I have seen so many issues with ISP lately that I want a completely legitimate and serious explanation of what ISP is and how to avoid it. Apostasy's game and report (https://epicmafia.com/topic/64588) is a controversial issue in my opinion and I think he at least deserves a refund.
I also want to mention that I believe the rules on refunding need to change. Refunds are too dependent on the rules of the site and the rules of violations. They need to be related to the specific happening, not by the same basic rules. If Apuleio had paid attention enough to the game, he would have realized that it was autowin and all he had to do was reread and find out that keri was cop. Apeescaper was confirmed mafia had he realized that.
That is where I bring up the report on me. I was recently given a Note (I know it's just a note, but I want to bring up the sudden double standard) that was for ISP. During a game, (only a red-heart) I was clear and I had hammer. As I was rereading, I missed a soft claim made by the cop that one of the people in my 3-way was clear. I was reported and asked to be given an ISP violation. Ladynemesis noted it for ISP. As shown above, a simple issue of rereading should be given no violation according to Apostasy's case. She even warned me that it was just in case it happened again. This is an obvious double standard with the same issue and different verdicts.
What is ISP? I'm not angry about the note, I'm just disappointed since I think this plus the handling of refunds is not good.
deletedover 10 years
Because that's what ISP by negligence was made for. That's why it exists. Why is this hard to understand? There was a time before ISP by negligence existed where the moderators made the same argument you're making now. That is why ISP by negligence now exists.
deletedover 10 years
(Almost) everyone misses auto sometimes. I've seen Pranay hammer a clear, I've seen Apos miss auto, and I've missed auto. In these games, no one deserved ISP via negligence vios, and no one deserved refunds, in my opinion. Although I am not unbiased in this case.
Well you can use the same argument to argue that the whole 'demanding refunds' thing for non vio's is not necessary. It's just a game after all, why would you get refunded because someone makes a mistake in a game?
remember when, in the time before moderators existed, we played this https://epicmafia.com/setup/267633 and we all ogi'd each other? God that was a great game.
Sonseray and I had good times listening to music. we bonded.
deletedover 10 years
go sonseray go sonseray go! go sonseray go sonseray go! go sonseray go sonseray go!
deletedover 10 years
Yeah but since you can't take me seriously..
deletedover 10 years
I don't understand why it's a common thing for moderators and other users to compare EpicMafia to events in real life. Why must all of our issues be compared to irrelevant things in life? This is EpicMafia, a website where none of that matters. We should be able to have the most fair outcomes from any issues. This isn't extremely important since it is just a game, so it's nothing like a race or anything else.
1) I agree that it's part of the game to make mistakes, but I believe if the mistake is one big enough to change the outcome of the game FROM AUTOWIN by a SINGLE player, it should be refunded, especially if it's a mistake that could have been looked at more closely by someone not paying attention. Now I don't think it warrants a violation but it does warrant a refund.
2) What's wrong with an increase in refund requests if they're deserved?
3) I believe that a refund is more important than a violation in some cases since the outcome has been changed for everyone else who had the misfortune of being affected by the violation. It doesn't matter if it becomes a little but subjective.
4) As I said above, if a SINGLE person knocks out an AUTOWIN for everyone else, that is a pretty big mistake and deserves to be refunded. The game was already set to win in one team's favor and it was pushed aside by someone being negligent.
I think the no vio = no refund rule needs to change.
deletedover 10 years
quoting to remind myself to post a counterr to this when i get back, ill be back in a few hours after i volunteer my help at a city event
It can be, but not in of itself, similar to how lynching the clear can be gamethrowing but sometimes it's just bad play. Sometimes the negligence is due to a lack of game related effort and sometimes it's just a silly mistake.
People always miss innos in games with lawyer, even when the only mafia left is lawyer and therefore innos are clear.
Seeing as the game should've been locked as a win for the opposite alignment, theoretically it'd work. There's an issue with it though; if it isn't a violation then it won't stop people subtly throwing autowins so someone they know can get a refund.
That being said he didn't sufficiently participate in the fact that he missed confirmed mafia; And it wasn't like it was a complicated autowin either, it was pretty cut and dry. Let's make this more black and white; if someone misses a cops inno and lynches them, is it ISP via negligence or not? This is exactly the same situation.
This kind of stuff happens to everyone, really. Especially in more complex setups like FDD. Oh you didn't realize that a drunk being on a watcher would not give a visit even when driven and that person was at the same time framed but the cop was not drunked because the driver doesn't affect them? Well that sucks, should have paid more attention good job on messing up autowin here's your ISP.
I would personally rather stick to the no vio = no refund rule for various reasons.
1) I think people making mistakes is part of the game. (I almost wrote: "part of life".) The person who's making the mistake suffers the consequences and yes, I understand it's no fun the rest of the town/maf suffers them too but that's what you get in a game with teams. Teams sometimes have to deal with teammates making bad mistakes. In sports tournaments teams don't get replays or medals either because it's sad for the team that one person messes up :)
2) I'd be afraid to see an increase in refund requests and closely related is
3) I'm afraid the ruling would become too subjective.
When is a mistake 'big enough' to warrant a refund? Why not file a report whenever someone made a mistake and hope for a refund/ argue for a refund.
So I am personally in favor of sticking to the no vio = no refund rule.
