I think we should only pin voting threads now that we have a board. Have history, this thread and other quality topics pinned along side the votes. Just lock the other threads once the next one starts or consider them locked.
Mafia Official TBT Mafia General Thread - Game Types/Bans/Hosting
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
- Status
I'm looking into the idea of imposing an official ban system in the future as recent events with some games have shown a need for one. Looking for input from anyone willing in here as to how they feel such a system should be implemented and handled. Or if you think we're better off without it, explain why.
oath2order
#Porygon2024
One issue I could see arising is friends not wanting to use the list so friends can play. I would suggest making "implementation of the ban list" a requirement to host, so as to avoid that.
If that's something you already considered, you can ignore this.
If that's something you already considered, you can ignore this.
Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Official games have to follow the official ban list
oath2order
#Porygon2024
I do agree that we could use one, but another problem I could see arising is people agreeing on who should be banned. I'll admit that the banning of a player from my own game was due to me pushing for it, and making a situation worse than it already was. How would we (if it is a "we", maybe it'd just be a mod/admin), decide which bans get added to the official list? Would there also be guidelines for game ban lengths?
Go for it. It may be prudent to have hosts keep a list of infractions.
At least then a decision could be made based around a collective list?
But we'd probably need to delegate a member or a mod to keeping said lists and compiling infractions, so I'm not so sure it'd work. Perhaps an official ban list and a small system might discourage players from making totally avoidable mistakes, and transgressions. We'd also have to encourage members to report infractions and general rule breaking.
At least then a decision could be made based around a collective list?
But we'd probably need to delegate a member or a mod to keeping said lists and compiling infractions, so I'm not so sure it'd work. Perhaps an official ban list and a small system might discourage players from making totally avoidable mistakes, and transgressions. We'd also have to encourage members to report infractions and general rule breaking.
Geoni
You're doing great!
If bans were made out to be something more official, then I think there probably should be different lengths depending on what earned the player his infraction. Something like being annoying shouldn't have an equal ban length to say...somebody who outed their entire mafia team or something.
That's kind of what I'm suggesting lol. Might as well give it a point system for each rule in the rule guidelines. Perhaps automatic bans for the more severe actions? Ban length depending on prior history. The works.
Last edited:
Separate thread for ban list and maybe a small council of members to help decide bans, appeals, and whatever other relevant situation arises. Otherwise I mostly agree with everything else brought up.
i have weird feels about a banlist
if we were to have an "official" banlist, the biggest problem i see is that the list kinda has to be public knowledge. what comes from that is shaming and general distaste for a user that probably does not deserve it.
i think that perhaps the best solution to this behavior is a better wotc system.
ideally, this is what i have imagined:
host A's game has just finished, and host B's game is just about to begin.
host A had problems with player X's behavior, and warned them during their own game
host A PMs the name of player X to a wotc mod (nonplayer or something)
host B's participants send their wotc votes to the wotc mod instead of to the host. if enough votes are amassed, that player is removed from the signups list.
player X's behavior in host A's game should only be valid for some amount of time (some number of games)
there are probably problems here, but at the very least, i do not want to see the banlist, because i am sure there are people whose play will be affected by a public banlist
if we were to have an "official" banlist, the biggest problem i see is that the list kinda has to be public knowledge. what comes from that is shaming and general distaste for a user that probably does not deserve it.
i think that perhaps the best solution to this behavior is a better wotc system.
ideally, this is what i have imagined:
host A's game has just finished, and host B's game is just about to begin.
host A had problems with player X's behavior, and warned them during their own game
host A PMs the name of player X to a wotc mod (nonplayer or something)
host B's participants send their wotc votes to the wotc mod instead of to the host. if enough votes are amassed, that player is removed from the signups list.
player X's behavior in host A's game should only be valid for some amount of time (some number of games)
there are probably problems here, but at the very least, i do not want to see the banlist, because i am sure there are people whose play will be affected by a public banlist
Do you mind elaborating on the difference between sending the votes to a WoTC Mod instead of to the Host? Not really seeing it.
I elaborated on 8floor's idea. I'll be using fake names to don't take them personally 
Lauren's game has just finished, and host Justin's game is just about to begin.
Lauren had problems with Crystal's and Tom's behavior, and warned them during their own game
Lauren puts Crystal's and Tom's name in the Wotc's list.
Justin's participants send their wotc votes on the two people on the list If the player gets majority of the votes they are removed from the game/or is just regular wotc'd.
Crystal's and Tom's behavior in Lauren's game should only be valid for some amount of time (some number of games)
Lauren's game has just finished, and host Justin's game is just about to begin.
Lauren had problems with Crystal's and Tom's behavior, and warned them during their own game
Lauren puts Crystal's and Tom's name in the Wotc's list.
Justin's participants send their wotc votes on the two people on the list If the player gets majority of the votes they are removed from the game/or is just regular wotc'd.
Crystal's and Tom's behavior in Lauren's game should only be valid for some amount of time (some number of games)
3rd party is more likely to be objective
if person A is friends with person B and person B has been spamming in mafia lately, and racks up enough votes, person A can still decide to ignore those votes so their friend can play
in theory, the wotc mod should not care who person B is, and declare them unable to play that game
Not too worried about publicness personally. WOTCs (those who are booted from WOTC I mean, votes are anonymous of course) and the current not-so-official bans from hosts are already public, and there hasn't been much of a problem.
Sure, but even on the forum you can tell when a user is banned. Bans should be public so people will pay attention to what this person did. You really have to have a poor opinion of other users on this forum if you expect them to be disrespectful over a mafia ban.
BESIDES. If someone signs up for a game and they're voted out before it begins. If they don't ask publicly to be taken out, you have a valid guess at what happened. Keeping poisonous players away is well and good, but how's anyone going to learn if they don't know who's making mistakes? Another problem with wotc is that you can work players up and convince them to wotc another player. It's happened before.
I think we definitely need an official, public ban list. One issue at the moment is that most bans aren't being upheld. Some hosts just ignore bans set in the previous games - or for any reason (e.g. non-participation in certain games) some of them are just genuinely unaware that a player was banned in another game.
Last edited:
but there is not a list posted for everyone to see of ALL THESE USERS ARE BANNED RIGHT NOW, right? i think it is a little over the top to publicly shame them like that. warnings should be public. bans, i think, should not be. (i am not sure how bans on this forum work. if the person is banned does it say so in their user title or something? even then, it is something that only people that communicate with the banned person will really notice. i do not think that we need to add more to their shame, they are already banned, y'know?)
public ban list can subconsciously affect the way that players interact, and probably in a bad way but i do not want to make too many assumptions there
Uh, why does it have to be about publicly shaming people? It's more of a "hey, don't do what this person did" kind of thing. Every OP to a mafia game has a banlist anyway, but there are very few global bans and as said before not everyone enforces them. When people are banned on the forum their user icons disappear and their names turn brown.
Last edited:
i would be embarrassed to get banned
i would be even more horrified if everyone knew ;_;
hmm comparing to real life situation
uh the dunce cap in schools. it is not just that the student was called out for doing something wrong, but wearing the hat brings shame and unneeded attention.
like a warning (or modkill) in mafia would be like the teacher saying that the student did wrong, but being put on a ban list is like wearing the dunce hat
iunno, i am kinda done with this point though. probably not going to be playing mafia with you all for too much longer because ~real life~ anyway
(i hope my tone is not too weird and wishy-washy i am sorry i communicate weird)
Hm, well that's more of a you-thing isn't it? You would be ashamed to have everyone know you were banned, but they'd probably figure out eventually anyway. I mean-- letting people know that someone was banned isn't meant to shame them, personally; it's meant to warn others and let them know that this can happen. Just because you're ashamed yourself, doesn't mean you're being shamed. You're just ashamed. You following me?
Last edited:
- Status
