I have been itching to post this for a while...

[petroleumjelly]

*sigh*

I will indeed have things to say on this subject, but I am rather busy at the moment. But for starters:

Sure, but only in the sense that I'm "allowed" to rat out my mafia partners out of spite.

There is no comparison. A Mafia group is something which starts together at the beginning of the game, and they have no choice in being together.

A Cult, on the other hand, has a choice in who they choose to try to recruit: if I can restrict the Cults' choices by threatening to rat them out upon recruitment, I have just given myself that much more control of the game. If a Cult recruits me despite having this information, they are playing with fire at their own risk.

[petroleumjelly]

Question for pj: If the cult had "played with fire", do you believe it would have been acceptable to rat them out?

I don't make it a habit to [purposely] reward people for doing stupid things. Yes, it would still be acceptable.

[petroleumjelly]

"Lynch me and I'll rat you out next time we're scum together". How is this different? Do you agree ethical play requires playing to your win condition, not helping yourself in future games?

Players

do not have a choice

in whether or not they are

randomly

chosen to be scum together. Cults

always

have a choice in who they attempt to recruit. The situations are

completely

different.

Edit: Furthermore, this implies a vendetta against the

player

. I do not hold vendettas or grudges against people in games which affect my gameplay (and if such would ever happen, I would simply avoid playing games with those players).

My vendetta is against a

role

which I do not believe should have a place in mafia whatsoever.

[petroleumjelly]

See my [edit] for your response to that.

[petroleumjelly]

Another example. What if I said, "I hate sane cops, and if you put any in your game, and I'm scum, I'm ratting out my partners"?

There are NOT ethical problems with Sane Cops. There ARE ethical problems with Cults.

Furthermore,

once again

, this is punishing players (specifically, your mafia partners) for something they

have no control over

. Cults

do

have control over who they attempt to recruit.

if you rat out your fellow cult-mates, you're not only intentionally destroying your own chances of winning the game, but you're also sabotaging your fellow cult-mates' chances of winning, and you are destroying the Mod's game by ruining the balance.

Cults that recruit

me

are destroying their own chances. End of story.

If I were ever to be recruited to a Cult that won, I would count it as a "loss" regardless. I refuse to win with a Cult. Saying that I would 'destroy my own chances' doesn't really apply to me, since from my perspective, my chances were destroyed upon recruitment.

Let it suffice to say that if you ever sold out your fellow scummates in a game of mine, I would ban you from playing in any future games of mine.

You have every right to do so.

TSQ, you might as well name this thread "The Entirity of Mafia Scum v PJ". Thanks.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ, all those differences are irrelevant.

Ethics requires that you play to fulfill your win condition.

Screwing over your team-mates for your own gain in future games is wrong, even if they did something to you that you didn't like.

Don't ask me to differentiate, and then call the differences "irrelevant".

Yes: My stance is extreme.
Yes: I realize that many (if not all) players will disagree with my stance.
Yes: I understand many of the problems people see with my stance, and on some level, I agree with them.

I play by the win condition

given to me

. Screwing

me

over by changing

my

alignment and win condition midway through a game is something

I

consider

wrong

. So far as

I

am concerned, ethics require that Mods

do not use cults in the first place

.

[petroleumjelly]

*sigh*

If there was ever a thread that would make me quit mafia scum, this is probably it.

I need to get ready for classes.

As it is, I will probably find myself writing an abridged and incomplete essay on why I do not think cults should be a part of mafia in the near future; feel free to stab me in the meantime.

[petroleumjelly]

JESUS F'ING H. CHRIST.

Fine.

I would not

actually

"rat out" cult-mates if I were to be recruited to a Cult. That is a stance I have

tried

to exhibit so that

I do not become cult recruited.

I really would much rather have never been forced to admit this, because now my threats will be seen as hollow in the future, and I will have that much less control over my games in the future. Thanks you

ever so much

for starting this thread.

I do, however, find it rather ironic that people are bashing me for something I

have never even done

. Even in scumchat games, which require little time and effort (much unlike forum games), I have never been so rash so as to out any of my partners. I have entertained the thought in fancies, I admit, but since when did Mafia Scum become the thought police?

I am thoroughly disgusted by the use of Cults. I do not think they should be a part of the game, but I also would not ruin a game solely because of the fact that I hate cults. I

do

play to win no matter what my win condition, but I

will

say this much:

I should

never

have to feel embarassed for winning a game. If I were to be recruited to a Cult and subsequently "win", I would be

too embarrassed

to count it as an actual win in my statistics. This in itself is an indicator that there is certainly something wrong with Cults.

I will still try to remind myself to write that essay on why I do not think Cults should be a part of Mafia, however.

Edit: In response to Flay, I have also considered asking to be replaced immediately upon being recruited, but after discussing this with a few scumchatters, I believe this would become a more-than-reliable tell in games with Cults that I (or whoever replaced me) was recruited, so I do not think that would be an entirely viable option.

[petroleumjelly]

The second, though: Is it acceptable to make threats of this nature at all, even if you aren't going to carry them out? And here I also say no. To me, this is similar to a threat like "Don't lynch/recruit/kill/vote/whatever me, or I'll come to your house and beat you up". You may not actually intend to do it, and most people may know you don't intend to do it, but if even one person takes the threat seriously, I can't consider it a "fair" play.

1.) I have not advocated my "I'll rat you out if you cult recruit me"

except

for

during

a mafia game (or when people question me about such an on-going game). I would of course have

liked

people to have assumed that I am not a wise cult recruit target in any given game (because I would much rather avoid recruitment if at all possible), but it's not as if I start every game with the qualifier "Don't recruit me, or I'll rat you out", specifically because I am using the statement as a strategic means to better my chances in a given game.

2.) I do not consider my "threat" particularly egregious, although I can understand the "shock".

->

A.

These statements are made

in-game

, and they are to remain

in-game

. I do not carry grudges across games, nor would I threaten someone physically for something which happened in a game (such as the "or I'll beat you up" example mith portrays).

->

B.

As such, I use my threat as a

tool

at my disposal. I consider it similar to:

~ "If you try to lynch me today, I will do all that is in my power to have you nightkilled by so-and-so."
~ "If you do not answer my question, I will kill you tonight [with my Vigilante power]."
~ "If you try to track me tonight, I will give you a posting restriction."

In each case, you are using

words

as a

tool

in order to do what is possible to

restrain

or

deter

somebody from taking an action which you do not want to occur,

in the context of the game

. Thus, I consider saying:

~ "If you try to recruit me tonight, I will rat you out tomorrow" as a means to restrain somebody from trying to recruit you, I consider it fair game. After all, I am

trying

to fulfill my winning condition.

Of course some players are going to see this as "fighting dirty", but the fact is, I am trying my damnedest to win with the

win condition that was given to me

, and if I find making in-game threats as necessary and proper to achieve that end, I will do so.

GreenLiquid: Telling a mod

before the game

, therefore, "don't give me this role or I'll [blankity-blank-blank]" is not an option. You do not yet have your winning condition,

and

you are not yet in the context of a game. The two do not compare.

TSQ: I know you meant well, but considering 34 players+ participated in 2-Headed Mafia (and others have presumably browsed it), it was obvious that somebody was going to make a reference to me eventually, if not immediately.

[petroleumjelly]

No, GreenLiquid, they don't.

By threatening the cult

in game

, my

purpose

is to try to win the game with my

win condition as presented to me

. It may be the case (in fact, it is the case) that I hate cults.

But that does not invalidate the strategies I use in games to achieve the ultimate goal of fulfilling my win conditions.

You are essentially saying:

You hate cults, so you can't possibly be using strategy when you use threats against cults.

Try looking in the Logical Fallacies section of the Wiki before making that attack on me again. I should give you a Mr. Yuck sticker for even going there.

Furthermore, there is a LARGE difference between

in-game

threats and

out-of-game

threats. I should not need to explain this again.

Making these statements is blackmailing someone: the only difference is who you're blackmailing. You either don't like cult role so blackmail cult leader or don't like mafia and blackmail the mod.

Blackmailing (which is actually the incorrect term here; I want to say "coercion", but that doesn't really fit the bill either) is FAIR GAME so long as it remains completely in context of the GAME.

For example, I couldn't use photographs from outside circumstances to threaten somebody "If you do X, I will reveal these photographs which could ruin your

actual

life", but saying something like "If you do X, I will reveal in-game information about you which will be to your detriment" is perfectly acceptable. I am using the

tools

available to me

in-game

to

affect

people's choices to

my advantage

.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ, do you disagree with the principle that it's unethical to make a threat that you can't ethically follow through on?

In life? I would agree (although there are of course certain circumstances I could argue to the contrary: such as if I thought the only way I could save a loved one was to threaten to take somebody's life, blah blah blah).

But in the context of a mafia game? No: I disagree with you.

The other players don't necessarily

know

that I probably would not follow through on the threat, and in fact, the

purpose

of my threat is to give a false perception of possible detriments that will occur should a player make a given action.

How is it unfair to benefit from the perceptions people hold of me in the context of a game? There have in reality been players who have given me a "pass" on calling me scummy because they "fear" me, or "respect" me, or "figure I had some plan I hadn't revealed yet" (and probably other reasons). This works to my benefit. That doesn't mean I shouldn't use that fact to my advantage if I find it proper to do so. In a game, I will use the tools reasonably available to me.

[petroleumjelly]

Apologies, Mike.

PJ, you obviously have strong feelings about being a cult recruit, but would you feel the same way if you were a Vampire?

That is, you're told that you're a townie, but if you get targetted by the mafia then you become one of them and join the mafia. It would still require changing your alignment midway though the game, but you'd join the mafia instead of the cult.

If the Vampire was told he was a Townie (and hence was given the sole win condition of winning with the town), I would be against the use of such a role, yes.

[petroleumjelly]

1) In each case, you are threatening an action to one player, in order to aoid them using anaction on you. Whereas you are threatening to ruin a game, in order to prevent a player from using an action on you.

Therefore, you are punishing those who have no ability to control the actions of the cult.

I disagree. The actions of the Cult are

controlled

by the Cult. "The Cult" is not equivalent to "the game"; the game can still go on if the cult is outed,

especially

since (and now I

will

get picky with language):

1.) Even if I did "out" anybody, there is no guarantee I would be telling the truth. I had in fact planned on using this strategy if I was ever recruited after having made my threat. The town would still have to

believe

that I am truthfully ratting out

anybody

in order for it to remotely "ruin" a game. As surprisingly as this might sound, I

do

have strategical reasons for the meta-game stances I often take.
2.) I do not recall ever saying

when

I would "rat out the cult", nor how many cultists I would rat out in the first place. It could be I would spill the beans after it was too late for the town to do anything about it.

2) Second, and this is a big one. Those are all actions which occur WITHIN the context of a game. Your example is only coherant if you advocate that busting games should be in the range of normal gameplay tactics. Since I know you are not advocating that, the examples are false.

See above. "Busting games" is relative in any case. And you must

always

consider that just because somebody says something in a game of mafia, it doesn't make it true.

[petroleumjelly]

If the Vampire was told he was a Townie (and hence was given the sole win condition of winning with the town), I would be against the use of such a role, yes.

Aww.... vampires are cool.

What if he was told that he was a vampire, at that he may, at some time during the game, become a mafia?

I would have to see his exact win condition. I am generally against telling players that their "win condition might magically change to be anti-town at some point",

unless

they are told

what exact conditions must be met

in order for that to happen so they can influence the game to make the achieving of that more or less likely.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ, I'm still having a hard time understanding why you don't see this as ruining the game. It's NOT an in-game decision, because at the moment your win condition changed, outing your teammates became contrary to your winning the game. It may help you sleep better at night, but it doesn't follow the setup or the balance of the game. You're trying to assert an authority you don't really have, and I'm not sure how to state that any more clearly. Just threatening to do it would have gotten you lynched in a game I was playing in, as I could not assume you were not yourself already a cultist pulling a double-bluff. It's not ethical and it's not within the parameters of the game.

I have only threatened this in two games: once in Chrono Trigger, and once in 2-Headed Mafia.

1.) In Chrono Trigger, there was not a Cult. There was no indication of a Cult. I sincerely

doubted

there

was

a Cult. My comment was made flippantly in that game [seeing as I was a confirmed innocent Mason, I can say pretty safely that you would have failed to lynch me if you had even tried], and was not meant to carry any bite. It had no effect on the game whatsoever.

2.) In 2-Headed Mafia, here's something people ought to keep in mind:

I was mafia

. I could not possibly have been recruited. I could not possibly have outed any fellow cultists. Furthermore (again), there town didn't even

know

there was a Cult when I made that comment (and in fact, most of the town

didn't believe there was a Cult at all

). I could not possibly have ruined the game for the mod, and you can rest assured that I was well aware of this. I knew it. The mod knew it.

I made my threat as a strategic move so that the Cult would be deterred from

attempting

to recruit me, since I knew that this could lead to bad news for me as either the Leader themselves could call me at as scum for a failed recruitment, or even if I managed to kill the Leader, I could be called out as scum by a hypothetical Cultist.

Also, GreenLiquid's "comparisons" are becoming more and more ridiculous.

So essentially, you're saying one of two things:

1) I don't mind breaking the rules and ruining the setup for both players and mod in order to win the game.

2) To avoid being culted, I'm going to threaten to ruin the game, because I don't like cult.

And on two, I don't care whether or not you follow through: is threating to kill someone but then not doing so legal?

1.) I was not breaking any rules. Read above.
2.) I knew it was not possible for me to "ruin the game" no matter what, regardless of whether or not I like Cults.

Furthermore, GAMES are different from LIFE and LAW. In Mafia, you are

supposed to lie

if you are not part of the town, and you are

supposed to manipulate people

in order to achieve your win condition.

STOP

trying to compare this to law, because that connection cannot fly.

And arguing that blackmailing the mod vs. the players is different doesn't help either. Blackmailing the players with something that will ruin the game is not within the spirit or even the limits of the game.

That's like saying that as town, it's ok for me to hack the mod's account and look at the setup because it'll further a town win.

DO YOU NOT READ?

I use the

tools

available to me to further my win condition,

so long as those tools are within the realm of the game

.

Hacking into the mod's computer is not within the realm of the game. Threatening to "beat people up" is not within the realm of the game. Blackmailing players with out-of-game circumstances is not within the realm of the game.

Threatening players with in-game detriments for taking actions, however, is completely within the realm of the game.

So if we don't like something, we're free to destroy it or ruin it for others? So if I don't like my role in your game, I can just ruin it for you? Forget about ethics; if you don't like something, destroy it.

I'm not a big fan of scum masons, so I guess next time I'm one I'll out my mason buddies and scummates in my first post.*

I pursue the eradication of Cult roles out-of-games. Also, again, read back:

If you are

given

a role (such as a Scum Mason), you are given a Win Condition which you must thereby follow. It is the arbitrary changing of Win Conditions which most irks me with Cults. Furthermore, you are taking an

out-of-game

stance which has

nothing to do with choices players make in games

(nobody can change whether or not you are randomly given a scum mason role by a mod). My threats are

in-game stances

which state that

if

the Cult tries to recruit me, they will suffer the consequences. And in any case, both times I used this, there was (1) no cult nor even a reasonable stretch that there may have been a Cult, and (2) I could not have been recruited to the cult in the first place.

[petroleumjelly]

Try reading my thread on Cults to find your answer. I would suggest bringing a tent and some popcorn, though.

Thread found here.

[petroleumjelly]

*rubs temples*

Exactly as you say, that is cheating: "bah" posts should not contain information. You cannot quote your role PM's. You cannot quote out-of-game things in-game (such as "here's the conversation me and X had the other day).

There is nothing against saying "I'm scum, and I'm scum with X", or threatening to do so. Because

there is no guarantee that you're telling the truth

.

As I previously stated, it is more than plausible for MrBuddyLee, say, to recruit me to a Cult (suppose it had no other players in it at the time). I could then come up the next day going:

Okay:

I

told

them I would do it. I

warned

them I would do it. But they did it anyways.

I was recruited by the Oh-So-Clever Cult Leader PookyTheMagicalBear last night. He thought it would be a grand ol' time to recruit Jelly while we pulled around you townspeople by the nose-rings. If you can't tell, Yosarian2 has been in on the operation as well... if you read post [XXX] carefully, you can see him trying to put attention off of Pooky and towards himself.

So there you have it. Apologies if any of you are "upset" that I may have "broken" the game in whatever way, but I made it explicitly clear that this was going to be the consequence of recruiting me.

You see how that works? There is no guarantee that even if I "follow up" on my threats that I am being truthful. It

is

still a game of Mafia, and deceiving the town in such a way is perfectly within the bounds of the game.

Even hollow threats can serve a purpose, so long as you stay within the boundaries of the game. I will play under whatever winning condition I have to the best of my ability, but playing as Cult after having played under a different Win Condition would completely sour my taste for a game. Even if I won from doing the above maneuver, I would not feel as if I had "won" if I had put significant effort in achieving a contrary Win Condition before having it switched.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm not going to defend myself anymore.

I didn't make this thread. I didn't ask for it to be put up. I have given

more

than enough reasons to support my argument, and you are

never

going to get a concensus on whether or not my tactic was reasonable (especially since, I will point out

again

, it was not even

possible

for me to have ratted out anybody in that particular game since it was not

possible

for me to have been recruited).

[petroleumjelly]

*sigh*

Nobody bash on Fritzler for doing this; that shouldn't be the purpose of these threads. But here's an example of that strategy in action: ScumChat Mafia.

Also, when I claimed Cult in 2-Headed, I specifically avoided either the "lynch X and I'll recruit you" and "lynch X and you'll tie with me" arguments, simply because I have personal problems with both of those; though I can see the strategic value in both such things. Ironically, that probably lost me that game. *shrug*

[goes back to staying away from thread]