Print

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

[Mephansteras]

Well, and with all such things we have to take the person's situation into account. If you're in 3 games and something major happens in RL, Mafia games may be the least of your concerns. It's why I'm not particularly ticked at rickvoid, even though I had to do a forced replace for him in two games (at once). RL came along and took precedence, and I'm not so egotistical that I think my game somehow warrants more attention then his wife going into labor. Yes, it would have been nice if he'd shot me a PM telling me what was going on, but at least he apologized profusely after the child was born and he had a chance to get back to me on my prods.

[webadict]

Well, and with all such things we have to take the person's situation into account. If you're in 3 games and something major happens in RL, Mafia games may be the least of your concerns. It's why I'm not particularly ticked at rickvoid, even though I had to do a forced replace for him in two games (at once). RL came along and took precedence, and I'm not so egotistical that I think my game somehow warrants more attention then his wife going into labor. Yes, it would have been nice if he'd shot me a PM telling me what was going on, but at least he apologized profusely after the child was born and he had a chance to get back to me on my prods.

Yeah, that was fine. That's different from ExKirby, who ragequit.

[Mr.Person]

Considering that most players don't (or shouldn't) play in four or more games at the same time, I thought that was a good number to go with. Of course, I also forgot some of the people here will drop a person for not posting for 24 hours, so I dunno. I think a "Required replacements in 50% or more of the games played in this quarter and at least one was a forced replacement" would be better. On the one hand, a player should try very, very hard to avoid a forced replacement, but on the other, it's not always possible to get on a computer and give a heads-up. It's not that I don't believe the excuses people claim or anything, it's just nice to the rest of us to get a warning. In fact, that's why I'm starting to think it shouldn't be possible at all to get an F rank JUST through requiring replacements.

I think that if an absolute majority of the S rank players agree, a player can have their F rank be changed into a D rank. This sounds good, yes?

[webadict]

I suppose. Permanent ranks are just asking for trouble...

*begins shining S-rank plaque*

[dakarian]

To understand the idea, I'll put it bluntly: A person carrying an F rank would pretty much be banned from every game in Bay 12 almost permanently.  Yes, there's a way around it.  Yes, a mod CAN host a game allowing an F rank.  No mod will.  I don't think anyone would do what they could to fix it.  I know if I received an F rank, I'd stop coming.

D and E ranks are punishment ranks.  They are meant to say "Shape up!"  Worst case, they won't be playing anything for a few months, but will be able to play later. 

F, though.. that's death.

I'd say any one of these should be enough for an F rank.

1. Intentionally doing an action that the player knows will result in a loss so long as there's an a clear alternative. This includes but is not limited to killing oneself with no plan on the kill being stopped, roleclaiming being scum without a lynch on oneself being desirable, and a survivor at lylo risking one's life when a far safer alternative is poised. (Yes, I would of given Inaluct an F-rank. He didn't play to win.)

I like the addition put in about solo-play.  I had a player go into KotM choose Jester, KNOWING that I'll change it into a Suicidal Jester and thus causing their death.  They still chose it.  The game wasn't harmed, just caused a few 'lol wat?!' from some folks, which I believe was the intention. 

I've also seen a survivor opt to go AGAINST the mafia at lylo since they felt it 'wrong' to help the bad guys.  It's odd play and it did get them killed, but seriously.. a BAN

2. Breaking the rules of a game badly enough to get modkilled.

Addition: From at least 2 games. 

3. Replacement from four or more games in a quarter for any reason, as long as at least two was a forced replacements.

4. Replacement from six or more games in a year for any reason, as long as at least three were forced replacements.

5. Ten prods in a quarter.

6. Fifteen prods in a year..

7. Having a D rank at the end of three quarters total.

No to all of these.  If they keep earning a D or E rank, then they keep earning it.  Simply put.  How many games WILL allow D or E rank anyway?  That's already punishment.

8. Every single one of the S rank players agreeing that a player deserves an F rank.

Addition: 

For #8 to work, the person must be all of this:

- Be a D or E rank and either

- Receive a unanimous vote from all of the S ranks
OR
- Receive 2 requests by Mods who played with them with NO objections by any Mod, S rank, or A+ rank that has played with them.

[CobaltKobold]

This has bad idea written all over it.

[Mr.Person]

This has bad idea written all over it.

Oddly, I agree.

I'm going to be stubborn here, I think it's very important that a player getting a D rank for a long time should get an F. Getting a D 3 or 4 times is a strong signal the player is not going to change their ways. Remember, getting a D 4 times means that the player has gotten a D for a full year. I can understand getting a D once or maybe even twice, but three times? That's the kind of player that's not going to change.

I think we're seeing an F differently. I was seeing it as a ban from most games, yeah, but I was not seeing it as permanent. Most of the time, I figured it would be for a quarter or two, then the player would get moved over to a D. For starters, I don't really want to keep a list of F ranked players who stopped playing anyways (on that note, no F for ExKirby). Additionally, there has to be some kind of warning for players who've made grievous play errors but can shape up. I don't think a D rank is strong enough, but I feel a good warning would make the player change. I mean, if it's your first mafia game and you decide to ragequit, is a permanent ban really appropriate? On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure a D rank is a strong enough warning.

How about this? F-ranks can be permanent if all games have at least a C-rank requirement EXCEPT Beginner Mafia, which will obviously be N-rank (except the teachers, who must obviously be A or S), and Not-so-Beginner Mafia, which will have no rank requirements at all. I feel it's a good idea to give D-ranks a chance to redeem themself in one game, and NSBM seems like a good outlet for that.

I believe that would solve most of the problems and re-align me to how you were seeing the ranks, Dakarian. Looking at it from the host's PoV, it would look like this:

S-rank: Player who causes no problems, 100% guaranteed. Will warn about needing a replacement.
A-rank: Player you can reasonably expect to cause no problems, but you still might need to prod them. Will warn about needing a replacement.
B-rank: Player who may need to be prodded. Likely to warn you about needing a replacement.
C-rank: Player who may need more than one prod and is unlikely to warn you about needing a replacement.
D-rank: Player who caused problems in previous games. Unfit to play mafia, but potential to change.
F-rank: Player who caused major problems in previous games. Unfit to play mafia and unwilling to change.

As you might be able to tell, I don't see a need for an S-rank.

Oh, and Dakarian, I don't care what you say. Even if the player is alone, not playing to win can ruin the experience for others. Imagine if you were in the mafia and the survivor voted to lynch you and lost for it. I dunno about you, but I would be pissed. I just had a game win stolen from me! That's not fun, that's a player being an idiot. This is god-damn mafia, there are no good-guys or bad-guys. It's a game. Quit being an idiot and just play it. If you're not going to play to win, you're not really playing, now are you? So what's the point of signing up? Look, I can understand being frustrated at your mafia partners or inability to get cultists or whatever, but don't ruin the game for everyone else. If you don't wanna play, request a replacement. If you ragequit or act against your win-condition, you're changing the game for everyone else in an unexpected and negative way. Period. Negatively impacting the game should net you D. Can we agree on that?

[Pandarsenic]

I agree mostly with Mr.Person.

Also, I don't feel the need to bump very low-rank players into the F range just for consistently sucking. That's what minimum-rank-requirements are for.

[dakarian]

I can see Mr.Person's suggestion mostly.  I DO see a need for S rank though, but the test run showed that we don't need anything special/formal about them like a quick chat or anything.  Just have them with the Rank and leave it at that. 

I also don't like the 'autobump' for repeat low ranks.  If you are a D for much of your life then you are a D.. not an F.  F shouldn't be just for flakes that just cause issues.  F is for people who flat out ruin games.  Flakes just get subbed.  Game ruiners you can't do a thing about until they get banned.  It's also why F should be more semi-permanent.  A player that, say, tells the town who the mafia are when they are scum or quotes PMs simply can't be trusted and there's not much you can do with a game once that's done.  It's also meant to be semi-subjective, so if we feel that it's just a mistake or because the person is new or we just don't feel that they should be banned then they won't get an F rank. 

As for the 'C-minimum rank' matter.. we can ask that all games state their minimum rank.  I'm sure just about all hosts will set it to C or higher.  I know most of my games will be.

So, a small rule break will warrant a drop of a full rank.  A large rule break will cause an instant drop to a D.  The host will determine if the break is small or large, but must be able to demonstrate that the rule break occurred.


as for GETTING an F rank.. I'm seeing this so far:

- Must have two games where they have either ruined the game completely or purposely caused the loss to themselves and/or their teammates.  The hosts of both games MUST be the ones to present it, not just one of the players (if a host decides not to formally present it, then it cannot be used as an example)

- Must be put up to a vote.  The vote must pass by 2/3s majority.  All people who are not N, D, F, or no rank may vote.

[Mr.Person]

On the C-minimum rank, I was thinking that would be the absolute minimum. Hosts are generally free to make the requirements stricter if they want. I was just thinking that most (but not all) games should bar D- and F-ranks. So I think we're pretty much in sync here.

I don't really see a need to draw a distinction about the host presenting the issue or not. What if the host ruins his own game? There should obviously be some sort of punishment for that. What if Dakarian is the host and Inaluct, a survivor, decides to sacrifice himself for the good of the town? Obviously that goes against their win condition, but you said you don't mind that kind of stuff, Dakarian. Not all hosts would report that kind of thing. What if a player ruins a game, but then the host never finishes? It's not fair to report stuff about ongoing games, so the player would never actually get reported.

I think this is what the S-ranks should be for. I think that a vote by the S-ranks should be able to count as one of a player's game-ruinations, but not both. It is, after all, their game, they should decide if it's ruined or not. Also, I get the feeling that in 99% of all cases, the host will report the issue and no vote will be required. It's just nice to have an option to get around corner cases and major disagreements.

Hell, I'd be kind of shocked if we actually gave an F-rank to ANYBODY over the next year. The threat is really powerful, in this case.

[dakarian]

Now that's getting to the differences between hosts.  Some hosts prod more than  others.  Some are ready to banhammer faster.  Some are more forgiving (I've prodded a few people and then dropped that prod for one reason or another).  No, I DON'T consider a survivor going against the scum as 'ruining the game'.  Survivors can be fickle, and if we're going to FORCE them to always go mafia then we might as well stop using Survivors and make them Mafia-allies then.  Of course, that goes into the Mafiascum.com theory that survivors shouldn't ever be put into a game anyway so perhaps that's the issue.

Given that, I can see the idea of an S-rank being able to claim a ruined game, but not both.  If you have two games that are claimed to be 'ruined' and neither host wants to claim it then we're getting into issues on what IS considered a ruined game.  It will always go down to a vote though: 2 people with a grudge will NOT have pure power to ban anyone, no matter what.  If you seriously can't get a 2/3s majority then the person does not deserve a F rank, simply put.  As it stands, the host alone can just report the thing naturally as a large rule break and thus drop the person down to D rank.  As it stands, a D rank is pretty much a temp ban of up to 3 months, and that's if the hosts don't go ahead and block the person from playing later anyway. 

The last bit is the kicker: it should be rare, RARE for a person to get an F rank.. if we never give one out for the rest of this forum's life then it's perfectly fine. 

Btw, a host that never finishes a game is a host that has abandoned a game.  I'm thinking instant D rank for the host if it can be proven that the host gave up and didn't either keep alive an active game or ended a dead game.  Dealing with a host that willingly will keep a game from never finishing like that is more important than dealing with a player that, if they truly are horrible, will simply ruin another game and get reported there.

[dakarian]

For the record, any new games that end after Jan 1 will go into Winter '10.  Since this was just Beta, I had said that these rankings won't be saved, excluding the S ranks.  As such, all those who got less than Rank A consider it a warning.

Once I finalize how the rankings work the new season will show up.

NOW

To recap how the rankings will go:

A+ Rank : Active and Self-motivated. 1 prod max per quarter, No Substitutions and has subbed in a game

A Rank : Solidly Reliable.  1 prod max per quarter, No needed Substitutions

B + Rank : Reliable. 1 prod max per quarter, 2 or less Substitutions

B Rank : Suitably Reliable. 3 prods max per quarter, no more than 1 prod per game.  Substitutes by request only - 2 max

C Rank : Fickle. Only 1 of these: 3+ prods in a quarter / more than 1 prod in a game / more than 2 requested Subs

D Rank : Unreliable. Two or more of these: +3 prods in  a quarter / more than 1 prod in a game / more than 2 sub requests.   

E Rank : Flaker. 1 or more forced Substitutions

With each rank there is also a Minus (i.e. A-).  If you performed an act that warrants a loss of rank but have a suitable reason for it (i.e. a sudden vacation takes you away from 3 games) then you will retain your rank with a Minus.  Whether your reason is accepted will be determined by the host.

There aer also ranking penalties for rule violations:

A small rule break = a full drop of 1 rank (if formally an A, now you are a B.  If a C, now a D)

A critical rule break = a drop to E rank, instantly.

It will be up to the host as to the nature of the rule break, but there must be evidence that a written rule has been broken.

Lastly, it is the host's responsibility to end a game: either at it's normal time or early if the game dies.  Abandoning a game as a host is similar to a critical rule break.

Special Ranks.

N Rank : Novice.  Those that have played less than 5 games and have not done anything to earn a D or lower.  Should be deemed as Reliable.

S Rank : A specialized rank set above A rank.  Marked for Active playing even in the face of horrible situations.  When the game falls nearly dead, they are the ones still trying to keep things active.  If a game of just these players is run, not a HINT of a prod should appear.  If they are silent, they are either locked away from a computer, or scum talking up the Mafia Chat instead.

F Rank : A specialized rank of Failure.  Only for extreme cases, such as horrible rule violation or flat out real attempts to ruin games.

To receive a Rank of F, the hosts of two games much present their case where the player in question purposes caused the loss of themselves or their teammates.  The action must be very clear that it was not simply bad or awkward play (such as sacrificing yourself to confuse others or protect your team) but a willful pursuit towards the loss.  Other actions that caused or threaten to ruin of the game as a whole can be considered as well.  One host cannot present two games at once, even if they ran both.  An S rank can take the place of one, but not both hosts in presenting a game. 

Once the games are presented, a vote will be brought up.  Anyone not unranked, an N rank, or lower than D rank may (though is not required to) participate, including the accused.  A 2/3s vote of agreement must be reached.  If the vote fails, the games presented cannot be used again in a new case.

If a player obtains an F rank, the rank will remain for at least the end of the season.  Afterwhich, the rank holder can request to remove the rank.  This will bring about a new vote.  A simple majority will be required to remove the rank, putting them to a normal rank once the new season begins.  This request can be made once a season.

[Mr.Person]

I likie.

[Mephansteras]

Works for me.

[ToonyMan]