BMG are corrupt (ranting) Ban system is trash.

[Faith331]

Chucumber: The addition of a winky face would indicate it was very tongue and cheek, as that's how you indicate tone via text.

I think I remember that in the discord and that I, at least, did not take it seriously that she would go through your reports and hunt you down. Seems like it was a play on the fact that she's a judge, and it's her job to close reports, so you'd get in trouble.

[Scientedfic]

Also note that the judges, admins, and site moderators here gain absolutely no monetary advantage from the system. They are volunteers; they chose to do this because they (very likely) genuinely wanted to make the community better. How can you call a system that has no monetization inherently corrupt? And you can argue "But they enjoy their power and abuse it because they're in a higher position than I am!" Over a long time, I've stalked looked at the appeals and reports, and rarely do any of the admins ever enjoy handing out guilties (unless the person in question was an absolute scumbag and deserved it 100%). I have personally disagreed with some punishments and innocents here and there (again, not everyone is perfect), but in almost all cases, I believed that the person deserved punishment, and received it accordingly.

Now let me ask this: Is it ever okay to say something blatantly offensive, such as n-words, pedophilic statements, death threats, etc.? You can't compare that to accidental killing, because simply stated, hate speech and hate actions are never defensive. I cannot think of a single time someone utilizes this in defense, only times where they want to provoke a reaction out of another person. Let's think of some of the worst possible things you can say or do to get banned.

Pedophilia: Absolutely no justification. No need to explain why.
Death Threats: Wishing ill intent unto someone else can never be justified. And don't think people are being whiny snowflakes when they get offended over you saying Spoiler: "I hope your family gets cancer." Spoiler: Cuz it may very well have happened that a family member of theirs did, in fact, have cancer. And in normal society, that sort of thing is ALWAYS frowned upon. No exception.
Racism: Is it okay to be racist against anyone? Tell me, which race deserves to be given derogatory statements and insults? None. There is NO exception. Typing out the n-word in itself is highly offensive, even on its own. And there can't be any room for context here, either. I can't tell if someone literally forced you to type out the n-word under threat of death. Not only is that incredibly unlikely in normal circumstances, but doing that over a $5 game is even more unlikely.
Impersonation of BMG employees: The only two reasons you'd do that is either for the memez or to scare people into compliance. And in either cases, it leads to the same outcome: people get scared, they report you, punishment time.
Hacking/Cheating: I think we all at least agree that hacking/cheating should be zero-tolerance.

There are more, but these are some of the worst I could think of.

Now, onto something else I've seen in this thread: immaturity. Yeah, some people are immature. Some people will mock well-structured arguments and refuse to at least listen. What do you do then? Simple: ignore them. If they're actually mature enough, they'll get the message and stop talking. If they're truly immature, they'll keep demanding a response and even try to paint a favorable light on themselves for being ignored. Just talk over them, continue to support what you believed with reason and logic, and move on. You'll be respected a bit more for that.

Yeah, that's my personal penny on this discussion.

[TurdPile]

But still my recommendation still stands, suspensions should have a cool down period and reset the punishment. The current system of 1 day, 3 days, 7 days suspension then permaban regardless of how much time you played is extremely flawed as noted in the OPs post. The OP is a 2 year player who has for the most part been on good behavior and probably got in an argument out of frustration. The 4th ban kicked him out for good.

I don't think there's a disagreement there. Hell, it was my policy in the first place that we'd "expire" reports after 6 months. Devs decided with the switch to p2p that they didn't like that, and therefore explicitly told us that reports will not expire.

Regarding your report, if you ever got banned and appealed, your first report would get appealed as it is technically no longer valid.

[TurdPile]

Moderator Message: Cleaned thread, this isn't about discussing a particular report, make your own thread if you want that; but it won't undo a valid report. Warning if this keeps going off-topic

[InsidiousRex]

Blakie:
I keep seeing the word corrupt thrown around, which is quite silly, in my opinion, especially when there's no evidence to that being provided. Due to the nature of jurors being able to see reports and their judgement, it is quite hard for a "Judge" to be corrupt and not be found by jurors who are noticing their negative rating buildup from "incorrect" votes. Plus, anyone who was the victim of a "corrupt" judge could easily appeal, and the pattern would be exposed quite quickly.

Respectfully, I've been in trials. The reason people don't notice a buildup of "incorrect votes" is two-fold.

One, people are told how they SHOULD interpret the rules in terms of spamming, HS/H, and gamethrowing. This includes the specific amount of times somebody uses an exact phrase in a single day or in a game, the words that should explicitly be considered hate speech, or the actions that would be considered gamethrowing. Long story short, everyone is groomed to think the same way, and sometimes it defies common sense. I brought up an example of spamming using so many counts of SIMILAR messages and suddenly the answer became less simple, because common sense isn't being observed -- fealty is. Jurors just want their points and they won't vote on anything they might land on the wrong side of.

And that brings to me to my second and final point. The fact that you have "incorrect votes" demonstrates the inherent lack of free debate in contested issues like this one. For the rest of us, as players and jurors, the rules are only what the judges interpret them to be at any given time -- and that is both authoritarian and corrupt.



P.S. I noticed you deleted my other comment, which was my first comment on these forums, and I felt it was both well thought out and compelling. What reasonable explanation do you have for doing such a thing?

Feels pretty rotten to me.

[InsidiousRex]

And that brings to me to my second and final point. The fact that you have "incorrect votes" demonstrates the inherent lack of free debate in contested issues like this one. For the rest of us, as players and jurors, the rules are only what the judges interpret them to be at any given time -- and that is both authoritarian and corrupt.

Rule - Don't be racist.

"stop oppressing me?"

If TurdPile didn't delete my first comment, I'd quote the part where I was talking about Blakiepug executing a mayor. I never once broached the subject of racism.

[TurdPile]

P.S. I noticed you deleted my other comment, which was my first comment on these forums, and I felt it was both well thought out and compelling. What reasonable explanation do you have for doing such a thing?

Feels pretty rotten to me.

I deleted all comments that were not regarding the topic - the specifics of a particular report is not part of the topic at hand, therefore it was removed; and as it was a post after my public warning, you got a forum warning for the post. Feel free to PM me to discuss further if desired, don't continue to derail the thread here.

Respectfully, I've been in trials. The reason people don't notice a buildup of "incorrect votes" is two-fold.

One, people are told how they SHOULD interpret the rules in terms of spamming, HS/H, and gamethrowing. This includes the specific amount of times somebody uses an exact phrase in a single day or in a game, the words that should explicitly be considered hate speech, or the actions that would be considered gamethrowing. Long story short, everyone is groomed to think the same way, and sometimes it defies common sense. I brought up an example of spamming using so many counts of SIMILAR messages and suddenly the answer became less simple, because common sense isn't being observed -- fealty is. Jurors just want their points and they won't vote on anything they might land on the wrong side of.

And that brings to me to my second and final point. The fact that you have "incorrect votes" demonstrates the inherent lack of free debate in contested issues like this one. For the rest of us, as players and jurors, the rules are only what the judges interpret them to be at any given time -- and that is both authoritarian and corrupt.

There is, as a matter of fact, a "correct" way to vote. As the rules are pretty black-and-white now. The spot where the line is drawn by jurors currently is HS/H. That said, there is nothing stopping a group of jurors from coming in and start inno'ing one of the softer HS/H words, even if it is technically guilty. Same with spam; if someone spams 5 lines in a phase, and jurors don't think it deserves punishment that time, it is your prerogative to inno it. Explaining how rules are supposed to be interpreted is how you create consistency; which used to be a larger issue in past years, and sometimes still is an issue regarding certain HS/H & IG usages. But you'll often hear me say in the discord whenever there's a grey-area report being reviewed to vote your conscience.

[InsidiousRex]

And that brings to me to my second and final point. The fact that you have "incorrect votes" demonstrates the inherent lack of free debate in contested issues like this one. For the rest of us, as players and jurors, the rules are only what the judges interpret them to be at any given time -- and that is both authoritarian and corrupt.

Rule - Don't be racist.

"stop oppressing me?"

If TurdPile didn't delete my first comment, I'd quote the part where I was talking about Blakiepug executing a mayor. I never once broached the subject of racism.

I was being facetious.

Unfortunately, since juror voting is essentially crowdsourced escalation to a judge; not having repercussions for intentional misuse (i.e. "incorrect votes") leaves it too open to potential abuse #thisiswhywecan'thavenicethings.

Believe it or not, some people just want to watch the world burn *looks at deleted posts*.

Ironically, those repercussions for intentional misuse do more to stop people from voting on seriously toxic reports that don't explicitly violate a judge's view of the above-mentioned rules than they do to dissuade any actual intentional misuse -- considering the latter, in the event of a guilty vote, should be reviewed by a judge anyway.

Meanwhile, I received a forum warning for commenting that Blakiepug's unwitting execution of a mayor exhibits less evidence of gamethrowing than most games I've personally played, and there's no forum to discuss why said interpretation of the rule should be invalid when it's simultaneously supported that you can't report a player for being bad at the game (read: not paying attention).

That's a double standard; and it's one that's solely enforced by the judges, not the facts of Blakiepug's report.

[TurdPile]

Blakiepug's unwitting execution of a mayor exhibits less evidence of gamethrowing than most games I've personally played

There's nothing to be interpreted. The rules clearly state for Gamethrowing: "Shooting or executing a confirmed town." There's literally no other way to interpret that sentence. Hence the report is valid, and that's all there is to it. Arguing about the report is pointless - so move to another thread if you want to argue the rule itself as it pertains to his report.

[Superalex11]

You are assuming that jurors vote on a particular report in a way that aligns with a specific judge's POV. If a report gets escalated to a judge, the jurors have no way of knowing which judge it will be escalated to, thus, are unable to vote in the manner you are describing.

The idea I was trying to convey earlier is that judges all have the same POV. Following that to the point you're responding to here, jurors absolutely can expect whether their vote will align with a judge's or not.

[InsidiousRex]

P.S. I noticed you deleted my other comment, which was my first comment on these forums, and I felt it was both well thought out and compelling. What reasonable explanation do you have for doing such a thing?

Feels pretty rotten to me.

I deleted all comments that were not regarding the topic - the specifics of a particular report is not part of the topic at hand, therefore it was removed; and as it was a post after my public warning, you got a forum warning for the post. Feel free to PM me to discuss further if desired, don't continue to derail the thread here.

Respectfully, I've been in trials. The reason people don't notice a buildup of "incorrect votes" is two-fold.

One, people are told how they SHOULD interpret the rules in terms of spamming, HS/H, and gamethrowing. This includes the specific amount of times somebody uses an exact phrase in a single day or in a game, the words that should explicitly be considered hate speech, or the actions that would be considered gamethrowing. Long story short, everyone is groomed to think the same way, and sometimes it defies common sense. I brought up an example of spamming using so many counts of SIMILAR messages and suddenly the answer became less simple, because common sense isn't being observed -- fealty is. Jurors just want their points and they won't vote on anything they might land on the wrong side of.

And that brings to me to my second and final point. The fact that you have "incorrect votes" demonstrates the inherent lack of free debate in contested issues like this one. For the rest of us, as players and jurors, the rules are only what the judges interpret them to be at any given time -- and that is both authoritarian and corrupt.

There is, as a matter of fact, a "correct" way to vote. As the rules are pretty black-and-white now. The spot where the line is drawn by jurors currently is HS/H. That said, there is nothing stopping a group of jurors from coming in and start inno'ing one of the softer HS/H words, even if it is technically guilty. Same with spam; if someone spams 5 lines in a phase, and jurors don't think it deserves punishment that time, it is your prerogative to inno it. Explaining how rules are supposed to be interpreted is how you create consistency; which used to be a larger issue in past years, and sometimes still is an issue regarding certain HS/H & IG usages. But you'll often hear me say in the discord whenever there's a grey-area report being reviewed to vote your conscience.

I understand the need for consistency, but not to the degree that intent is overlooked. Voting innocent on a report because a player only spammed each message four times instead of five (but did so with several different messages) or because he only spammed a message 13 times instead of 15 is not good for the game. Likewise, the overt harassment of other players that does not meet your definition of punishable words, i.e. repeatedly inciting false reports against a targeted player across multiple lobbies, is not good for the game.

My point here is that your "correct" way to vote is too lenient in some regards and too strict in others, and that's because there's no common sense applied. As you said, it's black and white; and sure, I can vote innocent on somebody who is probably only a mild offender, but nobody is going to risk their trial rating to guilty a guy who knows how to be toxic within the accepted rules of the community. Or to defend somebody like Blakiepug who, honestly, probably made a mistake because he's a terrible player.

And that's on you, the judges. I'm not saying you have to be apologetic about it, but at least be honest about what it is. It's how you want things voted on. Because that's how you told us we should vote.

I apologize if this isn't about the original poster as much as the larger topic (read: "BMG are corrupt (ranting) Ban system is trash).

[InsidiousRex]

Ironically, those repercussions for intentional misuse do more to stop people from voting on seriously toxic reports that don't explicitly violate a judge's view of the above-mentioned rules than they do to dissuade any actual intentional misuse -- considering the latter, in the event of a guilty vote, should be reviewed by a judge anyway.

You are assuming that jurors vote on a particular report in a way that aligns with a specific judge's POV. If a report gets escalated to a judge, the jurors have no way of knowing which judge it will be escalated to, thus, are unable to vote in the manner you are describing.

Subsequently, this is why appeals exists. If a judge rules on a report in a way which is inappropriate or warrants dispute, someone other than that judge can look at it.

Meanwhile, I received a forum warning for commenting that Blakiepug's unwitting execution of a mayor exhibits less evidence of gamethrowing than most games I've personally played, and there's no forum to discuss why said interpretation of the rule should be invalid when it's simultaneously supported that you can't report a player for being bad at the game (read: not paying attention).

Oh please, stop playing the victim. TP said "stop talking about specific reports or you will get a warning. Start another thread about it if you want to talk about this report." You then continued talking about the specific report TP said not to talk about in this thread. Did you try starting another one?

Or are you being oppressed again?

Are you still being facetious? Because it sounds like you're being toxic.

Also, I don't see how I "continued talking" about something in my first-ever post on the forums. I clearly just joined the conversation. I still don't see where TurdPile asked anyone to stop talking about specific reports in 4 pages of walled text.

I guess you're being facetious again. Way to add something to the conversation.

[MysticMismagius]

Regardless of whether jurors are expecting judges' votes and voting accordingly or not... what's the alternative? Do you want jurors and judges to vote inconsistently? Do you want the fate of your report (and thus your account) to be subject to the roulette of who happens to be looking at it? Do you want the rules to truly mean nothing? Because that's what will happen if there are no standards or guidelines for voting.

[InsidiousRex]

Regardless of whether jurors are expecting judges' votes and voting accordingly or not... what's the alternative? Do you want jurors and judges to vote inconsistently? Do you want the fate of your report to be subject to the roulette of which person happens to be looking at it? Do you want the rules to truly mean nothing? Because that's what will happen if there are no standards or guidelines for voting.

To the contrary, I'm only illustrating that TurdPile's claim that any corruption among judges would quickly be discovered by jurors with "incorrect votes" is a bad faith argument. We all know TurdPile's stance on executing confirmed town now, whether or not it's consistent with his other views on gamethrowing, because there's plenty of instances where a player gets executed that WAS CONFIRMED but wasn't the mayor, and the same rigid punishment isn't applied. Now, if you actually apply a modicum of logic to this, you'll understand that any situation in which a confirmed spy, escort, or investigator gets shot or executed is not met with the same punishment, because the mayor is unique in that it's instantly confirmable -- which is fair -- but I do believe circumstances (i.e vote and chat spam) create sufficient doubt that this is foolproof, especially when said mayor doesn't make an effort to claim in jail.

These are the kinds of rigid, and frankly inconsistent, judgments that the trial system is failing at, because our standard rules aren't competent in addressing anything beyond black and white issues. That's my point.

[williewest]

Regardless of whether jurors are expecting judges' votes and voting accordingly or not... what's the alternative? Do you want jurors and judges to vote inconsistently? Do you want the fate of your report to be subject to the roulette of which person happens to be looking at it? Do you want the rules to truly mean nothing? Because that's what will happen if there are no standards or guidelines for voting.

To the contrary, I'm only illustrating that TurdPile's claim that any corruption among judges would quickly be discovered by jurors with "incorrect votes" is a bad faith argument. We all know TurdPile's stance on executing confirmed town now, whether or not it's consistent with his other views on gamethrowing, because there's plenty of instances where a player gets executed that WAS CONFIRMED but wasn't the mayor, and the same rigid punishment isn't applied. Now, if you actually apply a modicum of logic to this, you'll understand that any situation in which a confirmed spy, escort, or investigator gets shot or executed is not met with the same punishment, because the mayor is unique in that it's instantly confirmable -- which is fair -- but I do believe circumstances (i.e vote and chat spam) create sufficient doubt that this is foolproof, especially when said mayor doesn't make an effort to claim in jail.

These are the kinds of rigid, and frankly inconsistent, judgments that the trial system is failing at, because our standard rules aren't competent in addressing anything beyond black and white issues. That's my point.

A player is not confirmed unless revealed Mayor or revived town. Confirmed and "proven" are different in this instance because you can prove yourself as a role without being actually confirmed, because from another player's perspective you could still be putting on a ruse. (In Unity this is rather well-highlighted by the fact it shows a person's role in the list on the right if they are revealed or revived, unless bitten by a vampire. If it shows on Unity, that's usually the standard set for "Confirmed.")
This is not inconsistency, but a lack of understanding on how Trial works. For example I see hints that some things are the faults of the judges being "corrupt" when in reality they are told to operate a certain way in a predetermined set of standards set out by BMG. We as jurors are not new to calling out inconsistencies in voting in the past, and as a collective with our own minds, thoughts and ideals we do notice it quickly. It's just that not everything is such, and certainly not everything is corruption.

Instead of everyone blanket-blaming judges+ for every problem by calling them corrupt when you don't fully understand something, we could be asking how things work and establishing communication so it's us versus the problem instead of us versus each other.
Nothing can or will be accomplished without that.

Side note: If any of you join the server, know that there is a difference as well between the "community" channels and the "Trial" channels that you have to earn access to through voting on reports. The community channels are freely accessible to anyone who joins the server and meets the minimum requirements for entry, whereas the Trial subset of channels are much more professional and on-topic.
Trial's server is not solely a professional atmosphere, but a community server due to the amount of people who join without actively voting, and so we moved on-topic discussion of reports to more professionally-centered channels.

[InsidiousRex]

Also, I don't see how I "continued talking" about something in my first-ever post on the forums. I clearly just joined the conversation.

I'm simply using this to shed some light on the unreasonable expectations put on the tos mod/judge community. The reason TP deleted the posts and put up the mod message was because the thread was being intentionally derailed by trolls.

TP: *Deletes a bunch of posts* Don't do this or you will get a BW. Start another thread about it.

You: Does what he said not to do.

TP: Gives you a BW.

You: ShockedPikachu.png

I still don't see where TurdPile asked anyone to stop talking about specific reports in 4 pages of walled text.

You couldn't see the post directly above yours? Did you also fail to realize that all of the posts pertaining to a specific report, the ones you were replying to, had disappeared and that message had appeared in their place?

You've devolved into senseless mudslinging for absolutely no reason. MY FIRST POST was made concurrently to the message from TurdPile above my SECOND POST, which only appeared AFTER he DELETED my FIRST POST; this was why I edited the second post when I realized the first was deleted. My SECOND POST illustrates that there was no PRIOR warning. Would you like to review the timestamps?

Not to mention, your petty attacks on my character are far more off-topic than discussing a particular appeal and how it relates to the actual topic of this thread -- instead of being an obvious lackey and relentlessly attacking anyone who disagrees with you in CIVIL DISCOURSE.

[InsidiousRex]

Regardless of whether jurors are expecting judges' votes and voting accordingly or not... what's the alternative? Do you want jurors and judges to vote inconsistently? Do you want the fate of your report to be subject to the roulette of which person happens to be looking at it? Do you want the rules to truly mean nothing? Because that's what will happen if there are no standards or guidelines for voting.

To the contrary, I'm only illustrating that TurdPile's claim that any corruption among judges would quickly be discovered by jurors with "incorrect votes" is a bad faith argument. We all know TurdPile's stance on executing confirmed town now, whether or not it's consistent with his other views on gamethrowing, because there's plenty of instances where a player gets executed that WAS CONFIRMED but wasn't the mayor, and the same rigid punishment isn't applied. Now, if you actually apply a modicum of logic to this, you'll understand that any situation in which a confirmed spy, escort, or investigator gets shot or executed is not met with the same punishment, because the mayor is unique in that it's instantly confirmable -- which is fair -- but I do believe circumstances (i.e vote and chat spam) create sufficient doubt that this is foolproof, especially when said mayor doesn't make an effort to claim in jail.

These are the kinds of rigid, and frankly inconsistent, judgments that the trial system is failing at, because our standard rules aren't competent in addressing anything beyond black and white issues. That's my point.

A player is not confirmed unless revealed Mayor or revived town. Confirmed and "proven" are different in this instance because you can prove yourself as a role without being actually confirmed, because from another player's perspective you could still be putting on a ruse. (In Unity this is rather well-highlighted by the fact it shows a person's role in the list on the right if they are revealed or revived, unless bitten by a vampire. If it shows on Unity, that's usually the standard set for "Confirmed.")

This is not inconsistency, but a lack of understanding on how Trial works. For example I see hints that some things are the faults of the judges being "corrupt" when in reality they are told to operate a certain way in a predetermined set of standards set out by BMG. We as jurors are not new to calling out inconsistencies in voting in the past, and as a collective with our own minds, thoughts and ideals we do notice it quickly. It's just that not everything is such, and certainly not everything is corruption.

Did you make this distinction all on your own? Or did a judge hold your hand and guide you to that decision? The difference between "confirmed" and "proven" as you've described them is only the context in which we've both described a role is uniquely identified as town. A mayor is confirmed in the same way a revived bodyguard is -- but you're saying there could be some kind of deliberate ruse that would prevent other roles from reaching the same status. Even if, for instance, both RMs were dead and your target was investigator, consigliere, or mayor and you decided to guilty your target anyway, this isn't the same level of game throwing as executing a revealed mayor (even if you didn't know he was revealed) because Turdpile said so?

No. I don't accept that. I've seen too many reports closed for gamethrowing to believe that a bad vigilante can get a pass for shooting the jailor, but blakiepug doesn't get a pass for executing a mayor that he didn't know revealed.

[Shyyster]

I've seen too many reports closed for gamethrowing to believe that a bad vigilante can get a pass for shooting the jailor, but blakiepug doesn't get a pass for executing a mayor that he didn't know revealed.

Jailor isn't a confirmable role in the same way that mayor is and what kind of argument is this lol? If you think that bad vigilantes should be punished for shooting jailors then blakiepug should be punished for executing a revealed mayor.

[Grethius]

Just lol. I am also in no way a juror, judge or representative of BMG. If anything I'm the polar opposite. Feel free to look at my report history. I just have half a brain to realize when things that happen are products of my own choices and decision-making.

You must be trolling. This has nothing to do with my choices or decision making.

Everyone has a choice, InsidiousRex.

I don't know what surrealist world you live in, but we're not discussing my choices right now. And since I've never had a guilty report, I don't see why we would.

Coming from the dimwit who has yet to post anything remotely related to the OP's original discussion and also whines about getting punished for going off topic? Many laughs have been had so thank you for that!


Moving on.... Point to all of this is... if you have a problem following the rules of this game, then you need to find a new game that better suits your idea of fun. NEWS FLASH! There is NOT one game out there that supports the use of Racist behavior, or any kind of other toxicity. the ONLY time I can see where using a n-word or any other kind of hatespeech out there is to educate someone in game who, given the benefit of the doubt because I honestly believe that there are players out there that have not ever seen certain words, to show them that particular word is not allowed. And I hate to say that but sadly, there are people out there like that.. HOWEVER! The caveat to that is, IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE BLOODY RULES!, You would know that language is NOT allowed.

Here is a hint, stay in school, increase your skill in reading and comprehension because truthfully, your proving yourselves to be highly illiterate. Also as you grow up, google and contemplate the meaning of common sense and how it can improve your lives.

If you do not like it, then please do us all a favor, GTFO! And take all the people who feel the same as you with you! Why? because we do NOT want that shit here!

Hey, dimwit. I have no problem following the rules of this game. I have a problem with the rules of the game being interpreted at the whim of a select few judges. The title of this post is "BMG are corrupt (ranting) Ban system is trash." I have commented repeatedly on the judges, the rules, appeals, and how the trial system is ultimately broken.

If you're so angry that I have eloquently voiced my opinion, maybe you shouldn't be involved in debates.

Ummm... NO. Not angry at all.. Im quite amused. Just keep digging your hole. Its rather fun watching the dirt fly... the ONLY thing you have mentioned is your support for blakie and taking his side.. and hes bitching because he did NOT pay attention to the game, IF You pay attention to the game, then you will NOT miss when something happens. Its his job to pay attention, he refused to, and got caught because of it. I mean HOW The hell do you miss a mayor reveal when you have over 30 seconds to check the chatlog!? So yes YOU DO have a problem following the rules!

HOWEVER! I will say this, if you are playing on a smart phone, depending the on phone you are using, it can get difficult to see text. BUT! before you hit that execute button, make sure you identify your target!

[InsidiousRex]

I've seen too many reports closed for gamethrowing to believe that a bad vigilante can get a pass for shooting the jailor, but blakiepug doesn't get a pass for executing a mayor that he didn't know revealed.

Jailor isn't a confirmable role in the same way that mayor is and what kind of argument is this lol? If you think that bad vigilantes should be punished for shooting jailors then blakiepug should be punished for executing a revealed mayor.

Yep. There is no message that appears in the day chat for every single player in the game, dead or alive, good or evil, to see that announces who the jailor is. It's only for the Mayor when they hit the sun button and reveal themselves to town. Once the game specifically clarifies that the player is the role they are, that is confirmation under the rules of Trial. Hence why a revealed Mayor, revived townie, or the VIP count as confirmed players and it is gamethrowing for a fellow townie to kill them on purpose.

Even if the odds suggest that so and so is a jailor and the vig shoots them randomly, it's not throwing because there is that teeny tiny shred of doubt. It is not 100% confirmed by the game that said player is a jailor to everyone.

Yes, Katiya, I know what a revealed mayor looks like. I also know that players miss lines of text all the time while they're editing their wills, reading the chat log, and otherwise being a productive player. Nobody who is not intentionally gamethrowing would intentionally execute a mayor who has revealed. I agree with you on that basis. However, the keyword is intentional, as it has always been. Executing a revealed mayor who has not reminded you of such in jail because you missed the initial reveal is a plausible defense.

The rule is too rigid, as is the denial of the appeal. Blakiepug is a bad player, but not one that is deserving of a ban.

[Superalex11]

Even if the odds suggest that so and so is a jailor and the vig shoots them randomly, it's not throwing because there is that teeny tiny shred of doubt.

This is actually another problem I have with the trial system (and rules) being so black and white. While it's true that in certain cases there may be some <1% chance of a player not being confirmed, that >99% that they are should be plenty enough to count as gamethrowing if they're deliberately killed by a townie. Obviously this will make reviewing gt reports take more time, but a skip is still better than an inno vote on an actual gamethrower.

[InsidiousRex]

Just lol. I am also in no way a juror, judge or representative of BMG. If anything I'm the polar opposite. Feel free to look at my report history. I just have half a brain to realize when things that happen are products of my own choices and decision-making.

You must be trolling. This has nothing to do with my choices or decision making.

Everyone has a choice, InsidiousRex.

I don't know what surrealist world you live in, but we're not discussing my choices right now. And since I've never had a guilty report, I don't see why we would.

Coming from the dimwit who has yet to post anything remotely related to the OP's original discussion and also whines about getting punished for going off topic? Many laughs have been had so thank you for that!


Moving on.... Point to all of this is... if you have a problem following the rules of this game, then you need to find a new game that better suits your idea of fun. NEWS FLASH! There is NOT one game out there that supports the use of Racist behavior, or any kind of other toxicity. the ONLY time I can see where using a n-word or any other kind of hatespeech out there is to educate someone in game who, given the benefit of the doubt because I honestly believe that there are players out there that have not ever seen certain words, to show them that particular word is not allowed. And I hate to say that but sadly, there are people out there like that.. HOWEVER! The caveat to that is, IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE BLOODY RULES!, You would know that language is NOT allowed.

Here is a hint, stay in school, increase your skill in reading and comprehension because truthfully, your proving yourselves to be highly illiterate. Also as you grow up, google and contemplate the meaning of common sense and how it can improve your lives.

If you do not like it, then please do us all a favor, GTFO! And take all the people who feel the same as you with you! Why? because we do NOT want that shit here!

Hey, dimwit. I have no problem following the rules of this game. I have a problem with the rules of the game being interpreted at the whim of a select few judges. The title of this post is "BMG are corrupt (ranting) Ban system is trash." I have commented repeatedly on the judges, the rules, appeals, and how the trial system is ultimately broken.

If you're so angry that I have eloquently voiced my opinion, maybe you shouldn't be involved in debates.

Ummm... NO. Not angry at all.. Im quite amused. Just keep digging your hole. Its rather fun watching the dirt fly... the ONLY thing you have mentioned is your support for blakie and taking his side.. and hes bitching because he did NOT pay attention to the game, IF You pay attention to the game, then you will NOT miss when something happens. Its his job to pay attention, he refused to, and got caught because of it. I mean HOW The hell do you miss a mayor reveal when you have over 30 seconds to check the chatlog!? So yes YOU DO have a problem following the rules!

HOWEVER! I will say this, if you are playing on a smart phone, depending the on phone you are using, it can get difficult to see text. BUT! before you hit that execute button, make sure you identify your target!

How would you identify your target if they haven't claimed in jail? I would say it's fair to assume your target is evil, assuming you missed the reveal.

Edit: Yes, I know there's a chat log. As a player, I routinely scroll back for details I've missed. However, there's also a time constraint, and sometimes the decision to execute depends more on your immediate interaction with your target because the importance of executing is heightened when the game is on the line. The mayor did not claim in jail. He should have done so immediately when he saw he was being executed. He did not.

[InsidiousRex]

I've seen too many reports closed for gamethrowing to believe that a bad vigilante can get a pass for shooting the jailor, but blakiepug doesn't get a pass for executing a mayor that he didn't know revealed.

Jailor isn't a confirmable role in the same way that mayor is and what kind of argument is this lol? If you think that bad vigilantes should be punished for shooting jailors then blakiepug should be punished for executing a revealed mayor.

Yep. There is no message that appears in the day chat for every single player in the game, dead or alive, good or evil, to see that announces who the jailor is. It's only for the Mayor when they hit the sun button and reveal themselves to town. Once the game specifically clarifies that the player is the role they are, that is confirmation under the rules of Trial. Hence why a revealed Mayor, revived townie, or the VIP count as confirmed players and it is gamethrowing for a fellow townie to kill them on purpose.

Even if the odds suggest that so and so is a jailor and the vig shoots them randomly, it's not throwing because there is that teeny tiny shred of doubt. It is not 100% confirmed by the game that said player is a jailor to everyone.

Yes, Katiya, I know what a revealed mayor looks like. I also know that players miss lines of text all the time while they're editing their wills, reading the chat log, and otherwise being a productive player. Nobody who is not intentionally gamethrowing would intentionally execute a mayor who has revealed. I agree with you on that basis. However, the keyword is intentional, as it has always been. Executing a revealed mayor who has not reminded you of such in jail because you missed the initial reveal is a plausible defense.

The rule is too rigid, as is the denial of the appeal. Blakiepug is a bad player, but not one that is deserving of a ban.

Intention can always be faked. Any clever troll of a gamethrower who knows who the mayor is can easily just kill them and say "I didn't know! I missed it!" It's an easy thing to lie about. That's why we have to take the reports as we see them. If a rule is broken in this case, there is no excuse. Otherwise many trolls would be flooding games with the same actions and saying "I missed the message" or "I forgot they revealed"

Also to note: I have played TOS for a long time, played probably around 1000 games of it. Been jailor multiple times. Never once did I "miss" the mayor reveal and kill them for it. A good player pays attention and reads back in the chat if they are adjusting their will, or they just read back to make sure they did not miss any key details.

The intention can easily be demonstrated by a mayor reminding the jailor that he is, in fact, a revealed mayor. This was not the case.

It seems funny to me that you say it's plausible to assume on a 1% chance that a jailor claim isn't actually the jailor, but on the likelihood that somebody is intentionally gamethrowing -- you assume he is 100% of the time based on his actions.

It just strikes me that there's a strange dissonance in your tolerance of certain behaviors.

[Grethius]

Even if the odds suggest that so and so is a jailor and the vig shoots them randomly, it's not throwing because there is that teeny tiny shred of doubt.

This is actually another problem I have with the trial system (and rules) being so black and white. While it's true that in certain cases there may be some <1% chance of a player not being confirmed, that >99% that they are should be plenty enough to count as gamethrowing if they're deliberately killed by a townie. Obviously this will make reviewing gt reports take more time, but a skip is still better than an inno vote on an actual gamethrower.

HAHA...its already been established that you have not read the rules either, " It is acceptable to kill a confirmed town that is blatantly siding against town". and like Katiya, I have played well over 1000 games, and have seen mayor's who were cheating out of game on discord or just being a troll, or thinking they could get a win with the vampires because they hated their role do this, then they get pissed off when they are killed by a vig or jailor, or even by the vampires because they dont want a gamethrower on their side. Then the mayor or other town has the audacity to call for gamethrowing when they are working against town. I see that happen so very often within Dracula's Palace. As I am going through these appeals, I have already seen a few of these people complaining about it.


@Rex How would you identify? SIMPLE! Pay attention to the game! its NOT that hard! BUT to those that are tabbed out mucking around playing other games, watching anime, netflix, doing homework, or who claim to go AFK for long periods of time, I guess it is hard, but if thats the case you have no right to complain when something happens to you. Pay attention to the game, or do NOT play at all. its that simple.

[InsidiousRex]

Even if the odds suggest that so and so is a jailor and the vig shoots them randomly, it's not throwing because there is that teeny tiny shred of doubt.

This is actually another problem I have with the trial system (and rules) being so black and white. While it's true that in certain cases there may be some <1% chance of a player not being confirmed, that >99% that they are should be plenty enough to count as gamethrowing if they're deliberately killed by a townie. Obviously this will make reviewing gt reports take more time, but a skip is still better than an inno vote on an actual gamethrower.

HAHA...its already been established that you have not read the rules either, " It is acceptable to kill a confirmed town that is blatantly siding against town". and like Katiya, I have played well over 1000 games, and have seen mayor's who were cheating out of game on discord or just being a troll, or thinking they could get a win with the vampires because they hated their role do this, then they get pissed off when they are killed by a vig or jailor, or even by the vampires because they dont want a gamethrower on their side. Then the mayor or other town has the audacity to call for gamethrowing when they are working against town. I see that happen so very often within Dracula's Palace. As I am going through these appeals, I have already seen a few of these people complaining about it.


@Rex How would you identify? SIMPLE! Pay attention to the game! its NOT that hard!

That's cute. I've played more games than both of you combined, twice over, and I've seen people throw in probably far more creative ways than you just mentioned. They're not treated with the same blind judgment as what I've described above.

Furthermore, from my time in trials, I can assert that gamethrowing is an attempt to lose the game intentionally. So, yes, considering the intent of the gamethrower in question matters. Except for Blakiepug, it doesn't.