Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[lilith2013]

We have recently made several updates to the mafia rules to reflect our current standards of conduct, which will be effective as of

March 1st, 2022.

We understand that players and game moderators may have questions on some of these changes. To that end, we welcome any questions or comments in this thread, or you can reach out to any Listmod privately if you do not feel comfortable asking your questions publicly. We will do our best to answer any questions as clearly and thoroughly as we can, so that everyone understands the changes we have made and how the new rules will be enforced. We will likely compile a list of FAQ here as well.

[lilith2013]

Here is an overview of the changes that have been made.

This is the previous version of the mafia rules:

Spoiler:

Breaking rules, not posting, or certain other behavior may result in a modkill or replacement in affected games; rules regarding this should be (and generally are) included up front by the Game Moderator. Some rules apply to most games, and should be assumed to hold unless the Game Moderator explicitly says otherwise. These are:

1. Do not attempt to play the same game under more than one name.
   
2. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired, even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
   
3. Do not bring outside influences into the game - this includes threats, bribes, wagers, promises, "trust tells", alliances, etc. Using
   knowledge
   from previous games is perfectly acceptable, but try not to carry grudges from one game to another.
   
4. Replacements, while sometimes necessary, also serve as an outside influence. As such, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly threaten to replace out of a game. If you do need to replace out, do not publicly discuss your reasons or anything else, as you are no longer a player in the game. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced out.
   
5. Once a replace-out request has been made public by the moderator, the player replacing out is to stop posting in the game. The player is not allowed to replace back into the game or rescind their request. If a moderator wants to allow any deviation from these rules, it must be stated explicitly in their rule set.
   
6. Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where explicitly allowed to do so by your role/moderator. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread. For more information on this, please see this post.
   
7. Do not edit/delete posts.
   
8. Do not quote communications with the moderator (in particular, your role PM). Paraphrasing is usually ok.
   
9. Do not post in the game after you are dead or replaced. Some moderators do allow contentless "Bah!" posts, but you should never reveal information once you are dead.
   
10. Play to win the game.
    
11. Since Mafia is based largely on conflict and psychological manipulation, we are somewhat more tolerant of aggressive and heated posts in-game than in the rest of the forums. However, game mods will often take action for excessively abusive behavior or slurs, up to and including a force-replacement or modkill. In certain cases, posters with multiple or severe offenses may receive site-wide punishments from the list moderators, such as temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing games. Please refer to the most recent pages of the Ban/Restrictions Announcements thread for an idea of what behavior crosses the line.
    
12. Use of scripts or other devices to functionally ignore the presence and posts of another player in a game is not allowed.
    
13. For many years, the word “lynch” was used to describe the person who was voted out by town in a mafia game. We no longer allow this word to be used by game moderators, and we discourage its use by players.
    
14. Off-site games that are organized in an official manner (e.g. Large Social Games hosted on zetaboards) are subject to on-site rules.

All disputes regarding an ongoing game should be taken to the moderator of the game by PM.

Game Moderators should never modkill or replace over personal issues; instead, they should follow the rules set at the beginning of the game. If you feel the Game Moderator is being unreasonable, you may contact the appropriate List Mod or a site administrator.

In some cases, actions taken with the intent of ruining a game may result in further action against the user, such as a limitation on the number of games that user can play, or a temporary or permanent ban. Any player that is force-replaced for breaking site rules may not "replace back in" to those games after the ban is over.

This is the new version of the mafia rules for players:

Spoiler:

The following list defines our standards of conduct for players of mafia games on this site. Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as force replacement, warnings, and temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing mafia games. Infractions related to game integrity may result in a modkill when the list moderators determine that the slot has been compromised. Mafia games on this site typically include a section with rules specific to each game, but these sitewide mafia rules always apply. A game moderator may supersede some of these rules, but only after obtaining list moderator approval.

1. Play to win the game. If you feel you cannot do this for any reason, you should replace out.
   
2. Do not attempt to play the same game under more than one account.
   
3. Do not play a game without reading your role PM.
   
4. Do not bring out-of-game influences into the game - this includes trust tells, threats, bribes, wagers, promises, alliances, etc. This also includes exploiting the site or game rules to gain an in-game advantage. See this thread for more information.
   
5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup, even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake. This is included in this thread.
   
6. Replacements are an unavoidable out-of-game influence. To minimize the impact of replacements on game integrity, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly consider or publicly announce a choice to replace out. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced. Once you have requested to replace out, you are no longer a player in that game. More information on this rule can be found here.
   
7. Do not post in a game if you are not currently a living player in the game. Game moderators may provide exceptions to this rule without list moderator approval.
   
8. Do not talk about ongoing games except in the game thread and private topics that are associated with the game as provided by your game moderator. More information on this rule can be found here.
   
9. Do not take any action that attempts to prove the existence of private game communications. You are allowed to claim that these communications exist as long as you do not attempt to provide evidence. See here for more information on this rule.
   
10. Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create an in-game private communication channel in plain sight using out-of-game information or agreements to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game. You are allowed to provide "breadcrumbs" or crumb, as long as anyone could reasonably understand and interpret the meaning. You are allowed to create in-game communications if you are using information or agreements produced within the same game - for example, if you agree on a code in a game-related PT. Using references to information or agreements produced outside of the game that you know only specific people will be able to understand is not allowed.
    
11. Do not take any action that attempts to prove the use of randomization in your game-related actions. This includes pictures, screenshots, and using or quoting dice tags. You are allowed to claim to have generated a random value as long as you do not attempt to provide evidence.
    
12. Do not edit or delete posts if you have the ability to do so.
    
13. Since Mafia is based largely on conflict and psychological manipulation, we are somewhat more tolerant of aggressive and heated posts in-game than in the rest of the forums. However, game mods will often take action for excessively abusive behavior or slurs, up to and including being force replaced. In certain cases, posters with multiple or severe offenses may receive sitewide punishments from the list moderators, such as temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing games.
    
14. For many years, the word “lynch” was used to describe the person who was voted out by town in a mafia game. We no longer allow this word to be used.
    
15. Pretending to break a rule will be treated as if the rule was broken.

Any concerns regarding rule-breaking in ongoing games should be privately brought to the game moderator or a list moderator. Any public discussion of rule-breaking in ongoing games, even within the game itself, will be considered the use of an out-of-game influence and treated accordingly.

What's changed:

• New rules:
  • Do not play a game without reading your role PM.
    
  • Do not post in a game if you are not currently a living player in the game.
    
  • Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create a private communication channel in plain sight using out-of-game information or agreements to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game. (Language was updated for clarity on February 25th, 2022.)
    
  • Do not use scripts or software to hide the contents of other players' posts.
    
  • Do not take any action that attempts to prove the use of randomization in your game-related actions.
    
  • Pretending to break a rule will be treated as if the rule was broken.
• Also new:
  • Any concerns regarding rule-breaking in ongoing games should be privately brought to the game moderator or a list moderator. Any public discussion of rule-breaking in ongoing games, even within the game itself, will be considered the use of an out-of-game influence and treated accordingly.
• Updated rules:
  • The rule regarding out-of-game influence has been clarified in a new announcement thread.
    
  • The rule prohibiting quoting of mod communications has been changed to prohibiting the proving of private game communications, and expanded upon in a new announcement thread.
    
  • The announcement thread on discussion of ongoing games has been updated. ("Discussion of activity" exception was removed on February 21st, 2022.)
    
  • Language around the "having information that other players do not have access to" rule was updated for clarity on February 21st, 2022.
• Also updated:
  • Description of consequences has changed: Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as force replacement, warnings, and temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing mafia games. Infractions related to game integrity may result in a modkill when the list moderators determine that the slot has been compromised. (Modkill is no longer an option unless game integrity has been affected.)

The other major change is the new section of rules for game moderators:

Spoiler:

The following list defines our standards of conduct for moderators of mafia games on this site. Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as revoking moderation experience for the purpose of queue requirements, requiring co-moderators, and being banned from moderating mafia games. A game moderator may supersede some of these rules, but only after obtaining list moderator approval.

1. Game moderators are responsible for ensuring each game they run will be run to completion, preferably by the game moderator, but by someone else if that is not possible. Game moderators are expected to provide all necessary information to continue running the game to a backup moderator or list moderator in the event they cannot finish moderating the game.
   
2. Game moderators have a responsibility to use flavor and describe their mechanics in a way that creates a safe environment and respects everyone. Due to mafia's unfortunate legacy, the most common way this responsibility is failed is by moderating a game in which players are "lynched." We no longer allow this word to be used by game moderators.
   
3. Game moderators are expected to prioritize the integrity of their game and the general site rules, and take action as needed to uphold both. This includes force replacing players who discuss ongoing games, warning or force replacing players who violate our general site rules, consulting list moderators for modkills when a player slot is compromised, etc. Game moderators are also expected to notify a list moderator or report relevant posts when an infraction occurs, so that list moderators can determine if additional action is appropriate.
   
4. Game moderators are expected to consult with a list moderator if they need to make a major decision that impacts the game, such as resolving a moderation error or ending the game prematurely.
   
5. Game moderators may not modkill a player without obtaining list moderator approval. List moderator approval is typically granted when a player slot has been compromised. See more information on this rule here.
   
6. Game moderators generally have discretion over their playerlists within reason, with the exception of the Newbie Queue.
   
7. Game moderators may force replace at their discretion, using their judgment regarding site and game-specific rules.
   
8. Game moderators have discretion over selecting replacements, including reaching out to specific players and deciding which players to accept or reject as replacements. When seeking replacements, game moderators may not inform a potential replacement of the slot's role before they replace in or select a specific person to replace based on the role of the vacant slot.
   
9. Game moderators may not use individual users of the site as flavor in the game without obtaining list moderator approval and review of the text.
   
10. Game moderators must ensure that players have read their role PMs before participating in the game. Best practice for this typically requires players to confirm their role and alignment via PM.
    
11. Game moderators are expected to provide votecounts at least as frequently as the prod timer for their game and provide timely updates as needed (e.g. flips, phases, replacement announcements, etc.), or ensure that a backup moderator or co-moderator can fulfill this expectation.
    
12. Game moderators are expected to exercise due care and diligence when performing moderation-related tasks such as votecounts, action resolution, etc. and keep errors to a minimum.
    
13. Game moderators are expected to keep their game thread OP up to date, including a list of currently alive players and records of replacements for all slots.
    
14. When the setup is required to be reviewed to fulfill queue requirements, the reviewer must approve of the final setup and role PMs.
    
15. Game moderators may not unduly influence the game - this includes, but is not limited to:
    1. Giving game advice to players in private threads
       
    2. Excessively bantering with players
       
    3. Providing information about the setup that players should not have, or refusing to provide information about the setup that players should have
       
    4. Providing setup information only to some players and not others when this is not directly necessitated by the game setup/mechanics/roles (more information about this specific clause is included here)
       
    5. Addressing misunderstandings of the setup without being directly asked
    In general, it is recommended that game moderators refrain from posting in their game threads unless it is directly related to a game moderator task (votecounts, flips, replacement posts, and other game-related announcements) or unless directly asked about the game by a player. In particular, responding to posts unprompted can influence the game if players speculate on why some posts were responded to but not others.
    
    The exception to this rule is if a game is declared bastard when queueing the game. The setup reviewer must be aware of and approve of any ways in which the game moderator will influence the game.
    
16. Game moderators may not use nonrandom methods of role and alignment assignment at the start of the game. The use of nonrandom methods must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game and must be included in the setup review.
    
17. Game moderators may not lie to players unless it can be reasonably anticipated or is necessitated by the game setup, mechanics, or roles. The presence of lies that cannot be reasonably anticipated must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game and must be included in the setup review.
    
18. Game moderators may not supersede any rules for mafia game moderators or players without list moderator approval, unless specified that the rule does not require list moderator approval.

[lilith2013]

Reserved

[lilith2013]

Reserved

[Ircher]

I think these changes are overall pretty good. I like the additional clarity as to what is and is not acceptable.

[Greeting]

So, let's say, I have a read on a player from an ongoing game.

It is my understanding that

I can

use it, but not speak of the ongoing game or mention that it comes from an ongoing game. How can I substantiate this read if asked to do so? Would replying "I am not allowed to speak on that due to the site rules." be acceptable?

[lilith2013]

No, that would not be allowed as it would be understood implicitly that you are referring to an ongoing game:

However, you are not allowed to publicly share that the ongoing game is a reason for a read. This includes statements where it is clear that you're referring to an ongoing game implicitly, such as saying that you aren't allowed to explain a read.

[Greeting]

No, that would not be allowed as it would be understood implicitly that you are referring to an ongoing game:

However, you are not allowed to publicly share that the ongoing game is a reason for a read. This includes statements where it is clear that you're referring to an ongoing game implicitly, such as saying that you aren't allowed to explain a read.

Is the only solution to not substantiate it at all?

[D3f3nd3r]

Then what is the expected answer if you end up forming a read based solely on play in ongoing games and are asked why? Do you have to just ignore the question? And then does ignoring the question become the ongoing games option?

I feel like there should probably be something codified along the lines of “you may not mention any read on a player for which you only have ongoing-game related reasons”

[lilith2013]

The best option is probably not to mention the read in game unless you have non-ongoing-related reasons that you can use to support it

[Farren]

Will it still be okay to write up draft posts in a notes PT and/or scum PT, with the intent of posting them in the thread later? It looks like the rules as written would forbid that.

[lilith2013]

That should be okay as long as you don't try to claim that they were originally from a PT, e.g. by quoting it, linking it, or saying "I wrote this in my notes PT at 9:57 AM EDT on July 1st." The rule change focuses more on the act of proving that the game communication exists rather than the content of the communication - there is some overlap between those two on things like role PMs, for example, because that contains wording/formatting/etc that would be considered aspects of proving that the communication exists, but if you're the originator of the content and are not attempting to claim that it was part of a private game communication, then it wouldn't violate the rule. I hope that makes sense but can try to clarify if you still have questions.

[Andante]

I feel like there should probably be something codified along the lines of “you may not mention any read on a player for which you only have ongoing-game related reasons”

Like, my way of interpreting it is like, if I SR someone cause of an ongoing game, I just find what they're doing that's scummy in the current game and just going like "I SR you for this!" but leaving off the "I SR you for this cause you're scum in the game going on, and doing the same thing here"
Cause like in general if you're SRing someone from something they did in another game, it shouldn't be that hard to find a legit reason to SR someone for the current game.

(idk if any of that makes sense, it makes sense in my mind, like the rule seems fine as written to me?)

[mastina]

Subject: Out-of-Game Influence

OUT OF GAME INFLUENCE

1. Invoking trust tells.
   
   Self-meta turns into a trust tell when there is an explicit or implicit statement that it would never be broken,
   or that it would only be broken extremely rarely
   . Important here, and a distinction from how we've handled things in the past, is that we are extending this to include cases where the person is not intentionally building up a trust tell, but is instead simply
   pointing out a pattern in their meta that they never intend to break
   . For example, the following may all constitute trust tells depending on context:
   • "I will always claim my real role."
   Context is very important here. If a relatively new player says that they've never fakeclaimed before, this is not a problem - however,
   if a player with many dozens of completed games points out the same thing and says that they never fakeclaim

   as a policy
   , then every game where they don't lie about this policy increases the credence of their claim. After a certain point, this becomes an unfair advantage because statistically, the more times in a row someone has told the truth about something, the more likely it is that they will always tell the truth about it.
   
   If you wish to refer to your own meta, as a rule of thumb, do not speak in absolutes. We obviously cannot (and do not want to) punish someone for
   having
   some of these policies (e.g., if you believe that it is never correct to bus as scum, or don't want to fake a guilty, we can't make you). In these cases,
   you simply cannot discuss behaviors like this in discussion of your own meta
   . If someone else brings up something that may qualify as a trust tell for you, you can say that you've never done the behavior in question, but
   you cannot say that you have a

   policy

   of never doing it
   . This is not a perfect solution, but we don't believe that a perfect solution exists.
   

   ---

   
   
2. Using or attempting to find loopholes in game/site rules that are technically within the rules but break the spirit of the rules.
   
   The rules that are in place are there to preserve game integrity as much as possible and provide an even playing field for all players.
   If someone finds a loophole in one of the rules that is still technically allowed but breaks the spirit of the rule
   , that can impact game integrity and provide an unfair advantage. Breaking the spirit of the rules is still breaking the rules, and will be treated as if the rule was broken even if it wasn't "technically" broken.
   

   ---

   
   
3. Exploiting or attempting to gain an in-game advantage by exploiting forum software.
   
   Similar to exploiting game/site rules, forum software is not meant to be used as an in-game tactic. Using any aspect of the forum software to attempt to prove or confirm yourself or your statements can also hold more weight than regular gameplay arguments and harm game integrity. This includes tactics such as:
   setting your online status to show your most recent login and not logging in for the entirety of the night phase to "prove" that you did not submit any night actions
   ; You are allowed to make statements about when you or other players were or were not online, as long as you do not attempt to use the forum software to prove it.

You might as well name these updates to the site policy "the mastina policy".

[mastina]

That said, I do in fact take issue with the trust tell part.

I don't fakeclaim as scum, and I say that every game, but that is not a policy I enforce because it is a policy--it is a policy I "enforce" because in literally every single game I play as scum, telling the truth is better than lying. Like, lying about my role would literally be playing against my wincon as scum; telling the truth about my role is genuinely me playing to my wincon.

This policy if I were to be punished for having it by the site rules would mean that you'd be requiring me to

literally gamethrow as scum

in order to not run afoul of it.

Sure, if a mod ran a game where I had a genuine need to fakeclaim (say that it's explicitly a role madness game with no VTs and I get an explicitly scum role that cannot be claimed as a town role), I would as scum lie about my role because in that scenario, truthfully claiming would be playing against my wincon.

But if a mod gives me a role that I can truthfully claim, then not claiming it is genuinely gamethrowing because the role as-is looks town enough to not be a scum role. (And if the role cannot be truthfully claimed, then it can be slightly modified. Roleblocker into Jailkeeper; turning a Disloyal scum role into a claim of being a Loyal town role. And if the role cannot be modified into a town role, then I can just claim VT.)

I say in every game that I do not fakeclaim as scum--but it's not because I refuse to. It's because it's genuinely gamethrowing for me to fakeclaim when the truth is literally my best weapon as scum.

Imo, trust tells typically are something that are, explicitly, designed to gain an advantage

as town

, while

at the detriment

to your scumgame.

If you are playing to your SCUM win condition, then it fundamentally cannot be a trust tell because it is fundamentally not to the detriment of your scumgame because it is not designed to gamethrow as scum to give an advantage to the town.

But this policy seems alarmingly like it is going to prevent me from playing to my scum wincon by stating that I don't fakeclaim.

[Dunnstral]

Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create a private communication channel in plain sight to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game.

What is the intent behind this rule change? What kinds of posts are now not okay? Is vaguely referring to things now not ok?

Example: "Hey, remember how we got that person eliminated in game x? I think we're seeing the same thing here"

Would that post be allowed? Is it near the line?

[mastina]

That said, I do in fact take issue with the trust tell part.

I don't fakeclaim as scum, and I say that every game, but that is not a policy I enforce because it is a policy--it is a policy I "enforce" because in literally every single game I play as scum, telling the truth is better than lying. Like, lying about my role would literally be playing against my wincon as scum; telling the truth about my role is genuinely me playing to my wincon.

This policy if I were to be punished for having it by the site rules would mean that you'd be requiring me to

literally gamethrow as scum

in order to not run afoul of it.

Sure, if a mod ran a game where I had a genuine need to fakeclaim (say that it's explicitly a role madness game with no VTs and I get an explicitly scum role that cannot be claimed as a town role), I would as scum lie about my role because in that scenario, truthfully claiming would be playing against my wincon.

But if a mod gives me a role that I can truthfully claim, then not claiming it is genuinely gamethrowing because the role as-is looks town enough to not be a scum role. (And if the role cannot be truthfully claimed, then it can be slightly modified. Roleblocker into Jailkeeper; turning a Disloyal scum role into a claim of being a Loyal town role. And if the role cannot be modified into a town role, then I can just claim VT.)

I say in every game that I do not fakeclaim as scum--but it's not because I refuse to. It's because it's genuinely gamethrowing for me to fakeclaim when the truth is literally my best weapon as scum.

Imo, trust tells typically are something that are, explicitly, designed to gain an advantage

as town

, while

at the detriment

to your scumgame.

If you are playing to your SCUM win condition, then it fundamentally cannot be a trust tell because it is fundamentally not to the detriment of your scumgame because it is not designed to gamethrow as scum to give an advantage to the town.

But this policy seems alarmingly like it is going to prevent me from playing to my scum wincon by stating that I don't fakeclaim.

A perfect example of this is the recently completed subreddit uPick.

In that game, I pointed out that

in three years

, I'd never been active as scum before.
If I was town, then by the revised rules that'd be considered a trust tell.
Because it was pointing out a truthful thing about my play that has a long long history of having been true.

As town, in the last three years, I've been rather passionate and incredibly invested in my towngames;
As scum, in the last three years, I've had fuckall of anything done--but not because of any deliberate effort.
It's just that I was struggling in those scumgames and not struggling in those towngames. But it was still a very very very strong trend, lasting over the course of MULTIPLE years.

I

couldn't

effort as scum. It wasn't a choice to not effort. I literally tried, but failed, every single time as scum. I could no more effort as scum than I could be succinct. In that it was literally just...part of me. I fundamentally was unable to be efforting as scum. But could effort easily as town.

I pointed that out in subreddit uPick, in order to try and dissuade the town from eliminating me, by pointing out that trend.

...But instead of being town, I was in fact actually scum and that scumgame just so happened to be the first game in over three years where I broke the trend.

Would I be punished for pointing out a trend that was out of my control, even if in the current game it was breaking the trend?

And similarly, for not lying, the only lie I told about my role that game was a lie of omission. I left out the redirect aspect of my role but otherwise claimed it fully. This was, explicitly, playing to my win condition: hiding a scum aspect to my role, but claiming the town aspect of it in a game where

the mods literally said every role started as town

. The mods literally said in the signups for the game that every role was designed initially as town, then refined based on alignment. So me saying my town role aspect but leaving out the scum aspect was playing to my wincon, but it was still 100% truthful, maintaining my "never lie about my role as scum" policy, unless you count a lie by omission (which imo does not count as a true lie).

Trust telling is something that imo is done to gain an advantage specifically as one alignment, to the detriment of the other alignment.
E.g. "I always self-hammer as scum" would be to the detriment of scumgame to gain an advantage as town. (The classic trust tell.) Stating "I am town" in red text as town but not as scum as another.

But when the rules are punishing a

playstyle

which affects me

regardless of my alignment

, I feel like that's an issue.

If it is not to the detriment of one alignment, why should it be punished? If it is universal in how it impacts your games, omnipresent regardless of your alignment and you constantly point out "this could be broken any time", "it COULD be broken this game, but...", "it's not something I control, but it still happens", etc., and yet you are still playing to your wincon

in that game

by doing it and not playing to future games' wincons? That feels dangerously restrictive.

I don't fakeclaim as scum is a perfect example of that. I don't fakeclaim because I fucking suck at lying/bullshitting roles so when I have no need to fakeclaim (which is 99.99% of all my scumgames), I just don't. It

can

benefit both alignments. (Not fakeclaiming as scum->fakeclaimed as town->likely to be seen as town; Not fakeclaiming as scum->claim is likely truthful->not scum bullshitting in spite of still being scum.) But it's not designed to.

As the post said, if you believe that bussing was genuinely against your wincon, then saying such shouldn't be prohibited because it can still work to your favor as either alignment. (If a player who doesn't bus generally decides that, actually, in this game, it wasn't playing against wincon? Then bam, bingo, scum benefit.)

Basically, absolutes which aren't absolute but just hold true in 99.99% of games due to the situation applying in 99.99% of games are, imo, not trust tells.

Games are situational. Every single time, every single game, the situation is different. If 99/100 situations end up with the same optimal outcome, why is it a trust tell to point out the optimal action/outcome in those 99/100 times? If 99/100 situations end up with the same optimal outcome, why can't you point out the 99/100 in the 1/100 situation? It feels incredibly limiting in an unhealthy way.

[Ythan]

Cool.

[Korina]

ego

[Dunnstral]

The other major change is the new section of rules for game moderators:
Spoiler:

What I'd like to see added:

If using a non-standard prod timer, it should be disclosed in sign-ups

Not sure if those goes there or in list mod threads.

[Cook]

i like these

also fairly certain i broke most of the rules about information with players as a mod, like i'm 99% certain i was responsible for those rules getting added

now on the size limit for large games, i would prefer if the

option

to run games at high player counts was still available, but perhaps qualifying under Special Games? as far as where that limit goes, would 25-28 be an acceptable limit?

[D3f3nd3r]

Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create a private communication channel in plain sight to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game.

What is the intent behind this rule change? What kinds of posts are now not okay? Is vaguely referring to things now not ok?

Example: "Hey, remember how we got that person eliminated in game x? I think we're seeing the same thing here"

Would that post be allowed? Is it near the line?

Nah I think this is literally just finding ways to communicate in the game thread that can’t be fully parsed as English things being said unless you have specific information that’s private.

For example, sending messages with a cipher that only one player knows the key for, or telling someone like “we should push a vote against the player whose name ends with the 15th letter in the PM that I sent you nine days ago”. Your example is obtainable by someone else that looks at that other game, so it should be fine.

And for what it’s worth, that was on the list of things that the majority of mods had on their individual rulesets already (in fact, I know that I have it on mine and have force replaced a player for it).

[RH9]

Exploiting or attempting to gain an in-game advantage by exploiting forum software.

Similar to exploiting game/site rules, forum software is not meant to be used as an in-game tactic. Using any aspect of the forum software to attempt to prove or confirm yourself or your statements can also hold more weight than regular gameplay arguments and harm game integrity. This includes tactics such as: setting your online status to show your most recent login and not logging in for the entirety of the night phase to "prove" that you did not submit any night actions; registering with a username with non-alphanumeric characters and using this to "prove" that you could not be mafia because you would not be able to be added to a mafia PT; etc. You are allowed to make statements about when you or other players were or were not online, as long as you do not attempt to use the forum software to prove it.

To clarify, is using the Online status of other players as proof that you aren't scum with them, unacceptable?
(In my opinion, it should be.)

[Davsto]

while i don't fully agree with mastina (I'd hard say, for example, that a lie by omission of your role? definitely a lie) i do agree that at the very least the new trust tell rule is too broad and even more confusing than the old one.

First off there's the contradictions - as an example of what "could be a trust tell" you give

"I have never faked a guilty as scum"

, but later say

"you can say that you've never done the behavior in question, but you cannot say that you have a policy of never doing it."

I cannot see how these two statements are reconcilable.

I also just,, don't see the point. Yes, consistently telling the truth about your role and to an extent being known for doing it gives you an advantage when you've played lots of games before. But so does a lot of things. So does having played several games with the same player so you understand the nuances of their play better than other people. So does just having played the game more in general. So does sharing a timezone with the majority of people in the game. There's lots of out-of-game things that can affect a player's ability and trustworthiness and you can't stomp out them all, and you especially can't stomp out this one in such a broad and confusing way that definitely affects valid play.

Like imo trust tells that should be punishable are ones that relate less to the actual,, playing strategy of the game. Like the red text thing. Or when Krazy said stuff like "you know I replace out as scum". Or saying you only self-vote or do some other

easily replicable

action as town. And I think it has to require an active level of building up or very explicitly pointing out that it's something you intentionally always do and plan to always do. Otherwise you heavily risk lots of people accidentally breaking the rule because they simply acknowledge (or even implicitly state?) how they happen to have always played.

I agree it's tough to try and stop the trust telling stuff that's against the spirit of playing the game, but machine gunning in a way that makes talking about self-meta very scary isn't really it.

[Not Known 15]

ego