Printable View
Account Name: FloodingRain
Account ID: 1-S2-1-2441688
In-Game Name: www.random.org/integers/marshall_DAY1
Your account name: Ransom
13 is marshall, lynches d1 and gets 3 evils plus a jester. Lynches d2 and gets 2 town plus a jester. The game is destroyed, whether he hacks or is just absurdly lucky is irrelevant. I assume he hacks and did a diff lynch d2 just to.. change it up. He is an experienced player and correctly mass lynches d1. I've never seen a better reason to permaban.
Account Name: FloodingRain
Account ID: -S2-1-2441688
In-Game Name:
Crimes Committed: Griefing and Game Throwing
Your Account Name: HappyFT
Summary: As Marshall, he revealed immediately on Day 1 (the 30 second time period before Night 1 starts) and immediately called for lynchings of "random" people. He didn't ask for or get any pms for roles and LWs, he just spammed asking for votes on players, one at a time. Out of the four lynches, he got the MM, 2 triads, and Jester. The very next day he did the same thing, and got 3 towns killed without ever asking for PM, role or LW, just spamming whichever player he wanted to kill. At this point people started to leave in disgust, even towns who were still alive.
Account Name: Floodingrain
Account ID: 1-S2-1-2441688
In-Game Name: www.random.org/integers/Marshal_DAY1
Crimes Committed: Griefing hard. Might be considered as gamethrowing? Maybe some cheating involved too?
Your Account Name: Olegsander
Summary: I don't even know how to describe this. It's just ruining games for the sole purpose of ruining games. I don't even want to comment on the 4 (FOUR) lynches on day 1, with 0 townies among them. I mean, ok, maybe it was just luck, that *could* have happened. Gotta admit it seems very unlikely, but not impossible.
However, I cannot believe this was not made in an attempt to make the game as unfun as possible for every other player.
I was in the sc2maf clan at that moment. Imagine my surprise at the end of the game, when I saw that this was done by an "officer" of said clan. After confirming with another "officer" who was in that game (twentytwo) that this behavior is "normal" to him, I immediately left the clan. I don't ever want to be associated with this.
Merging these 3 reports on the same player/game. In review.
SC ID VERIFICATION
FloodingRain:Correct. 1-S2-1-2441688
In game name: www .random.org/integers/Marshall_DAY1
Was the Game Result altered?
On day 3 there were only 4 players left. Town did win in the end.
After the Review
FloodingRain sets up the game and rolls Marshall. Day 1 he reveals and proceeds to spam "10 integers are: 14 9 9 9 1213 7 5 9 12". He random lynches 14, 9, 12 and 7 without asking for any roles. Day 2 he reveals again. This time, although he doesn't ask for roles, he appears to be trying to scum hunt. He lynches 3 because 3 PMed him a claim of survivor. He also lynches 6 and 10 then skips to night without lynching a 4th person.
The graveyard flips are:
14 MM
9 Disguiser
12 GF
7 Jester
3 Jester
6 Detect
10 Lookout
5 (spy) and 13 (Marshall) die from jester grief. 1 and 15 are killed n1 and n2 by maf. This leaves the game decimated day 3 with only 4 players left.
Previous Offenses
Griefing (On-Hold)
Griefing (WL x2)
Player Offenses
Griefing
Recommended Action
4x Watch-list
Additional Notes
This was obviously planned by the design of his set up, the name he chose and how fast he began spamming his random target numbers. I find this to be an example of trolling gone too far (griefing), as it ruined the game experience for the other players.
Thank you for the reports. We will be looking into adjusting Marshall day 1 abilities.
1-S2-1-2441688: 4x WL.
You proved your point, we'll be looking into marshall day 1 lynch ability.
I believe Day 1 lynches to be bad for the sc2 mafia mod in general. It never generates value and to protest this, I held marshall courts day 1. I even made the name be a bogus address to random.org in order to add to the "shock factor."
I'm glad to see that my actions will have removed marshall courts day 1, but you missed the mark and didn't remove voting day 1. This is a shame, though it doesn't surprise me.
Consider this scenario:
I propose integers (randomly generated) and do not follow them (much like day 2). Maybe I lynch 1 or 2 off of that list, but only 1-2. Not 4. Is this report the same in this case? I think it's clear I didn't go purely off the list because my own number was on the list and didn't request myself to be lynched.
If it is the same report, then why?
From day 2's pattern, I think it's clear that I was not trying to grief. I was trying to scum hunt (although it was done rather poorly day 2). I used the random integers to give me people to pressure. They didn't respond to pressure in a town way, WHICH WOULD BE TO PM THE MARSHALL YOUR ROLE. Only a fool would state that it is not common to pm roles automatically upon marshall reveal. I found them scummy, so I lynched them. The voting patterns generated from those lynches would be quite valuable to determine mafia, as is common play for any skilled player.
Would it be the same case because it is perceived to be random, despite my claim that it was not and, yet again, despite the fact that voting patterns can prove to be invaluable to find mafia? I can guarantee that no one could watch that day 1 (in which the alleged griefing occurred) and say that those 4 lynch victims were definitively town. And, need I remind you, that they were evil - as predicted.
Indeed, I pulled guesses from the list, but I lynched them definitively because I thought they were scum. This is the key point.
Look past the facade which is in the name, and ask yourselves: Was this report biased due to the fact that it was day 1 voting? If so, then why is day 1 voting in the game? It is a critical function in longer forms of mafia (e.g. Forum Mafia).
Or, was this report biased due to the fact that I randomly voted day 1? Which, again I must emphasize, I only voted them because I did not find their words to be townie.
Please note, I scum hunted successfully day 1 and was able to lynch 4/6 evils by the end of day 1. This move was very beneficial to town (town won).
This game was not griefing, and if you have the opinion that it was griefing, then please explain why you believe that the objective benefits of those lynches (1. Voting patterns, 2. killing scum because they were scummy) are, in fact, illusory - as I am of the opinion that this is impossible.
In addition to this Audit, I want Ransom to be reported for Attempted Gamethrowing. Ransom even wrote in his last will something which was specifically "anti-me." And it should go without saying that, as town, wanting to lynch confirmed town government on the day of his reveal is inexcusable. He attempted to vote with evils to kill the confirmed town government, attempting to protect evils in the process. This could show evidence of skyping with a mafia member, though I am hesitant to levy this accusation. Toss missed this in her report, which shames me because she is such a veteran player. While it should not be a black mark against her for missing such blatant breaking of the rules, it should not go unsaid.
Edit: I would also prefer to choose who audits this report, as I am convinced that it may become heavily delayed, and my reputation tarnished in the process, if it is Arrow. This is not meant to offend Arrow, it is just meant to protect myself from this defamation.
Please remember that posting in here is not allowed unless you're a member of the moderation. I don't want to see others be infracted :(
Oh, and Olegsander should be added to the report as well
I missed/forgot about that one. He followed the same play pattern as Ransom.
That's quite an irrelevant scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fury
It's not. If it was, there wouldn't be reports.Quote:
From day 2's pattern, I think it's clear that I was not trying to grief.
It was indeed.Quote:
I was trying to scum hunt (although it was done rather poorly day 2).
Doesn't matter if it's RNG or you "randoming" people.Quote:
I used the random integers to give me people to pressure.
You claiming your picks weren't random is silly.Quote:
Would it be the same case because it is perceived to be random, despite my claim that it was not
They can, but they don't justify 4 random lynches on day 1.Quote:
and, yet again, despite the fact that voting patterns can prove to be invaluable to find mafia?
Hell, if they're that "invaluable", you should have voted inno and gotten more people on trial to get more "voting patterns", not guilty everyone that was on the "list".Quote:
The voting patterns generated from those lynches would be quite valuable to determine mafia, as is common play for any skilled player.
Could you ever watch a day 1 and guarantee anyone is definetely town beside a revealing town gov? There is no argument here.Quote:
I can guarantee that no one could watch that day 1 (in which the alleged griefing occurred) and say that those 4 lynch victims were definitively town. And, need I remind you, that they were evil - as predicted.
Nobody is going to judge you based on what you've thought, usually this is done based on what you've done.Quote:
Indeed, I pulled guesses from the list, but I lynched them definitively because I thought they were scum. This is the key point.
I don't know what you mean by "biased report". My report was created because I was angry at your whole plan to have marshall and reveal on day 1 and lynch 4 random players on day 1. This was very obviously a plan designed to piss people off. It worked and pissed me off enough to post here. If you will now claim that this was not planned, then I'll let the moderation staff make an objective decision.Quote:
Look past the facade which is in the name, and ask yourselves: Was this report biased due to the fact that it was day 1 voting? If so, then why is day 1 voting in the game? It is a critical function in longer forms of mafia (e.g. Forum Mafia).
Or, was this report biased due to the fact that I randomly voted day 1? Which, again I must emphasize, I only voted them because I did not find their words to be townie.
The fact that you planned it for reasons related to "proving a point about d1 voting" litteraly means that you knew beforehand that what you were going to do isI hope this clears any doubt that could have arisen from your confusing post. I like your use of colors though, it looks cute.Quote:
bad for the game
PS: I thought I had read that people who submitted the report were allowed to post in this thread. I'm very sorry if I misunderstood that.
Gonna close this thread for the time being until it is reviewed.
I will dig into this over the next day or two. It is a unique situation but for future reference there are much more appropriate ways to address potential exploits. This would be very simple to handle if the issue had been brought up prior to the action taken here and I am not surprised it upset a player or two.
Opening the thread again.
I have to note that today was a very strange day for me.
I strongly disagree with the concept Fury brought to the table here. He took what he saw as an exploit and ran with that shit to prove a point. This is not how to improve the community and the argument that it was an effort in that direction is shit. I have to take this as trolling for fun with a very strongly positioned justification after the fact.
That said. I can not call this gamethrowing. He did play toward his win condition although he crippled himself with something silly. Every action appears to be reasoned and there is obvious attempts to scum hunt all the way through.
I can not call this griefing. The game was not ruined as a result of his plays. I have to note that some players were very upset with his actions and I can not blame them. This situation could have very easily backfired and I can empathize with players taking a very hostile position to his actions. For that reason I am equally unwilling to push any gamethrowing claim against players going against the Marshall in this game.
To Summarize- Appeal successful but Olegsander will not be punished for his actions. This report was really pushing the limits of what is acceptable game-play which is why I imagine it was originally marked as an offense. When you have players reporting you its a reflection of the community expressing your behavior is unacceptable. This report is borderline as hell and future such reports will likely be much more aggressive. This game did result in limiting Marshall action but the game will not be dictated by what is a 'potential exploit.' There is an appropriate way to bring up improvements and I do not want to ever see it happen in this manner again.
Anyone has an issue with this PM me