Quorthon: 1-S2-1-3368944

[Exeter350]

Account Name: Quorthon
Account ID: 1-S2-1-3368944
In-Game Name: Geronimo the Strong

Crimes Committed: Game-throwing

Your Account Name: Exeter

Summary:
Quorthon rolls Marshall in slot 5. He doesn't pick a name and is randomly assigned Geronimo the Strong.

D1: -

N1: 1 (Veteran) goes on alert, and kills 7 (Doctor).

D2: 7 flips Doctor and his last will reveals that he visited 1 (Veteran), confirming 1 as Veteran. Quorthon (Marshall) questions how the Veteran is confirmed, so the Town decides to put him up. However, before he is put up, he reveals himself as Marshall.

Without asking for roles and last wills, Quorthon decides to get 1 (confirmed Veteran) for "trying to lynch marshall". 1 (Veteran) is successfully lynched.

Quorthon then tries to lead a lynch on 6, but the Town knows by now that he's a gamethrower and lynches him instead. While being executed, Quorthon says, "rekt af gg noobs. thats what happens when you miss your prefer list" and quits.

Town proceeds to lynch 9 (Amnesiac) and 15 (Disguiser) without a Marshall's guidance.

All of the executed people's last wills are shown. Quorthon's last will reads "my only wish is to kill the fags who change the colour in their names". 1 (Veteran) and 6 (Lookout) are the only coloured names in the game.

* * * * *

Incredibly toxic behaviour.

Quorthon's got 37k points, so he should be rather intimate with how the game works. The Veteran is more-or-less confirmed, though certain possibilities such as 7 (Doctor) being witched onto another target is possible. Even if you accept that Quorthon did not believe 1 was a confirmed Veteran and decided to lynch him because he was faking Veteran, he still tried to lead a random lynch on 6 with absolutely no leads.

However, his belligerent words during his execution and in his last will pretty much confirms him as a gamethrower.

His motive, as far as I can tell, is that he didn't get his preferred roles, and decided to kill all coloured names in the game.

[PowersThatBe]

SC ID VERIFICATION
1. Quorthon Correct. 1-S2-1-3368944

ADDED PLAYERS
2. CuelloRojo Correct. 1-S2-1-1682717
3. Exeter Correct. 1-S2-1-5640160
4. Panther Correct. 1-S2-1-2903834
5. Erika Correct. 1-S2-1-449807
6. RicoSuave Correct. 1-S2-1-2475631


Respective Hotkeys
1. 3
2. Control 1
3. Control 4
4. 2
5. Control 5
6. Control 3

Was the Game Result altered?
1. Town loses. I attribute it to them voting the Marshall

Previous Offenses
1. None
2. Leave Train (On-Hold): https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...1-S2-1-1682717
3. Cheating/Additional Information (WL x3): https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...hlight=5640160
4. Lag Cheating (WL x3): https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...1-S2-1-2903834
5. None
6. Role Quitting (On-Hold): https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...1-S2-1-2475631 Griefing/GT (On-Hold): https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...hlight=2475631



Player Offenses
1. Griefing
2. Reactionary Game Throw
3. Reactionary Game Throw
4. Reactionary Game Throw
5. Reactionary Game Throw
6. Reactionary Game Throw

Summary
1. Prefers Marshall and rolls Marshall

He votes 1 vote on one, then reveals himself as Marshall. 1 is “confirmed” by doc. However, I will argue that Witch was possible, and it is easy enough to deduce that the doc could have been sent somewhere else instead of whom they thought they were targeting, making their lw false. So ergo, 1 was not 100% confirmed, someone could have easily counter-claimed.

But the LW about the colored names and given the fact that he voted 1 and then asked to vote fo4 6, both of whom had colored names. It leads me to suggest that he was griefing partially.

However, the town decides to lynch the confirmed Marshall because he lynches a Vet claim that could easily be lied about if there’s a witch.

However during the time, he is voting 1, the group of added players votes to lynch the revealed Marshall in counter to the vote on 1. 1 is lynched 8 to 5 instead of the Marshal, with the Marshall having only a 3 vote disparity..

Vet is lynched. Town with evils votes to lynch the still confirmed Marshall for voting a non-100% confirmed vet. All of these players except for Exeter (due to the fact that he died) succeed in lynching the Marshall. The Marshall is easily lynched. Exeter is included in this group of voters because he votes with the original block of 5 towns. Had the evils decided to vote with the town in the first vote, Marshall would have been killed first and not second. We punish intent here, and it was the intent of those town who voted the Marshall to lynch him in retaliation for wanting to lynch 1. When 1 could have easily flipped something else had there been a witch, and since the roles weren't flipped until after all 4 players were lynched, it was very foolish of town to be so up in arms about something not really confirmed.

Also a note about 6: Yes he did try to lead a vote on 6, however, when he revealed a number of players pm'd their roles and lw's to him. 6 did not, however, so he could have argued that fact. Still suspect, I agree.


Conclusion: Marshall was probably Griefing. Town threw game by voting Marshall. You never ever vote your 100% confirmed town roles, unless there is cult possible and then it can be ok. You do not vote your town because you think they're trolling, two wrongs don't make a right. In this instance all of you are punished because you all decided to act immature and ruin the game for the people who were not involved in this drama.


Recommended Action

1. On-Hold
2. Watch-List x2
3. Watch-List x4
4. Watch-List x2
5. On-Hold
6. Watch-List x4

Additional Notes
Thanks for the report! While Marhsall’s behavior was suspect. Two wrongs do not make a right, and town lost themselves the game by voting in the Marshall. Intentionally voting a confirmed Marshall role is very bad form and a bad reflection on the players.

[Arrow]

All punished as suggested.

[Exeter350]

The response to this report blows my mind. I find it ridiculous that Quorthon is only guilty of Griefing, with no punishment. I doubt there is a single person who would've done what he did if they intended to play properly. Having doubts about whether the Veteran is confirmed, sure, I acknowledged that myself in my report. Revealing and lynching despite being "confirmed" and having claimed a role and last will... What...? I mean, if you're going to lynch someone despite some evidence suggesting that they're likely to be innocent, and you have no other leads... you may as well just random the whole town and get it over with.

It was pretty clear to everyone that Quorthon was game-throwing. I shouldn't even need to... what... I don't even...

Two wrongs don't make a right, sure. I'm just pissed that Quorthon, such a blatant troll and the source of all the trouble in this match, walks away scott-free, whereas the others, who are all good regular players, are the ones getting punished.

The reporting system is in place to keep things running smoothly and peacefully, removing negative and harmful players and behaviour from the game. There are guidelines in place to streamline the review process to ensure that reports are handled in a standardised, professional way. But I think the reviewers need to take a more personal, human stance when doing these reports. Just look at this replay: the one who is destroying everyone's fun is Quorthon. Everyone wants him reported and banned from the game, yet he ends up getting scott-free to destroy more games. Meanwhile, the people who are standing up for those affected are the ones getting punished.

Systems, guidelines and processes are great, but you should always remember why the system is there in the first place. We are not machines. "To make sure the rules are not broken." Okay, why? "So that people can have fun games not plagued by trolls and gamethrowers." Even if the townies who were trying to counter-lynch the Marshall were, according to the system, "reactionary game-throwing" and "destroying the game", none of the townies who lost the game felt any anger towards them. You can see for yourself at the end of the match, the only person the defeated townies were pissed off at was the idiot Marshall. No one blamed any of the players who lynched the Marshall.

I look through the reports on the forums regularly. Many times I find that punishment is administered even in rather grey areas. All I can say is this: if you continue to punish your good, regular players who play the game properly and contribute to the community and to fun games in general, and let trolls who exist purely to ruin games walk free due to technicalities and holes in the system, you will find that this system will just turn around and bite you in the ass. The system is not perfect. For instance, the only Skypers I've ever seen reported are the dumb ones who actually admit it in-game - your system and guidelines cannot punish the smart ones due to lack of evidence and shit, and so they're allowed to continue running free and spoiling more games. Players who, when they get a role they dislike, can just AFK all game or quit D2 and are absolved of role-quitting, because they are not guilty according to the guidelines in place.

There are always loopholes in any system, and determined rule breakers will always find and exploit those loopholes. Players who play properly, on the other hand, may occasionally step across the line, because they are not so concerned with how to skirt around the rules. Now, you can either show more support for the civic-minded players who are trying to excise the rule breakers from this game, or make them fight two fronts at once.

I suggest that more common sense and a human touch is put into these reviews. Don't get too caught up in technicalities and lose sight of the real goal, because technicalities are the rule breakers' best weapons.

I can't speak for the others, but I think I'm going to take a long, long break from Mafia. The way this report was handled... I don't even...

Although I am fairly new to the community, I am somewhat acquainted with its problems, such as the shrinking community. Part of it is due to the lack of updates, sure. The auto-kick system too, SC2's age, so on and so forth. There is also much unhappiness over the moderation. It's very simple politics. You keep castrating your power base, pretty soon you'll be moderating a community of nothing but the dregs of society, because your own actions alienated all the people you wanted to attract and keep, who would've supported the system and community growth.

I rushed 20k points in 3-4 months. I report players who ruin games for others. I often mediate in-game arguments and calm players down when they get too emotional. When trolls antagonise their victims, I step in. I clarify rules and regulations. I help newbies understand the game better. My dedication to this game, and its community, should be apparent. But all I get in return is trouble from the administration. I am not saying I am above the rules, but some goodwill would not be amiss.

This report, for instance... no one wrote a report on the added players, no one would've wanted to write a report on the added players, and yet you take it into your initiative to screw the people who are making the community better for a mere technicality that no one personally involved even cares about. What's the motive here? To discourage game-disrupting behaviour? Spread awareness that such behaviour is not tolerated? Don't make me laugh. Or is it just a mechanical, the rules say this so I must follow mindset? Hey if that's the case, you should just automate the reviewing process, that'll save you so much time and effort.

The player base likes this game. Give them a reason to continue liking it. Failing that, at least have the common sense not to chase them away.

[PowersThatBe]

Exeter, I get that you're upset. However, I cannot "punish" this player more severely because you're upset. He has never been reported or been found guilty rather of any crimes before. Everyone on the Watch-List has committed crimes in the past, including yourself. Coming here and insulting me because you don't like the fact that I handled this objectively and not with the notion of "this guy ruined the game, let me nail him." Sure, I sat there and said well what he did was suspect.

I took the human approach, I watched the game from his eyes. I saw his prefer/black list. You said he didn't prefer Marshall, and he did. You acknowledge the possibility for a witch, which he could have thought of. The only thing that he says, that could even be remotely considered griefing was the fact that he mentions colored names in his LW and then tries to vote two colored names.

Neither you or 6 were confirm, and sure you were both town. However, instead of letting him continue in the game or fully trolling so that we could actually punish him for game throwing, you guys decided to lynch him as a confirmed town role. What would have happened if you weren't Vet? What happens if the town believes you over him, and he gets lynched as the confirmed Marshall? And you flip witch/jester//sk/dh?

You're upset because he didn't believe you, you're not entitled to his belief off the bat. From what I saw he wasn't "an obvious troll" as you say. He was somewhat standoffish to people.

A lot of time, and discussion goes into these reports sometimes. I personally consulted with two other mods before making a decision. He didn't get away scott free, he is on hold for future games. However, this was his first report.

You guys were quick to jump on him because you think he's required to just believe you. Also, before he revealed you said "5 dies first." That's a very anti town thing to say. I'm not saying you're not a "good player" or not "having the best interest" at heart here, but c'mon man, don't play the pity card or threaten us with "your rules are destroying the game."

If anything we're super lenient about most things. Even removing the perma-ban punishment in MOST instances it would have applied.

The problem here is, you wanted me to overlook your and your friends crime because you were enacting justice into your own hands. I looked at this game from both perspectives, and even before you're lynched the 5 of you vote the confirmed Marshall.

The only evil you get is a disguiser, you even lynched an amnesiac who could have remembered vet and helped win the game. Your actions were more destructive to the town than his were.

We don't just look at these reports and say "they must be punished!!!!!" I do what's fair every single time. You are upset because you thought you could have just reported him and we'd just say "ok exeter thanks!" Life doesn't work like that...you need to make sure you're following the rules if you're going to report someone in your game for breaking rules, because we look at the report in its entirety.

We do not overlook anything and we do not give special treatment. At least I don't.

You are welcomed to appeal.

[Veri]

After seeing this report and the way it was handled, I would like to give my opinion about it because this is exactly why I (and others) don't or rarely report anymore.

Was the Game Result altered?
1. Town loses. I attribute it to them voting the Marshall

I disagree. What would have been different if they hadn’t voted the Marshall? 5 was just randoming, he would have lynched 6 next (who was also town) and then would have randomed 2 more players. He may have gotten lucky with the last two, but since town lynched Amnesiac and Disguiser after the Marshall, chances are that he would NOT have done better than they did. There would have been at least 2 dead townies if everyone just followed the Marshall because he was voting both 1 (Veteran and 6 (Lookout) just for their colored name.
Town didn‘t lose because they voted the Marshall, a lot of things in this game went wrong including the Marshall lynching the confirmed Veteran, the BD(11) swapping himself with mafia(14) when the vigi shot mafia (and it was quite obvious that vigi would shoot 14 imo) and therefore killing himself, the Lookout(3) not even trying to defend himself on trial and in the end, the other Lookout(6) making the wrong decision and lynching the Spy(10) instead of the mafia because he had no lw. But they definitely did not lose because of the Marshall lynch D2.

Player Offenses
Summary
1. Prefers Marshall and rolls Marshall

He votes 1 vote on one, then reveals himself as Marshall. 1 is “confirmed” by doc. However, I will argue that Witch was possible, and it is easy enough to deduce that the doc could have been sent somewhere else instead of whom they thought they were targeting, making their lw false. So ergo, 1 was not 100% confirmed, someone could have easily counter-claimed.

But the LW about the colored names and given the fact that he voted 1 and then asked to vote fo4 6, both of whom had colored names. It leads me to suggest that he was griefing partially.

However, the town decides to lynch the confirmed Marshall because he lynches a Vet claim that could easily be lied about if there’s a witch.

He was not just griefing partially, he did not care about the game/winning at all.
He clearly showed his intention to not play properly but just eliminate colored names from the beginning, starting with his prefer list (killing roles like Jailor, Kidnapper, Vigi, Vet and even Marshall and judge AND blackmailer and auditor, which both would have affected his targets in a negative way) and followed by his lw in which he wrote d1 „my only wish is to kill the fags who change the colour in their names“.
Even suggesting that he might have lynched 1 because he did not believe the vet claim is a joke imo, ofc it is always a possibility but that was not the reason ANY of the players voted 1. Nobody doubted he was vet and nobody ever asked for a counterclaim.

I get that you aren't as hard on him because it was his first offense, but what he did was definitely more than trolling given he preferred only roles which would have helped him get rid of the colored names. This is what we mean with using common sense instead of just following rules. Of course there is no rule that says you can't prefer these roles and of course we can't prove that he had bad intentions doing it, but if you look at everything he did it is pretty clear that this is the case.

You do not vote your town because you think they're trolling

Why not? Apart from the fact that preferring Marshall and then lynching people because of their name is more than trolling, I would lynch 5 over 1 any day. My goal as town is to win and get rid of all evils in the end – that is far easier without a Marshall like 5. It is basically the same as voting out a jester – it’s not what you wanna do, but sometimes you have to because otherwise they keep distracting town so much that you can’t win with them alive.

ADDED PLAYERS
2. CuelloRojo Correct. 1-S2-1-1682717
3. Exeter Correct. 1-S2-1-5640160
4. Panther Correct. 1-S2-1-2903834
5. Erika Correct. 1-S2-1-449807
6. RicoSuave Correct. 1-S2-1-2475631

While I can understand to some extend that you added 2,4,5 and 6 to the report, I do not think 3 did anything wrong.
What choices did he have? It was either him getting lynched (a confirmed Vet) or lynching the Marshall. One confirmed townie would have died either way, and why would he choose to die and let a bad player like 5 survive instead of at least trying to survive? It was very obvious that it was not possible for both to survive since the Marshall wanted him dead so badly and still he didn’t even vote right away but just followed other players in voting the Marshall.
What should he have done in your opinion? Just die?

What also bothers me is the fact that that you add players who played well overall to the report just for voting 5 (which wasn’t even wrong imo,Town had a better chance without that marshall and that was also the reason most of them voted him, 12 even said that) and not add someone like Honeypot.
This guy was Lookout in slot 3, did not write a proper lw (but instead just wrote nonsense in his lw), did not even check anyone N3 (he was not afk that night) and did not give a role or lw when he was put on trial D4. Instead he just said he was making pancakes n1 and n2 and edited his lw once more so it said „123 “. He also voted 1 D2 even though 1 was confirmed town but never helped town vote evils up after that (and yes, I’ll say it again, 1 was confirmed town, it never crossed anyone’s mind that there could be a witch. It’s his intention that counts). The way he played hurt town definitely more than some townies voting up the trolling mayor, in fact it cost town the win because he and 6 could have confirmed each other easily and since they still could afford a mislynch D4, it would have been a 100% win for town.

Oh and one last thing – I really think you should put the player’s experience and why they did what they did into consideration. Panther for example is a fairly new player and he voted 5 after a lot of others did and people said „lynch 5“. I don’t think he had any bad intentions and just followed along like a lot of newbies do. Then again, I also don’t think that the other townies voting 5 was a bad thing since they did it for the right reasons. That isn’t something that only applies to this report though, I think it is a problem in general.


In any case, I think it is inevitable that someone takes another look at this report because this definitely was not handled the way it should have been. I don’t think anyone here should be punished except for Quorthon and Honeypot.

@Exeter350 : I totally agree with everything you said. I have been in your position before, people I have reported didn’t get punished and people who shouldn’t have been punished did because of moderators just mindlessly following rules instead of using common sense and showing some humanity. That is also why I decided to watch this replay and reply to this thread after seeing your post. And even though I get that you are mad (I have been there, believe me, I even stopped playing for a few month because of it), I can just ask you to not stop playing because of this, we really need players like you.

[DarknessB]

@Exeter350, it clearly sounds like you want this report appealed, but please confirm and I would be happy to review for another perspective.

[Exeter350]

@PowersThatBe :

No, I won't be appealing.

Additionally, I am not unhappy about my punishment. The bulk of my argument didn't even have a personal connection to myself, and I certainly wasn't insulting anyone. Again, I am dumbstruck that that's the observation you make - however, I apologise for causing offence. The better part of my reply was to objectively point out the flaws and loopholes in the system, and how things could be improved. I could try to better explain myself by elaborating more, but I suspect that will only make things worse.

Given that that was your conclusion after reading my report, I see my words will not get through. Let us just leave it here.

* * * * *

@Veri :

Aye, thanks for your support. You actually articulated a lot of the things that I wanted to say, but I was trying to keep my post clear and concise.

I'll definitely not stop playing Mafia, I just need a break for now. Times like these... I just have no words.

I actually got quite a bit of support regarding my previous infraction too, even from people who previously disliked me for being a 'snitch'. A lot of people couldn't believe I got watchlisted and I was often peppered with curious questions as well as encouragement. You'd think after the previous fiasco the administration would reconsider the way they handle things, but no...

* * * * *

@DarknessB :

No, I'm not seeking an appeal. Thanks anyway.

[Veri]

@Exeter350
I think you should appeal. If you don't do it for yourself, do it for the other players who got included in this report and do not deserve to be punished for what they did. They probably don't even know about this.
Also, 3 should get punished. So please, if you don't do it for yourself, do it for other players who don't want their experience in mafia ruined by players like 3.

[PowersThatBe]

Simple solution. Don't vote the Marshall, vote the people you voted after the Marshall. Marshall is but one vote, you don't have to vote with him, but you don't have to vote him. That's the violation, you did exactly what you accused him of. You could have got the amnesiac and the disguiser without him. Only 2 town were dead at that point.

You don't lynch him, you let him continue to do his behavior and then we nail him when it's more clear that he was only trying to lose. You lynch him right away, all I have is that he tried to lynch a day 2 vet claim, that could or could not have been confirmed given a witch was possible.

I use common sense. Often.

[Exeter350]

@Veri :

I cannot force those who refuse to open their eyes to see. I have already said my piece, and they've theirs. Any further arguments from me would be pointless, and disrespectful to their difference in opinion.

Only the consequences will determine who is right. If Panther and the others form an angry mob and come knocking on the doors, perhaps then the proud lords will finally deign to listen. This might happen when they see their in-game warning and come to the forums to find out what the hell is happening. Alternatively, they may very well throw their hands up and quit the game entirely, in which case the consequence will be less noticeable and probably overlooked by the administration, and so the community will continue to dwindle.

I understand that things look different from an administrative point of view, and that the moderators have to strive to keep professionalism, impartial treatment and efficiency in mind when dealing with cases like this. However, I think a less bureaucratic approach would be better suited to moderating this game, considering the amount of "lack of evidence" cases they have to deal with all the time. Adhering too strictly and blindly to black-and-white rules and regulations may prove to be counter-productive in the long run.

Even though all the players in this match, and third-party players who decided to review the replay, agree that Quorthon should be punished and not the added players, the moderator chose to administrate otherwise. I would suggest that the game leaders remember to look at matters from a player's perspective, not from an administrator's high and lofty position.

People who gain power... tend to forget how it feels like to be powerless. :/

[PowersThatBe]

He was punished, on hold is a punishment. If he does anything in the future he will be treated to the scale. I can't punish him for something I didn't think he did.

You can appeal it, or you can not, but trying to use fear tactics or try to appeal to our "emotional" sides will do little. There is a process, proceed in it, or don't.

The very fact veri is allowed to be part of this "discussion" is us showing a more flexible/open approach, because technically she's not involved in this situation at all. But her substantive responses allow her to remain.


AND to be quite honest, I was torn. This was a punish all or punish no one for me. I errd originally on the side of ignoring it, but after discussion I was pursuaded otherwise. So don't think this is just "bureaucratic business." Also, none of us "forget" what its like to be "powerless." We do what's right for EVERYONE involved.

I did what I thought what right, my perspective. Either all are punished or none are punished, I am not going to trump up charges because you're
Upset you got lynched and now your friends came to your defense and all of you got in trouble for being ridiculous.

Other players were affected by your behavior, and just saying "everyone" hated the Marshall is hardly the truth.

Take your break or appeal, but enough with the dramatics.

[PowersThatBe]

After reviewing the chat more closely. The originally reported player also called for a leave train in the beginning, and made comments about colored names as his name choice as well. Given this information, I'd like to change his punishment from Griefing to Intentional Game Throw.

Reactionary Game Throw still stands in my perspective. it's the same as lynching your DH for getting you lynched. Protectives could have ignored Marshall and town could have not voted with him. But lynching him for lynching 1 was not the right course of action.


@Arrow : 1-S2-1-3368944 should be WL-x2

[Arrow]

Fixed.

[PowersThatBe]

Thank you!

[Arrow]

I'm remanding this to Audit this afternoon.

[SuperJack]

I disagree also with the verdict. Ill see if any help is needed to fix this.

[Cryptonic]

I will agree that lynching an anti-town Town member is not gamethrowing. They did not lynch the Marshall with the intention of losing, or for laughs.
It's the intention that's the crime, not the action itself.

[PowersThatBe]

It is when they have a 4 to 5 town voting block that could have just lynched the targets that they wanted to Lynch, and the targets that they did lynch after they lynched the Marshall. They could have easily gotten another evil had they not lynched the Marshall, and they probably would have won.

Their intention was to lynch him for lynching the supposed vet claim, instead of using their voting block to actually win the game. They got into a scuffle with the Marshall and other town not involved suffered as a result.

Said voting block voted together almost all of the time.

[SuperJack]

It is when they have a 4 to 5 town voting block that could have just lynched the targets that they wanted to Lynch, and the targets that they did lynch after they lynched the Marshall. They could have easily gotten another evil had they not lynched the Marshall, and they probably would have won.

Their intention was to lynch him for lynching the supposed vet claim, instead of using their voting block to actually win the game. They got into a scuffle with the Marshall and other town not involved suffered as a result.

Said voting block voted together almost all of the time.

Poor play is not a crime.

[PowersThatBe]

Lynching the confirmed town govt is not poor play, it was in reaction to him lynching a vet claim that was sort of confirmed by doc lw, but was by no means 100% confirmed.

There's a reason the loading screen says "trust only yourself."

[SuperJack]

Lynching the confirmed town govt is not poor play, it was in reaction to him lynching a vet claim that was sort of confirmed by doc lw, but was by no means 100% confirmed.

There's a reason the loading screen says "trust only yourself."

Town made a move which they thought would improve their chances of winning. Their intent was not to lose the game. Their intent was to remove a troll that was destroying that current game. If you want to punish the community for trying to do the right thing then it is the wrong choice.

[PowersThatBe]

not when it seriously hinders towns chance at winning. Keeping a player with 1 vote alive, and ignoring them is the better in the interest of town. They were just getting him back. They wanted to lynch him before the vet flipped. Post vet flip. I see your argument. Pre-vet flip just seems they're lyching someone for lynching their friend or lynching someone because they disagree.

Most of these players have cheated, leave trained or other crimes in the past. It could be said that they weren't doing what's best for the town, because they haven't done what's best for town in the past.

They can say it was for the best of the town but it wasn't. They could have lynched others during that block and let him die to evils or lynched him the next day if he continued to troll. They went straight for him without considering the possibility for witch controlling the doc (which did not happen, but was possible at that time.)

[PowersThatBe]

They never gave him the chance to play the game fairly, or to see what he was doing. they just lynched him immediately in response to him voting 1 and for saying 6 next. Sure he was probably game throwing, but maybe he would have led the town based on pms. I've seen far worse behavior not get treated like this. But we're just excusing it because of certain players involved, and no one is considering that maybe these players aren't as just or right in their reasoning. Everyone is hardlined to say they acted correctly. I am saying we need to take a more objective approach and punish for what happened. That's what I did.

[SuperJack]

not when it seriously hinders towns chance at winning. Keeping a player with 1 vote alive, and ignoring them is the better in the interest of town. They were just getting him back. They wanted to lynch him before the vet flipped. Post vet flip. I see your argument. Pre-vet flip just seems they're lyching someone for lynching their friend or lynching someone because they disagree.

Most of these players have cheated, leave trained or other crimes in the past. It could be said that they weren't doing what's best for the town, because they haven't done what's best for town in the past.

They can say it was for the best of the town but it wasn't. They could have lynched others during that block and let him die to evils or lynched him the next day if he continued to troll. They went straight for him without considering the possibility for witch controlling the doc (which did not happen, but was possible at that time.)

It does not seriously hinder the towns chance of winning. They procdeded by lynching 9 (Amnesiac) and 15 (Disguiser). It was not their Intent to throw the game. They wanted to lynch someone who was doing the opposite of helping the town.

Again, you are just saying that it was a mistake of picking the poor choice. Yes their are other options that on paper look more logical and would come out more calculated results. But this is a fast paced game, and people make choices. These people made the choice that the game would benefit getting rid of a player who was being the opposite of helpful.

This is one of my biggest issues. You are being completely unfair to players because they committed un-realted offences in the past. Just because people have done something wrong does not mean they are then always bad players. We have had staff and community members that have had crime records, but completely turn that around and become great to the community.

They never gave him the chance to play the game fairly, or to see what he was doing. they just lynched him immediately in response to him voting 1 and for saying 6 next. Sure he was probably game throwing, but maybe he would have led the town based on pms. I've seen far worse behavior not get treated like this. But we're just excusing it because of certain players involved, and no one is considering that maybe these players aren't as just or right in their reasoning. Everyone is hardlined to say they acted correctly. I am saying we need to take a more objective approach and punish for what happened. That's what I did.

You claim that "Witch Could of Controlled Doc" but you are nitpicking at unlikely scenarios to build up your case. Even if 1 did lie, another Vet would of called him out.
You are blaming the town for not thinking it out, yet they have to lynch a high amount of people before the day ends. So yes, during a Marshall lynch people will make more rash decisions, but it's generally based on what they think would be best.

This I don't get. Are you saying we are making excuses because of the players reputation? Give Example.

At the end of the day. We Punish Intent not what happened. These players show no signs of wanting to purposely game-throw. Unless you can prove that each and everyone one of them players punished where intentionally trying to ruin the game, they do not deserve punishment.

[PowersThatBe]

Theres a reason I put reactionary game throw.

[PowersThatBe]

From he public report sectionimage.png


I punished the players regardless of their past. I bring it up here because you said they were doing what's best for the community. I am
Offering a counter view point, i.e. They haven't always had the best interest of the community at heart. So to say they're just doing what's best for the community is an invalid argument, because they have and some still do contribute to the problems of the community. I viewed this objectively, based on what I saw, and what their reason was, and what resulted. A group of players not involved with this fight between two groups get punished via having the town lose.

There is a process and we are sending a terrible message if we say vigilante justice is rewarded or over looked. How would our countries work if we allowed this type of stuff go on?

Do we follow the code of an eye for an eye? Lynching your teammate goes against your win condition regardless of the fact that he was trolling or not. If he ruins game, then I'm sorry and you report him and we punish him. But you don't go tit for tat and then expect to be treated better because he started it.

Growing up, I always heard, it doesn't matter who started it. Did you contribute to it? If you did you are just as guilty. I admit
I did not give him the correct sentencing because I missed some vital pieces of chat, but it does not change the outcome in my mind. They did this to spite him for lyching the vet. I did however correct that mistake and he was watch-listed.

[Arrow]

SC ID VERIFICATION
1-S2-1-3368944 is Correct.


Respective Hotkey:

3

Previous Offenses:

None.

Player Offenses:

Quorthon: Griefing

Key Points:
Players in question:

Quorthon has an extensive blacklist and prefer list. He receives MARSHALL (a -preferred role) in slot 5.

Game:


Setup: None.
Names: Quorthon's name is too long; he gets a generic name instead.
Roles: None.
D1: 5(MARSHALL) sets his LW that he wants to kill people who change name colors.
N1: None.
D2: 7(DOCTOR) is dead. His last will essentially confirms 1(VETERAN). 5 reveals as MARSHALL and immediately starts a traink on 1. The Marshall is lynched afterwards, followed by 9(AMNESIAC) and 15(DISGUISER). This is still well possibly a town game, given there are only two MAFIA and an ARSONIST left, along with a SURVIVOR wildcard.
N2: Night.
D3: No death. 13(GODFATHER) is hung.
N3: Arsonist fires off. Consigliere becomes GODFATHER.
D4: 4(ARSONIST), 11(BUS DRIVER), and 12(VIGILANTE) are dead. This leaves a lone GODFATHER vs 4 town and a SURVIVOR. 3(LOOKOUT) is hung.
N4: Night.
D5: 8(ESCORT) is dead. 14(SPY) is hung.
N5: Night.
D6: 6(LOOKOUT) is dead. Mafia wins the game.

Was the game result altered?
Possibly.


Additional offenses or players found in replay?

None.

Punishment:

Quorthon: Watchlist x2 for severe griefing; all other punishments overturned.

Additional Notes:
The Marshall in this case was clearly trying to use his confirmed town status to lynchtrain people with names he didn't like. He might have been salty that his own custom name didn't go through; in either case, with him having already lynched a confirmed town, the others were attempting damage control, since he was clearly antitown and as a result, there should have been no punishment issued.

[Mugy]

I think we need to remember that reactionary-gamethrowing is a very minor crime, if a crime at all. If the marshall is very clearly not trying to win, then you can't exactly blame people for lynching him.

Punishing the people who voted up a trolling marshall serves no purpose, it doesn't fix any problems. The end goal is to remove toxic people from the game; judging by what has been said in this thread, the people who voted up the marshall weren't toxic people. Use the 'toxic' rule as a rule of thumb.

Even for a clear game-throwing case, treat people who are unlikely to be toxic better than those who will probably go on to ruin more games for fun.

[PowersThatBe]

I think we need to remember that reactionary-gamethrowing is a very minor crime, if a crime at all. If the marshall is very clearly not trying to win, then you can't exactly blame people for lynching him.

Punishing the people who voted up a trolling marshall serves no purpose, it doesn't fix any problems. The end goal is to remove toxic people from the game; judging by what has been said in this thread, the people who voted up the marshall weren't toxic people. Use the 'toxic' rule as a rule of thumb.

Even for a clear game-throwing case, treat people who are unlikely to be toxic better than those who will probably go on to ruin more games for fun.

Your last sentence sort've flies in the face of what staff should be about. You should strive to treat all players equally. This player has had no reports against him prior to this. Some of the players who had their punishments removed/found not at fault for voting him have had 1 or more reports against them. Some of those reports include Game Throwing or cheating. So by your logic, should we have treated the reported player better, and ignore his report, given that he might have been reacting to some life event? Perhaps this was a one time thing? Do you see the error in logic there?

[Mugy]

Your last sentence sort've flies in the face of what staff should be about. You should strive to treat all players equally. This player has had no reports against him prior to this. Some of the players who had their punishments removed/found not at fault for voting him have had 1 or more reports against them. Some of those reports include Game Throwing or cheating. So by your logic, should we have treated the reported player better, and ignore his report, given that he might have been reacting to some life event? Perhaps this was a one time thing? Do you see the error in logic there?

That's exactly what happened.

[Mugy]

Your last sentence sort've flies in the face of what staff should be about. You should strive to treat all players equally.

We're not in the business of running a model criminal court, we're here to remove toxic people from the game.

[PowersThatBe]

We're not in the business of running a model criminal court, we're here to remove toxic people from the game.

But this person was toxic one game. Some of these other players have been super toxic in other games. (Especially their reports). So should all of them be removed?

I just don't understand what you mean by toxic players should be removed, do you mean game by game basis?

And I don't quite understand how treating everyone equally is against the idea of removing toxic players?