Town of Salem Game Forums

3cheersforidiots wrote:I think it's just a case of somebody finally getting around to doing it.
From what I've seen, a lot of appeals are non-grantable anyway.

Descender wrote:

3cheersforidiots wrote:I think it's just a case of somebody finally getting around to doing it.
From what I've seen, a lot of appeals are non-grantable anyway.

they *were*, but then after the p2p change they went "haha fuck you" and made it that if you werent told to reappeal, you couldn't even though you could read that if its valid you could appeal in 6 months - 1 year
i think alot of people waited and then that happened

TheWabbit wrote:

Descender wrote:

3cheersforidiots wrote:I think it's just a case of somebody finally getting around to doing it.
From what I've seen, a lot of appeals are non-grantable anyway.

they *were*, but then after the p2p change they went "haha fuck you" and made it that if you werent told to reappeal, you couldn't even though you could read that if its valid you could appeal in 6 months - 1 year
i think alot of people waited and then that happened

i don't understand how that system works

TheWabbit wrote:so it all depends on the judges' collective and individual mood

3cheersforidiots wrote:tbh just don't break the rules and you're good

genericnpc wrote:

3cheersforidiots wrote:tbh just don't break the rules and you're good

rules are meant to be broken

flairric66 wrote:They've always been aggressive with it. The appeals page has almost always been a waste of time to go to unless you were pointing out specifically why it was a waste of time to go to.

flairric66 wrote:I would say it's accurate that a significant majority of the appeals are denied.

Helicooler wrote:the rules make no sense
you can get banned for sounding like you said something bad - perhaps
you can get banned for having a similar username to someone - blatantly false, Multi-accounting rules only applies if there's evidence of cheating involved between the accounts.
if youre a prominent trial member and get a report the chance of it being exceptioned or inno'd is higher than a ranked player - maybe because the people in trial know how to play without breaking the rules? Gee, how weird.
its possible to "hide" reports with enough accounts with 150 games played - You were already shown to be incorrect in discord and why it isn't an issue, so why you come to the forum to (again) spread blatantly false info is questionable, at best.
if you got banned a while ago, and either saw that you could reappeal in 6 months/1 year or werent explicitly told you could after your appeal got denied but you found out anyways, and went to reappeal now, you will get denied despite you being eligible at the time - confusing wording; only appeals that we explicitly said to re-appeal in X time will get reviewed again, even if occurred before P2P switch. Just because we said to re-appeal, doesn't mean they'd be granted the appeal, just that we'd allow another one to be reviewed.
gamethrowing rules both punish people who could just be confused and not punish people who are quite blatantly gamethrowing because they could be confused people who are confused wouldn't show intent to throw, and therefore would not be punished for gamethrowing. There are only some explicit cases that will fall under Gamethrowing however, like shooting a reveal mayor... meme or otherwise.

the rules need a massive overhaul, and possibly the trial system in general as well. I do agree in some ways that Trial has been too strict on non-toxic players, but it's hard to be like "don't guilty people, even if they break the rules, if they don't seem toxic" - that's just asking for inconsistency arguments. And its such inconsistency arguments that has led to the current culture of black-and-white rule breaking. If it fits, it fits.

TurdPile wrote:I do agree in some ways that Trial has been too strict on non-toxic players, but it's hard to be like "don't guilty people, even if they break the rules, if they don't seem toxic" - that's just asking for inconsistency arguments. And its such inconsistency arguments that has led to the current culture of black-and-white rule breaking. If it fits, it fits.

Brilliand wrote:

TurdPile wrote:I do agree in some ways that Trial has been too strict on non-toxic players, but it's hard to be like "don't guilty people, even if they break the rules, if they don't seem toxic" - that's just asking for inconsistency arguments. And its such inconsistency arguments that has led to the current culture of black-and-white rule breaking. If it fits, it fits.

Removing the points system for voting with the crowd or not might help to get non-toxic rulebreakers inno'd more often. The current system is gamified to urge people to vote the same way they predict everyone else will vote (and thus, the same way the judges will rule), even if a careful analysis shows that there is no practical penalty for voting your actual opinion.

Also, I'm not sure inconsistency arguments are a problem when they're between jurors? If it's clear that a non-toxic rulebreak can only be inno'd by jurors (not by the judge and not by an appeal), and the jurors are urged to use that power because they're the only ones who can... well, that strikes me as a pretty safe way to improve the current situation. (It would also guarantee that lots of inconsistent rulings would actually happen, but those inconsistent rulings would at least not be the fault of the authorities.)

TurdPile wrote:The not being allowed to be unbanned before P2P change was because the developers didn't want moonmen/botters
going back to free accounts to get unbanned just to troll with again.

And yes, we used to be lenient with appeals, but developers came to us and was like if the report is valid in any form, they shouldn't be appealed, so that is how it has been. If the person appealing can show that the infraction wasn't against the rules, then it will probably be granted. But since 99% of appeals break the rules, 99% get denied.

---

Helicooler wrote:the rules make no sense
you can get banned for sounding like you said something bad - perhaps
you can get banned for having a similar username to someone - blatantly false, Multi-accounting rules only applies if there's evidence of cheating involved between the accounts.
if youre a prominent trial member and get a report the chance of it being exceptioned or inno'd is higher than a ranked player - maybe because the people in trial know how to play without breaking the rules? Gee, how weird.
its possible to "hide" reports with enough accounts with 150 games played - You were already shown to be incorrect in discord and why it isn't an issue, so why you come to the forum to (again) spread blatantly false info is questionable, at best.
if you got banned a while ago, and either saw that you could reappeal in 6 months/1 year or werent explicitly told you could after your appeal got denied but you found out anyways, and went to reappeal now, you will get denied despite you being eligible at the time - confusing wording; only appeals that we explicitly said to re-appeal in X time will get reviewed again, even if occurred before P2P switch. Just because we said to re-appeal, doesn't mean they'd be granted the appeal, just that we'd allow another one to be reviewed.
gamethrowing rules both punish people who could just be confused and not punish people who are quite blatantly gamethrowing because they could be confused people who are confused wouldn't show intent to throw, and therefore would not be punished for gamethrowing. There are only some explicit cases that will fall under Gamethrowing however, like shooting a reveal mayor... meme or otherwise.

the rules need a massive overhaul, and possibly the trial system in general as well. I do agree in some ways that Trial has been too strict on non-toxic players, but it's hard to be like "don't guilty people, even if they break the rules, if they don't seem toxic" - that's just asking for inconsistency arguments. And its such inconsistency arguments that has led to the current culture of black-and-white rule breaking. If it fits, it fits.

zerofsalemX wrote:

TurdPile wrote:The not being allowed to be unbanned before P2P change was because the developers didn't want moonmen/botters
going back to free accounts to get unbanned just to troll with again.

And yes, we used to be lenient with appeals, but developers came to us and was like if the report is valid in any form, they shouldn't be appealed, so that is how it has been. If the person appealing can show that the infraction wasn't against the rules, then it will probably be granted. But since 99% of appeals break the rules, 99% get denied.

---

Helicooler wrote:the rules make no sense
you can get banned for sounding like you said something bad - perhaps
you can get banned for having a similar username to someone - blatantly false, Multi-accounting rules only applies if there's evidence of cheating involved between the accounts.
if youre a prominent trial member and get a report the chance of it being exceptioned or inno'd is higher than a ranked player - maybe because the people in trial know how to play without breaking the rules? Gee, how weird.
its possible to "hide" reports with enough accounts with 150 games played - You were already shown to be incorrect in discord and why it isn't an issue, so why you come to the forum to (again) spread blatantly false info is questionable, at best.
if you got banned a while ago, and either saw that you could reappeal in 6 months/1 year or werent explicitly told you could after your appeal got denied but you found out anyways, and went to reappeal now, you will get denied despite you being eligible at the time - confusing wording; only appeals that we explicitly said to re-appeal in X time will get reviewed again, even if occurred before P2P switch. Just because we said to re-appeal, doesn't mean they'd be granted the appeal, just that we'd allow another one to be reviewed.
gamethrowing rules both punish people who could just be confused and not punish people who are quite blatantly gamethrowing because they could be confused people who are confused wouldn't show intent to throw, and therefore would not be punished for gamethrowing. There are only some explicit cases that will fall under Gamethrowing however, like shooting a reveal mayor... meme or otherwise.

the rules need a massive overhaul, and possibly the trial system in general as well. I do agree in some ways that Trial has been too strict on non-toxic players, but it's hard to be like "don't guilty people, even if they break the rules, if they don't seem toxic" - that's just asking for inconsistency arguments. And its such inconsistency arguments that has led to the current culture of black-and-white rule breaking. If it fits, it fits.

Then the developers are the ones here to blame, they are driving away their existing fanbase by doing this in an already small community.... Its absurd I have to keep constantly paying just to buy a new account just because mine was perma-banned over something as stupid as an IGN.