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.
Dude please stop man, this has been discussed since the beginning. Just as this can be abused, so would the new update be easily abusable with people deliberately playing to get the game refunded and not getting a vio over it. It's just your job as mods to determine which people are abusing the system
Town was not robbed of anything. The people representing the town did not take the chance to take the autowin.
deletedover 10 years
QFT
deletedover 10 years
A mistake may be a mistake but in cases like this one, it might determine whether or not he geta a certain trophy. In my opinion, Negligence should be separate but should be more focused on a refund rather than a violation. It can be treated like a Note but with a refund attached. Town was robbed of their win in that game.
Like, I feel you dude. It would suck to be in your position. But if we refund every time a person forgets to read something... Yeah :/
deletedover 10 years
I totally understand that it's discouraging when new players get violations for mistakes! You know what's really dumb? The fact that you can't refund without giving a violation! Maybe negligence should qualify as a refund and NOT a violation, and it is only applicable when an autowin is blown by negligence. Regardless though, players should not be blowing gold heart autowins by negligence. If they are new players who are not capable of rereading a night meeting for 30 seconds to win the game, they should hold off on playing gold hearts until they are better players.
The only problem with this is that it's easy to chalk up subtle throwing as a mistake, but nothing is perfect I guess. There are fair arguments for both sides here.
Rutab - yeah we'll go rule by rule in a thread until we're basically finished with it, and then add it to a master list. Once that rule is complete, we move onto the next rule and debate it as a community.
I'll gladly oversee the project and put together the master thread, but it'll be difficult for me to be as heavily involved in the day-to-day discussions and drafting the rules themselves as there is still a lot I am not totally comfortable with since some stuff comes up so rarely and I've only handled ~2700 reports.
Apostasy - That's not a bad idea. I just feel that it's very discouraging when new players get violations for mistakes. That's really what I'd aim to avoid.
Yeah Rutab, I did warn you to please participate consistently throughout games, at least that was what I was trying to say. If that came across as 'thou shalt not make mistakes' I apologize. Mistakes are no problem of course, I just hope to avoid you not participating enough.
deletedover 10 years
If you don't mind Bronto, I would like to help with this project and I think it would be best to have a lot of community opinion on each rule.
deletedover 10 years
Negligence should be made a separate, refundable, very lenient violation imo. It was made so that refunds could be given in games like the one linked in the OP.
How do you guys want to go about organizing this project? I think that making one thread with all the rules thoroughly detailed in pastebins/google docs with proper tables of contents (broken down rule by rule) would be the desired goal.
We can start one rule at a time and discuss them, and start drafting up each rule for "official" use. Make a thread for each rule, discuss, add/remove/debate, and then publish in the master rules thread that will be publicly available for everyone.
deletedover 10 years
Well the wording of it, Lady made it seem as if I was being warned not to do it again (which is making a mistake) and Apuleio got off with an "it was just bad play" which was being defended by a lot of mods according to Slow. Sorry if I'm causing a big hassle over nothing.
There's no camera attached Rutab, I can't see if you're there or not there :) I can only see actions, and I see you haven't spoken all of day 1 and half of day 2. Anyways, it was a no vio. I am unsure why you think it proves 'double standards', since you both didn't receive a vio.
deletedover 10 years
I don't want this thread to be about those issues alone, I also wanted to bring to attention that there are so many things that can be classified as a vio or not that I think it's time we either change or breakdown what each vio meand and give plenty of examples of when it is a violation. It will make it easier to follow and change precedents.
deletedover 10 years
Lady that's not true, I was gone for half of the night and the beginning half of the day. I was there all of D1 and half of N1.
IMO the whole point of this is so people don't need to debate the rules anymore so it would be awesome once it's finished, I just do think it might take a bit longer than pranay suggests
You didn't participate for 1,5 days, Rutab, that's not the exact same situation. Plus, I didn't give you a violation because I think you did participate enough the last 1,5 days and that you just missed some information when re reading. That's also 'bad play'. I noted it as a reference in case it happens more often, but the main summary is that it was a no violation.
It's actually the same outcome as the report you're referring to. Apu also missed important information but it was also considered bad play. A mod could have attached a not there too if he wanted to, because a note is no vio.
Yeah, it would be great if we could reach that consensus.
I think a good way to do this would be too look at one rule at a time and work together as a community to draft up the rules so we can debate any and all situations, their appropriate violations, etc.
