Mafiascum.net

In post 123, Umlaut wrote:

In post 118, Farren wrote:

In post 115, lilith2013 wrote: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.

T-Bone wrote:

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.

I’m not trying to imply that this is not a change, because we know this is a change. What I’m saying is that the new update supersedes any older versions - there are not meant to be any exceptions to the updated rule.

In post 117, lilith2013 wrote: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 just do not know how to reconcile this with the text of the site rules themselves, which say that

In post 1, lilith2013 wrote:Replacements are an unavoidable

out-of-game influence

.

If I take what you are saying seriously then I have to conclude that replacements are against the site rules (while also being unavoidable). I assume that is not the intent, in which case you are flat-out contradicting the written rules of the site in your explanation of them. You might call this example nitpicky, but I'm not the one correcting anyone on their inaccurate use of the term "OGI" and insisting it refers only to things which are clearly not allowed and they shouldn't use the term in any other way.

If I take seriously that you are "finding it really confusing" then I have to take that as an admission that the rules as written are confusing. Which they are: this is only one more among the several self-contradictory excerpts others have pointed out in this thread. I find it alarming that the regular users here are expected to correctly interpret a set of rules that the people who drafted it cannot.

I would like to avoid a situation where we say that something is allowed and people think we’re saying that OGI is allowed because it’s not clear what’s being talked about (or we say something isn’t allowed because we think OGI is what’s being talked about). OGI is not allowed, but yes, replacements are an out-of-game influence and the best we can do is to minimize it by restricting public discussion of replacing out or telling others to replace out. I do want to be as clear as possible, so apologies for miswording in my earlier post. If you have suggestions for how you think the rule can be clarified or if you prefer that someone else answer questions in this thread, feel free to say so.

with replacements, this is how I interpret it:

You can acknowledge someone has been replaced. You can state an inactive player is likely to be replaced soon.

You cannot discuss why someone was replaced unless it was clearly flaking(getting prodded and replaced), and only the fact that the player was completely inactive, which basically translates to discussing their *activity* prior to replace-out rather than the replace out itself.

When "discussing" replacements within the confines of the rules you are still strictly only allowed to discuss what has been said in the game thread(or lack of).

In post 121, Not Known 15 wrote:Well, strictly speaking, everything outside the game is OGI, including meta.

Is claims of ellitelling ot not ellitelling now considered to be OGI?

And it’s stilo extremely confusing how the modteam differentiates meta tells from OGI or does this issue only specifically pertain to self meta?

You should define ellitelling for the masses because I have no clue what you’ve been talking about

elitelling is when you call someone out for being active on another part of the site and specifically not in the game thread. i have no clue where the name originated but this is what it means

In post 131, DkKoba wrote:elitelling is when you call someone out for being active on another part of the site and specifically not in the game thread. i have no clue where the name originated but this is what it means

I think that the name originates from this. (At least, according to Google.)

I mean I figured that much, but beyond Elli’s username I had no clue where to begin. Thanks Koba

I've read about these so-called trust tells and to be honest, I don't see the issue at all.

They all seem to be based on the that the person is not breaking their past behaviour. In my opinion, it comes down to the question whether that person's trust tell is trusted or not. In most games, we have no influence over whether someone rolls town, mafia or 3P. If we assume that one does not play against their win condition, this should come into conflict with a trust tell automatically. As in, someone says that they do only use when town, it is their job as scum to be as convincing as possible, so why wouldn't they exploit the gullibility of other players in believing that their trust tell is genuine?

But since I never even thought of nor didn't plan on doing trust tells and never will, it's not an issue for me to ban this as well.

I do think that being overly restrictive on out-of-game influences, such as banning the discussion of replacements is detrimental and counterproductive. The fact that someone replaced out of a game can be AI and denying players the right to determine it, and forcing them to resort to coded messages or outright lying about it feels completely wrong.

I can understand banning discussing ongoing games, but only for that other game's sake.

In post 121, Not Known 15 wrote:Well, strictly speaking, everything outside the game is OGI, including meta.

!!!

The rule on replacements (and discussion of replacing out) is still the same - you're allowed to discuss a replacement after it has happened. You are not allowed to publicly discuss replacing out, eg by announcing that you intend to replace out or telling someone else to replace out.

In post 134, Greeting wrote:it is their job as scum to be as convincing as possible, so why wouldn't they exploit the gullibility of other players in believing that their trust tell is genuine?

The problem with trust tells is that people sacrifice their play as one faction so that their trust tell can be used when the other faction. If someone says they only use italics as town, they won’t use them as scum without a care in the world what that does to how they are read in the scum game.

why people play mafia to only win as 1 alignment is beyond me, I am proud of the fact I can hold my own as *both* alignments and not because I play poorly as 1, the game is so much more interesting from your pov if you play to win always

In post 139, DkKoba wrote:why people play mafia to only win as 1 alignment is beyond me, I am proud of the fact I can hold my own as *both* alignments and not because I play poorly as 1, the game is so much more interesting from your pov if you play to win always

I agree.

Uh.

De-logging from site and telling you are not scum because of this not working, because you can always login with hiding your online status?

In post 138, D3f3nd3r wrote:

In post 134, Greeting wrote:it is their job as scum to be as convincing as possible, so why wouldn't they exploit the gullibility of other players in believing that their trust tell is genuine?

The problem with trust tells is that people sacrifice their play as one faction so that their trust tell can be used when the other faction. If someone says they only use italics as town, they won’t use them as scum without a care in the world what that does to how they are read in the scum game.

This should be covered by the „play towards your winning condition rule” then. If you give yourself a disadvantage willingly by doing these so-called trust tells, you are blatantly playing against your win condition if you roll the alignment you „sacrifice”.

In post 137, lilith2013 wrote:The rule on replacements (and discussion of replacing out) is still the same - you're allowed to discuss a replacement after it has happened. You are not allowed to publicly discuss replacing out, eg by announcing that you intend to replace out or telling someone else to replace out.

That’s alright then, thank you for clarifying. I agree that telling someone to replace out is sketchy and goes against the spirit of the game.

In post 139, DkKoba wrote:why people play mafia to only win as 1 alignment is beyond me, I am proud of the fact I can hold my own as *both* alignments and not because I play poorly as 1, the game is so much more interesting from your pov if you play to win always

Some players just tend to find one alignment more natural to their playstyle. I don't even think some players are necessarily not trying as both alignments... just that they're generally just far better at one than the other.

Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:

1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
   green
   ):

   Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote: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.

   Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.

   Having information that not all players have access to

   and is not required to be provided to you by the setup

   .

   
   
   If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available

   and was not required to be provided to you by the setup

   , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

   
   
2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
   removed
   :

   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.
   
   

   OKAY:

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

   NOT OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
   

   OKAY:

   "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>

   The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.

These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).

In post 144, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 139, DkKoba wrote:why people play mafia to only win as 1 alignment is beyond me, I am proud of the fact I can hold my own as *both* alignments and not because I play poorly as 1, the game is so much more interesting from your pov if you play to win always

Some players just tend to find one alignment more natural to their playstyle. I don't even think some players are necessarily not trying as both alignments... just that they're generally just far better at one than the other.

The simple answer is that it's incredibly unfun to try to excel at both roles simultaneously due to all the diminishing returns on skill development. The better you get at scum, the more you have to deal with getting policy scumread as town, the less people allow you to influence the game (it is pretty standard site meta to try to isolate and marginalize good scum players. it shouldn't be), and the more often caught scum can turn things around on you as a result of the earlier two factors. They are also more likely to get away with turning it back on you because hey they were just justifiably paranoid of good scum player. The better you get as town, the more that people can punish you for miselims or poor play in general, the more your playstyles as both alignment must by necessity diverge as you try to play for your wincondition, and the more the expectation that you should have been NKed comes back to bite you in the butt late game. If you choose to be a player who focuses on their town meta, you have essentially IC status any game you need it and that gives you the power to get what you want done and makes the game far more enjoyable for you than if you have to constantly fight with people who decided you were scum before you even posted because of your reputation. If you choose to be a player who focuses on their scum meta, you can basically do whatever you want as both alignments and just have fun doing whatever shit as town and it becomes so much harder to push a case on you as scum when you are known to be a wild, out there player as town.

A lot of people probably aren't consciously aware that they're doing this, either. This isn't always a conscious decision that people make, but these patterns are very intuitive for people who prefer one alignment over the other and nearly every top tier player as town or scum over the least 7 years has fallen explicitly into the bucket of being significantly worse as the other alignment because of how much the negative feedback loop matters. You have more fun as both alignments and you win more as your chosen alignment when you are a one sided player.

It could theoretically change if there was a community wide effort to be introspective regarding how they act around players who are known to be proficient as scum and how much people forgive and are willing to play with people who are known for being utterly worthless as scum and being a free read as town, but most people don't care enough and don't have the introspection necessary to really break the cycle so it's not going to happen. It is what it is.

I did have a question regarding the updates to secret communication.

This is from the recent Grand Idea Deflated Bubble, didn't even think about it at the time, but realized it could potentially be against the updated rules:

Considering werewolf killing Korina, and CPRing Andante tonight.

If you object to either or both, find some excuse to quote a post from them in the discussion thread.

It's not cryptography or hidden text or anything, but it IS using a public channel to as a means of secretly conveying a message, so is something like this okay?

That's a good question. As another example, in a recently completed game, Titus (traitor neighborized with my buddy) indicated to my scum buddy that she would make a post a certain way depending on what her role cop result was so that I could know it in case my scum buddy died. Is this allowed?

Not a listmod, but my personal opinion on 147 - it's not cryptography or hidden text, but it is taking an action to "create a private communication channel in plain sight to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game." Even if that communication is limited to "I object!", it's still communication.

I'd think logically that'd apply to 148 as well?

If the new rule isn't intended to forbid those sorts of actions, I'd say it needs rewording.