We have to go by the order of supremacy.

No Vio.
Note
Vio
Ban

Again, some trust is placed in the Jurors. Have a forum where Jurors can state reasons for their decision for review if needed, like this forum where only Jurors can talk. (The vote wouldn't be here it would be in the report itself, coded with special privs to mods and jurors to be able to vote it.)

I voted Vio, because Little's account is years old, and I felt like there wasn't enough of an intent to show that it wasn't game throwing or was, like it was almost ISP, but the game was fast, they could have unvoted and fought for the win more. This person had been reported of Game Throwing years ago, they know the difference. I can see a Note being more viable as well though.

I chose this report specifically, because I think that the fake claiming here is a bit more addressable than just your average fake claim. She didn't say, "I was baiting to get shot."

So basically, a mod would go with +50% majority and go with no Vio after 13-100 people have voted (in this case we are still waiting for a 9th vote). If the report has less than 50% for any report then the mod just reviews it like normal. If it is more than 50% and the mod trusts their Jurors then the mod can just blindly No Vio, or Note and move on, without spending time even reading the game. So for Vios, Bans, and reports under 50% Note/No Vio the mod mods the report.

If it was 50% No Vio.
25% Vio
25% Ban
Then as a mod I would mod it.

Since it is 50% No Vio.
25% Note
25% Vio
Then as a mod I would No Vio. it without reading it and move on.

If it was 52% No Vio.
20% Vio
28% Ban
Then as a mod I would No Vio. it without reading it and move on, unless the initial accusation caught my eye and was worth reading.

At the same time you have to remember as Jurors, we also might see an invalid report format and say, No Vio. So you have to lay out for us some ground rules if you want us to use those kinds of techniques that some of us would use and others would not.

If it was 48% No Vio.
20% Vio
32% Note
Then as a mod I would Note it and move on.

If it was 52% Note
48% Vio
Then as a mod I would Note it and move on.

If it was 52% No Vio
48% Vio
Then as a mod I would Note it and move on.

Im wanting to also ask why @mafiagod @sinek voted vio, and general q if there is anything else people would do

Can I also ask. Where you have 4 vote no violation here, and then two and split between violation and noted what happens.

Yes 4 people are voting no vio, but then there is 4 people voting else wise.

I also put the report IP, so another mod won't do it lol

Oh It said that, lol cute I should have read lol

Im a mod so idk why I am here lol.
I will observe but won't give the verdict though for you

the reason for badplay over gt would be testing for reactions, it is a new account, so just depends if that's their only account.

I had to open up allowances to let people comment. Mentors have privs to comment, I had them closed before.

"Game Throwing
Intentionally playing against your win condition or not playing to win. Includes fake claims made for any other purpose than strategy"

I literally see no strat in her claim, what therefore is her intention?

Fake claiming isnt gt, but with gun in play it's different.. that's where I'd note it, cause it's like borderline badplay/gt

Fake claiming isn't gamethrow MafiaGod.
This is 100 % a NV and you'll see that the mods will nv it.

If it's a new player then the mods inform her not to do that and then they just NV it since she doesn't know the rules.
> fake claim is vio you say?

That's a completely false statement.

It can be used in strategies ( ok here it went bad but she retracted ). There was no intent to GT and you can check 5 million reports in the past that get NV'd in situations worse then this.

The blue shouldn't have shot so soon in the first place. This is without a doubt a no vio.

And you can't comment because you have to go to the lobby from MafiaGod " Crunk Lobby ".

I have no clue why MafiaGod doesn't explain just that...

Ye I'm tired and pissed imma sleep.

I mean, it depends if they've been warned before for that, judging by their name, they're prob an alt. but if it's the first time it's happened, I'd just note it for gt, I mean, it is red heart gnh, and if no gt history, I wouldn't vio that

If you cannot comment, please message me, thanks. I reset somethings, so everyone should be able to comment now.

Sorry the report link is now up, I just realized that the um game link was the only one up.

I think just the way the rules state fake claiming for gt is enough here.

So coffeeboi is saying it is bad game play.

coffeeboi - Forsome reason, i can't comment on my reasoning for my i chose no vio because it says I have to join the lobby but im one of the listed players?? I don't understand but here it is: "It doesn't seem like they were intentionally trying to troll. On day 2, she made the comment "little miss nefro" looking " and that was an attempt to call bs, but didn't work. It was indeed hard for town to go against the evidence with fake claim and retracted after the shot, but alas she retracted. Maybe giving a comment to refer to her next time to be more timely with retracting, but retracting before the shot could easily be used against her to pin her as maf. No vio!"

I think it is a no vio. It's not a GT vio because she had no intention to throw the game, she retracted the cop claim. The blue ( SinB ) just shot his gun way too fast, in this situation SinB should have waited but on the other hand her claiming cop was not a good idea ( or strat ). And it's not an ISP vio because first of all the days were relativly short and if you read the lines then she still talked a decent amount compared to the rest.

That's my opinion ( I just want to see if I am right before it gets handled )

So as Juror Mods we'd have to review the rules and know them and the consequences and also know the player's history of rule breakage. So for this first game and example, I would give lil a vio, because she is a vet player and isped a bit, not fully trying to stop the vote on herself, it was a weak game and she didn't try after royally screwing up. For non-vet players or players who try I would give a Note.

Derps

I actually found a report that is kind of interesting on claims. https://epicmafia.com/game/7013178

Ok so we have 18 players, which should be a good test run. DO not vote until you read the current report. If the current report says then vote No Violation, until the next report comes up. I would have remade the thread with a resting votes section, but it screws up the poll either way I do it. There needs to be a poll reset.