|
Now that Mafia XXXVIII is over, we need to talk about what we are going to do about Protactinium. Because this will probably involve a change to the rules and I simply do not want this discussion to be overlooked by anyone, I made a new thread.
WARNING:
This thread is for serious discussion. If you post here, you had better be contributing to the discussion. I also expect you to read the full thread before you post. If your post is not at least 3 lines long, do not post it. And do not personally attack anyone involved. If you break one of these rules, you get a ban list warning. If you have a ban list warning, I'm giving you a 1 game ban. I know this sounds strict, but trust me, it is warranted based upon some of the backlash I have already seen. Your first post in this thread should include your suggested remedy (and remember that your remedy may be different for each player) as well as what you think the rule should be going forward.
The facts:
Before Mafia XXXVIII started, Flamewheel decided he wanted to play. Flamewheel likes to smurf when he plays in games, but he used a known smurf of his, Protactinium. He asked BrownBear to be given the role Assassin. But then Incognito and Ver decided they would also like to play. They also invited me to play with them, but I declined (I have seen the setup and I don't really have the free time). I thought they had told BrownBear that they were doing this, but they did not. They asked BrownBear for the Detective role, but received the Assassin role. The three of them collectively only had the information given to Protactinium. Even though Ver agreed to play, he only made 1 post on Protactinium, a vote. He was the one who first fingered Gmarshal and Coagulation, but the posts came from Incognito and Flamewheel. He stopped even providing analysis during night 1. Around that time, BC told BrownBear that the three of them were playing under Protactinium. I talked to Meapak about the situation at this point. After that, Meapak and BrownBear decided that Protactinium would probably be shot by an assassin during Night 2 and a modkill would be more disruptive than just letting this play out. However, the thread found out during Day 2, and many players (the mafia in particular) were very angry and concerned. I told the thread not to worry about the situation until after the game, Protactinium was shot during Night 2, and that brings us to the present.
One other important thing to note. What they did was NOT explicitly against the rules. Rule 3:
Logging on to someone else's account / looking over someone's shoulder to get their role.
means "Logging on to someone else's account to get their role or looking over someone's shoulder to get their role." This was my mistake for writing the model OP that way, and it has been remedied.
What you should be posting:
I want you to give your opinion about what should happen to Flamewheel, Incognito, and Ver. I also want your opinion of whether you think this should be forbidden in the future.
I have collected the opinions of the hosts and the Protactinium players Incognito (... Ver and Flamewheel....). I will not be giving my own opinion because I believe I am biased and do not trust myself to be impartial.
+ Show Spoiler [BrownBear] +
Now, as far as the Flame/Incog/Ver situation... I'm gonna have to step through this chronologically to make sense of things myself. First, flame PMs me asking to play as Protactinium and requesting Assassin. I know flame pretty well, so I'm like "sure, why not lol. Let's see what crazy third-party antics he comes up with this time." Later, after Meapak and I finalize the role list, flame changes his request to DT. There are no DTs in the setup, but I can't tell him that, so I decide to give him his old request, Assassin, in the hopes that's good enough for him.
Also, at this point in thread, I ask if there are any smurfs, for them to please PM me so that I know, as per standard. flame does not PM me letting me know of his group-project, so I assume it's just flame playing by his lonesome.
Game gets underway, Protact fails at running for mayor (IMO he could have easily won without the assassin claim, but w/e, that was his gambit to play). I do not find out about the triple-play until midway through Day 2, when BC tells me while we're lulzing at the mafia team making some blunder or other (probably Coag's epic chainsaw, can't really remember the details). He tells me he and Foolishness talked it over, and both of them agree revealing it now will cause a massive drama explosion in thread, which would be really undesirable. BC tells me both him and Foolishness recommend letting the game play out (at this point, we all assume Protact is going to get assassin'd night 2 anyway, so they won't be in the game much longer). After the game, I should make a thread, reveal the triple-play, and open it up for discussion as to what to do. Both BC and Foolishness wanted the three to go on the banlist, I was unsure I wanted to push for that, for two reasons (they hadn't broken any rules per se, and they hadn't ruined the game). I eventually decided I'd leave it up to the players of the game to decide the fate of the three. I also PM Protact asking "lol why are you guys all playing the same character and why didnt you tell me" and get kind of a non-answer in return.
(Note: my recollection of this is somewhat hazy due to the fact I was decently drunk when BC informed me. He probably has a better recollection of that conversation than me, so if I said it wrong, have BC correct me)
That was Wednesday night, anyway. Thursday, I was away at an Iron & Wine concert in Michigan (about 3 hours from where I live in Ohio), so I was gonna miss the lynch. I asked Meapak to please perform the lynch and flip for me, he agreed. This is where I failed: I forgot to inform Meapak that if GM pardoned, no lynch would happen, no matter what. GM assumed the entire time he would be able to stop the lynch for a whole day, which is the main reasoning behind his use of the pardon so early (which got him lynched obviously). So, that part was definitely my fault.
Anyway, I get back to see a thread explosion, and BC is telling me to read it cause shit went down. LW found out about Protact's triple life (how I still have no clue) and people have started calling them out. flame responds by saying "well brownbear knew so I won't get modkilled lol" which I consider to be a bit misleading, given I had only known for 24 hours and was definitely still open to some form of punishment for the three. So GM pardons, gets lynched, gets pissed, mafia threatens to ragequit (which I honestly understand, given they just found out 3 vets were gunning for them AND their most powerful member got wrongfully lynched), and... yeah.
So going forth from here, I'm not really sure what to do. On one hand, I definitely don't feel comfortable, as a relative newcomer to the mafia forum, asking for bans for such vets as Ver and Incog (at this point, I think flame deserves one for a) not telling me for so long and b) being intentionally misleading about how knowledgable I was of the situation). At the same time though, they did kind of ruin the game once they got discovered.
+ Show Spoiler [Meapak] +On Protactinium.
I knew that flamewheel was smurfing in this game. I didn’t know which player he was. I was unaware that Protactinuim was a known AKA. It was first brought to my attention that there was triple smurfing going on by Qatol. He told me who the other players were and told me that Ver had been part of the balancing of the game but that Ver had sworn he couldn’t remember the specifics. With Qatol’s assurance that the smurf didn’t have any information the players didn’t I PM’d BB and asked what our official response would be. We were both annoyed that they hadn’t told us but we decided just to keep things quiet and wait for the smurf to die before broaching the topic (at the time it appeared as though the smurf would be killed within 24 hours). If all had gone according to plan then once the smurf had died BB and I would have gone to the ban thread to open discussion. I wanted (and still do want) FW Ver and Incognito to be required to play two or three non smurf games before they could smurf again. They violated smurfing rules by not telling us about it but beyond that I don’t think they violated game rules as I am willing to trust Qatol that Ver knew nothing about the setup.
Unfortunately the thread got wind of this somehow. Now how this happened brings up an issue I’ll address further on but for now I’ll stick with the issue at hand. A LOT of people wanted the smurf to be killed right away; however BB and I had already made our decision so as far as I was concerned the case was closed. This really incensed the mafia team and a bunch of townies but I maintain that the right decision was made. Modkilling the smurf would have been a really unnecessary bit of tampering with a game that was volatile enough without the drama involved in a high profile modkill. Furthermore the smurf broke no game rules in any obvious manner. If you read the eight simple rules in the OP there are none that the smurf obviously violated. In the absence of a blatant rule break I simply cannot see the logic of a modkill in this situation.
+ Show Spoiler [Incognito] +
It is common knowledge that Protactinium is flamewheel’s account. The only thing that was hidden was that Ver, flamewheel, and I were playing on the same account. Thus, this debate is not about smurfing; it is about account sharing.
Coaching is a form of account sharing. It is not illegal to ask for advice, especially in a coaching game. Thus, the Protactinium case is no different than flamewheel playing the game and asking Ver/me for advice.
Account sharing is not in any way cheating. Having three people contribute on one account doesn’t give the players unfair information advantages. Even though we are three people, we still only have one vote, one voice, and the information that one person has – i.e. we know our own role and nobody else’s. Whereas signing up for a game with 2 accounts would give that player extra votes, extra voices, and knowledge of an extra role (and maybe even the entire mafia list), account sharing does no such thing. Since we all work with the same information and have no bonus votes, there is no abuse here.
Account sharing does not give us unfair advantages. What this merely does is increase our flexibility and ability to play the game in a serious manner. I do not have time to play on my normal account, as I do not have time to devote a solid 2 weeks to playing a game. My inability to be able to devote an entire 2 weeks to a game should not hinder me from playing a game. On my own, there is no way I could have the activity required to play a serious game looking how much activity is required. However, if I can share an account, I would be able to play the game. Given that I do not gain an unfair information advantage by sharing an account with flamewheel, there is no reason why I should be prohibited from doing so.
Having two people post on the same account is not unreasonable, given the enormous thread activity. Consider that some players like DH had 400+ posts, and players like GMarshal and chaoser had upwards of 240+ posts by the end of day 2. On the contrary, Protactinium only has around 75~ posts by the end of day 2. Even with powers combined, we still are not that active, and are clearly not spamming people off the thread.
Would anybody care if two inactives, say, MetalFace and Kenpachi, shared an account? The obvious answer is no. The case right now is that flamewheel, Ver, and Incognito shared an account. Furthermore, consider the following scenario: Replace Ver/Incognito with flamewheel’s brother or room mate. Logically, there is no difference between the three scenarios other than the people involved. And since scenarios 1 and 3 are not objectionable, it follows that the current situation is should also be allowed.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
+ Show Spoiler [Ver] +
Ver didn't actually send me anything, but I IMed with him a little bit about this. He basically said he feels that what he did is no different from private coaching.
|
Are you kidding? They didnt think it was wrong?
If there was nothing wrong about it why is there a thread addressing the issue in the first place. give me a break.
So im allowed to have Doch-pandain-kenpachi-jackal-gmarsh-bc-coagulation super account next game.
I think they should all get modkilled and banned for this. I was the person who had to deal with 3 players constantly barraging me with arguments and walls of text and accusations that no single player could be expected to deflect properly or fairly. If you guys throw everything thats wrong about it out there is still the undeniable fact that 3 people have more Time and Energy than 1 person. This alone should make it clear that there is an unfair advantage here. But i know its not my decision to make. I think im even more upset that the people who should have made the decision didnt make it and are now pushing it onto the players.
If theres one thing that absolutely should be learned from this whole situation is that we need to have stricter rules on smurfs and account sharing. So if there are rules instated specifically to prevent this sort of behavior that has occurred then it should be pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the actions to begin with.
|
I want you to give your opinion about what should happen to Flamewheel, Incognito, and Ver. I also want your opinion of whether you think this should be forbidden in the future.
I agree with Incognito's opinion on the fact that sharing an account isn't breaking any rules and is technically ok since, like he said, no one would give a damn if MetalFace and Kenpachi shared an account. Everyone's problem isn't that sharing an account happene but that three VETS shared an account. In that regard, I do think some wrong/blame can be dealt out.
You are all three high profile vetern players of mafia and to not disclose that you were all going to have a hand in the game is underhanded (pun not intended). I'm pretty sure that if there was a game where mafia was getting help from Bloodycobbler and Ace that people would be pretty upset as well. The very fact that you are well known vets and play the game well is what makes it different from say MetalFace and Kenpachi sharing an account.
I think the fact that Ver/Incognito/Flamewheel were going to be sharing an account should have been known to the players in the game ahead of time, just like how peopel knew Foolishness and BC were going to be coaching in the game. At the very least BB and MK should have been informed of this beforehand so that they can decide themselves whether they were ok with it or not, it IS their game after all.
Do I think private coaching should be allowed? Yes. Do I think three vet players pooling their experience and intelligence together to play in a game should be allowed via a shared account? Only if it's cleared ahead of time by the players in the game and by the host.
Warnings to all three for hiding the information and in the future a little common sense and transpancy is all that's needed to resolve problems like this. It's not like FW is a newbie player that needs basic help in playing the game. Be honest, you guys weren't "privately coaching him". That's just smoke and mirrors to hide that fact that you were all using one account to play the game.
Agree with GM on what he wrote, basically the question comes down to is account sharing the same as private coaching and I think the answer is no, it is not.
|
First I want to inform people that I wasn´t playing in the game.
The problem isn´t smurfing, if the GM knows who´s smurfing and with which account, but they should have informed the GM. I do not agree with incognito on that coaching is the same as sharing, coaching is giving tips and hints, but the coached player still has to play himself. Consider if one of the two extras got themselves banned from Mafia or TL by posting as Protactinium, Flamewheel would have taken the fall for it. Or the other way around, Flamewheel expects someone to use the smurfaccount, doesn´t post (like Ver), and gets FW modkilled and banned for low activity. It creates too many problems to be allowed in a normal game.
Consequences, I´m understanding that getting on the banlist means your breach is recorded and GMs are allowed to choose for themselves if they care about the breach or can look past it. Because of this, I think everyone involved in playing on the shared account should get on the list, because if I make a game, then I need to know that these 3 once treated a game like their personal playground which derailed the game.
|
I disagree that there is no advantage gained by having three people share an account. You have more combined time for that player if you have three people playing him.
Time is a valuable resource, and if you have enough of it, you can be much more vocal in the thread. Being vocal in the thread brings power (to some extent) and makes you a high profile player. If I had three people playing, we could all work on different analyses and do much better jobs on them. Time is valuable, and most definitely part of the game. The more time in a day the better for the town, and I see little difference here.
I have received much coaching in the past, but I think that there is a line between coaching, and account sharing that was crossed. Having BC give me opinions on what may or may not be good town play is different that him typing it up in the thread for me. Coaching helps you figure out what to say, but the most important thing, how you say it is, and should be, up to you.
I agree that what was done was not against the rules, but I think that it should be. The only thing done wrong was not being open about it with the mods, and not telling those who should have known.
In closing, I think that a warning, if anything, is appropriate. This sort of play should be made illegal from now on however, or at the very least "ok'd" by the host of the game. Qatol should be informed by the host if this happens.
|
United States22154 Posts
First of all, I am not angry that protac "nabbed" our godfather, its a situation similar to the one that occurred where RoL claimed jack of all trades and said he had checked Ace, when ace was the godfather. My rage had nothing to do with a ballsy well thought out claim. My rage comes at three players with an awesome skillset sharing an account.
Sure, it dosn't violate any rules, nor does me speaking in cyphers with other players, right? How about writing a cypher based on the townie PM that only greens could decrypt and using it to figure out the mafia team? None of that is written as a rule but it goes against the grain of the game.
Saying that sharing an account is harmless is just flat out wrong, sure you dont get any additional votes, instead what you get is three people who happen to be 100% sure of their alignment cooperating to rape one side, its stacking the deck against one side, and yes balance in games comes from properly judging the experience of players on both sides, not on just adjusting roles. theres no way a game with say, Ver, Qatol, fw, Ace, foolishness and BC on a mafia team would ever be balanced, because frankly, some people are better than others, and having them all on the same team sinergizes their power and can potentially break the game
Having three players sharing an account is almost as bad as facing all three players each on their own account, when they are on their own accounts they are unsure of each others alignment, and have to worry about analyzing each other, in this way they are all cooperating, sure of each others alignment, etc. Its not just playing against one vet (incredible as the vet in question may be) its three pairs of eyes sitting there, thinking, analyzing, cooperating, three brains, exchanging ideas, thinking, plotting. Thats one of the things that makes PM circles so powerful in games, the ability to gather information as a group. Here we have a group of highly experienced players working together, frankly it destroys the game for whoever is on the other side.
Imagine for a second that protac had gotten his wish and been allowed a DT. At that point the mafia might as well have called it quits, he is almost guaranteed the mayorship, and frankly no amount of epic play from our side would have saved us from well thought out and prepared analysis combined with insane town cred and a freaking DT. This was supposed to be a bootcampish game, with many new players learning how to play, I can only imagine their delight at having the town fed a victory by not one, but three veterans, rather than you know, working for it. I have nothing against a vet leading the town, where suspicion and mistrust might make him stumble, were another player might put him on tilt. When its three players emotional responses along with simple mistakes are very, very unlikely as you have people proofreading your posts, preparing arguments, analyzing things a single individual might miss.
Saying this is no different than private coaching is bs, and frankly we all know its against the spirit of the game, you can argue what you wish, but me IMing with BC is not the same thing as allowing him on my account to write up my posts.
My final question is if the people playing as protac didn't think it was against the rules or at all questionable, why did they not inform the mod right off the bat? Thats the usual procedure for mildly questionable actions, clear it with the mod, avoid shit like this. The only reason why you might not clear something like this with the mod is if you think you'll be able to get away with not saying anything.
Also on the "not enough time" issue, I understand that it can be frustrating to not be able to play, but having three players on one account means there is never a fatigue factor, I individually can get tired of arguing against someone and say "fuck it" and stop posting, however with three people they can just keep going and going, if one tires out another one can be subbed in.
Frankly whatever the outcome I want a rule against account sharing. Its against the grain of the game, I didn't think that obvious things like that would have to be written out but I guess we need to have it spelled out. And yes, its irrelevant if its Kenpachi, coag and Chezinu or Qatol, Foolishness and BC, allowing account sharing is going to lead to a broken game, and I dont want to see that.
As for bans, nothing they did goes against the rules as written, so I dont think a ban is justified, I do think what they did violates the spirit of the game and the rules as intended and I would understand a ban based on that, or on not informing the mod of their actions.
EDIT: TL:DR: Make a rule against account sharing, no bans for anyone.
|
My opinion has been recorded above, and is pretty much unchanged. However, after reading Incognito's take, I'm really disappointed that he seems to not only not think he's done nothing wrong, but is very much of the opinion that everyone should stop qq-ing. This is very frustrating to me for a number of reasons:
It is true that I allowed both BC and Foolishness to coach this game. The reason I allowed them to coach this game was because there were a significant number of new players in the game, many of whom had never played mafia before. The idea of player coaching was to give these players someone to turn to if they had any questions about strategy, analysis, that sort of thing, to give them a little boost up so that they wouldn't feel overwhelmed. Point being, player coaching, in my mind, is something for new players, to help them overcome the deficit they'll be playing from not knowing the game very well, the atmosphere, the way players interact with each other, etc.
You guys were not "coaching" each other, because none of you were new to mafia. In fact, you three are among the best town players on TL Mafia, you don't need any help learning how to play. So in the terms of the "coaching" I had set up in this game, you guys weren't coaching, you were playing together.
And here comes why I think the mafia team is mad, which I cannot believe you don't get. Sure, it sucks that you fingered Coag, but that's not the real reason - anyone with half a brain could see he was at least suspicious, if not scum, naturally anyone fakeclaiming DT would finger him as the most likely to be mafia. The real reason is that they learned, midway through the game, that there were 3 people all on one account, considered some of the best analyzers on TL, all gunning for them. Three of the players with the best town play known to us were trying to defeat them (which wasn't even their win condition), and they were trying to hide it from everyone. How can you not see how that would piss them off?
And also, you didn't even address why I feel frustrated, because you didn't tell me. Not only didn't you tell me, you didn't tell me after I had specifically asked in thread if there were any smurfs. And after flame had run IP CHECKS ON EVERYONE to make sure nobody was secretly smurfing, except you three!!! How did he not think to tell me then, "oh yeah btw, incog and ver are playing with me"? It really blows my mind that the three of you thought that what you were doing wasn't something the host of the motherfucking game should know about. I don't know whether it was honestly thinking what you were doing wasn't smurfing or against the rules, or you knowing on some level that it was wrong but trying to get away with it anyway, or just being arrogant enough to think I don't deserve to know, but I'd really like to know why.
So to go back to why you think people are mad: you're wrong. I'm also not MAD per se, just feeling very frustrated and upset that you guys were trying to hide this from me and also, once you were caught, acted like it was somehow everyone else's fault for being so sensitive, not yours for doing something that was, if not against the rules, at least against the spirit of the game.
And yet, I still have tremendous respect for you as a veteran player and a pillar of this community. I hope you still realize this, if nothing else. I am not going to ask for any of the three of you to be banned - I do realize I said flame might deserve one in my official stance, but I've since changed my mind. It's not fair to ban one and not all three, I have to either ban all three of you or none of you, and I honestly do not feel comfortable, as a relative newcomer and mediocre player, banning three of the best players in recent memory. I will, however, strongly push for multiple people playing on one account to be illegal and enshrined in the rules as cheating - because it is, I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but it is. So from now on, it will be modkillable and bannable. I just really hope you change your mind about feeling that what you did wasn't wrong at all, and I really hope you can come to realize just how many people you pissed off, and why, and I do want all three of you to apologize.
|
What you three SHOULD HAVE DONE is told me you were smurfing all together. I would have made it public knowledge in game and asked if it was okay before roles were assigned. If people had been okay with it, then roles would have been given out and the game would have continued as normal with Protact being publicly known as a 3-man team. Would it have been much harder for you? Absolutely, but then that's the handicap you'd have to play with for being able to pool your knowledge and analysis, as well as your curse for being well-known, talented players. Call it the Foolishness/Radfield curse if you will, it exists, and good players just have to deal with it.
Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple.
And for that, I now have to seriously consider whether to ask for bans for all three of you.
|
I know I haven't been here that long but I would like to share my opinion with all of you on this.
Mafia is by design a game of deceit, deception and dishonesty. We all know that when we sign up. We expect it. However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
On the issue of 3 people playing under one name.
Ya that's bull. From the OP of every game I've played here:
The game is typically very active, so the thread will get big quickly. However, it is essential to read the thread to play the game. If you do not have the time or patience to read the whole thread, do not play. I will not compensate for ignorance.
Lack of time is not an excuse. All 3 of them are aware of the time one must put in to play effectively.
As none of them "technically" did not break any forum rules what can you do?
Pretty much nothing. Let them know how we feel one way or another is about it.
Yes change the rules. Make it implicit that it is 1 player 1 account.
I would also perhaps consider making the host post at the bottom of his role list that there are smurfs active in the game. He doesn't have to ID them just let the other players be aware.
|
Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple.
I mean then all people who PMed Foolishness for help/analysis should be banned too.
Communication between the three of them isn't the problem, it's the fact that all three posted in the thread under one name that makes what they were doing different from what Foolishness and people in the thread PMing him for coaching were doing. If Flamewheel was merely asking for advice and being like, what do you think of this situation, I would be more ok with it than with what actually happened here which was three people writing up posts and then posting it from one account. You can clearly see the changes in voice between each post. That plus the fact that they didn't disclose this all to the host/people in the game makes me think they need a warning.
|
Ok, so here are my thoughts on Shared Accounts:
Firstly, I don't find it to be the same as coaching. From my own experience with the coaches, they'll just guide you, they won't explicitly tell you what to do. You are still an individual playing the game, and you still have to do the work yourself. This differs from sharing an account, in that you have multiple people all playing and contributing to the thought process without any kind of restriction at all.
I'm not going to comment on who the players are, because it shouldn't make a huge difference to how you'd handle this situation. That said, I will add, that having 3 forum veterans and good players on the same account, does seem to increase the severity of what a shared account is capable of, especially in a no PM game.
I feel there's a couple reasons for why sharing an account in general isn't very fair. First, it destroys any sort of meta analysis from being applied to you by others. This is a part of analysis, and it's unfair when you are incapable of using it against a player who has different and unknown meta depending on who's posting, when this same player may apply it to whomever they please. Second, let's say this happened in a no-coaching, no-pm game. Then, these players are again being given an unfair advantage, in that they can check their posts and run their ideas through multiple people playing the game, unlike any other player in that game. Next, depending on the players, it removes all restrictions of time. Let's say, I share an account, and I'm in Canada, someone else is in Europe, and the last person is in Asia. Then this means that the shared account, will always be active and able to respond to anything in the thread, whereas other people are limited by other non-game related factors in their ability to react to the game. I'd also like to add, that this gives a huge advantage to any team that might get the shared account. For example, say protact had ended up being mafia. Then that means that the mafia essentially gains an extra two members, if not in actual game mechanics, but in people who are contributing to their plans and ideas.
So, as it stands, I think that multiple people on one account should probably be prohibited. Even if my thoughts on why they're unfair aren't sufficient, I think they'd make games worse, because there's no good way to implement them. The host must know about it beforehand, but then he has the choice of notifying the other players or not. I know there's some people who wouldn't want to play with or against, a shared account. So, if the host doesn't tell them beforehand, they're going to be mad after the game is over and they find out about the shared account. However, even if the host notifies the players, then I still feel the game will be overtaken by people trying to find out the identities of the players using the shared account, as well as which player is shared.
Also, a couple thoughts in smurfing:
I think this really needs to be revamped. In the last few games I've been in, where there's been smurfs, a lot of them have quickly revealed themselves, or players have been aware there are smurfs, and this has made the games worse, in my eyes. I'm not against smurfing, but I think that players should have to put more effort into creating and upholding the anonymity of their smurf. What I mean by this, is that players should have to make their smurfs ahead of time, and not make any connection to their regular account, such that it is apparent who they are. Also, I think that trying to determine who smurfs are, or revealing who you are as a smurf, should be punishable. If people are smurfing to hide who they really are, they should try their best to remain anonymous, because that's pretty much the whole point of smurfing. When people start claiming who they are, or try to hunt for who a smurf is, it seems to add a lot of drama, and detract from the actual game play. When this happens, I always ask myself why they didn't just sign up with their normal account, if they're not going to make any attempt to hide their identity, as the thread simply degenerates into a guessing game of who a player really is, instead of actually playing mafia. I feel this would add a different dynamic to smurfing, as smurfs would be unable to have meta or reputation applied to them, but also wouldn't be able to rely on their past experiences in this forum for credentials and authority.
Punishments:
I have not hosted any games, and have never seen anything like this before, so I'm uncomfortable asking for any punishments. However, I feel something should be done, if at least for not notifying the host.
If anyone wants to add to or argue against my points, feel free. They're probably not as fleshed out or well explained as I'd like them to be, because I'm writing this pretty quickly as I have studying to do. :p
|
For the record, I didn't participate in the game, I only knew of the vague details as it happened and am only really up to speed after reading Qatol's OP.
I think that directly sharing an account is against the spirit of the game and should be specifically forbidden in the future. I do think that it's different from coaching because in the past, as far as I know, coaching has been offered to every player, and it doesn't actually put the coach in the game as that person. Having more than one person make posts also raises the possibility of completely destroying any reads based on personality and previous style. However, seeing as account sharing isn't currently forbidden, I don't think warnings or bans should be handed out for it.
I do think that warnings should be given out to the three players that shared the account for failing to inform the hosts and / or fellow players of the situation ahead of time. Their actions seem to say that they were trying to pull one over on everyone else involved in the game, which isn't okay.
|
On April 25 2011 07:22 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +Actually, that's another thing I just thought of. You say you weren't breaking any rules, but you actually were. This was a No-PM game, because I wanted any and all analysis to be done in thread, and not between two different players in the game via PMs. Even though you were playing on one account, you were still three different players, so unless you had no outside-of-thread contact (which I really highly doubt), then you were cheating. Plain and simple. I mean then all people who PMed Foolishness for help/analysis should be banned too. Communication between the three of them isn't the problem, it's the fact that all three posted in the thread under one name that makes what they were doing different from what Foolishness and people in the thread PMing him for coaching were doing. If Flamewheel was merely asking for advice and being like, what do you think of this situation, I would be more ok with it than with what actually happened here which was three people writing up posts and then posting it from one account. You can clearly see the changes in voice between each post. That plus the fact that they didn't disclose this all to the host/people in the game makes me think they need a warning.
You raise a good point. However, I still think there's a difference, because Foolishness was not playing the game, and had a counterpart in BC, so that both sides had an outside source to bounce ideas off of. Adding in Ver and Incog was stacking the deck in town's favor (and nobody can deny they played extremely pro-town.
PMs between a player and a coach who wasn't playing? Acceptable. Between two players in the game, even if they were playing the same account? Not so much.
|
On April 25 2011 07:21 Jackal58 wrote:
However there are two thing that we all have to trust. Those are the integrity of the rules and the host. We all enter a game with faith that the host is going to run a fair and impartial game. We all know that task can be daunting but for the most part I think most of the people here that do host games do a very respectable job at it. I would have been very upset had BB known of the triumvirate playing under Proactinium's account at the games beginning. Now I'm just slightly upset that he didn't modkill Proact as soon as he found out. Any and all explanations could have been saved for after the game. It would have stopped a lot of grief during the game. I believe the "fair and impartial" trust was bent to the point of breaking.
"Hoping" something will happen to make it all go away is not a solution. Seems several of you share that responsibility. Hopefully it's a learning experience for the next time something untoward rears it's ugly head. Murphy apparently plays Mafia too.
Hindsight is always perfect, after all. You are correct, I probably should have modkilled them the instant I found out, but at the time, I was thinking it would really badly disrupt the game, and also that they would die before it was found out that they were collaborating.
Quite obviously, i was wrong, they got found out, and that ended up disrupting the game a whole lot worse than if I'd just modkilled them straight up. A lapse in my judgement, and I hope you can forgive me.
(also, trust me. If I had known at the games beginning, I would have checked with people like BC/Foolishness/Qatol at first, and it probably would have been made public. Sadly, it was not to be.)
|
Ok, I'll stop posting and let other people, but I'd like to put forth this proposed addendum to the official Mafia OP:
On Smurfing and IRL connections.
Smurfing (is/is not) allowed in this game. If smurfing is allowed, you MUST PM the host of the game before roles are given out with the identity of your smurf, and asking if it is acceptable to do so. The host reserves the right to allow or deny your smurf, and whether or not the identity shall be made public.
In addition, if you and your roommate/family member/friend are both signed up for this game, please PM the host and inform them that you know another player in the game IRL.
|
On April 25 2011 06:03 Qatol wrote:
(Incognito)
Ultimately, there are two reasons why people are mad, neither of them good reasons. The first reason is that they’re mad at who was doing this, which is of course biased treatment. Additionally, the other reason why people are mad is because of our strategy. Town is mad because of our assassin claim strategy, and mafia is mad that we lied about “checking” Coagulation and nabbed the Godfather.
I don't think this is true at all. As an assassin, I was happy to see you claim so early on (and unsuccessfully get mayor, too) and that's about it. I don't hold any grudges against any of you and I think I've only ever even played with incog.
Anyway, now that that's all off the table: I absolutely consider what was done by incog, ver, and fw to be cheating given how it was done. Had BB been informed and (silently or otherwise) okayed it, that would have been fine in my eyes and we'd be talking about how to handle account sharing in general instead of how to handle this specific instance. If he had gotten a response form fw when he asked if there were any smurfs, that would have been a bit questionable but probably more of an honest mistake. I don't see how actively hiding the fact that there were three (or two, whatever) players on the account could *not* be considered cheating, especially when the game is balanced around which players are on which teams. If protrac had been given DT like fw asked, the game would have been over, no question. Town would have two extra pairs of eyes analyzing the thread, and given how good the eyes would have been that would have pretty much destroyed the game entirely. Luckily protrac was given assassin, but even playing only for himself he got into a position where tearing mafia apart was in his best interest, which obviously he did pretty well.
Account sharing/unannounced smurfing like this can easily destroy game balance, and it needs to be explicitly banned from now on. Incog, fw, and ver deserve a warning at least and a one game ban at most imo-- more for not informing the host of what they were doing than anything else.
Oh, and the whole situation was handled well in the thread, so good job BB on that.
|
Alright. I've read through all of this and there are just a few things that I really agree with:
- This should definitely be against the rules. Sharing a account is in no way fair, no matter if you put newbies or veterans on the account. The worst thing about playing solo is that you'll often not notice your own mistakes where-as having a partner will make it much easier to find them. I experienced this first-hand in the games I played, where being in a town PM circle made things so much easier for me.
- It sets a really bad example for new people if we let three veterans who really should know better get away with this. Banning might be a bit over the top as a punishment, so i'd suggest something like this:
Flamewheel/Incognito/Ver will not be allowed to smurf for the next three games they play in, whether they request it or not. Any breaking of this rule results in a 1 (or even 3) game ban. Dedicated smurf games like RoL's expirement game are exempt from this rule.
|
Nothing. I'm not particularly bothered by the hydra.
Also, I'd suggest that people follow this smurfing rules
+ Show Spoiler +Smurf Rules
Undeclared smurf
While the game is in operation, you may not discuss the game with anyone on your real account at all.
All smurfs are considered undeclared unless declared
Declared Smurfs
You must declare your status, and real account to the mods prior to the game
You must inform people of who your smurf account is before discussing the game with your real account
|
Only rule I feel they broke was not informing the host. I have no problem with multiple people playing on one account, they don't get any extra information.
I feel like the only punishment that should be given is a warning, I don't think any serious wrongdoing occurred. When you have 3 of the most experienced players doing something and they didn't even think there was a problem with it, I don't see how bad it could be.
|
It's not like those three play a lot anymore... think it would be best to claim a ban for the sake that they will not do it again.
I'm just concerned as to why they would do that. It would be one thing if they just came in and said "lol we are assasins make us mayor" and we just go "protact you crazy!", then "lol no we'ze Dark templerz, coag is totally scum" and then we went on with our lives. But then making those HUUUGGEE posts that I had to read 4 times to get what they were saying. And then seeing actual analysis coag calling him scum like that was unfair to him. I think those three out of anyone should know the power of talking to other people, one of the big strengths the mafia team has that town doesn't.
Just seems against the spirit of the game, seeing as there was a lot of effort put in through that account. And GM and Coag should know that I think town tried to ignore protactinum for the most part and just treat it like a random DT check on Coag. I think that's what Dr. H and I did. Don't even think I bothered to read the analysis they made against coag.
This is never going to happen again so I'm not too worried about it, town played fine without three vets on one account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
