I swear to god.

[Zachrulez]

Maybe you can punish people who fail to reproduce the tells when called on to as scum and intentionally get lynched to preserve the tell, on the fact that they're playing against their win con?

I can't see how you can punish a player when they're playing as a town alignment though.

[zoraster]

But it only stops being a trust tell once you actually use it as scum. If I used a trust tell 'properly' for 50 games and then used it as scum in my 51st game. It was still a trust tell for those first 50 games.

Also this is a very good point. Just because someone violated their own trust tell eventually didn't mean it didn't operate as a trust tell before that point.

But it doesn't if the intention to only use it as town never existed does it?

And a "trust tell" doesn't become a 100% reliable way of determining alignment at it's birth point.

That's the problem, it's not a trust tell unless it guarantees that you're town. I think it's dubious to argue that a 100% guarantee that someone is town because of something they do in game exists.

I'm not arguing that this kind of behavior is desirable to see exist. (Players that create 'trust tells' to get town reads they otherwise wouldn't.) I just find it difficult to define how you police that. Because I could invent a tell that "guarantees" I'm town when in reality I'm looking for an advantage when I'm scum. (I could birth the tell from my town games and use it at the first opportunity as scum for example.)

At what point do you define an action or statement as a trust tell, and how do you make the judgment call to punish it? That's where I struggle with this.

There are myriad ways that are really only confusing in MD threads. But to name one: purporting to create a trust tell is creating a trust tell, regardless of whether you intend to actually honor the trust tell.

[Zachrulez]

But it only stops being a trust tell once you actually use it as scum. If I used a trust tell 'properly' for 50 games and then used it as scum in my 51st game. It was still a trust tell for those first 50 games.

Also this is a very good point. Just because someone violated their own trust tell eventually didn't mean it didn't operate as a trust tell before that point.

But it doesn't if the intention to only use it as town never existed does it?

And a "trust tell" doesn't become a 100% reliable way of determining alignment at it's birth point.

That's the problem, it's not a trust tell unless it guarantees that you're town. I think it's dubious to argue that a 100% guarantee that someone is town because of something they do in game exists.

I'm not arguing that this kind of behavior is desirable to see exist. (Players that create 'trust tells' to get town reads they otherwise wouldn't.) I just find it difficult to define how you police that. Because I could invent a tell that "guarantees" I'm town when in reality I'm looking for an advantage when I'm scum. (I could birth the tell from my town games and use it at the first opportunity as scum for example.)

At what point do you define an action or statement as a trust tell, and how do you make the judgment call to punish it? That's where I struggle with this.

There are myriad ways that are really only confusing in MD threads. But to name one: purporting to create a trust tell is creating a trust tell, regardless of whether you intend to actually honor the trust tell.

What if you're purporting to create a trust tell as scum? (I'm having trouble seeing how that could practically be done, but assume it could.)

[zoraster]

What if you're purporting to create a trust tell as scum? (I'm having trouble seeing how that could practically be done, but assume it could.)

I would really need an example to be able to answer that question.

The basic problem is this: some people will gladly increase their chances to win as town in exchange for decreasing their chances to win as scum. The reasons for this varies (overall win rate increases, want to be the good guy, hate to be falsely accused, etc.), but setting up or purporting to set up a system that makes that trade-off damages the integrity of our games. And that's an existential problem for mafiascum as a whole, which is why we act on both real and faked trust tells.

[Zachrulez]

What if you're purporting to create a trust tell as scum? (I'm having trouble seeing how that could practically be done, but assume it could.)

I would really need an example to be able to answer that question.

The basic problem is this: some people will gladly increase their chances to win as town in exchange for decreasing their chances to win as scum. The reasons for this varies (overall win rate increases, want to be the good guy, hate to be falsely accused, etc.), but setting up or purporting to set up a system that makes that trade-off damages the integrity of our games. And that's an existential problem for mafiascum as a whole, which is why we act on both real and faked trust tells.

The main reason I'm so interested in this is because I tend to rely on my meta as town when I play because there's a pretty big gulf between my play with the alignments.

I'm not really interested in deliberately creating a trust tell(s), but kind of concerned that referring to my meta gap might be seen as trying to use a trust tell?

[zoraster]

Are you purposefully doing stuff as scum in order to be able to rely on your meta when you're town? I gather not.

Generally speaking, referring to meta, particularly in the vague open to interpretation way that is most common, isn't going to get you in trouble.

[Zachrulez]

Are you purposefully doing stuff as scum in order to be able to rely on your meta when you're town? I gather not.

Generally speaking, referring to meta, particularly in the vague open to interpretation way that is most common, isn't going to get you in trouble.

No. I don't

deliberately

play in a way that makes my meta obvious. What I'm worried about is people seeing said stuff as intentionally creating a trust tell.

[Mr. Flay]

Trust Tells require a pretty unequivocal intent (even if it "might" be joking intent) to create the trust tell. Calling out your meta CAN do that, but mostly its just stupid (because if you're aware enough of your meta to point it out, you're aware enough of your meta to abuse it).

But I'm generally anti-meta, so YMMV.

[Who]

You're not really attempting to set up a trust tell with the MD post or your past games or anything. You just think bussing is a stupid thing to do.

Even though I become confirmed Town any time I voted for a dead Scum (excepting multi-faction games)?

People don't put that much effort into checking meta. You would have to tell them about your hatred of bussing, at which point it becomes self-meta and you get called scum for it. If enough people do bother to go and meta you and consider you town for voting a dead scum, then this means that it then becomes optimal for you, as scum, no matter how much you're against bussing, to vote for a doomed scumbuddy (As in, about to get lynched and you're the hammer/L-1). Then, you get falsely conftowned for that game. Then, you have now violated that and people will find that game when looking through your meta, and won't give you towniepoints for lynching scum. (Also, they'll probably only see that game and will then label you as a hardcore busser, because that's how the world works)

[Nero Cain]

A solution is to not play with Jake from State Farm.

^^^^

[zoraster]

You're not really attempting to set up a trust tell with the MD post or your past games or anything. You just think bussing is a stupid thing to do.

Even though I become confirmed Town any time I voted for a dead Scum (excepting multi-faction games)?

People don't put that much effort into checking meta. You would have to tell them about your hatred of bussing, at which point it becomes self-meta and you get called scum for it. If enough people do bother to go and meta you and consider you town for voting a dead scum, then this means that it then becomes optimal for you, as scum, no matter how much you're against bussing, to vote for a doomed scumbuddy (As in, about to get lynched and you're the hammer/L-1). Then, you get falsely conftowned for that game. Then, you have now violated that and people will find that game when looking through your meta, and won't give you towniepoints for lynching scum. (Also, they'll probably only see that game and will then label you as a hardcore busser, because that's how the world works)

also, for what it's worth, if you're honestly always playing to win and people do start recognizing that pattern and say you never bus, then even if you have a previous policy of never bussing, you'd eventually want to bus a scummate because the stronger that "tell" for you is developed and believed, the stronger the incentive to break from that pattern.

[Jake from State Farm]

This is more of a personal (read: superstitious) matter.

Is it right, regardless of the truth or your alignment to swear to god or on the lives of your kids/spouse/parents?

Jake from State Farm did it in a Newbie game where he swore on his child's life that he was not guilty of a fake tracker claim.

But couldn't that be seen as a damning confirmation, I mean if are you going to swear on your child/spouse/parent, do you think he is lying?

Did it benefit him? No

Did he still get lynched? Yes

Was he telling the truth? Yes

Maybe you should start a thread about idiots fake claiming guilty instead of making one about a player who was wrongfully accused and tried to clear himself. Just a thought...

[PeregrineV]

This is more of a personal (read: superstitious) matter.

Is it right, regardless of the truth or your alignment to swear to god or on the lives of your kids/spouse/parents?

Jake from State Farm did it in a Newbie game where he swore on his child's life that he was not guilty of a fake tracker claim.

But couldn't that be seen as a damning confirmation, I mean if are you going to swear on your child/spouse/parent, do you think he is lying?

It's a game about lying, and trying to catch the liars.

I believe nothing anyone says, until they flip, and even then, I don't believe it- "If you guys lynch me I swear I'll kill my dog." does not make me think dead dog, not matter the flip.

[tn5421]

This is more of a personal (read: superstitious) matter.

Is it right, regardless of the truth or your alignment to swear to god or on the lives of your kids/spouse/parents?

Jake from State Farm did it in a Newbie game where he swore on his child's life that he was not guilty of a fake tracker claim.

But couldn't that be seen as a damning confirmation, I mean if are you going to swear on your child/spouse/parent, do you think he is lying?

It's a game about lying, and trying to catch the liars.

I believe nothing anyone says, until they flip, and even then, I don't believe it- "If you guys lynch me I swear I'll kill my dog." does not make me think dead dog, not matter the flip.

inb4 their bah post is a picture of a dead dog with timestamps and a paper with their username handwritten on it

[ZZZX]

This is more of a personal (read: superstitious) matter.

Is it right, regardless of the truth or your alignment to swear to god or on the lives of your kids/spouse/parents?

Jake from State Farm did it in a Newbie game where he swore on his child's life that he was not guilty of a fake tracker claim.

But couldn't that be seen as a damning confirmation, I mean if are you going to swear on your child/spouse/parent, do you think he is lying?

It's a game about lying, and trying to catch the liars.

I believe nothing anyone says, until they flip, and even then, I don't believe it- "If you guys lynch me I swear I'll kill my dog." does not make me think dead dog, not matter the flip.

inb4 their bah post is a picture of a dead dog with timestamps and a paper with their username handwritten on it

that would be... weird

[Psyche]

I'd lobby for a ban if someone in a mafia game threatened to do something truly terrible like kill a dog.

[ZZZX]

I'd lobby for a ban if someone in a mafia game threatened to do something truly terrible like kill a dog.

and if you do that if he threatend. Then what would you vote for if he did whattn talked about?

The probs are limitless

[kuribo]

Is it right, regardless of the truth or your alignment to swear to god or on the lives of your kids/spouse/parents?

as an atheist, I don't believe that swearing to any gods have any meaningful effect any more than swearing to Harry Potter would



As a skeptic, I don't believe that swearing on someone's life would have any meaningful effect either