Mafia 47 - The Sixth Mass Extinction, Sign Ups

[Durga]

Brainbomb are you actually playing? And why did you up Chippe back on the list?

[Percy Williams]

who are the winningest folks on here now

@Squigs spreadsheet?

*Ahem*

Rumour has it Squigs's dude wrote his spreadsheet. No one can compete with that.

[worcej]

So, I have a big concern with "excluding" Chippie from the game. It was determined by the GMs of last game that he did not break any rules and was not sanctioned by them. I totally understand why you wouldn't want to give him the God QT (I never give him that when I GM myself).

But, to remove him from the game because he didn't break a rule and you didn't like how he played? Excuse me if I am out of line here, but I don't understand why that i being done. And, I don't want to set precedents of just "excluding" players because someone doesn't like how they play. That's a very slippery slope.

So, I totally get if the GMs don't want to have this discussion here, but I think I at least need to understand that reasoning a bit better. I don't know if I can be part of a game where players are just excluded because their play style doesn't conform with what the GM thinks is appropriate.

If he gamethrew, or broke a rule, or whatever fine then that i totally fine to exclude him but those GMs ruled that he didn't.

I second this one personally, because what he is saying is true - Chippe did not break a rule during the last game. I am getting frustrated at people saying that he did when because by the letter of the rules, which is the ONLY thing that matters, he did not violate them.

I think it is very troubling that we are excluding someone just because people do not like how they play. This type of behavior should be unacceptable and not appropriate for our community.

[worcej]

The GM's have the right to exclude anyone. We do expect them to have reasonable reasons, which Nephthys presented.

Stop this, right? Really.

No, I am actually not going to now. Someone needs to speak up and I am glad ND started it, because I've felt off about it but was keeping quite. I won't anymore.

I think it's FUBAR that certain here are just okay with saying someone cannot play because ~~reasons~~. I also do not think Neph's request was reasonable because we are constantly grilling a guy and making him have to jump through so many extra hoops that others do not need to jump through to join a game. These actions and interrogations treat Chippe as second class and are promoting a feeling of segregation because he is different.

Look at it all @ 20,000 feet - Chippe violated a rule in a game (when he +1'ed) and he served his punishment we, as a community, levied on him. Now we continue to punish him after serving that. Why? Why is that okay to do?

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

[worcej]

The GM's have the right to exclude anyone. We do expect them to have reasonable reasons, which Nephthys presented.

Stop this, right? Really.

No, I am actually not going to now. Someone needs to speak up and I am glad ND started it, because I've felt off about it but was keeping quiet. I won't anymore.

I think it's FUBAR that certain individuals here are just okay with saying someone cannot play because ~~reasons~~. I also do not think Neph's request was reasonable because we are constantly grilling a guy and making him have to jump through so many extra hoops that others do not need to jump through to join a game. These actions and interrogations treat Chippe as second class and are promoting a feeling of segregation because he is different.

Look at it all @ 20,000 feet - Chippe violated a rule in a game (when he +1'ed) and he served his punishment we, as a community, levied on him. Now we continue to punish him after serving that. Why? Why is that okay to do?

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

Edits in bold - auto fill and typing on a phone is super fun...

[Foxcastle]

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

Follow the rules in more than half the games he plays? He's only one successful game away from breaking even...

[Foxcastle]

As far as last game's situation with the role PMs, I think it was borderline and there are other reasonable GMs who might have determined that he broke the rules, or at least that he was close enough to warrant a warning. I don't think it's unreasonable for the GMs to ask ChippeRock to reassure the community that he's not going to try those tactics again, or to ask him to demonstrate that he'll comply with GM requests. The fact that he won't is a problem and threatens the integrity of Neph's game, and I don't blame Neph for protecting his game.

[ChippeRock]

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

Follow the rules in more than half the games he plays? He's only one successful game away from breaking even...

*cough* Cultafia *cough*

[EspressoPatronum]

Just chiming in here to voice my support for Neph's decision. I think he went about it in a reasonable, fair, and relatively discreet fashion.

I've already stated my case on Chippe's behaviour last game, so I won't comment on it here. Happy to talk with people one-to-one if they'd like.

[dargorygel]

To say that people's problem with chipperock is that he is 'different' is oversimplification. The GM s decision is reasonable. The next GM can decide otherwise. SMH

[Foxcastle]

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

Follow the rules in more than half the games he plays? He's only one successful game away from breaking even...

*cough* Cultafia *cough*

Didn’t you deadpost in Cultafia? That’s a clear rules violation.

[Jamiet99uk]

What more does Chippe have to do to be considered acceptable in our group?

Follow the rules in more than half the games he plays? He's only one successful game away from breaking even...

He can't do that if he's barred from joining games.

I second ND and Worcej's remarks. As I've made very clear, ChippeRock did NOT break any rules last game.

If people can be barred from playing just because they do something people don't like or think is in poor taste, where does that end?

I don't like the way Vecna hard claims PR as VT. Can I ban him from the next game I run?

I don't like Brainbomb posting hundreds of times a day. Can I ban him?

I don't like people needlessly putting an ##UNVOTE in between changes of their vote. Is that a paddling?

I don't like lurkers. Should Moscowfleet be permanently banned?

This is a slippery slope and I don't like it one bit.

[ND]

I don't think that is an acceptable outcome @Darg. The GM of the game where the player makes the offense sets the punishment. Worcej decided that Chippie did not break any rules. For a GM of a new game to retroactively punish a player for not breaking a rule well that is something NEW.

In all the games I've played (the most I think I am the oldest vet here) that's never been done. That's a slippery slope. How would you like a GM of a future game to be like, oh Darg? He's did "insert x" in the last game and I don't like that he did "insert x" so he's "excluded" even though that GM didn't punish Darg.

We as a community should welcome anyone who wants to play. If they haven't broken the rules and haven't been sanctioned they should get a spot if the signups are open.

[EspressoPatronum]

@worcej and @Jamiet
You were authoritative voices because you were GMs. You are no longer the GMs. Just because you made a decision within the game does not make that decision right. Language like "As I've made very clear..." is all just your opinion. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I wanted to bring it to your attention just in case.

As a note, Neph's decision is not an attack on your decision last game. I think it would be perfectly consistent for you to say that you agree with your decision last game (as it was made under a variety of circumstances) while also supporting Neph's decision this game (made with consideration to a variety of other circumstances). I'm not saying your opinion is invalid btw... I'm just saying you're not forced into a stance.

[EspressoPatronum]

To follow my post above.

In the interest of fairness - Neph's decision is not necessarily right either. I agree with Fox re: reasonable GMs reaching different conclusions on the matter.

[ChippeRock]

Follow the rules in more than half the games he plays? He's only one successful game away from breaking even...

*cough* Cultafia *cough*

Didn’t you deadpost in Cultafia? That’s a clear rules violation.

Here are my two deadposts:

You guys are going to look like idiots lol.

Among yavu, Jamie, Squigs, and bozo at least one of them is scum.

Jamie is most likely unless he "scum read" me out of spite.

You play horrible

You and all the others played with me in the first game and didn't realize that?

Those deadposts were harmless. It would be over exaggerating to state that they impacted the game at all.

[Foxcastle]

@Jamiet: none of those things is relayed to a rules violation or to disregarding the GMs’ authority to make reasonable requests of players.

[Foxcastle]

Chippe: it doesn’t matter that they were “harmless”, you broke the rules.

[Jamiet99uk]

Sigh.

Chippe, you're not helping your case any here.

Deadposting is explicitly against the rules. The content of the deadposts is of no relevance.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Jamiet: none of those things is relayed to a rules violation or to disregarding the GMs’ authority to make reasonable requests of players.

He did not commit a rules violation.

And as it happens, in recent memory, several people have had to be subbed out for failing to meet minimum posting rules. That's a rule breach. Are GMs ok to ban them from future games? I guess you think so?