I don't know, does "convincing" work like that? I've never actually been in a live refund debate, so all I can do is guesswork as to how it might be handled. I would assume that it would be better to have 3 people if not for the third tiebreaking opinion than for just a matter of principle. It'd be more thorough and efficient imo seeing as how it might not just stay at a standstill 5ever.
deletedover 10 years
just about all of the time a heart refund will only matter to 1, 2 people at the most in the game. refunding a single mafia game should not take 2 people to do.
One convinces the other, simple as that, if they can't decide they'll ask a third, but really.. if you have a solid arguement, nobody will go out of their way to stop you from refunding/not refunding.
deletedover 10 years
i think suspending people from playing is a bigger deal than refunding a game. does that mean 2 people should have to confirm each suspension?
But see, the second mod's opinion shouldn't be stronger than the first since everyone is equal (at the moment) in power. A refund request should not halt because one supports and one does not, there should really be a tiebreaker to leave some resolving and closure.
But that's the way I handle issues in my network, they may not be able to be directly applied to this site.
Kyle, since refunds are easily abusable, this was set up to make it more objective. We know how some prana.. players can vouch for refunds if it's about their tropy runs.
No, it isn't. Refunds are to return the heart which was inevitably lost. Not to correct your behaviour about not wanting to take the hard route and lynch mafia, despite whatever.
deletedover 10 years
refunds shouldn't be this complex. it's a simple matter.
Refunds don't really work that way. One mod usually posts a game&report in the Refunds thread, what the mod think warrants a refund (most often than not gives a one sentence sumary of what happened in the game and why it's refund worthy.
Then comes the second mod, who reads the game and decides if it really does warrant a refund or not. I've vetoed a lot of refunds because it was still winnable, town just gave up, but never seen any mod still wanting a refund.
I don't think refunds would be a hard to judge field really, so needing three mods would take a lot more time for actual refunds to be handed out.
If there is an arguement, mods can sort it out, one convinces the other.
Yes, essentially. The point of a triumvirate of voters is to prevent a dead standstill. This would make the refund process more efficient and expedient seeing as how only two mods discuss this at once at the current moment. I'm sure that opinions would be put out, yes, but it's the votes that count.
