Can this be looked at again

deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago

Look, I'm not going to make a big stink over this but I really think this game should be refunded https://epicmafia.com/report/111846 . I think the mods made a wrong decision. It happens sometimes, I get it. He literally blew autowin, and I just don't think it's fair that if you earn a win for the town and someone messes it up by refusing to pay attention, you don't get your win and you have to play again. It's even more unfair when you actually get a loss instead.

Clairalmost 12 years ago
well certainly not that
MeIodyalmost 12 years ago
Connor
MeIody
Apee just outplayed his mind lol.
is that what you call it
Idk lmho. What do you call it?
Clairalmost 12 years ago
Apostasy
The difference, carly, is that this was autowin. There was no ambiguity as to who should have won this game. He did not lose because he "played badly". He lost because he hammered in 2 minutes without reading and considered nothing, and was too daft to remember an important detail like who was cop.
nothing you described in this post is actually relevant to the ISP rule
Clairalmost 12 years ago
MeIody
Apee just outplayed his mind lol.
is that what you call it
Clairalmost 12 years ago
lol ok
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
Connor
Cantankerous
Connor
Connor 2d 16h
participation is not defined by whether or not someone rereads
that was a bad comment, but thanks for sharing anyway
no it wasnt. youre wrong and dumb
you're misguided and worked up
Clairalmost 12 years ago
Cantankerous
Connor
Connor 2d 16h
participation is not defined by whether or not someone rereads
that was a bad comment, but thanks for sharing anyway
no it wasnt. youre wrong and dumb
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
MeIody
3 way:
Apuleio
let me think

Apuleio
so 2TurntTyler guised twice

Apuleio
he died yesterday

He did think. He didn't hammer without trying. Apee just outplayed his mind lol.
i don't really think that's indicative of critical thinking or any active level of play.
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
Connor
Connor 2d 16h
participation is not defined by whether or not someone rereads
that was a bad comment, but thanks for sharing anyway
MeIodyalmost 12 years agoedited
3 way:
Apuleio
let me think

Apuleio
so 2TurntTyler guised twice

Apuleio
he died yesterday

He did think. He didn't hammer without trying. Apee just outplayed his mind lol.
Clairalmost 12 years ago
Connor 2d 16h
participation is not defined by whether or not someone rereads
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
loreli knows all about ISP vios since he received them all the time..... ;)
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
sometimes i dream of cheese
Simsalmost 12 years ago
loreli is the authority on ISP
Clairalmost 12 years ago
Apostasy
projectmatt
He was contributing and attempting to win. Forgetting about a detail doesn't qualify as negligence.
But Loreli tells me that this is literally what the violation was made for. I'm not saying he ISP'd, as in he did not contribute. I am not saying he did not attempt to win, as in he gamethrew. I am saying that he ISP'd by negligence, which means that he blew autowin by being negligent (Which he objectively did.)
what loreli says doesn't mean
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
well i think quickhammering in a threeway without reading after he has sufficient evidence that would suggest he should reread implies that he didn't try.
MeIodyalmost 12 years ago
Can you make the case that he didn't try, though, Cantankerous?
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
i don't really know why people assume apuleio tried really hard in that threeway when he basically just asked for a cross and the cop should've been confirmed by his guilty being on vancy and not the original guiser.

but i didn't really read the fiveway so maybe he tried there
MeIodyalmost 12 years agoedited
He talked it over and trusted Apee. He didn't realize it was autowin. I'm not in support of punishing someone legitimately playing actively and just messing up and not realizing things.

We've never refunded it for this type before, we cannot start a new precedent now unless the rules are changed.
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
Not that he even needed to remember it. All he needed to do was reread the game for literally 30 seconds.
1
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
The difference, carly, is that this was autowin. There was no ambiguity as to who should have won this game. He did not lose because he "played badly". He lost because he hammered in 2 minutes without reading and considered nothing, and was too daft to remember an important detail like who was cop.
1
TweIvealmost 12 years ago
The ISP rule was literally made so that if someone managed to screw up autowin via forgetting reports or other means that it could be refunded.

That's what the rule was literally made for.

Adsense's nuked brown's huge argument thread so I can't link that, but do I need to? Pretty positive that there's enough older players around to remember the whole ordeal.
deleteddeletedalmost 12 years ago
But he didn't really put forth the effort. It was autowin. I think if you put in any effort in autowin, you will win. I mean all he had to do was go back and read his night meeting to win. That right there is proof that he hammered without reading.
MeIodyalmost 12 years ago
I don't believe in refunding games like that because in other games where teammates play badly you must accept the loss, even if it wasn't your fault at all. At least here we can punish throwing the game and not putting for the effort, but yeah.
MeIodyalmost 12 years ago
I've done similar things--forgetting important details--while playing as hard as I could. You can't punish bad play, only bad intent or not putting forth the effort. If he puts forth the effort and fails, oh well. You win some you lose some.