Anyway, who thinks games are too long these days? 2000 post (or even 1000 post) day 1's are kinda ridiculous, aren't they?
I am of the opinion that there ought to be some kind of a campaign to shorten days, to get people to go with their gut a little more. Shorter games offer a lot of benefits. Am I alone in this?
No, you are not alone. Players have skewed too far toward the cautious end of the spectrum these days. It's begun to make the game unbearable to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
Hmm, would a "24 hrs / player alive" deadline rule be a good guideline?
I'm not clear on what this means. Explain?
EDIT: Oh, I get it. Like the slash means 'per'. That isn't really what I'm talking about. Deadlines are all well and good, and ought to be enforced if days are lagging, but pre-set deadlines tend to cause people to lurk for some reason. This exact tactic was actually tried in...Arabian Nights mafia? to no particularly good effect.
I'm thinking more along the lines of role design. Lots and lots of games, particularly of the specialty variety, tend to have roles and overall mechanics that make players want to coordinate everything, and this causes problems. There's lots of design space for roles that incentivize not exposing themselves (at least not early on), and roles that benefit inherently from days being short, and roles that make days more likely to end the longer it runs on. Add in some roles, like double voters, that make it much easier to end days, and reduce roles, like unlynchability, that tend to make a day drag on.
In short, we should give mods a reason to use fewer roles that force the town as a whole to make more decisions during the day than just the lynch itself, and add in a few roles that "grease the wheels", so to speak, to spark excitement and make it hard to drag things out even if you want to.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
Night-kill immune octovoting scum. The days would just fly by.
Your idea of less complicated roles => shorter days is certainly a valid one, though the question is by how much. If you had two 12 person mafia games, one in which the setup was all PRs of some kind and the other in which it was 8 vanilla town, 1 doctor, and 3 vanilla mafia, would to the all PR one go significantly longer? Say, more than a few days per day longer? Because complicated roles, while a contributing factor, doesn't feel like the root of the problem.
I'll see if I can get CPE to post, I've spoken to him online in the last few days.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Your idea of less complicated roles => shorter days is certainly a valid one, though the question is by how much. If you had two 12 person mafia games, one in which the setup was all PRs of some kind and the other in which it was 8 vanilla town, 1 doctor, and 3 vanilla mafia, would to the all PR one go significantly longer? Say, more than a few days per day longer? Because complicated roles, while a contributing factor, doesn't feel like the root of the problem.
Is that really what you feel like I said? I'm not advocating less-complicated roles at all. I'm just advocating roles that don't encourage people to put decisions in the hands of the town as a whole. A town daykiller, for example, is a real simple role that basically doubles the length of the day, because the town has to decide on twice as many "lynches".
Lots of specialties have had mechanics that incentivize this kind of coordination, but that hardly means that complicated roles necessitate it. PRs are a fine example of a complication that doesn't (necessarily) extend the day. In fact, some PRs tend to shorten the day, because they reduce daytime decisions.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
I want to post this in here since it's a general mafia issue not really related to a game at hand. It is an active game, so watch your responses please and just talk in general, like I'm doing here.
So I've been infracted lately for a pair of flame infractions. One I justly deserved.
The second was for calling a player stupid (sort of). Now I'm not going to quote the post in question, but the post in question would've been exactly the same if i replaced the player's name with "PlayerName's play [is] stupid". In other words, using the word stupid or a non-swear synonym and a player is REFERRING TO THAT PERSONS PLAY.
Thus I submit that this is totally and completely fair game to post, and that to infract a player for omitting the word "play" is just plain silly. This is mafia, we talk about play - we're allowed to condemn the play as being poor or praise it to the heavens, and outside of swears, we shouldn't have limits on this. This is not a spot for thin skins to freak out about.
In other words, where a negative adjective is being used to address a person's play, rather than the person itself, it should be totally fine. But for some reason that wasn't the case here.
I'm not bothering to appeal the infraction, but it's a general mafia issue and I want to get it out there for other as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
I want to post this in here since it's a general mafia issue not really related to a game at hand. It is an active game, so watch your responses please and just talk in general, like I'm doing here.
So I've been infracted lately for a pair of flame infractions. One I justly deserved.
The second was for calling a player stupid (sort of). Now I'm not going to quote the post in question, but the post in question would've been exactly the same if i replaced the player's name with "PlayerName's play [is] stupid". In other words, using the word stupid or a non-swear synonym and a player is REFERRING TO THAT PERSONS PLAY.
Thus I submit that this is totally and completely fair game to post, and that to infract a player for omitting the word "play" is just plain silly. This is mafia, we talk about play - we're allowed to condemn the play as being poor or praise it to the heavens, and outside of swears, we shouldn't have limits on this. This is not a spot for thin skins to freak out about.
In other words, where a negative adjective is being used to address a person's play, rather than the person itself, it should be totally fine. But for some reason that wasn't the case here.
I'm not bothering to appeal the infraction, but it's a general mafia issue and I want to get it out there for other as well.
I've been infracted for saying something someone was doing was stupid here.
So, no, we're not allowed to say someone's play is stupid.
I've been infracted for saying something someone was doing was stupid here.
So, no, we're not allowed to say someone's play is stupid.
Which makes no sense; which is my point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Is that really what you feel like I said? I'm not advocating less-complicated roles at all. I'm just advocating roles that don't encourage people to put decisions in the hands of the town as a whole. A town daykiller, for example, is a real simple role that basically doubles the length of the day, because the town has to decide on twice as many "lynches".
Lots of specialties have had mechanics that incentivize this kind of coordination, but that hardly means that complicated roles necessitate it. PRs are a fine example of a complication that doesn't (necessarily) extend the day. In fact, some PRs tend to shorten the day, because they reduce daytime decisions.
Oh, then I misunderstood you. I get what you're saying now.
@Loran. This is definitely a conversation worth having. On the one hand, we've had a LOT of *ANGRY POSTINGS* in the subforum lately, and the council's been discussing how we ought to try dealing with that. On the other, we need to leave some room for people to call it as they see it, with an appropriate modicum of civility, without moderators hopping in to blow the whistle on every other page of the thread.
My understanding of our enforcement, especially recently, was that we've been making a sharp distinction between insulting users, and pointing out subpar play. If we've been failing to make that distinction, recently, I'd like to hear about it and make sure we're all on the same page here.
FWIW, my opinion on this is that it should be fine to say someone is doing something stupid, but you would have to phrase it as such, as I did in the example that I provided.
Honestly I think being able to call a person in a mafia game stupid is essential. I mean if a person is being stupid really what else are you going to say?
What about "Your play is foolish," or "The game action that you attempted to perform does not comply with my perceived notion of best practices to execute within this game of forum-based mafia."
You totally should, it just rolls of the tongue (mouth? not sure on the saying here) so easily after all and it's such a simple concise statement to boot
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I feel like I've insulted a fair share of play (and players) during a game, but I don't think I've ever been infracted for it except for using a word to describe someone as being mentally challenged - and that seemed pretty fair. I think I've even tossed "douche" out there before without being infracted.
To single out a word "stupid" is just not effective since it's A) not insulting and no media on Earth would try and ban its use in a sentence even as an insult and B) nowhere near as insulting as describing in detail why that person is stupid.
The flaming thing is a moderator issue rather than a council issue. I'm sure the mods among us like Manders, rian and of course Az are talking to the other mods about it. For now I would just be a little more calm and non-insulting than usual.
The thing about shorter games comes up every 6 months and my answer is the same: game mods have to design games to have a conversational flashpoint on day 1, like mine do. Even a no-kill night start (but that favours the town, so keep it in mind when balancing).
Otherwise you get interminable day 1s where noone is sure enough of anything.
Let the record show that I was not being stupid and that I was not the one who lied and got Cyan mislynched.
That's really irrelevant. It isn't a matter of whether there's anything wrong with anyone's play. It's a matter of what opinions are allowed to be expressed about a play, good or bad.
Anyway, count me in the camp that's for provocative speech. Mafia would lack a lot of depth it currently allows if you weren't able to try to provoke people.
The thing about shorter games comes up every 6 months and my answer is the same: game mods have to design games to have a conversational flashpoint on day 1, like mine do. Even a no-kill night start (but that favours the town, so keep it in mind when balancing).
Otherwise you get interminable day 1s where noone is sure enough of anything.
Conversation pieces are great and all, but more can, and should, be done, imo. The council can provide some kind of an incentive to design games with elements that reduce game length, maybe? Looking over past games, this has been an ongoing, and worsening, issue for a long time, and it isn't something people should just adapt to.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
We were always allowed to call play stupid in the past, so I'm not sure what has changed other than the moderation of this sub-forum. I for one liked it when Arimnaes did it alone, and I'd think we'd give Azrael the same leeway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
It is fairly crucial to be able to call out people on bad play. But you don't have to call them stupid. You can just say 'your play this game is terrible. Like..really terrible. Like..Death's Vampire could run laps around you terrible'.(Tilde used to be the example here, but lately he seems to have improved) That gets the point across without personally attacking anyone.
Well, except DV. Not that he counts.
Also, yes, game days are frequently too long anymore. Sometimes, you just have to take your chances on what could be a mislynch. Just because a mislynch happens doesn't mean that the whole wagon is null and void of information. You can usually learn more from mis-voting patterns than from seeing who successfully voted a scum(because scumbuddies generally know when their partner is going down, and are going to go along with it..only the absolute worst(or at least most brazen) scum actually try to prevent their buddy from getting lynched).
Invalid or weak are the clinical, academic terms... me, I prefer "bat-**** ridiculous" personally. Or perhaps "crackpot" or "baseless" or one of my new fave's I haven't worked into a conversation yet, "Full of WTFery." Thinly veiled insults are soooooo much more fun anyhow.
The again, some people never learn how bad their "argumentation" is.
As to whether people should be allowed to use emotionally inflamatory language to influence their fellow players: let's not become the World Series of Poker, please? Not to be too slippery slope, but next thing there will be infractions for gloating posts when the town mislynches and the scum know they've won.
Moderators are always forced to walk a wimbly-wombly line between applying good judgment and being fair. Applying good judgment means considering all the factors that might make something OK in one situation but not in another; being fair means being consistent. This particular situation has even more gray area than most, so the easiest solution may be to draw the line at personal attacks like the rest of the forum does. That being said...
I think the key factor is the big picture rather than the specific incident. Isolated incidents of calling someone stupid in a mafia game probably aren't an issue; after all, sometimes players are being stupid and sometimes it's because they're mafia lying through their teeth. Sometimes the only accurate way to describe and call out a lie is to point out how plain stupid it is. I think it becomes a problem when 1.) it's a new player who could very likely be turned off from the game by being ridiculed, and 2.) when the personal attacks become common in a game and the overall tone becomes highly combative.
Just my 2 cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I've checked with my mod-homies, and our present policy is still to allow users to insult/scoff/ridicule one another's play.
So you're permitted to call folks' play stupid. Early on we may have had some inconsistent decisions, but I think at this point everyone understands and is on board with that distinction, and that's what we've been enforcing for the past several months.
We're still talking over some related flaming issues, and we'll be back with an announcement on those results after the discussion concludes.
EDIT: Oh, I get it. Like the slash means 'per'. That isn't really what I'm talking about. Deadlines are all well and good, and ought to be enforced if days are lagging, but pre-set deadlines tend to cause people to lurk for some reason. This exact tactic was actually tried in...Arabian Nights mafia? to no particularly good effect.
I'm thinking more along the lines of role design. Lots and lots of games, particularly of the specialty variety, tend to have roles and overall mechanics that make players want to coordinate everything, and this causes problems. There's lots of design space for roles that incentivize not exposing themselves (at least not early on), and roles that benefit inherently from days being short, and roles that make days more likely to end the longer it runs on. Add in some roles, like double voters, that make it much easier to end days, and reduce roles, like unlynchability, that tend to make a day drag on.
In short, we should give mods a reason to use fewer roles that force the town as a whole to make more decisions during the day than just the lynch itself, and add in a few roles that "grease the wheels", so to speak, to spark excitement and make it hard to drag things out even if you want to.
one thing is sure, town want to win, more info is good for town, the longer days the better for town, im always for prolonging the day because of that, and when im scum i would fake it :rolleyes:.
i understand the problem you are discussing here and i totally agree with your solution also plus i have more suggestions for addressing this issue.
A) shorter deadlines, and if the deadline is reached, theres a lynch on the most voted, deadline resulting in a no lynch is bad for a multitude of reasons.
B) stronger moderation requirements (more co-moderations?), i find myself trapped on some games where the mod refuses/forget do prod, set deadlines or even replace players. thats is ridiculous. im setting a personal mod ban-list for myself.
What about "Your play is foolish," or "The game action that you attempted to perform does not comply with my perceived notion of best practices to execute within this game of forum-based mafia."
It is fairly crucial to be able to call out people on bad play. But you don't have to call them stupid. You can just say 'your play this game is terrible. Like..really terrible. Like..Death's Vampire could run laps around you terrible'.(Tilde used to be the example here, but lately he seems to have improved) That gets the point across without personally attacking anyone.
lol, when you called me being a tilde gimmick i imagined it was some kind of congratulation. now i see the truth
------------------------------------------
about the flaming issue, i think the mafia subforum should be totally devoid of this type of moderation, this is a game of deception and lies for gods sake. hearts will be broken and betrayal is to be expected, thats the spirit of the game.
theres should be some kind of disclaimer on all games that everything is allowed on games. when we insult anyone is not like we really are meaning it, sometimes getting on the nerves of the players is good strategy.
after the game is over i find it not as enjoyable to insult someone for their bad play. constructive reasoning works better on this situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Moderators are always forced to walk a wimbly-wombly line between applying good judgment and being fair. Applying good judgment means considering all the factors that might make something OK in one situation but not in another; being fair means being consistent.
Part of being Fair is using good judgment.
Consistent =/= being fair.
You can be consistently a bastard. By your definition that would be perfectly fair.
Actually, that is fair. If you treat everyone equally as bad, you're giving no special treatment. No one can point to anyone else and say "You're receiving more/less flak than me, that's unfair!"
Say the law will say if person does X, they get one year in jail. A judge who uses fairness as the primary principle will give every person who does X one year in jail. A judge who uses good judgment as a primary principle will consider the situation leading up to doing X, the type of person who did X, and how that person dealt with having done X, and will hand out varying punishments based on this factor. The second situation can easily lead to individuals pointing at those who got less jail time than them and say that it's unfair.
I think saying a case is stupid can't be looked at as poor sportminship.
I've stated that a case is BS, crap and called a few players a VI (village idiot).
A few times people say something so bad that makes you headsmack your desk a few tims.
This icon is okay.
However when a post is so aweful I will post something like:
*smack*
*smack*
*smack*
Sorry I'm just trying to knock myself into ignorant bliss after reading that last post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am female, hear me roar!
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
Your play is incredibly detremential to the heart and soul of mafia.
His most recent atrocion is still outgoing, but this would make the second game that I have witnenessed him hammer himself, only to flip town. I even think red_0mega made a comment to him at the end of the game in Basic 37.
I think a ban may be too strong, but bare minimum, he should be blacklisted, pending at least 3 different mods who chance on him say that he is playing reasonable, regardless of alignment.
Just because you were scum doesn't negate the fact that you suicided. You should be banned from mafia.
I second Seppel's request. He's only here to troll. He doesn't play the game.
HE said suicided as town.
Which I didn't do in basic 40.
However if you strongly believe I should be blacklisted, then go for it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Seppel suicide in basic 41?
His most recent atrocion is still outgoing, but this would make the second game that I have witnenessed him hammer himself, only to flip town. I even think red_0mega made a comment to him at the end of the game in Basic 37.
Again, I checked, and he did not hammer himself, but he was on his own lynch wagon, which is unsportsmanlike conduct. If you're town and you're under pressure, you FIGHT. You don't give up.
I think a ban may be too strong, but bare minimum, he should be blacklisted, pending at least 3 different mods who chance on him say that he is playing reasonable, regardless of alignment.
Blacklisted = Mafia Ban, which is what we're asking for.
Actually, I just checked. He wasn't voting for himself in #40.
#42 is your game, lol.
Agreed
Again, I checked, and he did not hammer himself, but he was on his own lynch wagon, which is unsportsmanlike conduct. If you're town and you're under pressure, you FIGHT. You don't give up.
Blacklisted = Mafia Ban, which is what we're asking for.
I do believe it, which is why I'm here.
Why do you care? You said you were done after CCMV.
Two posts later, zindabad announced that was a lynch. So, yes. He did hammer himself in #38.
I am done after Clan Mafia.
You may as well just let me finish that and blacklist me after that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Arcadic View Post
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Two posts later, zindabad announced that was a lynch. So, yes. He did hammer himself in #38.
Its not that simple. Have to reconstruct a votecount, which again zindabad doesn't post on Day/Night transitions. I'll go do it for you. Not that it matters I suppose. Post was equally flippant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Clan Is Dead.... Long Live The Izzet! Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Again, I checked, and he did not hammer himself, but he was on his own lynch wagon, which is unsportsmanlike conduct. If you're town and you're under pressure, you FIGHT. You don't give up.
He definitly threw a vote on himself, and said something along the lines of one more scum to go. I know because me and Seppel were a bit amused as the two remaining members of that mafia team.
Blacklisted = Mafia Ban, which is what we're asking for.
My apologies, I am not familiar with the discipline here. What I was going for was more of a probation period, not an all going ban.
Two posts later, zindabad announced that was a lynch. So, yes. He did hammer himself in #38.
Going by what the players said, I thought PJ was the hammerer in that game, but at this point, we're splitting hairs. His play is bad, it needs serious improvement if he wants to continue. I would like to see him blossum into a better player, but only if that attitude of his changes.
So Yanni, do you want to continue playing, or is what you said before true, that you are done after planeswalkers?
Its not that simple. Have to rerconstruct a votecount, which again zindabad doesn't post on Day/Night transitions. I'll go do it for you. Not that it matters I suppose. Post was equally flippant.
No, you don't. Zindabad does not post that it's a lynch until there is a lynch. Yanni's vote was the last vote on his own wagon.
He definitly threw a vote on himself, and said something along the lines of one more scum to go. I know because me and Seppel were a bit amused as the two remaining members of that mafia team.
My apologies, I am not familiar with the discipline here. What I was going for was more of a probation period, not an all going ban.
Going by what the players said, I thought PJ was the hammerer in that game, but at this point, we're splitting hairs. His play is bad, it needs serious improvement if he wants to continue. I would like to see him blossum into a better player, but only if that attitude of his changes.
So Yanni, do you want to continue playing, or is what you said before true, that you are done after planeswalkers?
I am absolutely finished after Planeswalkers.
I'm sick all of the asshattery that has gone on with multiple of the players in that game and other games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Arcadic View Post
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
No, you don't. Zindabad does not post that it's a lynch until there is a lynch. Yanni's vote was the last vote on his own wagon.
You are discounting the possibility that zindabad wasn't refreshing the page every 30 seconds. He may have cast the 8th vote at 7 to lynch, and then zinda logged on to say "That's a lynch" as zinda doesn't give the votecounts. Again, a minor detail.
In case it isn't clear, I'm agreeing with Seppel and Manders. Wholeheartedly. If we were going by rules of order, as this has been "seconded" I would be the first vote to agree to pass the motion, and not just based on this suiciding vote stuff, but also the spam, the disruption, the trolling even in his sig', and other things. He single-handedly ruins or nearly ruins games.
Yanni (3) - Reya Cookiebringer, Seppel, johnthemaster
johnthemaster (2) - Lord of Graves, Shalako
Lord of Graves (2) - Lost_Profit, Wolf with a Bass
Seppel (2) - leonardooo, Nikomaru
Nikomaru (1) - Puddlejumper
Geez. Alright. That's a lot of votes on Yanni. I will post better details later. but for the next 4 hours, while I have no computer access, I will switch my vote. Mind you i do this under protest because I really think Seppel is scum.
And I already admitted i was doing a scummy thing by wanting to off the noise-maker.
UNVOTE - VOTE Yanni
Alright, I'm at l-2 so I'll claim.
I am Todd Ingram, Vanilla Town.
I play bass for the band class at demon head, and am a vegan. I recently had my vegan powers stripped because I ate gilateo.
I have no powers.
My win conidition is when all the mafia are eliminated, I win.
You are discounting the possibility that zindabad wasn't refreshing the page every 30 seconds. He may have cast the 8th vote at 7 to lynch, and then zinda logged on to say "That's a lynch" as zinda doesn't give the votecounts. Again, a minor detail.
In case it isn't clear, I'm agreeing with Seppel and Manders. Wholeheartedly. If we were going by rules of order, as this has been "seconded" I would be the first vote to agree to pass the motion, and not just based on this suiciding vote stuff, but also the spam, the disruption, the trolling even in his sig', and other things. He single-handedly ruins or nearly ruins games.
Spam?
Are you kidding me?
Disruption?
Are you kidding me?
You want to blame every game I've been in failing because of me?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Arcadic View Post
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Yanni (3) - Reya Cookiebringer, Seppel, johnthemaster
johnthemaster (2) - Lord of Graves, Shalako
Lord of Graves (2) - Lost_Profit, Wolf with a Bass
Seppel (2) - leonardooo, Nikomaru
Nikomaru (1) - Puddlejumper
Mafia Etiquette dictates that one does not put a person already at L-2 up to L-1.
I Will unvote and let you Vote as I am not sure if this vote will be counted or not.
Seppel: I thought about calling it Secretly Bastard Mafia.
Sorry, I didn't actually know the etiquette for voting: unvote - vote Yanni
This was just a weak part of my argument, meaning that, whether or not Seppel is town, offing anyone is a universally moral crime. If "she" would just keep calm and quite for a minute it might be easier to rat out some scum. But she keeps shouting and pointing her finger at people. Anywhatever.
I don't like being threatened. I'm sure no one does, but you immediately changed your vote with one straightforward post, which by the way, I've been leading up to for a few days now. You wanna talk to me about scummy tells? I'm a newbie and what you did there seems pretty scummy.
This is also somewhat scummy.
Yeah, this kind of threatening is rude and smacks of scum. I can't find the previous post where you threatened everyone if they didn't unvote Seppel, but I remember reading it.
I will stay with my vote on Yanni, so as to move things along.
p.s. what's this L-1, L-2 thing? is that abbr. for Lynch number 1 and 2?
This is what the vote count would have looked like if zindabad had done one with the lynch:
Votecount:
Yanni (7) - Reya Cookiebringer, Seppel, johnthemaster, la3, Shalako, Nikomaru, Puddlejumper
johnthemaster (1) - Lord of Graves
Lord of Graves (2) - Lost_Profit, Wolf with a Bass
Seppel (1) - leonardooo
Nikomaru (1) - Puddlejumper
With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.
So, no, he didn't hammer himself, but he did vote right after Puddlejumper, so he had every intention of doing it.
No, you are not alone. Players have skewed too far toward the cautious end of the spectrum these days. It's begun to make the game unbearable to play.
Note to self: Your mafia theories are usually wrong, so don't act on them.
I'm not clear on what this means. Explain?
EDIT: Oh, I get it. Like the slash means 'per'. That isn't really what I'm talking about. Deadlines are all well and good, and ought to be enforced if days are lagging, but pre-set deadlines tend to cause people to lurk for some reason. This exact tactic was actually tried in...Arabian Nights mafia? to no particularly good effect.
I'm thinking more along the lines of role design. Lots and lots of games, particularly of the specialty variety, tend to have roles and overall mechanics that make players want to coordinate everything, and this causes problems. There's lots of design space for roles that incentivize not exposing themselves (at least not early on), and roles that benefit inherently from days being short, and roles that make days more likely to end the longer it runs on. Add in some roles, like double voters, that make it much easier to end days, and reduce roles, like unlynchability, that tend to make a day drag on.
In short, we should give mods a reason to use fewer roles that force the town as a whole to make more decisions during the day than just the lynch itself, and add in a few roles that "grease the wheels", so to speak, to spark excitement and make it hard to drag things out even if you want to.
Your idea of less complicated roles => shorter days is certainly a valid one, though the question is by how much. If you had two 12 person mafia games, one in which the setup was all PRs of some kind and the other in which it was 8 vanilla town, 1 doctor, and 3 vanilla mafia, would to the all PR one go significantly longer? Say, more than a few days per day longer? Because complicated roles, while a contributing factor, doesn't feel like the root of the problem.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
He's already responded to my PM and should post today. He's fine.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Is that really what you feel like I said? I'm not advocating less-complicated roles at all. I'm just advocating roles that don't encourage people to put decisions in the hands of the town as a whole. A town daykiller, for example, is a real simple role that basically doubles the length of the day, because the town has to decide on twice as many "lynches".
Lots of specialties have had mechanics that incentivize this kind of coordination, but that hardly means that complicated roles necessitate it. PRs are a fine example of a complication that doesn't (necessarily) extend the day. In fact, some PRs tend to shorten the day, because they reduce daytime decisions.
So I've been infracted lately for a pair of flame infractions. One I justly deserved.
The second was for calling a player stupid (sort of). Now I'm not going to quote the post in question, but the post in question would've been exactly the same if i replaced the player's name with "PlayerName's play [is] stupid". In other words, using the word stupid or a non-swear synonym and a player is REFERRING TO THAT PERSONS PLAY.
Thus I submit that this is totally and completely fair game to post, and that to infract a player for omitting the word "play" is just plain silly. This is mafia, we talk about play - we're allowed to condemn the play as being poor or praise it to the heavens, and outside of swears, we shouldn't have limits on this. This is not a spot for thin skins to freak out about.
In other words, where a negative adjective is being used to address a person's play, rather than the person itself, it should be totally fine. But for some reason that wasn't the case here.
I'm not bothering to appeal the infraction, but it's a general mafia issue and I want to get it out there for other as well.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I've been infracted for saying something someone was doing was stupid here.
So, no, we're not allowed to say someone's play is stupid.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Which makes no sense; which is my point.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Oh, then I misunderstood you. I get what you're saying now.
My understanding of our enforcement, especially recently, was that we've been making a sharp distinction between insulting users, and pointing out subpar play. If we've been failing to make that distinction, recently, I'd like to hear about it and make sure we're all on the same page here.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
/Sign petition to call people stupid
.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I'm totally using that second one.
To single out a word "stupid" is just not effective since it's A) not insulting and no media on Earth would try and ban its use in a sentence even as an insult and B) nowhere near as insulting as describing in detail why that person is stupid.
The whole thing just seems silly.
The thing about shorter games comes up every 6 months and my answer is the same: game mods have to design games to have a conversational flashpoint on day 1, like mine do. Even a no-kill night start (but that favours the town, so keep it in mind when balancing).
Otherwise you get interminable day 1s where noone is sure enough of anything.
Let the record show that I was not being stupid and that I was not the one who lied and got Cyan mislynched.
That's really irrelevant. It isn't a matter of whether there's anything wrong with anyone's play. It's a matter of what opinions are allowed to be expressed about a play, good or bad.
Anyway, count me in the camp that's for provocative speech. Mafia would lack a lot of depth it currently allows if you weren't able to try to provoke people.
Conversation pieces are great and all, but more can, and should, be done, imo. The council can provide some kind of an incentive to design games with elements that reduce game length, maybe? Looking over past games, this has been an ongoing, and worsening, issue for a long time, and it isn't something people should just adapt to.
Well, except DV. Not that he counts.
Also, yes, game days are frequently too long anymore. Sometimes, you just have to take your chances on what could be a mislynch. Just because a mislynch happens doesn't mean that the whole wagon is null and void of information. You can usually learn more from mis-voting patterns than from seeing who successfully voted a scum(because scumbuddies generally know when their partner is going down, and are going to go along with it..only the absolute worst(or at least most brazen) scum actually try to prevent their buddy from getting lynched).
The again, some people never learn how bad their "argumentation" is.
As to whether people should be allowed to use emotionally inflamatory language to influence their fellow players: let's not become the World Series of Poker, please? Not to be too slippery slope, but next thing there will be infractions for gloating posts when the town mislynches and the scum know they've won.
* Artifice 101 steps off soapbox
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
I think the key factor is the big picture rather than the specific incident. Isolated incidents of calling someone stupid in a mafia game probably aren't an issue; after all, sometimes players are being stupid and sometimes it's because they're mafia lying through their teeth. Sometimes the only accurate way to describe and call out a lie is to point out how plain stupid it is. I think it becomes a problem when 1.) it's a new player who could very likely be turned off from the game by being ridiculed, and 2.) when the personal attacks become common in a game and the overall tone becomes highly combative.
Just my 2 cents.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
So you're permitted to call folks' play stupid. Early on we may have had some inconsistent decisions, but I think at this point everyone understands and is on board with that distinction, and that's what we've been enforcing for the past several months.
We're still talking over some related flaming issues, and we'll be back with an announcement on those results after the discussion concludes.
one thing is sure, town want to win, more info is good for town, the longer days the better for town, im always for prolonging the day because of that, and when im scum i would fake it :rolleyes:.
i understand the problem you are discussing here and i totally agree with your solution also plus i have more suggestions for addressing this issue.
A) shorter deadlines, and if the deadline is reached, theres a lynch on the most voted, deadline resulting in a no lynch is bad for a multitude of reasons.
B) stronger moderation requirements (more co-moderations?), i find myself trapped on some games where the mod refuses/forget do prod, set deadlines or even replace players. thats is ridiculous. im setting a personal mod ban-list for myself.
seppel age 10 is awesome.
fixed
lol, when you called me being a tilde gimmick i imagined it was some kind of congratulation. now i see the truth
------------------------------------------
about the flaming issue, i think the mafia subforum should be totally devoid of this type of moderation, this is a game of deception and lies for gods sake. hearts will be broken and betrayal is to be expected, thats the spirit of the game.
theres should be some kind of disclaimer on all games that everything is allowed on games. when we insult anyone is not like we really are meaning it, sometimes getting on the nerves of the players is good strategy.
after the game is over i find it not as enjoyable to insult someone for their bad play. constructive reasoning works better on this situation.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Part of being Fair is using good judgment.
Consistent =/= being fair.
You can be consistently a bastard. By your definition that would be perfectly fair.
The Family
Say the law will say if person does X, they get one year in jail. A judge who uses fairness as the primary principle will give every person who does X one year in jail. A judge who uses good judgment as a primary principle will consider the situation leading up to doing X, the type of person who did X, and how that person dealt with having done X, and will hand out varying punishments based on this factor. The second situation can easily lead to individuals pointing at those who got less jail time than them and say that it's unfair.
I've stated that a case is BS, crap and called a few players a VI (village idiot).
A few times people say something so bad that makes you headsmack your desk a few tims.
This icon is okay.
However when a post is so aweful I will post something like:
*smack*
*smack*
*smack*
Sorry I'm just trying to knock myself into ignorant bliss after reading that last post.
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
mafia record
Also known at mafiascum as farside22
so basic 37, your's and..?
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Basic 37, Basic 38, and Basic 40. How well you remember.
I was scum in basic 40.
And I didn't suicide in basic 38.
That's 2.
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
I second Seppel's request. He's only here to troll. He doesn't play the game.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6756266#post6756266
I want the evidence to be true. zindabad doesn't do final votecounts, so someone can calculate and let me know.
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
His most recent atrocion is still outgoing, but this would make the second game that I have witnenessed him hammer himself, only to flip town. I even think red_0mega made a comment to him at the end of the game in Basic 37.
I think a ban may be too strong, but bare minimum, he should be blacklisted, pending at least 3 different mods who chance on him say that he is playing reasonable, regardless of alignment.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
HE said suicided as town.
Which I didn't do in basic 40.
However if you strongly believe I should be blacklisted, then go for it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Seppel suicide in basic 41?
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Actually, I just checked. He wasn't voting for himself in #40.
#42 is your game, lol.
Agreed
Again, I checked, and he did not hammer himself, but he was on his own lynch wagon, which is unsportsmanlike conduct. If you're town and you're under pressure, you FIGHT. You don't give up.
Blacklisted = Mafia Ban, which is what we're asking for.
I do believe it, which is why I'm here.
Why do you care? You said you were done after CCMV.
Two posts later, zindabad announced that was a lynch. So, yes. He did hammer himself in #38.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
I am done after Clan Mafia.
You may as well just let me finish that and blacklist me after that.
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
He definitly threw a vote on himself, and said something along the lines of one more scum to go. I know because me and Seppel were a bit amused as the two remaining members of that mafia team.
My apologies, I am not familiar with the discipline here. What I was going for was more of a probation period, not an all going ban.
Going by what the players said, I thought PJ was the hammerer in that game, but at this point, we're splitting hairs. His play is bad, it needs serious improvement if he wants to continue. I would like to see him blossum into a better player, but only if that attitude of his changes.
So Yanni, do you want to continue playing, or is what you said before true, that you are done after planeswalkers?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
No, you don't. Zindabad does not post that it's a lynch until there is a lynch. Yanni's vote was the last vote on his own wagon.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
I am absolutely finished after Planeswalkers.
I'm sick all of the asshattery that has gone on with multiple of the players in that game and other games.
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
You are discounting the possibility that zindabad wasn't refreshing the page every 30 seconds. He may have cast the 8th vote at 7 to lynch, and then zinda logged on to say "That's a lynch" as zinda doesn't give the votecounts. Again, a minor detail.
In case it isn't clear, I'm agreeing with Seppel and Manders. Wholeheartedly. If we were going by rules of order, as this has been "seconded" I would be the first vote to agree to pass the motion, and not just based on this suiciding vote stuff, but also the spam, the disruption, the trolling even in his sig', and other things. He single-handedly ruins or nearly ruins games.
3
4
5
Semi-6...
Hint at the Semi part. Shalako unvotes, Niko revotes later. See below.
Hammer
Vote 8 Might even be vote 9. Definately not vote 7 for lynch.
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
Spam?
Are you kidding me?
Disruption?
Are you kidding me?
You want to blame every game I've been in failing because of me?
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
Absolutely not, but this is a very minor point against you.
Absolutely not, and this is a good point against you.
No one's doing that.
So, I wanted the #38 situation to be clarified, so here ya go:
This is what the vote count would have looked like if zindabad had done one with the lynch:
Votecount:
Yanni (7) - Reya Cookiebringer, Seppel, johnthemaster, la3, Shalako, Nikomaru, Puddlejumper
johnthemaster (1) - Lord of Graves
Lord of Graves (2) - Lost_Profit, Wolf with a Bass
Seppel (1) - leonardooo
Nikomaru (1) - Puddlejumper
With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.
So, no, he didn't hammer himself, but he did vote right after Puddlejumper, so he had every intention of doing it.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!