I'm willing to follow.sinewav wrote:Other server owners are free to follow my lead.
Ladle 83
Moderator: Light
Re: Ladle 83
Re: Ladle 83
This is ridiculous. Who was actually hurt by the actions of these players? Give me a break.
Re: Ladle 83
just do this and get it over with alreadyowned wrote: It makes sense to just let each team vote on how many ladles they think the player should be banned for. Then we take the median.
A warning system that carries over ladles is overly complicated and ineffective.
Re: Ladle 83
Dumbest thing I've read in this thread so far, and that says a lotkite wrote:This is ridiculous. Who was actually hurt by the actions of these players? Give me a break.
gj
Re: Ladle 83
Absolutely not. They are available for any and all tournaments. You are free to vote AoT servers out of Ladle if you want. Go ahead an make a poll.Hoax wrote:So you'll be withdrawing those servers from ladle use then?
-
- Match Winner
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:36 am
Re: Ladle 83
I propose a fight to the core dump between Liz, Vein, and Mister. Place them in a server with blank square map of very large size factor, infinite tail length, 0.2 rubber, and standard fortress physics otherwise. One round, one survivor. The victor is allowed continued participation in our community and tournaments, the losers banished to eternal 1v1 dogfight, with Frobot as referee.
Gene, please include this option in your poll.
Gene, please include this option in your poll.
Re: Ladle 83
Well they should all be running the same settings including bans for a ladle was my point. It undermines the system you mostly created unless all server contributors agree to follow suit, overuling any ladle guidelines (server providor union much ). We're just waiting on that action though (I expect some kind of ban anyway).
Re: Ladle 83
this wont be happening xoxo gurljofish wrote: In my opinion, a year-long suspension from all competitive tron (SBT)
Re: Ladle 83
This opens it up to abuse for one team. If CT voted for banning liz from 1273681782637812 ladles then she would effectively be banned forever regardless what other people saidCadillac_ wrote:I think the mean would be better
Usually, but not always. Using median makes the most sense where preference is ordered. What I mean by that is someone who votes for, say, a 3 ladle ban would prefer a 2 ladle ban to a 1 ladle ban and would prefer a 1 ladle ban to a no ladle ban.THEred wrote:don't we always use the mode when voting?
In addition, using mode can lead to ridiculous results. Like if two teams voted for an 8 ladle ban and 8 other teams voted for a 7 ladle ban, 6 ladle ban, 5 ladle ban, ... 0 ladle ban, then an 8 ladle ban would win even though the vast majority of people want a ban less than 8 ladles.
There's also precedent for this. We used the median when voting on seeds and on hole size.
Last edited by owned on Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ladle 83
oi
Let's simply follow the procedure and give them their punishments, with harsher ones to follow if they try to go around them before they end. They'll likely get caught if they do.
Stop the nonsense about permanently excluding them from the community, though.
Let's simply follow the procedure and give them their punishments, with harsher ones to follow if they try to go around them before they end. They'll likely get caught if they do.
Stop the nonsense about permanently excluding them from the community, though.
Re: Ladle 83
If I remember correctly, this is what happened when the community first talked about punishments:
1. The team leaders had a vote and decided there should be punishments in place in case people followed the rules.
2. We didn't actually vote on any punishment system, we just said it would get decided in the future.
3. Someone put an idea of how a punishment system could work on the wiki, but it was just that, an idea. Now for some reason it's on the wiki as the punishment system.
So if my memory is correct (and please tell me if it is wrong), there is no official punishment system in place.
Last time some serious issue occurred and we actually got to the stage of attempting to ban players was here:
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20494
which is essentially the same as what I said above.
1. The team leaders had a vote and decided there should be punishments in place in case people followed the rules.
2. We didn't actually vote on any punishment system, we just said it would get decided in the future.
3. Someone put an idea of how a punishment system could work on the wiki, but it was just that, an idea. Now for some reason it's on the wiki as the punishment system.
So if my memory is correct (and please tell me if it is wrong), there is no official punishment system in place.
Last time some serious issue occurred and we actually got to the stage of attempting to ban players was here:
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20494
which is essentially the same as what I said above.
Re: Ladle 83
Same would happen if median was used...owned wrote:This opens it up to abuse for one team. If CT voted for banning liz from 1273681782637812 ladles then she would effectively be banned forever regardless what other people saidCadillac_ wrote:I think the mean would be better
t majority of people want a ban less than 8 ladles.
EDIT: nvm I though you meant the middle, not middle vote. 1st grade math ftw.
Re: Ladle 83
Not to derail this already derailed ladle topic, but is anyone looking into what might be causing the blackscreen issues? I know abc had two-three people have it happen to them a couple times, and at the same time Poke had it happen to him. I'm sure there is going to be more of this, and it happens all the time in CTF, so figured it may play a more important role in future tournaments than whether Liz and Mr get to have tea and crumpets on the same team again.
bye
-
- Round Winner
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:05 pm
Re: Ladle 83
lets just hack them and give them 0.1 rubber forever more