Print

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

[webadict]

I guess at this point, it's time we need to figure out just what it takes to earn a Rank F.

First off, just plain old rule breaks isn't enough.  Rulebreaks can constitute a lost in rank (instead of a flat out given rank, it just drops you by 1 full rank.. so if you were a A you are now a B, if a C, now a D..).  E rank can be held for a 'stern warning' in my eyes, if it comes down to that.  However, I'd must rather it be very clear what the issue is so that it's not a judgement call.  It is starting to sound like we're getting to that point (i.e. acting deliberately to cause your team's loss).

F rank isn't a simple warning: it's the reverse of the S rank.  It's not just for gameplay you don't want around, it's for PLAYERS you'd rather not be around anymore.  Rank F will require something special to get in and won't come off with a simple 3 month wait.  I can fully see it as being an inch away from a full ban, except with some hope of forgiveness.

If I only take Paranormal into account, I'm not sure ExKirby is to THAT point yet.  Some of the hosts won't let him play in any of their games, but does the community as a whole really want to say "We do NOT want him around anymore" ?  If so then it'll be good to have a good, STRONG case for him.

No, what he did was ridiculously childish. He doesn't need to come back. If he's going to majorly quit like that, I don't want him back until he's grown up (Give him like, I dunno, 15 years.)

As far as I'm concerned, he's an F as well.

I don't give a damn. I really mean what I said. I really am not going to be playing any mafias for at least a few months and probably ever again.

Then why are you still replying here?

[Vector]

Huh.  When are we bringing up Winter 2010?  We have, after all, passed New Year's.

[dakarian]

Soon.  First, though, I still need to figure out how Rank F will be handled, especially since we're getting candidates for it.

[Mr.Person]

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.)

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

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.

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

All of these show either the player is a rulebreaker, an extreme flaker, a nuisance for the host, and/or a person showing no improvment in his or her actions. The last one is for players that everyone agree's needs to be gone, but the rules haven't forced the player's rank to be F yet.

[RedWarrior0]

I agree on the "Breaking the rules badly enough to be modkilled", though I think it should be appended to include threats to do so. Webadict in Paranormal 12. Planning to use modkill mechanics as a suicide button? WTF?

[Zai]

Planning to use modkill mechanics as a suicide button? WTF?

I thought of doing this in KWN:DE on a day when I was a Pinata to force-gift everyone. Didn't end up doing it, though.

[CobaltKobold]

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.)

No.

[Mephansteras]

As far as I'm concerned a player who is only on their own side (Survivor, jester, etc) may choose to play to lose if they will have more fun doing so.  However, a player with Teammates should never play to lose, since that ruins someone else's fun (unless the other player(s) agrees with the decision ahead of time).

So, Inaluct would be fine (he lost, but had more fun doing it then I think he would have playing to win) while ExKirby's action in Paranormal 12 was not fine.

[Mr.Person]

Hmm, that's a good point Meph. This would be a good issue to get more opinions on.

[Org]

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.)

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

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.

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

All of these show either the player is a rulebreaker, an extreme flaker, a nuisance for the host, and/or a person showing no improvment in his or her actions. The last one is for players that everyone agree's needs to be gone, but the rules haven't forced the player's rank to be F yet.

I say yes to all but 3 and 4. What if we are going on vacation but we have been in a game that wasnt expected to be so long(aka Pandar's U pick)

[CobaltKobold]

That was a requested replacement, not a forced one, as I understand it.

[Org]

Oh.

[Mr.Person]

That's what the "as long as so many are forced replacements" requirement is for. Still, I made that one particularly aggressive. Maybe a percentage of games in the quarter would be better? Like if you need to be replaced in 50% of the games in you were in that quarter?

[Org]

Yeah.

[CobaltKobold]

That's what the "as long as so many are forced replacements" requirement is for. Still, I made that one particularly aggressive. Maybe a percentage of games in the quarter would be better? Like if you need to be replaced in 50% of the games in you were in that quarter?

Seems lax to me. 1 replacement is not that bad, e'en in two games.