i mean i didn't read the games but i'm pretty sure they had at least 5 of their family members in 8 player setups who could all perfectly read each other.
was it derfel that made that "Honest" gimmick alt a couple years ago that would never lie about his alignment, if asked if he was mafia and he was mafia he wouldn't deny it. if asked if he was town when he was mafia he wouldn't answer
I guess, only i'm pretty sure Ruse's case is a lot different because you had like 8 people in a game of 9 who all were able to almost perfectly read each other, and if you as the 9th person joined you pretty much didn't get to do anything because the games were predetermined town wins.
The only way to have "meta abuse" in the first place but then we'd have to remember that the people making decisions weren't/were reputable players to begin with.
Or encourage it so that comp doesn't fk'ing such as much giga, try that one?
You could also take heed to the paragraph of Dave's YOU quoted and moderate on a game by game, case by case basis. If it's there and you find it good job, if it's there and you miss it, so be it, but you need to STOP creating it when it's not there because you don't approve of it.
okay, whoever told me to read pranay's posts. This is just highlighting the difference between meta and honest meta.
None of these things were ever said in any of the games that Zwink's pastebin or gerry's pastebin had because this is common sense and most people know the difference already.
Or we're not scrubs that came to the site after mods were established and got banned because "she had 200+ karma", but hey you'll never get to live or play in that era so blow me.
deletedover 9 years
Me? Trolling?
But seriously, I'm pretty positive you cheated and have no idea why nobody agree's with me.
For the record, people play for each other subconsciously very often. It's when it's the same person affecting many of a runners games where we feel action should be taken. Ideally, we would want no one playing in favour of anyone at all, but that's simply impossible.
If we feel P2 is subconsciously playing in favour of P1 (runner):
Situation F: There are not enough games affected/there is not enough evidence in the opinion of the moderators to justify (a) violation(s) or a trophy strip.
Situation G: Enough games have been affected in the opinion of the moderators and we can justify giving (a) violation(s) and/or a trophy strip.
But here's the rub: How do we as a moderator staff determine if P2 is playing in favour of P1 (runner) consciously, or subconsciously? It is one of if not the most difficult thing to do as a moderator. This question needs to be answered before adressing any other issue with friend abuse.
pranay's guidelines are great and correct but they don't cover "friend abuse"; which is what I was talking about earlier. It can be subconscious or conscious.
If we feel P2 is consciously playing in favour of P1 (runner):
Situation A: P1 (runner) does not know P2 is playing in their favour over the course of the round. Not enough games in the opinion of the moderators have been affected to justify a trophy strip. P2 gets punished in some manner we feel is just given the situation.
Situation B: P1 (runner) does not know P2 is playing in their favour over the course of the round. There are enough games in the opinion of the moderators that have been affected to justify a trophy strip. P2 gets punished in some manner we feel is just given the situation.
Situation C: P1 (runner) knows P2 is playing in their favour over the course of the round. They make no effort to stop this from happening and abuse this for the entire round. P1 (runner) and P2 get punished, usually with cheating violations, round suspensions and/or suspensions from running.
Situation D: P1 (runner) knows P2 is playing in their favour over the course of the round, but hasn't noticed until midway through or towards the end of the round. P1 (runner) continues to go with it and doesn't make an effort to prevent this from happening. P1 (runner) and P2 get punished, usually with cheating violations, round suspensions and/or suspensions from running. This is the rarest situation and we don't know how often it happens because it's very similar to Situation C, but harder to prove.
Situation E: P1 (runner) knows P2 is playing in their favour over the course of the round. P1 (runner) makes an effort to stop this from happening by telling P2 and/or the moderators about the problem. Depending on how many games have been affected and on how late it is into the round, a trophy strip may be justified.
