CALAMITY: 1-S2-1-8511323; Dimento: 1-S2-1-5862849

Account Name: CALAMITY
Account ID: 1-S2-1-8511323
In-Game Name: mwah
Crimes Committed: Gamethrowing

Summary:
He was Detective, spammed like crazy and then suicided D4 and deleted his LW. New Account but doesnt play like a new player at all.


Account Name: Dimento
Account ID: 1-S2-1-5862849
In-Game Name: The Boy

Crimes Committed: Gamethrowing/Griefing

Your Account Name: max
Summary:

He was SK who never killed anyone. Wasn't afk, he just chose not to kill. When he was lynched on D7 he said that he was peaceful and didnt kill anyone.

Attachment 22134

SC ID Verification
CALAMITY - Correct: 1-S2-1-8511323
Dimento - Correct: 1-S2-1-5862849

Players Added to Report
N/A

Respective Hotkeys
CALAMITY: Everyone (E)
Dimento: 4

Was the Game Result Altered?
Not really - Town won.

Previous Offenses
CALAMITY - None

Dimento
Role-Quitting (On-Hold)

Player Offenses
CALAMITY - Intentional Gamethrowing
Dimento - Intentional Gamethrowing


Summary
CALAMITY rolls Detective in slot 3.
Dimento rolls Serial Killer in slot 13.

The game plays kinda normal at start - CALAMITY tracks his targets each night, puts them in his last will and updates, etc.. During Day 2 and 3 he spams quite, however the filter stops him; other people ignore him and continue to play. So the game isn't really ruined at this point - very minor griefing so I will ignore this part.

However, on Day 4, #4 (Lookout) died to Triad, and after some conversation about leads on someone, CALAMITY types -suicide (You decide to kill yourself shows up before putting #10 to trial) and doesn't turn it off. Then Night 4 follows and he deletes his entire last will and instead writing

"I DIED OF A BROKE HEART: I COULD NOT BE WITHOUT MY GING!!"

As for the Neutral Killing - the entire game, Dimento didn't choose/target to kill (on Night 6 he chose a target and changed his mind). Then at Day 7, he is outed and lynched (due to an incorrect last will), which at that point during his last words:

"GG"
"I was peaceful"
"Oh well"
"im outta here"

CALAMITY seemed to do these things out of boredom - he tried to spam a bit but was stopped by the spam filter, and going to the point of gamethrowing by suiciding and deleting his last will randomly. He is also tagged as a new player (though no Battle.net name registration), so there is a possibility of smurfing (nobody would expect new players to play like this). However, we would have a problem if CALAMITY shows pattern of breaking rules, but since we only have an isolated case here, I still think he could benefit from a warning to remind him that suiciding out of boredom is a crime.

Dimento also gamethrew - he basically was not actively playing for his win condition (not killing) which also caused Triad to have a hard time and giving the Town upper advantage. As we know, the definition of Intentional Gamethrowing is basically playing to lose - which is what he exactly did. He has a Role Quitting crime in the past as well, so this would be his second offense; per our guidelines he would have 4 weeks however since his first offense is a Role Quitting crime (which I consider it minor in regard with this crime), I am fine with doing a Watch-list x3 but of course, For Arrow to Decide :calix:


Recommended Action(s)
CALAMITY - Watch-list x2
Dimento - Watch-list x3


Additional Comments
Thank you for your report in effort to keep the game clean! Your thread title had the incorrect ID for one of the players - I updated it. Feel free to report more players if you think they are breaking the rules.

Punished as recommended.

Hi, I believe I was incorrectly reported for Intentional Gamethrowing.
I was playing as Serial Killer, and as the role states "You may choose to kill once a night".
I refused to kill anybody and got reported for not killing anybody, as I do enjoy last minute SK popups at the end of the game.
I believe I was falsely accused.:noworry:

I merged the threads.

So can I get it removed?

@Dimento , a Smod will review your case. In the mean time, please make sure that you are satisfied with your appeal. You can find everything you need to know here.

On another note, this is a x3 Watch list which means after 3 weeks the message will be removed. We just ask that you play the game appropriately.

Thank you.

@Dimento, we've accepted your request for an appeal. I have taken a look at the game in question and my findings are as follows:

REVIEW OF APPEAL

NAME / SC ID VERIFICATION
CORRECT: 1-S2-1-5862849

Respective Hotkeys
4

Was the Game Result altered?
Yes, in the sense that the KPN (kills per night) were greatly reduced by Dimento's refusal to use his night kill ability as Serial Killer. The Town ended up lynching the compeltely outnumbered Dimento (6v1v1 at the end of the game) given he skipped 6 chances to night kill.

Previous Offenses
Role Quitting (On Hold)

Player Offenses
Griefing

Game Summary
This review is solely based on Dimento's appeal. In this game Dimento rolls Serial Killer (#13 - The Boy).

Day 1 is uneventful. During Night 1, Dimento takes no action and is attacked by the Triad.

During Day 2, Dimento falsely claims that he was protected by a Doctor, which is found suspicious by the Town given another player claims the same thing. Eventually, #2 is voted up, found guilty, and flips Vanguard.

During Night 2, Dimento takes no action. During Day 3, #15 is voted up, found guilty, and flips Executioner.

During Night 3, Dimento takes no action, but begins to prepare a fake Veteran LW. During Day 4, Dimento changes his LW to a fake Vigilante LW. The Town no lynches this day.

During Night 4, Dimento takes no action. During Day 5, Dimento and others lead a push on #10 who is found guilty and flips Dragon Head. At the end of the day, Dimento tells the Town to killl #14.

During Night 5, Dimento takes no action. During Day 6, the Town suspects Dimento but ends up no lynching.

During Night 6, Dimento decides to kill #11, writes a death note of "Surprise", but then changes his mind so that he ends up taking no action once again. That night, the last Triad is intercepted by a Bodyguard.

During Day 7, Dimento change his fake LW to that of a Bodyguard. Dimento is voted to trial, claims Veteran with a false LW that is proven by other players to be false (i.e. he claimed to be out of alerts using only two). He is voted guilty by a 5-0 margin and flips Serial Killer. His final remarks are as follows:

GG

I was peaceful

Oh well

im outta here

After Dimento is lynched, the Town wins the game.

Appeal Analysis
This appeal is a bit complicated and raises the question of whether it's acceptable for a Serial Killer not to kill anyone throughout the game. The answer seems to be it depends whether the player in question was attempting to win the game through a strategy or was only killing as a means of trolling, which would throw off the game balance.

In his request for an appeal, Dimento explains his play as follows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimento

Hi, I believe I was incorrectly reported for Intentional Gamethrowing.
I was playing as Serial Killer, and as the role states "You may choose to kill once a night".
I refused to kill anybody and got reported for not killing anybody, as I do enjoy last minute SK popups at the end of the game.
I believe I was falsely accused.:noworry:

---

I do not find this explanation to be compelling whatsoever. The Serial Killer role card states an ability of "Kill someone every night" with a goal of "be the last person alive". There is no "you may choose to" language in the description as Dimento claims, which would bolster his case somewhat. This type of misrepresentation is dangerously close to our standard of lying in an appeal, which would result in a doubled punishment, but I will be lenient here given the possible mistake. In addition, Dimento's rationale for not killing anyone seems rather flippant as well: "I do enjoy last minute SK popups at the end of the game". I note this has nothing to do with strategy whatsoever (i.e. nothing about why this would make Dimento more likely to win as SK) and therefore, Dimento's intent here seems to be far more trolly than strategic.

This theory is very much borne out by how the game progressed. The Triad had significant difficulty generating night kills in this game (only one Town was killed by them, with another suicidng, and the third being a Bodyguard who intercepted the last Triad. I.e. it should have been very apparent to Dimento that he had virtually no chance of winning this game (i.e. "being the last person left alive") without using his night kill ability to remove some Town from the game. The game ended as a 6v1v1 (the Neutral being a Jester). Given this game ended Day 7, Dimento had 6 chances to kill Town and passed up all 6. In other words, he could have easily killed a significant number of Town and radically increased his chances of winning, but repeatedly chose not to do so.

The sole mitigating factor here is that it can sometimes be a legitimate strategy to forego kills as a Serial Killer -- for example, if there is not a set role Neutral Killing in the game, so the Town might not even realize one exists. This was not the case in this game given Neutral Killing was set. Arguably, Dimento not using his night kill could have also confused the Town into believing the NK was an Arsonist instead (given douse was disabled). Not sure how this particularly helps Dimento either though, as he was still foregoing kills and falling further behind with each skipped night action.

My conclusion is as follows: it certainly can be a legitimate strategy to avoid night kills as a Serial Killer, but certainly not for the reason Dimento alleges (based on the role card and his desire to play flippantly). While I hesitate to set the precedent that Serial Killers must kill, they should generally do so unless there's a really good strategic reason not to (classic example being an Amnesiac turned SK who the Town does not know exists). This was not that type of situation at all and for those reasons, I find that Dimento broke the rules in this game.

Regarding punishment, Dimento was engaged in this game, did create several fake LWs (the last of which doomed him), so I conclude that he was not intentionally trying to lose -- i.e. not Intentional Game-Throwing. However, it's very clear that his decision to play for a funny outcome (surprise SK!) took precedence to him triyng to play to his win condition of being the last person left alive. I find this to be Griefing. Given Dimento has no prior record other than a Role Quitting offense, I am willing to extend a little leniency in this case and reduce the punishment to an Watch List x 2 on the condition that this behavior not repeat itself. If this happens again, we will punish more severely -- i.e. since Dimento is now on notice of this behavior being problematic, he would likely be looking at a long Watch List or even a Ban List.

Recommended Action
Reduce from Watch List x 3 (Intentional Game-Throwing) to Watch List x 2 (Griefing).

Additional Notes
Please play to your win condition in the future. You are receiving a little leniency on the assumption that you were genuinely confused about the rules. If this happens again, we will be far less favorable to you given you are now aware of how this type of play is problematic.

Also, you misstated the Serial Killer role card pretty flagrantly in your favor when you appealed to us -- i.e. with language that supported your case, but which does not appear anywhere in the role card. If you are caught lying or misrepresenting information to us in another appeal, your penalty will likely be doubled.

@Arrow , per this appeal, please lower Dimento's Watch List x 3 to a Watch List x 2.

Dimento: 1-S2-1-5862849

I have played as SK before throughout the years and I do not always kill people each night. I have won many times through gaining the trust of the town and then at the end, backstabbing and winning. I do believe that it is strategy because I cannot be tracked, and if "Immune to detection" is on it would be even better and greatly improve the chances on winning, with all the triad unlucky it was sort of a risky gamble as well.
Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimento

I have played as SK before throughout the years and I do not always kill people each night. I have won many times through gaining the trust of the town and then at the end, backstabbing and winning. I do believe that it is strategy because I cannot be tracked, and if "Immune to detection" is on it would be even better and greatly improve the chances on winning, with all the triad unlucky it was sort of a risky gamble as well.
Thank you.

---

@Dimento , there's a difference between not killing people each night and not killing someone for 6 nights in a row when the Triad was folding over like a house of cards, lol. As previously stated, there are very legitimate reasons why you might want to vary up when you kill -- we are in complete agreement on this. We are not in agreement that this was one of those types of games though. In addition, with certain game settings like "immune to detection", might make it a very viable strategy, that option was not enabled in this game so this is a bit of a counterfactual.

We appreciate your interest in the game and the time you've spent explaining yourself in this appeal. We just ask that you be a bit more strategic and a bit less flippant next time because this particular game looked bad and we can understand how people might be upset by your play here.

That sounds good, I am understandable and Its alright. I'm glad you somewhat understand my strategy.
Yes, I've been playing this game since 2012.
I have had multiple accounts and computers, I've lost my score multiple times unfortunately.

Punishment lowered.

Thank you Arrow.