Ethics of Scumplay

[Zorblag]

So Troll can think of many games where Troll as town would have been most irritated if other players had the ability to 1v1. Or where as scum Troll would have been pretty happy to have them have it. Troll tends to think that it be likely to favor scum more of the time than not, though that be based on Troll's expectation of scum behavior. Troll expects town to be more likely to make pushes which seem scummy than scum because scum care more about what them look like than town do. Troll thinks that this would discourage proactive pro-town play because players would be more concerned about looking scummy to others than them were previously (especially as Troll thinks that town would be more likely to initiate these.)

Troll tends to think that the whole needing to get town to support a lynch if you strongly feel it be the right one no needs the prism of giving no other options. This in a game seems to Troll like it would encourage the more aggressive players in a way that Troll no thinks them need encouragement. It also seems to take away flexibility for the more subtle players which Troll no be a fan of.

Perhaps it would work like gang-busters, but Troll has serious reservations.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Accountant]

holy shit zorblag is one of the most consistently insightful mafia theory posters I've ever seen

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I'm going to echo my husband's words on this topic.

An Ugly Victory is better in all ways than a Beautiful Defeat.

or to put it in another way

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none

[Cerberus v666]

holy shit zorblag is one of the most consistently insightful mafia theory posters I've ever seen

Yep. Troll ftw.

Ethically speaking, a scum team has no obligation to do anything mentioned in the OP.

I personally don't feel a game is worth winning if one didn't defeat the town, so I find strategies of stifling discussion to be distasteful. If town is creating apathy for themselves, I won't get in the way, but neither will I encourage it.

[kraska77]

i think id rather lose than escalate manipulation/toxicity, ruin others' enjoyment and feel shitty about it...i kind of expect the same from others, people's attacks shouldnt feel personal. it's not hard really. i dont know why so many choose to turn games into shitfests...it's not hard to work with people and be a little accommodating or understanding

[kraska77]

another thing is when people are assholes for no good reason, its difficult not to scumread them. you cant tell if theyre scum or just assholes, and closely inspecting their isos without being swayed by annoyance is difficult. and they make interactions awkward...it sucks to feel like youre walking on eggshells whenever addressing certain explosive people. idk what to say about this type of people...dont take the game too seriously, maybe? lol. talking about both scum and town here btw.
i replaced out of too many games as soon as they got too real/serious for me...im trying to change that these days tho and stick thru the shitstorms, but i have yet to figure out how to successfully stop games from being turned into toxic fiascoes. oddly enough it seems that asking people to stop deathtunneling each other is somehow taken as discussion-stifling :/

[Vi]

It's worth pointing out that one doesn't NEED to be a jerk to win, but that option doesn't ever leave the table.

Similarly, being a jerk isn't a ticket to victory, but it also isn't useless. Being a tool is a tool. Unless you're a tool, in which case you're just a tool, but that doesn't mean you'll lose every game because of it.

[SpyreX]

Hey being a glue of hugs and love can be waay more beneficial a lot of times

[Cerberus v666]

Hey being a glue of hugs and love can be waay more beneficial a lot of times

QFT.

[Postie]

The answer to this really depends on which you value more: winning or creating an enjoyable game environment.

Usually I place more value on everyone having fun, so typically I'd choose not to be an ass to further my wincon. Where I would, I still have important limits though that aren't just "don't break the site rules".

[kuribo]

Hey being a glue of hugs and love can be waay more beneficial a lot of times

I disagree, it's better to pray to the gods of murder that they make your their avatar of justice.

[Vi]

The answer to this really depends on which you value more: winning or creating an enjoyable game environment.

The point of my post is that these are not mutually exclusive and SpyreX is totes right.

Yet another way to say it is "being a socially functioning human being and knowing how and why you function is pretty sweet". It's a two-part thing and some games you find people that don't qualify for either.

[Accountant]

just gonna point out that being a toxic shitbag isn't even the optimal strategy 99.99% of the time

[Postie]

Oh yeah I agree; on the whole you can definitely do both. I was referring more to individual situations there where the two are at odds.

[SpyreX]

Hey being a glue of hugs and love can be waay more beneficial a lot of times

I disagree, it's better to pray to the gods of murder that they make your their avatar of justice.

First hugs and love
Then everyone worships the murder lord

[Io]

I still fail to see the link between inactivity and ethics.
"If the game is already inactive, do scum have an ethical responsibility to try making the game more active?" This kind of assumes that it's unethical to not try to be active, but why would that be unethical? Maybe you could make the case it is unethical to actively lurk in a game and avoid posting whenever you can, but that's not the only reason to be inactive. Play style does effect activity (lurking is an obvious example of this) but so does things like schedule. It is a game and honestly I would put anything in life above playing Mafia like with any other game, but does that make me unethical for not allocating more time to a game that say has gotten 5 posts over 15 hours with no real advancement in anything with the game?

Now looking at reasons to make the game active, the most obvious one is to have fun. It is a game and meant to be fun so of course choosing to spend your free time in the game will most likely be fun. Does it matter if it's town or mafia that is trying to have fun? No, not really. The other major reason to try to make the game more active or less active is for tactical reasons, reasons for people who want to really push their win con. Mafia stand to benefit more from inactivity than town. This is the same reasoning for why Neighborizer can be a really scary role in the hands of a townie who is good at finding scumslips. When the thread is active scum have to be active meaning they must be in the eye of the town more often which can make slip-ups more likely to occur. If the thread is dead then scum won't have to worry as much about slipping. So then really is it unethical to play the game tactically? Well, in my opinion it's not. If the thread is dead I say it's more at the fault of the town than the mafia. If activity helps town then the mafia has no reason to try and promote activity unless they want to try and get town credit or they just want to have more fun in the game of Mafia. I think it's up to the town to fix inactivity not the mafia.

The inverse is a bit trickier of a question to answer to be honest.
"Is it unethical for scum to encourage inactivity?" I don't really think that is unethical really. I mean it sounds like a really bad idea as that would be pretty scummy to do, but I don't personally feel that is unethical to do. That is assuming they are just passively doing this by lurking or being inactive. If they were actively trying to disrupt the game by getting into fights and encouraging people to step down then I would consider that unethical personally and that's mostly because they would be trying to create a climate of people not playing the game.
As for night kills on active players? No. Definitely not. As scum I would be very scared of a player who is very active and promoting discussion and they would be fairly high on my target list especially if their reads were right.

[Fire Assassin]

I'm going to echo my husband's words on this topic.

An Ugly Victory is better in all ways than a Beautiful Defeat.

or to put it in another way

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none

This is just a toxic mindset.

[Fire Assassin]

I don't really think that is unethical really. I mean it sounds like a really bad idea as that would be pretty scummy to do, but I don't personally feel that is unethical to do. That is assuming they are just passively doing this by lurking or being inactive. If they were actively trying to disrupt the game by getting into fights and encouraging people to step down then I would consider that unethical personally and that's mostly because they would be trying to create a climate of people not playing the game.

Even if players perceive you are doing it and being scummy for it. If you poison the well enough, its going to have a large effect on the game where nobody wants to play and apathy sets in and then scum can coast to victory.

Seen this happen enough. Where two players fight causes enough drama that nobody feels like playing afterwards.