Mafiascum.net

In post 3172, xRECKONERx wrote:I'm not entirely sure what it was that people consider to be the flaw in the flavor. The fact that there was Greaterer and Greaterest? Or whatever? Why couldn't both be in the game?

Depending upon whom you ask and when during the meet you ask them, they are synonymous.

Faraday and Mina were both weekend-arrivers, though, so I can understand how this wouldn't necessarily be an obvious issue to pick up on during review.

Also, Greatest and Greaterest.*

In post 3172, xRECKONERx wrote:I'm not entirely sure what it was that people consider to be the flaw in the flavor. The fact that there was Greaterer and Greaterest? Or whatever? Why couldn't both be in the game?

To clarify Greatest is the "generic" - draw 3 cards, one is your role one is your alignment. Greaterest was the game where singer got trolled. Greatest was played often enough and had enough funny moments we felt putting it in under that (given the roles) was fine and putting in the singer game was also fine. The argument is that they're not distinct enough, which I guess is a "fair" argument in that, that's how people see it. The argument it falslely confirmed matt is a very bizzare one, because shoes on the table had nothing to do with Greatest Idea -- and only happened in the singer troll game. I guess people assumed both wouldn't be in. I don't think it's bastardly, because they're distinct IMO. At the very least I'm not sure players making incorrect assumptions based on flavour warrants AngryPidgeon giving out sage advice and telling us to "be more like him" or whatever. (Or maybe doing it in literally the most condescending way possible too)

In post 3175, Iecerint wrote:

In post 3172, xRECKONERx wrote:I'm not entirely sure what it was that people consider to be the flaw in the flavor. The fact that there was Greaterer and Greaterest? Or whatever? Why couldn't both be in the game?

Depending upon whom you ask and when during the meet you ask them, they are synonymous.

Greatest Idea has a wiki page which never once mentions the Shoes on the table/glasses variant that was "Singer rules". I mean, the argument seems to be "you interperated the flavour differently, but your way is bastard", which I think is a little ludicrous, personally.

I'm with Faraday here.

When we originally devised what you are calling Greaterest Idea mafia (i.e., before you guys had arrived, when this wasn't even designed to troll singer but rather someone else whom I can't recall, I think maybe DGB or Fate), we were calling it just Greatest Idea mafia. Its name was retconned tongue-in-cheek when what you're calling Greatest Idea became a thing that we decided we would just play for ourselves (i.e., because the Pikachu thing never really happened).

I can understand why you have the perspective that you do and it's fine. <3

I think AP is just whiteknighting me.

In post 3175, Iecerint wrote:

In post 3172, xRECKONERx wrote:I'm not entirely sure what it was that people consider to be the flaw in the flavor. The fact that there was Greaterer and Greaterest? Or whatever? Why couldn't both be in the game?

Depending upon whom you ask and when during the meet you ask them, they are synonymous.

I guess I understand the issue but I don't really think they are (obviously?) and considering the Pikachu was used once in our presence (for that specific game) I think it's reasonable to see them as seperate game types. I guess if it was used multiple times before we arrived then that would explain your confusion but IMO when designing the game they were two clear distinct concepts, with the latter basically being a game designed to just troll everyone. Sorry that the flavour was misleading though; it wasn't the intention, and in the dead qt with ActionDan was the first time we were aware of it (in fact Given what CDB said Day 3? We assumed the flavour was more than fine, with matt most definitely being "a thing very closely related to a mafia game"

)

In post 3179, Faraday wrote:

In post 3175, Iecerint wrote:

In post 3172, xRECKONERx wrote:I'm not entirely sure what it was that people consider to be the flaw in the flavor. The fact that there was Greaterer and Greaterest? Or whatever? Why couldn't both be in the game?

Depending upon whom you ask and when during the meet you ask them, they are synonymous.

Greatest Idea has a wiki page which never once mentions the Shoes on the table/glasses variant that was "Singer rules". I mean, the argument seems to be "you interperated the flavour differently, but your way is bastard", which I think is a little ludicrous, personally.

From the Wiki:

Wiki wrote wrote:When originally played at the 2013 Baltimore "Balto" Scummers meet, the Greatest Idea setup included a secret addition in the form of a Self-Aligned "Pikachu" role card, which was required to be kept and not discarded. The Pikachu was the only card that would serve as both role and alignment, and its only function/ability was that it not be discovered. If the entire game passed without mention of the correct player holding the role of Pikachu, or if that player died and flipped before this occurred, the Pikachu player would win with any other faction(s) at the end of the game. Original Face-to-Face play also included slightly arbitrary rules and mechanics thought up by Scummers at the meet in an attempt to troll later arrivals.

Faraday wrote: (in fact Given what CDB said Day 3? We assumed the flavour was more than fine, with matt most definitely being "a thing very closely related to a mafia game"

On D6 CDB used the same flavor argument to indicate that MattP was nigh-confTown. This is basically why MattP went from being relatively suspicious to not a lynch candidate. (Incidentally, the validity of the reasoning is why I moved CDB from suspicious to not a lynch candidate.)

Again, I totally understand what you did and do not think this would have been caught unless a Day One Scummer had been a reviewer.

But I want to make clear that, had there been a Day One Scummer reviewer, there is a legitimate issue that may have been caught.

It's similar to if "Locutus" and "Locutus of Borg" were both in a Star Trek: TNG mafia game as scum, and one of them both had Picard as a fakeclaim and had Picard-specific flavor abilities.

Though I guess MattP took a minor leap and blind-fakeclaimed Picard in this analogy, so good job to him.

Ah. I see.

I also didn't know Greaterest Idea wasn't an actual variant, so I was confused. I can see how that was fucked up from the perspective of people who actually knew the flavor, but I also don't think it's fair to blame Mina or Faraday for not knowing.

Get fucked by flavor speculation, blame moderator????

Flavor by definition has no fucking bearing on the game itself. Whether it's patently wrong, inconsistent, or so accurate it could be canon should have no bearing on how you play mafia. If you think anything pertaining to flavor is go-to "solid evidence" as opposed to behavioral content then you deserve what's coming. Learn your lesson and quit your bitching.

Except that's not really true, is it? Because the Pkachu wasn't in the deck for basically every game we played (upon arrival) except one?

But it seems prewhatever day we arrived see it the way you're saying, whereas for me the Pikachu wasn't even in the greatest idea deck, and greatest idea certainly doesn't feature arbitrary rules -- it's based on the card draft, thing.

PEdit: I don't get the star trek comparison, that just leaves me more lost. Although the fact they're completely distinct things in the minds of at least half the people who attended the meet makes me think I'd disagree.

The reviewing point is a fair issue, and we did get the setup reviewed for balance -- but there was no indication that the flavour would even need to be reviewed in our minds, because obviously it was something we didn't anticipate being an actual thing. That's an oversight on our part, and a mistake though.

pedit2: Well it's "fair", but I still consider them distincly different variants.

Anyway, I'm open to criticism and I don't mind what Iec is saying, I just mostly dislike the way AP came across, as it was basically trying to score points without even understanding the root of the issue or what was happening.

If Locutus has ever already flipped and you accuse someone who can only be scum if he is Locutus of being scum, I will laugh at you.

Pedit @ Nuwen

In post 3184, Iecerint wrote:It's similar to if "Locutus" and "Locutus of Borg" were both in a Star Trek: TNG mafia game as scum, and one of them both had Picard as a fakeclaim and had Picard-specific flavor abilities.

Oh, I just groked it in my head using

Although in fairness I would probably do that too, without considering it bastard? Although would certainly agree the flavour is misleading.

Yeah, that's a perfect and more elegant example.

posting cus i guess i got a shoutout ?

See, I guess I could even see that being fine because they're the same but still distinct enough that both are not completely contradictory. I do see your point much more now, it's definitely unfortunate. Sorry if I came across as dismissive of it before, I just literally didn't know how to comprehend the issue (as I wasn't aware of the prior use of the Pikachu, or anything like that)

pedit: Yeah, kanye you own. Thanks for stopping by

Now that I've learned the history of the game, people conflating Greatest and Greaterest Idea is much more understandable. And I definitely see where Iecerint is coming from on this. (It's a shame the name-change led to confusion, and that meet in-jokes mean different things to different people.) However, it's hard not to be snarky after being condescendingly told that it's a shame we're not humble enough to admit our set-up is trash because of . I've fucked up balance and role mechanics as a mod before, and most of the time I flagellate myself copiously in the dead thread for it. But frankly, even after learning how closely tied Greaterest and Greatest are together, I don't think I'd change it if I ran this game again. Since when is "having easy-to-guess Mafia role names that fit a pattern and help the town narrow down scum power roles" something we should remotely for when designing a set-up?

(To use another analogy--which may be more or less accurate than the Star Trek or AFFC one: you know what else is horrible set-up design? In Faraday's ACoK Mafia, Robb Stark dayvigged people with his direwolf, Grey Wind. And yet, in ASoS, Robb Stark and Grey Wind were . So after Setael flipped Robb Stark, hascow should have been confirmed town, because only would have a daykill. Even worse, in AGoT Mafia, the scumteam was Jaime, Cersei, and . Why Sandor? I mean, it should have been Joffrey or Tywin.)

I think Matt deserves some credit for a creative fakeclaim, because without that, it wouldn't even matter that there was both a Greatest and Greaterest in the set-up. And even then, lots of things could have busted him (the order of the flips changing, the flavour WIFOM being read the other way, Trollie ever claiming that he'd been sent a Pikachu--since Amrun hadn't flipped as the Pikachu).

Also, the problem with being such a slow writer is that I always come into discussions just as they're dying down. So I'm sorry for stirring things up again when there was finally consensus. I do love you all!

Maybe I'd take back the part about not changing it, because I'm unhappy that there was confusion due to "Greatest Idea" meaning different things to different people, but I guess I feel like it's kind of a fluke that things went down like this?

You are the slowest writer.

Also also, the role that REALLY had dodgy flavour was Nuwen's. We basically took out everything that made it fit as an actual Shadow Hunters card because we didn't want it to be too powerful or confirmable. I'd have loved for the target to be notified in a PM like, "I bet you're a townie! If so, you take one damage (you require one fewer vote to lynch)."

In post 3196, Mina wrote:I'd have loved for the target to be notified in a PM like, "I bet you're a townie! If so, you take one damage (you require one fewer vote to lynch)."

Daww, that would've been cute. <3

P sure Dan's card had ...uh...weirder flavour? <_<

In post 3192, Faraday wrote:See, I guess I could even see that being fine because they're the same but still distinct enough that both are not completely contradictory. I do see your point much more now, it's definitely unfortunate. Sorry if I came across as dismissive of it before, I just literally didn't know how to comprehend the issue (as I wasn't aware of the prior use of the Pikachu, or anything like that)

pedit: Yeah, kanye you own. Thanks for stopping by :)

yah np nething 4 you m8