread.
  14. Since this was never really explained in the other thread. Why did Slickz get a pass? Also i don't feel like its fair to punish these guys retroactively fwiw
  15. You must read your role pm =/= you must view your qt. We Have Seen That Before Right @Zappdos?
  16. You can still do this. You just have to know you're scum. Nothing says you have to view the QT or your partners.
  17. I'm trying to see how this is my fault somehow but given that was in the post, there's no way you could have reasonably thought i was in the game
  18. I posted on pg 1 once and made a joke that was basically completely irrelevant (other than to the Faint's character or flavor) I don't think i repped anyone and if I did it was most likely for a joke and post devoid of content.
  19. This is just reading into it way too much as any alignment could make that mistake. I'm against the rule because literally everyone and their mother does it and they tend to be some of the funnier and more enjoyable posts itt.
  20. 1. No 2. @mason 3. It's not changing up the wording. Its changing the rule. By putting in a clause that results in punishing the faction, people will be disincentivized to fish for claims and ppl will be disincentivized from claiming. If the opposing party tries to bait a claim then they will get called out on it as they always do. It's actually pretty related Also I negged for no because thats what the post i quoted says
  21. Because . . . shut up
  22. Requesting Quality Control on training/getting games approved. I don't know whether this is a not enough people thing or people are just being lazy in reviewing games before approving them, but the last few games in general have had some pretty serious flaws. I get mods are busy and everything but under no circumstance should roles like Pick 1 player, that player joins your faction be approved.
  23. All the bolded are ones I have issues with 1. The OMGUS problem can be solved simply by just getting rid of the omgus post in general. No need to have 3 when one will suffice and a non-game content omgus post usually is worthless anyway. More potential for harm than good. 2. I don't think the non-player exemption is going to be strictly enforced nor do I think its worth it. 3. We already have issues with people figuring out whether something is a claim or not on both the player and/or mod side, fishing for claims complicates this problem even further. I'd probably just change the rule to "If the mod construes a post as claiming, you will be modkilled and warned. Depending on the severity this may be upgraded to a suspension. The mod reserves the right to punish your faction based on your infraction. This includes but is not limited to ending the day early/continung the day, withhoding or posting info regarding your role etc . . . "