1 Attachment(s)
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
Attachment 27777
This from another game we just played together... imagine being mad because I call you out for gamethrowing.
2 Attachment(s)
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
More griefing incidents:
1st replay: ZZorange is Judge, on day 2 he tries to lynch me (but fails).
2nd replay: ZZorange is Marshall, on day 2 he lynches me. Sure, I was a sheriff, but at this point he'll always try to lynch me first unless I'm super-confirmed town.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
so we haven't reviewed the replays yet (and don't worry they will all be) but just reading your description i want to make you aware of a rule change from a year ago.
We no longer consider it griefing if you choose the same colored name every game and somebody targets you. Unless you are confirmed town/same team. Some people were abusing the rule to try to bait anybody they disliked into being banned - which had the side effect of people who hated each other being unable to kill each other at all without punishment. Hence we made that change.
Again we will process your reports but i am just letting you know based on reading the descriptions you left
1 Attachment(s)
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
Okay. I get that, but this guy prefers marshall, mayor, and judge and gets them nearly every game. I don't know if there's a rule against this, but using -prefer to target people you don't like shouldn't be allowed. Since he has so much control over the vote, ZZorange turns games from actually following leads into battles between him and people he hates.
I can take a break from my Yuno name, but ZZorange shouldn't be able to use -prefer to control every game he plays through votes. I attached another replay, on day 2 ZZorange reveals as marshall then immediately votes me up. ZZorange is still coming after me nearly a week after I called him out for bad play that reduces the quality of games (all default names are suspicious, and anyone who defends them are automatically evil) and tends to turn games into ZZorange, as some confirmed town, using his status to lynch anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Also, going back to the first replay I submitted, I found both the mafia, but ZZorange decided to vote me up, then lynch me even though nobody had a lead on me. Unless I'm vig and manage to survive to day 3 or start preferring gov, ZZorange will always try to get me lynched. Thank you aamirus and MrMoauwtirus!!! uFu uWu
Attachment 27784
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
It's also very annoying to have to change my name whenever ZZorange is playing, because he plays a lot. ZZorange is being a cunt, therefore I need to go anonymous while he gets to use his custom name? And this guy keeps hosting 72222 saves... clearly this guy just wants to ruin the game.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
In each of those games he excludes a lot of mafia/triad roles, while preferring crowd controlling roles such as jailor, vigilante, mayor, marshall, veteran.
First replay, he is veteran. He announces it day 1, and still manage to kill couple of townies day 2. Not much to say this replay. he tries to lynch the 10 the witch (default name) but ceko advises him to lead the town, in which he changes his vote to ceko , who is sheriff.
Second replay, he is marshall. He claims so n1 (to have an excuse against reports? not sure what he means) Day 2, he reveals. A detective gives a lead and ceko says that if judge courts they should lynch 2 or 4. Marshall go to lynch ceko, pming him "nothing personal, you threw last game". and then saying "don't simp for defaults, goodbye" Replay ends shortly, but it seems the next lynch is 2, a default name.
Replay 3, not much to say here. He is judge and again says so day 1. He tries to court ceko but he gets lynched first.
Replay 4, he is marshall and lynches 9( only default name), then lynches ceko. He then lynches 1. Replay ends
Replay 5, he is marshall and lynches ceko immediately. replay ends.
Honestly, it doesn't help that all these replays end immediately after you die.
However, there is something to be said in all of these replays. The ability to prefer strong roles to create chaotic games. If ceko didn't choose his typical name, and went with a default name, he would still be targeted. I'm seeing this as a greifing case rather than witch hunt.
It's very similar to the Panda case, except ZZorange has way more dominance on the flow of games by preferring marshall or jailors. Every time he gets marshall he will reveal day 2, and lynch everyone he doesn't like (mainly defaults) and while you can argue that no leads are confirmed at that point, imagine this is happening every game.
I'm recommending either
Pointban
OR
Permaban
@Auwt
@aamirus
, please read the review and add your opinion.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
I have had a small discussion with ZZorange some days ago.
Apparently the main reason he is always claiming his real role on D1 (at the start of the game),
Is because that way "we cannot ban him based on his non-claim on future stand since he already did it D1, so the information was available to everyone"
It significantly reduces the quality of the games as he would also claim as Maf D1 and therefore be jailed and executed instantly.
Changing his opinion and playstyle regarding the default or trying to convince him on that point would be a waste of time as previous appeals have shown.
Also, ZZorange is going to contest whichever judgment will be handed down.
A last time warning with a Pointban to solve this issue looks like a more adequate punishment in my opinion.
Up to him to keep being stubborn and stick to his behaviour to reach the Permaban next time.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
I don't know what else I can do here boys. I followed all the rules I was told to do. "Always say your role" they say. So i did, I announced my role every game. I false flagged as a default one game, don't do that, so I didn't do that anymore. I've read the rules countless times trying 2 make sure to not give you guys any reason to badmin me up. Tried so hard and then I have to pop into a thread like this.
A thread that starts with someone saying "This guy targeted me" then someone replying this is not a rule we can punish people off of, and then a ban still being handed down. I feel like im taking crazy pills. I know the hate boner is real, but I'm trying to play by these rules and you're still gunnin for me. It's like where does it end. What do I have to do to stop people from trying to prevent me from playing a game I like.
I'll break down all the replays cause I always do cause there's always stuff missing but like, boys please. If you're going to ban me do it for a rule I actually broke or just be honest and say "were banning you because we don't like you, we don't have anything to stand on but we want you gone" I'd prefer you guys to just be honest about your intentions than just pullin a farce.
Game #1
Neko is sheriff and luckily finds both mafia nights 2 and 3 an incredibly rare feat. In addition to this the default Neko was defending was a witch, I believed it highly probable both A) Neko was full of shit as finding both mafia is incredibly unlikely and B) Nekos consig had potentially found 10 the witch and that was the reason 10 was being defended. It's very odd for people to stick up for random people in Mafia, when they do it often has an ulterior motive.
Game #2 Ceko was lynched for the previous game in a mass marshall lynch. However as stated by aamirus this apparently isn't a rule that can be enforced.
It should be said that this wasn't a one way dispute. I've obviously been n1 executed even with my known blacklisting of evils by ceko 10+ times as well as retribution lynched when he rolls Mayor. That shouldn't really come as a surprise though. It's ironic that he says he feels he can't use the name he wants to when I'm in the game, but I'm magically allowed to use mine. As if that doesn't cause me to get lynched/killed at a higher rate by people like neko. Which I just nut up and deal with.
The other replays are all in the same vein. Ironically in many of the games where I roll marshall and lynch neko the town often wins. This isn't just me blowing smoke, nearly every game where I've knowingly lynched neko as marshall has resulted in a town win just a funny fact coincidence that i find hilarious.
Anyway as from what I can tell Nekos reports are the only replays in here and aamirus confirmed that they aren't valid to be punished on I have to ask what reasoning besides get bent ZZorange we are using here?
In the past I've conformed to every one of your reasons given.
Such as the no role etc...
If lynching defaults is to be a crime make it so. I'll never vote up a default and press guilty again. Make it a rule i'll follow it.
If jailing/vigilanteing,godfathering/nking defaults is a crime. Make it a rule and I'll never kill another default.
Whatever I gotta do to stop giving you guys even the slightest reason to badmin me lemme know. I just want to play a game I like to play without having to come in and battle the ball busters every month because you guys decided it was time 2 ban ZZorange again.
This is serious, you can even make it a ZZorange exclusive list which is hella biased but if its what it takes to get you guys off my back I'll do it. I know you guys get off on this stuff but I just like to play sc2mafia. Please let me do that. ZZorange out.
Oh yeah and as an aside to Mustaches pretty bad logic.
-blacklist Escort, Consort, Administrator, Forger, Agent, Blackmailer, Mass Murderer, Beguiler, Janitor
-blacklist Kidnapper, Consort, Administrator, Forger, Agent, Blackmailer, Mass Murderer, Beguiler, Janitor, Godfather
either blacklist used
either prefer list used if remembered to input, which is about 50% of the time
-prefer Vigilante, Jailor, Mayor, Marshall, Veteran, Coroner, Mason Leader, Investigator, Bodyguard, Mason
-prefer Vigilante, Jailor, Mayor, Marshall, Jester, Coroner, Veteran, Auditor
And we both know prefer isn't as strong as blacklist, so I'm not rolling Marsh every game lol.
Neway
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
how is this a permaban the offenses werent even labeled
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
I realize they are not shown in this thread and understand the frustration. However I believe in his decision that
@Arrow
was also taking into account another 4 reports from other users. I’ll leave him to comment on that.
Coming off a recent 4X banlist and getting another 7 reports suggests something is wrong with what you’re doing. But it’s fair to expect each report gets its own separate analysis as well. Anyway I’m not sure if arrow was using those other 4 in his decision so I’ll leave it at that for now
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
Are you counting each one of Nekos reports as a seperate report? Yikes dude, at least try to hide the bias. Or are we just inventing reports now, or hiding some for dramatic effect?
Also straight up telling one of the reporters their report is invalid, but then acting as if it contributes to the fact that the reported is fucking up is some next level mental gymnastics. Your report both simulatenously doesn't matter because it's not in the rules, but also does because we need to build a case on him to get him banned.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZZorange
Are you counting each one of Nekos reports as a seperate report? Yikes dude, at least try to hide the bias. Or are we just inventing reports now, or hiding some for dramatic effect?
Also straight up telling one of the reporters their report is invalid, but then acting as if it contributes to the fact that the reported is fucking up is some next level mental gymnastics. Your report both simulatenously doesn't matter because it's not in the rules, but also does because we need to build a case on him to get him banned.
i didn't say his report was invalid, i said i hadn't processed it yet but the description didn't sound like it would lead to much. There are multiple replies after that point by mods who actually reviewed the replays, and you then got reported 4 more times while the decision was still being considered
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
please wait until arrow gets back to respond, thread closed until then.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690
I used the remaining four reports as evidence, yes. It's a pattern of negative behavior.
Re: ZZorange: 1-S2-1-2701690