Mafiascum.net

thats just a simple codeword type deal tbh

I feel like that type of thing be allowed.

148 seems like something that should be allowed?

I don’t see any issue with 148

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 145, lilith2013 wrote: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).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

I've definitely called out and scumread players for specifically avoiding the game while posting content in others. It was definitely ok when I was playing but I'm not sure what the rule on it is now.

In post 155, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 145, lilith2013 wrote: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).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

I've definitely called out and scumread players for specifically avoiding the game while posting content in others. It was definitely ok when I was playing but I'm not sure what the rule on it is now.

+1

I don’t want to find myself banned again for misunderstanding what this site does/doesn’t constitute OGI. And this should also include replace out reads. They’re verboten on MU for very good reason.

In post 149, Farren wrote: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.

148 is crumbing town does but by scum so I see no issues

147 is unclear if the discussion thread is the game thread

In post 158, MathBlade wrote:147 is unclear if the discussion thread is the game thread

Grand Idea Deflated Bubble was a pretty unusual Grand Idea.

The Discussion Thread was a thread in Mafia Discussion that allowed discussion of the game while it was still ongoing. (that is why it was called Deflated Bubble, as the game's ongoing discussion "bubble" was deflated)

So the answer to your question was no, but the discussion thread was public anyway. I'd consider it a "PT code word" and imo I think those should be allowed as those are just a form of crumbing.

This is an example of a rule break that requires listmod approval.

Using codewords based on an in-game agreement would be okay - like deciding on a signal with your scum partner in your scum PT to tell the others when you're available to hammer if you don't have daytalk is fine. It's specifically using outside references that is against the rule. We're working on updating the language to make this clearer, so definitely appreciate the feedback here.

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 145, lilith2013 wrote: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).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.

In post 161, lilith2013 wrote:

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 145, lilith2013 wrote: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).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.

So if they are *only* posting in other ongoing games except one(the one you are looking to post in), and have their online status set to invisible so you cannot see they are online, this means you cannot claim they are "avoiding thread" for instance?

I think it depends on the reasoning you're using to explain the claim. Saying or implying "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she's posting elsewhere," when "elsewhere" is only in ongoing games, would be considered discussing ongoing games. It would be okay if you only talked about whether they are posting in your game, like "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she hasn't posted in this game in 2 days" would be fine.

In post 160, lilith2013 wrote:Using codewords based on an in-game agreement would be okay - like deciding on a signal with your scum partner in your scum PT to tell the others when you're available to hammer if you don't have daytalk is fine. It's specifically using outside references that is against the rule. We're working on updating the language to make this clearer, so definitely appreciate the feedback here.

To be extra nitpicky that code between two players must be generated in game only

Eg I can’t tell Titus before alignment is rolled

If I say Lilith likes tomatoes I tracked her to a kill.

But if I tell her in a PT or randomly say it then explain it later it’s fine

In post 163, lilith2013 wrote:I think it depends on the reasoning you're using to explain the claim. Saying or implying "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she's posting elsewhere," when "elsewhere" is only in ongoing games, would be considered discussing ongoing games. It would be okay if you only talked about whether they are posting in your game, like "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she hasn't posted in this game in 2 days" would be fine.

So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way? Because that's basically what this interpretation of the rules allows.

I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way?

That's on players imo.

In post 166, Ythan wrote:

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way?

That's on players imo.

Lurking persay is not scummy unless it's deliberate and tactical and there's no way to prove that otherwise. (I definitely feel strongly that being able to use a player's general activity to make that case has and should always be fair game.)

I feel like that’s not really true. My homesite doesn’t really allow arguments along the line of “this person has been online but hasn’t posted in-game” because it creates pressure that isn’t appreciated. Is it that big of a deal if that kind of argument gets restricted here? My one concern is limiting ability to handle players coasting activity-wise but I feel like there’s other venues to remedy that.

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.

Like Lilith said, it's fine to point out that a player hasn't posted in a very long time specifically within this game, and to call them scum because of this. It's also fine to do this even if you've noticed they're being active in other games, or even if your actual reason is because they're being active in other games. After all, thought crime isn't crime, and we can't police the actual reason for you doing something, just the action itself. The problem just comes from referencing activity in other ongoing games, because there's always some risk of leaking info.

Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.

In post 169, implosion wrote:Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.

I mean the last time I played a game was in 2015 so this would have happened too long ago for you to do anything about it but I'm just attesting to the fact that I've actually experienced it before.

In post 169, implosion wrote:

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.

Like Lilith said, it's fine to point out that a player hasn't posted in a very long time specifically within this game, and to call them scum because of this. It's also fine to do this even if you've noticed they're being active in other games, or even if your actual reason is because they're being active in other games. After all, thought crime isn't crime, and we can't police the actual reason for you doing something, just the action itself. The problem just comes from referencing activity in other ongoing games, because there's always some risk of leaking info.

Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.

Mods being ridiculously lax wrt to prods, happens far too often and adversely impacts games. Few thing hurt agale more than long time inactive slots.

normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.

In post 172, Micc wrote:normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.

You're allowed to force replace players at your own discretion. I have a clause against prodging in my rules, which I have enforced exactly once. I don't think this is a particularly widespread problem for the most part.

In post 173, catboi wrote:

In post 172, Micc wrote:normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.

You're allowed to force replace players at your own discretion. I have a clause against prodging in my rules, which I have enforced exactly once. I don't think this is a particularly widespread problem for the most part.

Not true anymore. You need site moderation approval to force replace players, no?