Re: The RationalMadman vs. ILikePie5 Situation

Author: Mharman
Mafia

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,281
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
I should've said this in the endgame thread, but no one will read it if I put it in there now.

DP1 of Conspiracy Theory Mafia was a complete mess and I wish I saw how ugly that DP was getting before I ended it. I took plenty of time out of my day to design and host that game, but I couldn't take anymore time to do more than skim the DP and update the vote counts. I simply do not have the time to sit in front of a mafia game all day, watching everything going on. So with that being said, please ping me if something like this ever happens again. I will do something about it. I want my games to be fun for people, not rage-inducing to them. I can't stop endgame thread salt, but I can at least try to keep players from distracting the whole DP and angering everyone during the game.

Anyways, RM clearly had a problem controlling his temper here, and it distracted everyone. I'd like to think he's getting better with this, and maybe his is overall, but I cannot trust him at this moment in time to stay chill during what is just a forum game. I understand why it is harder for him than everyone else to stay calm during a mafia game, and I have been turning the other cheek for him more than I would for anyone else on this site because of it. However, that is not an excuse for what he did in this game. He has done this repeatedly in other people's games as well. I know it may be hard when being egged on by others (more on that later), but at the end of the day RM exploded far beyond what anyone was doing him in that thread. As such, RM is banned from the next game I host.

Now, to be fair, Pie had no business egging him on in that thread. I'm okay with banter, but Pie was clearly trying to bait RM into exploding whilst knowing full well that RM would do so. All he did was anger himself and everyone else in the process. You can call it a mafia strategy all you want; I don't care. If your strategy as a mafioso is to push everyone to the point where they've had it, then you need to find a new one. As such, Pie has received a warning for my future games.

I don't like doing this because it's not fun for me, but I am doing this because I want my games to be fun for everyone playing in them. Say what you will, but I think we can all agree that the next game of mine will be more fun without two players flaming each other constantly.

I hope this thread doesn't constitute being a call-out thread, as my intention was to let people know what I am doing about what happened back there. Mods, if it is, sorry. This needed to be said.
#2
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Mharman
Now, to be fair, Pie had no business egging him on in that thread. I'm okay with banter, but Pie was clearly trying to bait RM into exploding whilst knowing full well that RM would do so.
I was playing to my meta and strategy. If RM exploded, it was on him. I’ve done this multiple times with Lunatic, and it’s turned out fine. I’m not the problem here, RM his.

I will stand my position that objectively, RM’s idea was stupid, and him continuing to pursue it even after the vote we had was even more dumb. I called him out on it and everyone else did as well. Yet he still continued pushing it because of his ego.

All he did was anger himself and everyone else in the process. You can call it a mafia strategy all you want; I don't care. If your strategy as a mafioso is to push everyone to the point where they've had it, then you need to find a new one. As such, Pie has received a warning for my future games.
Again, it is literally my meta to do that. If I don’t do that, I go against my meta and out myself as scum. People choose to be offended. I will live my this previous statement till I die. It’s RMs problem that he has to deal with “abuse” even after multiple people have told him to stop. He still continues to do, and I have to respond to him to play to my meta. I firmly believe I did nothing wrong.

I will also point out that I tried to reason with RM. I pointed out that we were distracting, and we should focus on scum hunting, yet he continued to push for me even more.

Hell, I even claimed knowing full well my claim and my role behind it were ass, but he just doubled down on. I tried. You cannot say the same for RM.

I don't like doing this because it's not fun for me, but I am doing this because I want my games to be fun for everyone playing in them. Say what you will, but I think we can all agree that the next game of mine will be more fun without two players flaming each other constantly.
If RM played normally and listened to people, we wouldn’t have this issue. You’re blaming me for RMs ego and idiocy, which frankly is unfair. If you’re going to shovel lies at my behavior and play (and let’s be clear, they were lies), I have the right to call him out on it both in terms of the game and personally. Everyone game him the opportunity to provide evidence for his claims. He provided none after multiple requests.

I hope this thread doesn't constitute being a call-out thread, as my intention was to let people know what I am doing about what happened back there. Mods, if it is, sorry. This needed to be said.
I don’t think it is. RM probably does, him being him.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Lmao, I was the one abused first, it was pie who should be modkicked.

Absolute morons.

If the rules do not apply to the subforum, I will happily sling mud back, I have very little respect for pie regardless, if he cannot take it, he should not dish it out.

You are all crazy if you think my temper ruined the game, my lashing out was at the end, Pie had hammered Supa. Lol.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
If you are gonna abuse me in a subforum the mods do not get involved in, expect abuse back, point blank period.

I am completelty surprised Mharman fails to see it was Pie that abused me first with the 'fucking moron' slander.

I am cool taking abuse and this highlights the idiocy of the forum games section. I was the retaliatory party, not the abuser. Pie and others continually abuse me in these subforuma, knowing the mods will jot get involved, it waa about time they got a tongue/type lashing back.

Joke of a game mod decision, this is.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
RM you shit LVP, RM uou fucking moron, RM you spaz, RM you are so bad waa waaa

*RM fights back*
*tantrum intensifies*

pweese save us.

#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
When you keep poking the bear, do not cry when mauled. 
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I have been told that my testicles would get electrocuted as a joke here. Oromagi got no penalty for it.

I have been bullied every single game I enter unless it is majority lazy noobs in which case they are not bothered to do that much.

I am hardcarrying teams and get verbally abused game after game, eventually I say cool, time to abuse back.

You only take so many beatings in a prison before you make the decision to fuck 'em up back and make it clear if the guards won't protect you, the others can bleed too.

It is adapting to the relative rules.
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
What this is about is simply bias.

I am happy to be banned, I quit anyway. You are firing the guy who resigned half a week back.
#9
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Lol 
#10
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
You guys should probably watch how you talk to RM. He is likely the next president of the site and I will support him the second he adopts the following parts of my agenda

1. All Jews labeled with a star of David profile picture

2. Official language of the site changed to Esperanto

3. Wylted bux adopted as official currency
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I will be adopting 0 of those policies and I don't care who is the 'president' as that role is functionally 2 entirely different roles in one at the moment; mod-balancer/advisor and site entertainment coordinator.

11 days later

Topic's author
#12
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,281
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
I've been thinking about this more recently. So I'm changing this. Pie's warning has been removed, and RM's ban is now indefinite. It will end at my discretion, which will be when I feel like I can put him into a game without him raging so hard. He might be mad at this, or he might not care since he's basically quit mafia anyways; I don't care. This is insurance.

I'm not convinced Pie's play was designed to bait RM anymore. I think it comes from a genuine disdain for RM. Looking at his posts, and previous posts, their beef goes way back, so there were clearly motivating factors before the game even started. I would argue that putting them in a game together is like putting Mentos into a Coke bottle. And to be honest, I understand why Pie has this disdain for RM. I think he'd be better off not talking to him at all, but I understand.

About RM: In so many beef/arguments/callouts on this site, he is a common denominator. I will give three recent examples to back this up: He started a random argument with Supa in an endgame thread, he made a random call-out thread on Oromagi, and he got snarky with Barney in that thread without provocation. Buy and large, so many other users have beef with him it's hard to count. The reality is that he has an abrasive personality, and then complains about "abuse" when he gets pushback. Like I said previously, I understand his condition, but it is no excuse here. He needs to fix his attitude.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mharman
Freedom of speech as and when it suits you, nothing surprising.
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mharman
I aint even blaming any condition. I did genuinely get angry in the game with pie but overall if you think I'm blaming autism or whatever you're implying I am absolutely not.

I am a flavourful personality, you are allowed to think I'm a shit-stain with an attitude you can't stand. However, if you think what I do in mafia games isn't about winning or that I will hold myself back when I see nothing to lose and something to gain or enjoy, you have me all wrong.

It's pretty simple to me; at worst I get banned. I move on, I either am welcome here or not, no in between. I read the rules, I know them. If I get banned for being the person I am and sliding along the right side of the rules when and if I play with fire, so be it.

I know the ins, I know the outs. If Whiteflame, Supadudz and Barney want me gone, I'll be gone. I will never kneel before them, I will never change who or what I am.

You can ban me as you want, I get it anyway frankly it is unfair having me in those games. It is scary how well I read the room and use pressure, scum can't win when I'm in town if people actually listen to me and think well. I play to win not to make others have a good time when and if the two are at odds.

I am not interested in appealing to you Mharman if that means changing the real me. Have your tastes and ban me, just don't say you're for some super free thing back and forth. I am obviously the common denominator in drama here, most are dull and those that aren't don't know how to play by the rules. I know the forum games have no enforcement in games by the mods, you can say cunt and all sorts of bad abuse there and they just say it's not a thing. I know it, I said what I said and I have received nastiness too. I made a thread about gaining rating on oromagi because this site is so lazy and dead that only 3 of us are even competing for the top spot LOL out of the entire Internet... Chill out man, or don't. I get you if you don't, it's RM you're talking to.

76 days later

Topic's author
#15
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,281
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
I've been thinking more, and RationalMadman's ban has been lifted. To be honest, I can't help but feel like I was holding some kind of grudge against RM, and using reason to convince myself of everything I said. That's how I feel now, at least.

Deep down, I want to give people more chances- at least one more, in this case. Maybe it's a foolish mercy, but I'd rather grant foolish mercy than dole out even potentially foolish justice. I understand there's a boundary to this, and I'll follow it the best I can.

However, if RM and Pie are in the same game I'm modding, I will make sure they make some kind of civility promise in the sign-ups thread. Whoever doesn't agree, won't play; simple as. I ask anyone skeptical of RM (as I suspect many of you are) to give him one more chance. Please, for the sake of peace.

He's not even obligated to play in any of my games, and I don't even know if he will as I type this. I just wanted to extend the offer and clarify that I was not coerced or convinced by anyone to make this decision.
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 77.