|
Basically it says to paraphrase but dont quote.
My warning is over saying the abilities he claimed are in the correct order. I see this as paraphrasing because it GIVES NO ILLUSION OF BEING THE EXACT WORDS THAT A MOD GAVE ME. As long as that is not in question I could lie and say that as mafai vs not lie and say it as town. This rule is about not using mod given words to confirm yourself. It is IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE A CONFIRMED STATUS. Thats why it is confirmed. What I said and was warned for was nothing that in any way should have confirmed me to anyone at all.
I, to be clear, am not arguing about my warning. Wherever this conversation leads will be how I understand it is acceprable to play here so this is about the future not the past.
|
On December 26 2011 06:10 iGrok wrote:
Vader is exactly right. Is crumbing forbidden now?
Can anyone come up with a reason not to mandate unique pms other than "its more work for the host"? I get that you want to blame the players, but if there's a solution on the host side, why not do that?
Re: flavor, yes I agree wiggles, I was using that example to show why unique role pms are a better solution.
Crumbing isn't forbidden. Can you seriously not tell the difference between a crumb and flavor abuse?
Crumbing has to do with hinting your role/results to use at a later time.
IE: "If a DT checked iGrok, I bet he'd come back town." At a later time you get killed, a read through your poss hints that you were some form of a DT and iGrok came back town.
Abusing flavor goes back to my example of using things not relating to the role itself to hint to others who have the same role description what your role is.
Is that not clear enough? It's not even close to a subtle difference... The flavor abuse has to do with confirming only to those who share your role PM while breadcrumbing is leaving results or hints to your ROLE, not your role PM. There is a fundamental difference in the purpose of those two actions.
|
But in that example, you are using your role to confirm the status of someone else, albeit after your death.
I'm not disagreeing that flavor abuse is a problem. I'm saying that there is no reason we shouldn't solve it host-side instead of with player rules that are bound to have gray areas, unintended consequences, and leave the game open to interpretation. Stricter host requirements will lead to better games AND solve the problem, while keeping hosts who aren't committed from hosting and letting more people cohost, all while opening up the queue instead of having a 5 game backlog.
If the issue is with the players, but host rules will fix it, why not fix it there?
|
What you are describing falls on the host not the player. If you put it on the player you WILL have situations where the rule is broken by accident which is not ideal. Fix it host side imo.
|
I'd agree with stricter hosting requirements being the solution.
|
|
|
I agree with it being on the hosts. Sometimes when something slips out you have no choice but to consider it. You can't really just ignore it when it's out there.
|
On December 26 2011 01:48 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2011 03:48 iGrok wrote:
If the hosts were better about prevention measures, the players wouldn't put so much value in it. All of these rules will just make the issue more complicated, and ruling by "intent" is never fair (sentencing by intent is OK, but guilt shouldn't be determined by intent). Players will always find ways to abuse rules that are unclear or have gray area, and I cannot think of a rule that allows claiming but prevents role comparison. Unless you're saying players should rewrite their roles if they want to claim?
If you are a host, you should provide role pms or write differently formatted role pms, or accept that this is a good tactic to use. Alternatively, TLMafia can come up with a common (shared) role pm list, similar to IRC mafia. While yes, it is more work for the hosts, maybe that will make people think twice before hosting. We've got more than enough games. Personally, IMO every game should have a finalized setup before asking to be added to the queue. As someone who hosts more than I play, I think hosts get off too easy. I don't think blaming the players exclusively helps anything either, but everyone seems content to just say "don't abuse game mechanics" without considering that maybe the game mechanics shouldn't be abusable to begin with To give a clear example, in closed casket mafia Deconduo said something about shady Iraqis in one of his posts. This specifically was a reference to his role PM in a closed set up. This means any other person with that same role PM knew he was now 100% innocent. In this case it was Caller who also had the same role, saw the reference, and knew he was town. This is using elements outside the game in order to get an advantage. The way around this as you mentioned would be having different role PM's for each player which is a lot of work to throw onto a host particularly in larger games. Another way could be having no flavor which can be subtly referenced IE: "Iraqis" In an open set up though, I always post the role PM's in the thread.
I'm going to skip iGrok's part on hosting here, but I have something to add on this first paragraph of his.
I do agree with hosting being strict. I've played games where hosts don't put the effort they need to into it. I understand that it disappoints everyone involved.
I completely agree with RoL here. I was thinking Iraqi, but townie would work as well, with possibly a combination of the two like Iraqi townie/vanilla/insert color such as green, red, or blue. Something that is uniform in this way based upon what role it is in terms of the second word would be beneficial to that. That is why people hosting should make the extra effort, and be strict, regardless of intent.
On December 26 2011 03:03 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2011 01:48 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 25 2011 03:48 iGrok wrote:
If the hosts were better about prevention measures, the players wouldn't put so much value in it. All of these rules will just make the issue more complicated, and ruling by "intent" is never fair (sentencing by intent is OK, but guilt shouldn't be determined by intent). Players will always find ways to abuse rules that are unclear or have gray area, and I cannot think of a rule that allows claiming but prevents role comparison. Unless you're saying players should rewrite their roles if they want to claim?
If you are a host, you should provide role pms or write differently formatted role pms, or accept that this is a good tactic to use. Alternatively, TLMafia can come up with a common (shared) role pm list, similar to IRC mafia. While yes, it is more work for the hosts, maybe that will make people think twice before hosting. We've got more than enough games. Personally, IMO every game should have a finalized setup before asking to be added to the queue. As someone who hosts more than I play, I think hosts get off too easy. I don't think blaming the players exclusively helps anything either, but everyone seems content to just say "don't abuse game mechanics" without considering that maybe the game mechanics shouldn't be abusable to begin with To give a clear example, in closed casket mafia Deconduo said something about shady Iraqis in one of his posts. This specifically was a reference to his role PM in a closed set up. This means any other person with that same role PM knew he was now 100% innocent. In this case it was Caller who also had the same role, saw the reference, and knew he was town. This is using elements outside the game in order to get an advantage. The way around this as you mentioned would be having different role PM's for each player which is a lot of work to throw onto a host particularly in larger games. Another way could be having no flavor which can be subtly referenced IE: "Iraqis" In an open set up though, I always post the role PM's in the thread. I disagree that that is using outside elements to win. In larger games, perhaps a second cohort should be recruited to help write unique role pms
I agree with unique role PMs, but I disagree about handing out information about the setup like you're saying. That can lead to the role list falling into the wrong hands, like someone playing the game, or their friend, even slipping up, but that goes with ruling without basis of intent.
|
The thing I was referring to was a standard vigilante role. In the vigilante role the flavor said something to the extent of "But those shady Iraqis only gave you two bullets for your gun." It wasn't the name of the role. Both Decon and Caller had the role, just for clarification.
|
And if the players were given different role names and flavor but = abilities there would have been no problem with that posting you mentioned.
|
that makes it more like the scenario in an "innocent child" in that it is mod confirmed
it is tough to balance on TL with the modkill vs. replacement style
|
On December 27 2011 13:44 Bill Murray wrote:
that makes it more like the scenario in an "innocent child" in that it is mod confirmed
it is tough to balance on TL with the modkill vs. replacement style
Can you explain that a little more? I'm afraid I don't follow you
|
an "innocent child" is like a mason except without a partner. Mod-confirmed townie.
Arguably it's even more powerful than a mason.
Basically, I think he's saying named roles confirm you. For example, a miller in a setup with no DTs.
|
The language created an innocent child scenario for caller, being a vig as well, which is why we need less ambiguous wording on rule 6... which should fall on the hosts to enforce, but we could create more specific wording
role pms shouldnt be talked about at all past a claim
|
Rule 6 has broad wording because we have had too many games where someone has argued that their actions with their role PMs wasn't "covered by the rules." It is meant to act as a catchall in this area so the hosts can rely on some authority in their OP if it isn't explicitly covered elsewhere. However, keep in mind that it was changed less than a month ago, so it may not be appropriate to use it for past offenses. While it clearly overlaps with rule 11 about breadcrumbing, this is intentional so that the specific practice is definitely covered.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with stricter hosting requirements. I should probably make a role PM section in the model OP and Foolishness should probably make sure that outside of closed setups, it is used. In closed setups, it may be on the host to make unique role PMs to avoid having this happen (though this can be a ton of work for the hosts in some situations and I'm still a little worried about the implications of this). However, I think this discussion is (or at least should be) more focused upon players trying to abuse the system. I still think the best solution attacks the problem at both ends - stricter requirements for the hosts but also punishment for the players abuse the system.
VE: While I agree that it may be useful to think about breadcrumbing in a way where you assume paraphrasing is acceptable and posting the exact words is not, the problem then becomes what exactly is covered by "paraphrasing." You assume that posting the order of your abilities is paraphrasing. I disagree. I believe that while you're paraphrasing with the abilities themselves (and claiming them is no problem of course), you are not paraphrasing when you are looking at their specific order.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Everyone agrees that rules need to be stricter about hosts (or that something needs to be done with regards to who is allowed to host), but I do not think piling on the work required of a host is the best way to go about this. That said I agree with Qatol in that we need to attack the problem from both ends: hosts and the players. Adding in the rule covers the players, and I'll make sure hosts that are hosting closed setups are aware of this discussion.
Forcing the hosts to write role PMs to avoid this situation just feels like the wrong solution. The hosts should not have to accommodate for some grey area rule breaking that involves writing up a bunch of text. Flavor text is there to make the game more fun and enjoyable. Some hosts enjoy spending the time writing up the text, and others prefer to just tell you "you are a medic, protect someone that's not yourself each night". The same thing applies in real life mafia as well: some hosts/narrators/gods prefer to tell funny death stories when someone dies at night and others well just tell you straight up who died. Requiring the hosts of real life games to always tell a death story when somebody dies would be absurd, and I think a similar reasoning can be used here.
The way to making the rules more strict about who is hosting is by limiting who hosts by experience and contribution to our forum, not by making it more busy work for the host.
|
solving role comparison host-side is possible without flavor text.
Flavor text actually would make it easier to compare, unless the flavor is unique.
|
If a host is going to go through the trouble of writing flavor text, they are already going above and beyond, and should be OK with writing unique ones (I am). If they don't want to write flavor text for every role, offer a standard library of roles - eliminating the claim flavor issue. For example, in globalgamers irc Mafia, there is a library of over 1000 roles, that can be combined simply by appending the second pm to the first.
The players also should not have to accommodate some grey area rule that forces them to essentially write their own role pm if they want to claim.
Perhaps the following could work instead:
Welcome to TL Mafia! Your role is Doctor-Viglante. You may save one person each night. Alternatively, you may kill one person each night. You win with the town.
You are Dr. James Foolishness, head physician at Liquid Medical School. Despite your name, you are widely respected as one pf the leading researchers in you field. Your knowledge of the human body makes you master of life and death. You may either save a life or take one. Blah blah, blah, more flavor text.
|
iGrok the amount of time you put into your games is truly admirable, I'm really annoyed I haven't had the time to play one yet.
|
To add to what Foolishness and Qatol have been talking about, and to hit on an earlier point, when people are gaming the setup to the point that it is nearly cheating, and not in good fun in terms of strategy, that is the difference in multiple game bans and single game bans or warnings, even. That is where intent should come into play, in the sentencing, not the guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
