Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[Cook]

pagetop

maybe it's more valuable to just

not play more than one game at once and not read ongoing games so that you'd never have this problem?

[DkKoba]

pagetop

maybe it's more valuable to just

not play more than one game at once and not read ongoing games so that you'd never have this problem?

Excuse me that'd be too little mafia happening at the same time

[Cook]

or just mod games, get the perspective

i wanna see someone get banned by trust telling as a mod

[Gamma Emerald]

pagetop

maybe it's more valuable to just

not play more than one game at once and not read ongoing games so that you'd never have this problem?

Excuse me that'd be too little mafia happening at the same time

My homesite does one game at a time

[D3f3nd3r]

pagetop

maybe it's more valuable to just

not play more than one game at once and not read ongoing games so that you'd never have this problem?

[Nancy Drew 39]

This is exactly the kind of thing that worries me here. There needs to be a mod approved way of handling this besides not giving a read,

Why does there need to be a work around?
Why is it ok to reference one ongoing game in another in this specific way, but not any other way?

If I have ogi reasons to sr someone and perhaps vote them, It would be gamethrowing not to. I already said I would say anything that I usually do. Anytime I have a read that I don’t have an answer for and sometimes it is just gut, sometimes it’s just a feeling but I think ignoring a read just because it may or may not be ogi, makes no sense. I’m not going to not vote someone if I think they’re scum for whatever reasons.

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

[Ircher]

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

My understanding is that saying one of these things is okay for ongoing game reads PROVIDED THAT you don't solely use these reasons for ongoing game reads. In other words, as long as it is ambiguous whether the read is really a gut read or actually based on an ongoing game, it's okay to lie a little and say that the read is based on gut etc.

[Nancy Drew 39]

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

My understanding is that saying one of these things is okay for ongoing game reads PROVIDED THAT you don't solely use these reasons for ongoing game reads. In other words, as long as it is ambiguous whether the read is really a gut read or actually based on an ongoing game, it's okay to lie a little and say that the read is based on gut etc.

+1

Thank you, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say.

[lilith2013]

Okay, I just want to be clear that using OGI, out-of-game influence, in your reads is against the rules. That’s number 4 in the OGI announcement thread, having information that you’re not supposed to have, like a mod slip-up about another player while PMing you about your result. I don’t think this is what you’ve been talking about, but you’ve been using the abbreviation OGI so I want to be extremely clear that we are using OGI to mean out-of-game influence and OGI is not allowed.

As for reads based on ongoing games, I’ve already addressed this.

If you can believably provide other reasons for the read, I don’t think there’s an issue.

However, as I said in response to Gamma, what we don’t want is for all of a sudden “gut” or vague reasons for reads being universally assumed to mean “actually this is a read related to an ongoing game.” Once that is implicitly understood to mean “it’s an ongoing game read,” then using any of those reasons becomes potentially game-impacting. That’s why my suggestion is to use only non-ongoing-game reasons to support your reads.

Andante also had a good post about this.

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?)

If everyone who has a read based on an ongoing game starts saying that their reads are based on “gut” or “feelings” or other vague reasons, then it becomes generally understood that saying any of these means that it’s based on an ongoing game, and once that happens, then there’s the potential for any of these reasons to compromise games. The same goes for everyone using votes without any explanation. If I put down a vote with no explanation, and everyone thinks that means it’s referring to an ongoing game, then all of a sudden people can compare play between ongoing games. I have effectively told everyone that they should look for similarities or differences in an ongoing game with the person, and if I’m also in those games, to compare how I’m treating that person in each game. That can compromise both my slot and theirs in the ongoing game. That’s why I think we need to be extremely cautious about using “gut,” votes without explanations, or other vague reasons to refer to an ongoing game and the best option is we don’t do it at all.

I disagree that it would be gamethrowing to not be able to express a read if the only reason for your read is based on an ongoing game, because you wouldn’t be able to explain the read anyway, under the new rule or the old rule. Even if this rule had not changed, you would still need to find other reasons to explain why the person is scum in order to be able to eliminate them. If you can’t provide any other reasons, then even under the old rule your read wouldn’t have a valid explanation behind it to persuade others to eliminate that person. And as Andante said, if you are scumreading someone, you should be able to find something about their play in the current game that is scum-indicative, otherwise you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be scumreading them.

Yes, there may be a very slight disadvantage to not being allowed to reference ongoing games, but we think that game integrity is more important than any slight advantage gained by being allowed to reference ongoing games and that the tradeoff is worth it to maintain game integrity. There have been many incidents where we felt that game integrity was or could easily have been compromised by people only vaguely referring to ongoing games, even when they followed the old rule.

editing to add a TLDR: there is no “mod-approved” option because any mod-approved option puts us in exactly the same situation we were in before this rule change, when even “I think Lilith is town because [redacted]” could be game-compromising even if the exact allowed sentence was used.

[RH9]

I do think that the rules on talking about ongoing games are good because it means less dependance on things outside of the game which you're currently playing. However, I think that it isn't entirely right to assume that somebody having a vague reason is referring to ongoing games because some people do genuinely play like that. On the other hand, I honestly think that vague reasons shouldn't be the primary option for SRs when there are good reasons to SR somebody other than them.

[Farren]

Discussions about Activity
Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

Why does this exception not compromise game integrity? Or if it does, why is it allowed as an exception?

[Zachrulez]

If everyone who has a read based on an ongoing game starts saying that their reads are based on “gut” or “feelings” or other vague reasons, then it becomes generally understood that saying any of these means that it’s based on an ongoing game, and once that happens, then there’s the potential for any of these reasons to compromise games. The same goes for everyone using votes without any explanation. If I put down a vote with no explanation, and everyone thinks that means it’s referring to an ongoing game, then all of a sudden people can compare play between ongoing games. I have effectively told everyone that they should look for similarities or differences in an ongoing game with the person, and if I’m also in those games, to compare how I’m treating that person in each game. That can compromise both my slot and theirs in the ongoing game. That’s why I think we need to be extremely cautious about using “gut,” votes without explanations, or other vague reasons to refer to an ongoing game and the best option is we don’t do it at all.

I think what's problematic isn't necissarily that someone's reads might be OGI centric and the player might be excusing their reads as gut or feelings... but rather that a player that has a legitimate game based gut or feeling read will end up having their read pegged by a list mod as an OGI based read and I think if you start doing that you're headed into a very bad place. (And no it's not acceptable to

assume

that a gut read is OGI.)

I do think that the rules on talking about ongoing games are good because it means less dependance on things outside of the game which you're currently playing. However, I think that it isn't entirely right to assume that somebody having a vague reason is referring to ongoing games because some people do genuinely play like that. On the other hand, I honestly think that vague reasons shouldn't be the primary option for SRs when there are good reasons to SR somebody other than them.

There is this school of thought that I vehemetely disagree with where scum reads necissarily need to be explained to the town or the player you are scum reading. It can be immensely more valuble to analyze their reactions to a read where they have to try to figure out the reason. Some players are way more comfortable getting into and looking better in logical arguments and the ability to win a logical argument isn't necissarily alignment indicitive. (These kind of players can also potentially be the type of players as scum who hate being caught for the 'wrong reasons.')

[Radical Rat]

Ongoing game rules are good. Strongly disagree that there "needs" to be a way to express a read based on an ongoing game, because while sure you could argue that not expressing such a read is "gamethrowing," it's understood that playing to your win condition has limits where game integrity is involved.

As an extreme example, if I were to stumble across a mod's laptop, it would be gamethrowing NOT to open up MafiaScum and read all the role PMs, because that would help me win, right? Except it's obviously understood that that isn't how the game is played.

Same goes for ongoing games. If you can't find a reason to scumread them in the game that is actually being played... Too bad, guess they're getting away with it.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Ongoing game rules are good. Strongly disagree that there "needs" to be a way to express a read based on an ongoing game, because while sure you could argue that not expressing such a read is "gamethrowing," it's understood that playing to your win condition has limits where game integrity is involved.

As an extreme example, if I were to stumble across a mod's laptop, it would be gamethrowing NOT to open up MafiaScum and read all the role PMs, because that would help me win, right? Except it's obviously understood that that isn't how the game is played.

Same goes for ongoing games. If you can't find a reason to scumread them in the game that is actually being played... Too bad, guess they're getting away with it.

You just compared actual cheating with an ogi game read. One is passive and happens naturally. the other is active and demonstrates clear intent to cheat. What you’re referencing in this post borders on RAS territory. RAS was a player who would sign up for a game and ask the mod to - unbeknownst to them - unknowingly agree to allow RAS’ alt to get spoiled in the dead thread.

If the mod mistakenly sends me my role pm and another player’s that I wouldn’t otherwise know, the correct response is to alert the mod and have your slot replaced.

[Radical Rat]

Yes, that's my point. I, of course, don't think using ongoing game reads is an equivalent offense to actively seeking and acquiring forbidden information, obviously blatant cheating is much worse.

But in either case, you're expected to set aside the desire to win for the sake of maintaining game integrity. If it's something really bad, like role PMs, you tell the mod and replace out. If it's something minor, like noting an event in an ongoing game, you keep quiet and/or find something actually in the present game to push on.

[lilith2013]

Discussions about Activity
Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

Why does this exception not compromise game integrity? Or if it does, why is it allowed as an exception?

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

[lilith2013]

I think what's problematic isn't necissarily that someone's reads might be OGI centric and the player might be excusing their reads as gut or feelings... but rather that a player that has a legitimate game based gut or feeling read will end up having their read pegged by a list mod as an OGI based read and I think if you start doing that you're headed into a very bad place. (And no it's not acceptable to

assume

that a gut read is OGI.)

I agree with you. That’s why there cannot be a “mod-approved option” or a universally understood reason for reads related to ongoing games, because then using that reason would effectively be saying “this is a read based on an ongoing game” and we’d have to take action if it compromised a game. (I also want to add that games can be compromised even if you aren’t actually talking about an ongoing game. It only matters if people think you are. So yes, there’s a chance that even if you aren’t talking about an ongoing game, you might compromise another game. That’s why it’s bad for there to be a “universally understood” reason that means “related to ongoing games,” because even if you’re not using it that way and have a legitimate read, you can still accidentally compromise a game.) No one wants to get to the point where games are being compromised, and we don’t want to take action on people who aren’t doing anything wrong. If players can provide believable reasons for their reads, that’s fine. I still believe the safest option is to avoid mentioning the reads entirely unless a non-ongoing-game reason can be provided, because I would rather people have to come up with reasons that are not related to ongoing games than for players to start being punished for something they didn’t do because of how other people are talking about their reads related to ongoing games.

[lilith2013]

Also again, we are using OGI to mean “out-of-game influence” and OGI is explicitly against the rules in any form. If this isn’t what you’re talking about, I’m finding it really confusing to see the abbreviation OGI used but people talking about it being allowed, because OGI is not allowed. I would really appreciate if we could use a different abbreviation for “reads related to ongoing games” (which is what I’m assuming this conversation is about but I certainly don’t want to be telling people that OGI is allowed when it isn’t).

[Farren]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

[D3f3nd3r]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

The only contexts I can think of are “Has this person siteflaked? Nah, they’re posting in their other games” or “This person’s on V/LA, but they’re posting in another game so they should be able to post soon.”

[Nancy Drew 39]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

The only contexts I can think of are “Has this person siteflaked? Nah, they’re posting in their other games” or “This person’s on V/LA, but they’re posting in another game so they should be able to post soon.”

I’m going to assume that ellitell reads are still not considered ogi.

[Not Known 15]

Well, strictly speaking, everything outside the game is OGI, including meta.

[Umlaut]

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

My understanding is that saying one of these things is okay for ongoing game reads PROVIDED THAT you don't solely use these reasons for ongoing game reads. In other words, as long as it is ambiguous whether the read is really a gut read or actually based on an ongoing game, it's okay to lie a little and say that the read is based on gut etc.

I feel like making a site rule that requires town to lie about their reads sometimes, even if it's just a little, is not so great.

[Umlaut]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

I think this needs a response. That example is an old one that was already present before the rules were updated, but it does make it clear that this update is an actual change in the

intent

of the rule. It seems like the mod responses to questions here are trying to suggest that this is just the rule as it was always intended to be, just "rewritten" to close up some loopholes, when that is evidently not the case. Saying "so-and-so has posted in other games but not here," to support a read, was not previously regarded as a loophole to be closed up, it was something explicitly and intentionally permitted.

[Umlaut]

Back in 2013, zoraster wrote:

This isn't a hard rule to stay on the right side of the line on.

I believe this was true of the rule circa 2013, but not of the rule now.