MTG Salvation

The problem with this is that the town has to be able to assume that there are not multiples of roles like full/sane cop, full vig, etc. Otherwise, their claims never mean anything ever, and arguably just give the scum an opportunity to look good without really having to verify anything.

You guys are arguing for a gamestate where behavior is the only thing that ever matters. This is admirable, but really only leads to scum wins. Claims are a way that a townie that is bad/having a bad game can get out of being mislynched sometimes. Sometimes the benefit scum too, but primarily the claiming process just benefits the town.

If one person claims Cop and another person immediately counterclaims them, the town should be able to lynch one of them(typically the first person) without having to worry that maybe the Mod just included multiple Cops for funsies.

Obviously including something like a role-cop in addition to a normal cop would be different, but it would also be largely useless anyway. I'd rather see mods make someone a backup Cop when there is also a town cop than a rolecop when there is also a towncop.

Of course, if someone gets run up to claiming range and claims rolecop or backup cop, you should most likely be lynching them anyway, but that's another story.

Quote from Tanarin

I think in the end, it all depends on the game type itself. For example in a chosen setup, one should fully expect duplicate/similar roles, given the nature of the game itself. Same goes with a deathy style game, where it RELIES on duplicate roles.

Another baseline to the conversation: we're talking about closed setups. Open setups are obviously not an issue for mislynches based on role redundancy.

So how do you feel about Normals here having this issue?

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Stay tuned for Cerberus Mafia!

Trichotomies! Yay!

Medusa Mafia: "He looked at me funny! I insist upon a Modkill!"

Quote from Artifice 101

I realized I forgot a step. The reason it is bastardly is that it creates a false, Mod-generated dichotomy. In most of my reading on game construction, I've seen where (unless Cop sanities are in question and the game is notifed as such) most roles are unique so as not force the town into mislynches.

Scum should not receive basically 4 kills because of name/role similarity.

<continue to discuss>

It is not bastardy at all, imo. Modgaming should never be more than minor support for a lynch. There needs to be enough of a case before modgaming to warrant a lynch.

The problem isn't there being two roles that are the same, it's what two roles are the same. Some roles are shields for thesis townies, and some scum roles are very scummy and add a difficulty level to explain. Some town roles are scummy sounding, some scum roles sound safe. It's part of a very delicate balance in claiming a role, and two roles being the same is part of that balance.

Bastardy, no. Difficult, yes. Game breaking if you mess up, not unless you really foul it up.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

The problem isn't there being two roles that are the same, it's what two roles are the same. Some roles are shields for thesis townies, and some scum roles are very scummy and add a difficulty level to explain. Some town roles are scummy sounding, some scum roles sound safe. It's part of a very delicate balance in claiming a role, and two roles being the same is part of that balance.

Bastardy, no. Difficult, yes. Game breaking if you mess up, not unless you really foul it up.

But see, in all of your examples except for the last one the player knows what they are dealing with and the onus of responsibility is on them. They have their role PM and an expectation to not be counterclaimed by fellow town.

When this happens, or they're shot by their fellow Vig or whatever, I say the mistake is a design flaw and the word bastardly applies.

Also: lets all get some of our terms straight. Gaming the Setup is what we are talking about here. It involves "reading the author" for what they would and wouldn't write into their game.

Gaming the Mod on the other hand would be trying to trick the Mod into confirming you, or giving up information or whatnot, and should be considered illegal and unethical.

Entitlement is not a design flaw, it's a player flaw. Expect nothing is the better rule to follow in complicated games.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

Entitlement is not a design flaw, it's a player flaw. Expect nothing is the better rule to follow in complicated games.

Entitlement? Not sure what you mean by this.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

Entitlement is not a design flaw, it's a player flaw. Expect nothing is the better rule to follow in complicated games.

I think the better rule in really complicated games is "Expect the Unexpected." Covers everything IMO.

Quote from Artifice 101

Entitlement? Not sure what you mean by this.

you feel entitled to your role being yours and yours alone. You have this expectation because your role has been your role in previous games.

Take VT as a reverse example. Everyone expects a few VT claims, but what if their is only one claimed VT? Your expectations will always burn you in this game, and it's one of the most glaring and common mistakes a town makes.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

Entitlement is not a design flaw, it's a player flaw. Expect nothing is the better rule to follow in complicated games.

This is good advice.

Unrelatedly, I wonder if a Serial Killer has ever skipped killing Night One (and perhaps even beyond) to throw off the math of the other players.

RafK in Canada mafia.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

RafK in Canada mafia.

IIRC, he was unkillable during Nights when he didn't kill.

I was going to bring up that game as an example that wouldn't really count given that RafK had an incentive to not kill other than generating WIFOM, but forgot to.

So you're saying, regardless of whether a player has played a role or not in the past actually, that in an MTGS Normal, there should be no expectations of roles (other than Vanilla and Masons of course) being unique?

You call this entitlement. I call it a reasonable expectation and part of how Normals are supposed to be constructed, in that they are supposed to be similar in complexity to Basics. In Basics, it seems to be the norm as well to have only: 1 investigative role (Cop, Watcher, Tracker, Gunsmith, etc.), 1 protective (Doc, Jailer, Bodyguard, etc.), and one "other".

The reasons I brought this up is I've had a ton of dichotomies in games lately, many of which have been resolved poorly. Everything from the Cop vs Gunsmith investigative role in 1984 Basic, the multiple town Vig's in Cyberpunk, the multiple overlapping roles in StarCraft, the claimed Night Vig and DayVig in Seasons (Night Vig turned out to be an SK) which was a Specialty I'll admit, and my own experience with Vezok in AI's CCMV game which we've discussed and still tend to disagree about. Even though AI is muh homeboy.

More or less, I think dichotomy resolution is what I really wanted to talk about. I just needed a place to start. I think game construction that includes these choices should be avoided at all cost, and reviewers should be looking for these details.

Unless the mod says that each role is unique you should not be surprised if there are multiple of a role. If you are gaming the set-up that there is only one of each type of role then you are already at a disadvantage.

Also I agree with EP that if you think that your role is unique it probably means you have a sense of entitlement.

Artifice, are you proposing that there should not be roles of similar qualities in games?

Quote from Iso

Artifice, are you proposing that there should not be roles of similar qualities in games?

No, but only because you have oversimplified.

To restate and update my premise, there should not be roles with similar mechanical names. Also, if there are actual multiples of roles, then that should be an open part of the setup in Normals and included in the definition of them in this post.

In Basics, there should be no redundancy whatsoever (except Vanilla or Mason, obsiously, again), and this should be part of the definition of Basics spoilerized in this post.

The fact that multiple players who are more familiar with setups from outside sources than myself have pointed out examples of open setups with redundant roles (chosen games, dethy games) seems to support this.

Given that there is design space available for this type of design (Specialties, Minis, PCQ, FTQ), I have a hard time seeing the problem.

I mean, isn't that why there are restrictions on roles? Like in DH and Zeld for Cyberpunk.

I think whether or not redundant roles are known should be solely at the discretion of the mod. Having redundancy does not hurt the game except in the situation where the town decides they know better then the mod and start trying to kill redundant roles because they are redundant.

Quote from Guardman

I think whether or not redundant roles are known should be solely at the discretion of the mod. Having redundancy does not hurt the game except in the situation where the town decides they know better then the mod and start trying to kill redundant roles because they are redundant.

But wait.

What happens when scum say, "Oh yeah, I'm that, too!" on a Doc claim or a Cop claim. Do you just let them waltz to endgame?

And are you talking about Basics or Normals or both?

Quote from Guardman

I think whether or not redundant roles are known should be solely at the discretion of the mod. Having redundancy does not hurt the game except in the situation where the town decides they know better then the mod and start trying to kill redundant roles because they are redundant.

I think that redundant roles are indeed at the discretion at the mod, but that probability analysis is still going to be valid. Modgaming comes down to probability analysis, not "knowing better than the mod".

Quote from Artifice 101

But wait.

What happens when scum say, "Oh yeah, I'm that, too!" on a Doc claim or a Cop claim. Do you just let them waltz to endgame?

And are you talking about Basics or Normals or both?

Normal, Specialties, and Minis. Basics are a completely different beast.

And no you say okay you have been scummy so we are going to lynch you, now what type of knot do you like on your noose?

Quote from Guardman

Normal, Specialties, and Minis. Basics are a completely different beast.

And no you say okay you have been scummy so we are going to lynch you, now what type of knot do you like on your noose?

But, see, then what if they are both town...? Remember, this usually results in 2 lynches and at least two town Nightkills. You're speaking from a town perspective, but the scum love this sort of thing and it gives them an unfair advantage as the informed majority.

Why not instead make it something that should not be allowed to happen?

Why should we put a restriction on what the mods want to do for their games? That stifles creativity.

Quote from Iso

Why should we put a restriction on what the mods want to do for their games? That stifles creativity.

Fairness.

As I've already stated, there's plenty of space for redundant roles in Specialties, Minis, and the other MTGS game types. No creativity will be stifled. They should be left out of Normals, as Normals are supposed to be free of bastardliness.

Quote from Artifice 101

But, see, then what if they are both town...? Remember, this usually results in 2 lynches and at least two town Nightkills. You're speaking from a town perspective, but the scum love this sort of thing and it gives them an unfair advantage as the informed majority.

Why not instead make it something that should not be allowed to happen?

If they are both town then the scummy one was playing bad and should be lynched. I have no problem not lynching the other one for not being scummy. If they lynch him just because well then the town is bad and deserve its fate.

Basically I've learned that you should rarely if ever not lynch someone scummy just because they have role X. So counterclaims and claims actually do very little for me.

Quote from Emo_Pinata

you feel entitled to your role being yours and yours alone. You have this expectation because your role has been your role in previous games.

Take VT as a reverse example. Everyone expects a few VT claims, but what if their is only one claimed VT? Your expectations will always burn you in this game, and it's one of the most glaring and common mistakes a town makes.

In both of my games, there has only ever been one vanilla town. I did that specifically so that a vanilla town claim would be viable for anyone, not just the one who's really VT.

Quote from Artifice 101

So you're saying, regardless of whether a player has played a role or not in the past actually, that in an MTGS Normal, there should be no expectations of roles (other than Vanilla and Masons of course) being unique?

You call this entitlement. I call it a reasonable expectation and part of how Normals are supposed to be constructed, in that they are supposed to be similar in complexity to Basics. In Basics, it seems to be the norm as well to have only: 1 investigative role (Cop, Watcher, Tracker, Gunsmith, etc.), 1 protective (Doc, Jailer, Bodyguard, etc.), and one "other".

The reasons I brought this up is I've had a ton of dichotomies in games lately, many of which have been resolved poorly. Everything from the Cop vs Gunsmith investigative role in 1984 Basic, the multiple town Vig's in Cyberpunk, the multiple overlapping roles in StarCraft, the claimed Night Vig and DayVig in Seasons (Night Vig turned out to be an SK) which was a Specialty I'll admit, and my own experience with Vezok in AI's CCMV game which we've discussed and still tend to disagree about. Even though AI is muh homeboy.

More or less, I think dichotomy resolution is what I really wanted to talk about. I just needed a place to start. I think game construction that includes these choices should be avoided at all cost, and reviewers should be looking for these details.

It seems like you want to police something that isn't really an issue. Every game is different. I don't want to restrict mods from having duplicate or similar roles and I definitely don't want players just expecting a setup to be a certain way. It's not conducive to creative design and it encourages gaming the setup.

I agree with Artifice.

Here is what happens if a Mod does stupid stuff like 'put the same role into a game twice on the same team'. When that game ends, people don't sign up for that mod's games anymore. I feel like this is much ado about nothing. I can't remember the last time a game even had a non-sane cop. Actually, I think it was one of Stormblind's games, and I was the paranoid Cop, and was given some clues(though arguably not enough of them). And this was ages ago.

This rolls back into the same problem that towns have had for awhile. No one wants to lynch people unless they are 99% sure someone is scum. If someone got run up to the point that they had to claim, then they most likely did something to deserve it. In the rare instances where they didn't deserve it, something rotten is going on, and can be worked out later anyway. The claiming process is meant to protect towns from lynching obvious town power roles. Like Cop, Vig, etc(I can't even really say Doc anymore, because Mods for the last year or so are obsessed with making scum Docs for whatever reason). When someone claims tracker/rolecop/watcher/roleblocker/etc etc, unless the tone of their claim just gives their town alignment away completely(and this does happen at times), then they should get lynched. If they flip town..that sucks, next time they should be less scummy. And you analyze the wagon. Running 5 people up to claim range in a day is one of the worst mistakes that a town can make, but people want to do it all of the time.

Quote from Cyan

Here is what happens if a Mod does stupid stuff like 'put the same role into a game twice on the same team'. When that game ends, people don't sign up for that mod's games anymore. I feel like this is much ado about nothing. I can't remember the last time a game even had a non-sane cop. Actually, I think it was one of Stormblind's games, and I was the paranoid Cop, and was given some clues(though arguably not enough of them). And this was ages ago.

This rolls back into the same problem that towns have had for awhile. No one wants to lynch people unless they are 99% sure someone is scum. If someone got run up to the point that they had to claim, then they most likely did something to deserve it. In the rare instances where they didn't deserve it, something rotten is going on, and can be worked out later anyway. The claiming process is meant to protect towns from lynching obvious town power roles. Like Cop, Vig, etc(I can't even really say Doc anymore, because Mods for the last year or so are obsessed with making scum Docs for whatever reason). When someone claims tracker/rolecop/watcher/roleblocker/etc etc, unless the tone of their claim just gives their town alignment away completely(and this does happen at times), then they should get lynched. If they flip town..that sucks, next time they should be less scummy. And you analyze the wagon. Running 5 people up to claim range in a day is one of the worst mistakes that a town can make, but people want to do it all of the time.

1. There is a big difference between different sanities of docs and duplicate roles.

2. I believe it was Cyan's Impossible Mafia was the last game with a non-sane cop where I was the naive cop. Though I knew I was naive and was more just to know there were no other cops in the game.

3. I don't see why people wouldn't sign up for games where the mod has duplicated roles in the past.

4. As for scum docs, they do have a place in games since of the prevalence of vigs and SK's in games nowadays. Hell I think with the number of neutrals and SK's I think it won't be long before we see a scum cop and he will actually be useful to the scum by determining who is town and who is not. This is why I don't trust role claims that much in the first place.

Quote from Guardman

sanities of docs

But yeah, there was the Naive Cop in CIM.

Man, how about a scum Vig in a game with an SK where the mafia can't Nightkill except through the Vig? Worst setup ever.

Quote from Iso

But yeah, there was the Naive Cop in CIM.

Man, how about a scum Vig in a game with an SK where the mafia can't Nightkill except through the Vig? Worst setup ever.

Coming soon...Iso's Impossible Mafia.

Not sure where to look for this or where to ask, so I'll post it here. If it is covered elsewhere, someone please direct me to the proper location. Thanks...

What are the "rules" regarding thanking posts?

1) Can I thank any post I want to, at any time?
2) Do I have to be a player in a particular game to thank a post?
3) Do I have to be a LIVING player in a game to thank a post?
4) Is there any time limit on how old a post can be before I can no longer thank it?
5) Am I allowed to un-thank a post after I've thanked it?
6) Are there any restrictions on either my player state or the time frame for un-thanking posts?
7) If there aren't any "official" answers to these questions, does that mean I'm free to do whatever I want with my thanks and un-thanks?

Basically, how much "editing" of the thread am I allowed to do? Most severe case I can think of...

I'm a dead player, but I know who scum is (or believe I do). I go back into the thread and thank every single post of the first dead Scum up to the point of their death and don't thank any other posts. I then thank every post of the next scum that died up to their point of death, and so on. Once I reach the point of the last dead scum's death, I start thanking every post of the person I "know" is Scum. I do all this at some point AFTER I'm already dead in the game.

I can't believe that would be considered "acceptable", but are there actually any rules against it?

I take it back, that's not the most severe case I can think of...

I'm dead, but I start thanking and un-thanking the most recent post until someone notices. That person starts asking me questions, having me thank only the most recent post for "no", the two most recent posts for "yes" and the three most recent posts for "I don't know" or "Re-word the question". Through that, I manage to tell the rest of the players everything I know, including my full Role and any results I may have had throughout the game.

They then start asking other dead (Town) players for the same sort of info.

Quote from Ahlyis

Not sure where to look for this or where to ask, so I'll post it here. If it is covered elsewhere, someone please direct me to the proper location. Thanks...

What are the "rules" regarding thanking posts?

1) Can I thank any post I want to, at any time?
2) Do I have to be a player in a particular game to thank a post?
3) Do I have to be a LIVING player in a game to thank a post?
4) Is there any time limit on how old a post can be before I can no longer thank it?
5) Am I allowed to un-thank a post after I've thanked it?
6) Are there any restrictions on either my player state or the time frame for un-thanking posts?
7) If there aren't any "official" answers to these questions, does that mean I'm free to do whatever I want with my thanks and un-thanks?

Basically, how much "editing" of the thread am I allowed to do? Most severe case I can think of...

I'm a dead player, but I know who scum is (or believe I do). I go back into the thread and thank every single post of the first dead Scum up to the point of their death and don't thank any other posts. I then thank every post of the next scum that died up to their point of death, and so on. Once I reach the point of the last dead scum's death, I start thanking every post of the person I "know" is Scum. I do all this at some point AFTER I'm already dead in the game.

I can't believe that would be considered "acceptable", but are there actually any rules against it?

This whole post is why I preemptively sought to have Thank You's banned.

Quote from Artifice 101

This whole post is why I preemptively sought to have Thank You's banned.

Why, because some random guy doesn't want to apply basic common sense/ethical standard to his posts? Oh, make that two guys if you count yourself.

Why would you thank a post when you're dead? Do you post when you're dead? No. Why not? BECAUSE YOU ARE DEAD. And removing 'thanks' for a post is right up there with editing. It is something that you don't do. But we all know that, technically, you can lightning edit a post and most likely(unless someone happens to see that post in the couple of minute span available) no one will ever know, because it doesn't give the 'Edited by' indicator. Sometimes, you just have to trust people to play fair. This is a game for fun and nothing else. If people feel the need to cheat at a purely casual game, then, that is really unfortunate. For them.

Quote from Cyan

Why, because some random guy doesn't want to apply basic common sense/ethical standard to his posts? Oh, make that two guys if you count yourself.

Why would you thank a post when you're dead? Do you post when you're dead? No. Why not? BECAUSE YOU ARE DEAD. And removing 'thanks' for a post is right up there with editing. It is something that you don't do. But we all know that, technically, you can lightning edit a post and most likely(unless someone happens to see that post in the couple of minute span available) no one will ever know, because it doesn't give the 'Edited by' indicator. Sometimes, you just have to trust people to play fair. This is a game for fun and nothing else. If people feel the need to cheat at a purely casual game, then, that is really unfortunate. For them.

The problem is sometimes people think if there isn't a rule against it, it's fair play. And in the spirit of competition they forget ethics. This is why we need rules, even if they don't seem necessary.

If people aren't sure whether or not something is a rule, they should ask. If you break a rule that you 'didn't know was a rule', that is too bad for you. And there is no excuse for forgetting ethics.

Quote from Shalako

It's already been talked to death.

Thanking causes too many problems. The End.

Except for the part where it's been around for a month now and hasn't caused any.

Quote from Cyan

Except for the part where it's been around for a month now and hasn't caused any.

I don't want to discuss on-going games so I'll just say as a blanket statement I have seen moments where people have tried to analyze thank you's. I'll get more into it once the game ends.

Quote from Cyan

Except for the part where it's been around for a month now and hasn't caused any.

Global warming doesn't exist until the ice caps are gone, right?

Quote from Cyan

Why, because some random guy doesn't want to apply basic common sense/ethical standard to his posts? Oh, make that two guys if you count yourself.

Whatever.

I bring up something I see as a potential problem and suddenly I'm bringing it up because I want to abuse it? Not sure how you make that leap of logic, but again, whatever. *shrugs*

Quote from Cyan

Why would you thank a post when you're dead? Do you post when you're dead? No. Why not? BECAUSE YOU ARE DEAD.

Thank you's are not posts. And while I agree with your sentiment here, I've learned that no matter how "obvious" something is, if it isn't spelled out SOMEBODY will abuse it and then fall back on the excuse that the Rules don't prohibit it while they DO specifically prohibit talking while dead.

Quote from Cyan

And removing 'thanks' for a post is right up there with editing. It is something that you don't do.

Uh, not sure I agree with this one. If it is "okay" to thank a post, why is it not okay to remove that thank you? I'm assuming you're still alive and an active player of the game at both points.

I'm not trying to be stupid or a jerk here, I just honestly don't understand what would make clicking on it once acceptable, but not twice. If Thank yous ARE allowed, but removing them is NOT allowed, then I definitely think that needs to be spelled out somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, thank you's are nothing more than states like being tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, etc. It's simply a state which has a default of un-thanked, but can be toggled back and forth.

Quote from Cyan

But we all know that, technically, you can lightning edit a post and most likely(unless someone happens to see that post in the couple of minute span available) no one will ever know, because it doesn't give the 'Edited by' indicator.

This one I will admit to. I have, on numerous occasions, lightning edited a post when I spotted a problem immediately after submitting it. But by "problem" I'm talking about broken formatting tags or misspelled words like "teh" instead of "the". I do try to preview and proofread my posts, but sometimes something slips by. If it's a broken tag or a misspelled word, I'll probably fix it. If it's a stupid slip, oh well, too bad for me, it stays.

I've never lightning edited to change content or meaning of one of my posts and I would agree that doing something like that would be "cheating". If you feel the type of changes I occasionally make are also "cheating", we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Quote from Cyan

Sometimes, you just have to trust people to play fair. This is a game for fun and nothing else. If people feel the need to cheat at a purely casual game, then, that is really unfortunate. For them.

I'd say for everyone, but other than that I agree with you here.

Quote from Cyan

Oh, make that two guys if you count yourself.

You know, you're silly sometimes. I'm the guy trying to eliminate the Thank You's completely for simplicity's sake, and you question my ethics?

To quote one of my "favorite people" on here: Pffftffff

I'll just chime in with: if someone wants to break/ruin a game, they don't need 'thank you's to do it. This is the major reason I just like a blanket "Don't be a dick" rule. I don't care whether or not you use thank yous in games I host, just don't abuse them.

More or less, use some common sense, and we'll all get along fine.

My stance is as follows: Do not thank posts in games you aren't in, don't remove thanks, and I'll vote anyone who pushes analysis on it too far (as in more than counting it as a simple /barn).

EDIT: Also, atlseal is exactly right. Thanking won't cause an issue unless people make it an issue, just like any number of things.

@Shalako: I haven't seen any banning of thanking posts in the rules of any games since the board implemented the function.

Quote from Iso

@Shalako: I haven't seen any banning of thanking posts in the rules of any games since the board implemented the function.

Quote from red_0mega

The new "Thank You" function was (obviously) not taken into account when the rules for this game were made. Rather than attempt to evaluate mid-game how this might affect things, I would prefer if we could just refrain from using it in this thread.

Although I guess you may have meant games that started...

I personally am a fan of making things explicit in my rules, so I will likely be writing a ban on thanking into the next game I run. Regardless, anyone trying anything like what Ahlyis is talking about would run afoul of the existing rules prohibiting communication about the game through a method other than posting in the thread (or mod-sanctioned exceptions). Further, it is impossible that they could do it without knowing that it is a loophole, and I would have no hesitation in recommending such a person for blacklisting.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

My stance is as follows: Do not thank posts in games you aren't in, don't remove thanks, and I'll vote anyone who pushes analysis on it too far (as in more than counting it as a simple /barn).

Well, it's always possible the mod is doing something fun with Thanks, and that they have a point. I expect mechanics like these to crop up in Specialties from time to time from now on. Normals and Basics, though, should be hands-off.