Is intentionally not keeping a will = gamethrowing ?

[PrincessKira]

This player, once jailed, said that he did not keep a will because he was lazy. That's an easy execute right there. However, he says that's not reportable, although it is obviously gamethrowing. May as well claim literally any other role and say the same thing. What do you think?

Note: This happened in a real, master-elo ranked match.

Can't use image tags so just adding a link.

Jail log: https://imgur.com/jErRv5A
Post jail: https://imgur.com/XQU1zPn

[Jerme]

This would be counted as "stupidity" afaik, which is not gamethrowing.

[mzann1]

It's dumb that is not reportable..losing a town member just because of his stupidity and laziness and the jailor not able to exe anymore because of this dumb player.

[PrincessKira]

It's dumb that is not reportable..losing a town member just because of his stupidity and laziness and the jailor not able to exe anymore because of this dumb player.

It's the same case as if, for example, a player claims retributionist, revives someone, nobody cc's his ret claim.. and then gets shot by vigi not paying attention to the game. It's obviously gamethrowing, but, they get away with it because "being dumb is not gamethrowing". The rules of this game are seriously flawed.

[SparkingJay]

It's dumb that is not reportable..losing a town member just because of his stupidity and laziness and the jailor not able to exe anymore because of this dumb player.

It's the same case as if, for example, a player claims retributionist, revives someone, nobody cc's his ret claim.. and then gets shot by vigi not paying attention to the game. It's obviously gamethrowing, but, they get away with it because "being dumb is not gamethrowing". The rules of this game are seriously flawed.

Unless there is a confession to wanting to shoot a Retributionist to gamethrow it isn’t reportable. Similar to if someone leaves, unless they confess to leaving before they do it then it isn’t guilty, since people can DC from games due to their internet.

Confession is key.

[kyuss420]

It's dumb that is not reportable..losing a town member just because of his stupidity and laziness and the jailor not able to exe anymore because of this dumb player.

Well, then every player with less than 50 games would be reported and banned, bringing no new players to the game

[MysticMismagius]

actually no because under a certain amount of games you cannot be suspended for gt.

[MysticMismagius]

actually no because under a certain amount of games you cannot be suspended for gt.

That's not true at all lol If you blatantly gamethrow, you're gonna be suspended for it

So this segment of the P2P rulebook is bullshit?

[Flavorable]

actually no because under a certain amount of games you cannot be suspended for gt.

That's not true at all lol If you blatantly gamethrow, you're gonna be suspended for it

So this segment of the P2P rulebook is bullshit?

Everything is situational. Judges have more info than jurors do in some situations. And sometimes there is a biiiiiiig difference between an educational mistake and intentional throwing.

[MysticMismagius]

Ultimately my point is that the clause would prevent noobs for being punished for being noobs. Even if not having a will was throwing, it would prevent people under that amount of games from being banned for not having one like kyuss said they would be. Your exception only applies to “blatant” gamethrowing, which not keeping a will is not.

[MysticMismagius]

Semantics aside, the clause still applies to the situation that kyuss presented, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Continuing to tell me that it’s not absolute because of blatant cases of GT has nothing to do with my point or the OP.

[MysticMismagius]

I brought up the screenshot because it was evidence of the clause’s existence. I didn’t know it wasn’t absolute, and I never argued that it was once you told me otherwise: I merely stated that the exception wasn’t relevant to the point I was trying to make. Please stop dragging me around over this nonsense.

[Meandrina]

At this point in time, judges have no way to know, at the time of report, how many games a player has played. Furthermore, it has been discussed...if it matters what RYPE of game they have played. Obviously coven, especially some of the rotating modes like vip and lovers are quite different than other games. Until judges have the information, we cannot possibly follow the devs "should"

[ThePublicDomain]

Playing solely based on wills is not a good way to play, assuming you mean giving you the standard will format that everyone seems to use. He did claim to you and you chose to execute him anyway knowing full well that he could have been spy. That is why it is not gamethrowing and not reportable.

[PrincessKira]

Playing solely based on wills is not a good way to play, assuming you mean giving you the standard will format that everyone seems to use. He did claim to you and you chose to execute him anyway knowing full well that he could have been spy. That is why it is not gamethrowing and not reportable.

Take into consideration that it was a master elo ranked game. It is a matter of fact that if you do not have a will you will be executed or hanged. At this level of the game you DECIDE not to have a will, it is not that you may not know that such a feature even exists within the game. You decide not to have it, basically making yourself an instant target of vigilante/jailor/lynch. What happens is that you INTENTIONALLY decide to do that, severely hurting your team's chances to win. What is NOT gamethrowing in the situation? People seem to miss that going against your team's win condition is gamethrowing, they only take gamethrowing as gamethrowing when they admit to it, even if it did not occur.

Since when INTENTIONALLY GOING AGAINST YOUR FACTION'S VICTORY CHANCE is not gamethrowing? Isn't it the pure definition of it? Everyone should take into consideration that the system is not always correct and should be consistently improved, not taken for granted as it is obviously flawed.

[Meandrina]

Here again, we would have the same problem as we currently have with "how many games did the person play" because we CAN check the players elo at the time we look at the report, but we cannot back check what their elo was at the time the game was played. I have heard so many master elo players saying the are a bunch of players that are not master elo, they shouldn't be there, etc. So even if we did use elo, it would be hard to agree on what proper rules there should be for each elo division.

Regardless, elo and ranked games ins a small subset of game modes. Rules are made for all and should not change based on the mode you are playing.