Meta discussion

[VectorZero]

I'm not part of the game. I'm observing.

Huh. How about that.

In any case, if I were modding, I'd expect spoilers for any discussion of a game in progress.

[Weeks]

You know, re: banning, I think we can live without it as you said. Still, I think the rules I posted are an improvement over Vox's rules, which to me seem a little outdated/vague.

[_infina_]

I am using them for the Newbie game. Did have to add some extras.

[Adacore]

In any case, if I were modding, I'd expect spoilers for any discussion of a game in progress.

I'd have some exceptions to this, like simple statements such as "Game X is absolutely hilarious", provided you're only commenting on stuff that's in the 'public domain' of the game thread itself. Or comments on the quality of the game and flavour itself, but yes, almost everything should be spoilered - certainly if it could have any bearing at all on the play of any player(s).

[roband]

And look, my mistake has generated meta discussion!

So much for wrong thread!

I'm joking. But I also don't see how what I said could have any impact on the game.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but hey, make sure you put it in a spoiler or PM

[Weeks]

It's generally easier to just spoiler everything than allow exceptions...

[Dr Ug]

There was recent discussion of banning rule breakers / people who drop out of games.

I think we should discuss what to do about mods who drop out of games - this has happened to at least a few games in my time here. Should there be a period of time during which they can't remod a game? Should they have to play a few more games before being allowed to mod again? Should they just not be allowed to mod again?

Also I think just plain disappearing (with all the mod notes, etc.) is different from someone handing the game over to someone else, and the game not significantly being effected.

[Adacore]

I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago, and it might be a decent idea to have a 'backup mod' with access to the modnotes in case the primary mod goes incommunicado for all games. It doesn't have to be a full co-mod, the backup doesn't need to actually do anything other than have access to an up-to-date set of modnotes and, if he doesn't want to take over, he can just pass those on to someone else if the primary mod vanishes.

[Misnomer]

To a certain extent, mod drop-outs solve themselves - if a mod has flaked in the past, they are far less likely to get signups for their next game. I agree though, having back-up mods might be a good idea.

[Zid]

mass claim strategy: It came up in the defcon thread and was subsequently banned from that game. Personally I agree with the decision because if anything it would make the game boring and one dimensional.

How do others feel about it?

[Elvish Pillager]

If mass-claiming breaks a setup, the setup is broken.

[Lataro]

Gotta agree with EP here. If mass claim is clearly advantageous to town, then it's an open door for them to use it. Having been scum a few times when this has been used against me, your odds of winning plummet dramatically, but not as much as opposing an obviously good strat openly, and thus exposing yourself as scum.

On to another note, people have made comments about the invitational queue spot, and with santa being ended as it was, perhaps it should be revisited.

The main argument I've seen for keeping it appears to be that it's useful for trying to draw old faces back. Perhaps a restriction that at least 50% of the players in an invitational must be returning from some kind of absence? This would maintain that goal, with answering concerns of others of people using it to negate the queue system.

[Zid]

What's an example of a setup that wouldn't be broken in the face of a massclaim?

[VectorZero]

Absolutely agree with EP and Lataro, and you can probably guess my reasoning from previous discussion. What's not forbidden is allowed. I believe the mod should balance (or set up the game in a way) to ensure that mass claim is not advantageous. Any rule against claiming needs to be explicit; I don't like forbidding claims outright (unless that's built into the setup) and allowing a few claims occasionally leads to a stealth mass claim.

[Elvish Pillager]

What's an example of a setup that wouldn't be broken in the face of a massclaim?

Any closed setup.
Any semi-open setup where the numbers of each role are not specified.
Any semi-open setup where the alignments of the roles are not specified.
Any open setup with many identical town roles (like vanilla town).
Any open setup with significantly powerful roles that punish claiming (like assassins and lynchers).

[Elvish Pillager]

For that matter, any open setup with a wide range of power level among the town, if the scum are powerful enough that they can win by hitting the best town power roles consistently even if they're in a much worse position from the lynching perspective.

[Dr Ug]

Yeah, I definitely agree. Overtly banning massclaims is a messy way to deal with it - especially if claiming isn't banned, just massclaiming. The line is very very blurry in this instance.

The setup should be designed that massclaim is not a pro-town move. I try to make all my games this way, as I agree massclaims make the game boring.

[Fr4nziska]

Hey,

Are there any mafia games that are good for noobs like me to get into the game?
What would you recommend?

Cheers,
Franziska

[Chandani]

Well, actually, right now there is a newbie game (called DEFCON) going on.
I think there needs to be some replacements: what you can do is go into the player sign-up thread and put your name in the replacement post.

[Fr4nziska]

Thanks for the advice

The signups here take some getting used to Took me some time to find the right post.
Is there any overview thread where I can see when the next newbie game is open for signups?

Cheers,
Franziska

[Chandani]

In the pre-game mod signups, there is a list of games that are currently active and the games that are going to follow it.
I don't think there is another newbie game planned for the future right now, thoug.

[Mavketl]

No specific newbie games, I think... but there are plenty of 'simple' games that are newbie-friendly. Probably look for mini or turbo (mini) games the first couple of times? Don't start off with something like Wizardry 2.0, is all.

Just from a glance at the game list, I think Adacore's Mafia on a Plane or RoadieRich and e_e's Minecraftia should be pretty safe. Maybe Sledgehmr's Secret Mafia, but that really depends on what the 'secret' refers to. Generally when games open for sign-up, the mods provide a short description which includes the kind of "knowledge" that you should have when playing.

[mpolo]

Another "meta" theme. In TVTropes, Zid is using an argument based on the timestamps of the posts in the spoiler thread. Which means that arguments are at a new level of meta. There are always the occasional "X is posting elsewhere, but not in thread, therefore…", but this one kind of attacks the "sacredness" of the spoiler thread. On the other hand, he isn't using information that's not freely and legally available.

What do people think about this? I suppose it would be hard to ban anyway, but I'd hate to see the spoiler thread disappear because people are afraid to post.

[Fr4nziska]

What exactly is the purpose of the spoiler thread?

And thanks for the advice on newbie games

[Weeks]

Some people like to write about their decisions or experiences while playing a game. Others simply want to comment on a game currently happening. None of that should be read by other players, and players shouldn't talk about that elsewhere, so we use that thread and spoiler tags.

Right now it's really an honor based system, since we can't check whether a person clicked/read a spoiler or not.

[Weeks]

Also it's not just a spoiler thread. We could still talk there if spoilers were banned or something.

...Ideally (and I believe this is how we do things right now), people should be able to use anything they wanted as long as it was allowed by our rules. That includes post timestamps in any thread. That doesn't mean we have to be total dicks about it and start looking for loopholes and stuff, though. I don't even know how helpful those strategies would be either.

So while I don't think we should discuss Zid's action here now (that is up to the mods) and I dislike doing stuff like...I dunno, revealing your entire scum team because it's not written explicitly in the rules*, I think using timestamps in the discussion thread is generally ok.

*...First thing that came to mind...sorry

[Krong]

There's not really a way for someone to avoid noticing the timestamps, whether or not they actually mention that as an argument in-thread. As Weeks said, we also pay attention to whether someone's been to the fora lately, whether they're posting in other games, etc. when we're trying to judge whether someone's not posting due to being busy or not posting due to scummy lurking; I'm not sure how this is much different.

The one issue I have is when, by posting a spoiler for a game I'm in when I'm not playing, I'm able to indicate through that that I'm not playing for a reason, i.e. torture in DN:L. Though really, that just may be more of a weird thing about that particular ability.

[mpolo]

No, I agree there. Not noticing the timestamps is basically impossible (if you're inclined to look at them). I can honestly say that I only notice them when I set out to notice them. And I suppose that there's no way to make that information unavailable, so it's just something to live with. Your example with the "torture" ability is interesting in that it (1) proves you're around and (2) in many cases could lead to a summary lurker-lynch, so you wonder whether it's worth posting the spoiler or not. Extra layers of strategy.

That said, I don't know why this struck me so negatively. Maybe because I didn't think of it first.

[VectorZero]

I think being aware of the discussion thread is fine. It's ludicrous to think that people aren't looking at the thread (not the spoilers, just the thread in general) given the number of simultaneous games and the off topic discussion that occur. The fact that this game occurs on a forum with the associated electronic trail imposes certain guidelines on the game; I think it's better to embrace those elements rather than quarantine parts of our brains.

It works both ways; one time as scum I NK'd someone largely because I'd been lurking near deadline at a close lynch and they were on at the same time - I got faked out by my own fears.

On a similar but unrelated issue - what is with "[spoiler] - Anyone can read"? It's a fricking contradiction for one - either it's not to be read, so spoil it, or it's fine and don't - and usually they shouldn't be made anyway. I don't see why there should be any communication about an active game from spectators to players. Could someone explain this please?

[Weeks]

Usually when a spoiler says "Anyone can read" it's some small, harmless comment on the game that could easily be put out of a spoiler. Maybe someone thinks it's funny.

[Weeks]

Oh I get it, it was cjdrum. Could be speculation on how the system works here; "Maybe I should put it in a spoiler anyway".

[cjdrum]

Wait a second... Am I meant to take offense? "Oh I get it, it was cjdrum". Am I, like, unlikeable? Or is this just a comment on newbness? Or what?

[weiyaoli]

Wait a second... Am I meant to take offense? "Oh I get it, it was cjdrum". Am I, like, unlikeable? Or is this just a comment on newbness? Or what?

Doubt it. I read it as:
"Oh I see now! You were set off on this rant/thought/tangent by cjdrum's spoiler. Yeah he probably isn't too sure how they work, that's a reason people put that message."
Instead of anything personal.

I sometimes just spoiler things that don't need to be spoilered to make it look neater, especially if there's a picture or lots of text involved. It could be done outside of a spoiler sure, but that way it doesn't stretch the page.

[Weeks]

Wait a second... Am I meant to take offense?

Not at all...I had just realized which poster or post VZ was referring to. To rephrase:

Oh I get what you are talking about VZ/why VZ suddenly posted about this here; it was posts like the one cjdrum recently made in the Discussion thread. Maybe cjdrum was simply speculating about how the system works here/was simply trying out the system, so he decided to put his post in a spoiler anyway.

So yeah, nothing personal.

And, true, you can use it for images and longer posts, or simply for neatness. (Let's pretend I mentioned this in my previous posts.)

[Adacore]

I have, in the past, deliberately avoided making accusations based on spoiler posting times. The thought has occurred to me in the past that player X is posting a lot of spoilers, so maybe they've got an action or some other intrigue, but I've always tried to ignore that, myself. The only time I've used spoiler timestamps in games is to prove activity (in the case of Misnomer @ Wizardry2), which I personally think is justified. But it's definitely a grey area, and there's nothing that can be done to avoid their use.

I may in future record all my spoilers/asides to which I don't expect an immediate response in google docs or something to avoid this scenario and just dump them once I'm dead. I'd probably be less annoyed about it if the accusation had been true, amusingly. It's annoying to be called out (and lynched) on something that is just plain wrong.

But I doubt I'll be playing again any time soon, anyway. That's not a reflection of this situation - just my job means I'll be working 50-hour weeks during which I probably can't play mafia starting in April, so I'll probably do some lightweight modding, but not play.

[Mavketl]

I have, at times, spammed the discussion thread with spoilers when I was vanilla town (and many times when I wasn't). I'm fine with people using timestamps to prove that person X was online at that time: it's public information and there's nothing wrong with using whatever you have. I hate it when people go "you are posting a lot of spoilers, I am now taking a wild guess about their content and I will condemn you for it" which is not only annoying, it's also completely inaccurate.

I use "everyone can read" spoilers sometimes, because I like the format of "this is what game I am going to comment on now | button click if you want to know | content". I will spend an extra thought on how I'm annoying VectorZero every time I do it from now on.

Edited for through-tough-though-thought-trough-thou.

[VectorZero]

Meta (everyone but Mavketl may read):

Spoiler:

Mavketl is a big meanie!

[Misnomer]

The wizardry 2 case was a bit of an outlier though, as iirc I was deliberately churning out fairly meaningless spoilers in order to get noticed.

I agree with Mav though - aside from proving that the player has been online, there's very little correlation between spoiler production and role. It's not an illegitimate tactic to try and make the connection - but it is a dumb one.


Speaking of questionable spoiler-related tactics though, I'd be interested to know whether people thought my approach in Mafiaballs crossed the line or not. I had just hit BN with an OMGUS vote*, when two-fry (a rival scum suspect) and infina (dead scum) both swiftly posted in the discussion thread. I took this as a sign that the two were in league with each other, and reacting to Two-Fry seemingly falling out of the spotlight. I posted a spoiler to this effect, and noted it drew a response from infina (admittedly one I couldn't read). As a result, I switched my vote from BN to two-fry, and successfully got him lynched. So the question is - is it legitimate to draw conclusions from the spoilers of players who have died, and who were known to be scum?


*the first of many... thinking about it, I'm not sure there's been a single game since in which me and BN have not found each other scummy!

[Mavketl]

Speaking of questionable spoiler-related tactics though, I'd be interested to know whether people thought my approach in Mafiaballs crossed the line or not. I had just hit BN with an OMGUS vote*, when two-fry (a rival scum suspect) and infina (dead scum) both swiftly posted in the discussion thread. I took this as a sign that the two were in league with each other, and reacting to Two-Fry seemingly falling out of the spotlight. I posted a spoiler to this effect, and noted it drew a response from infina (admittedly one I couldn't read). As a result, I switched my vote from BN to two-fry, and successfully got him lynched. So the question is - is it legitimate to draw conclusions from the spoilers of players who have died, and who were known to be scum?

It's legitimate, but I would question its usefulness. Not to belittle your psychological insights or anything ( ), but I think you just got lucky that they were indeed in league with each other.

Everyone may read:

Spoiler:

GRRRR VectorZero.

[Weeks]

Hey hey, you didn't have permission to read that spoiler, Mav!