Ethics?: Trusting the Mod

[Axelrod]

It's been said, but I agree that the solution to not lying to Cops is to inform them up front that their results might not be accurate. Just saying something like "your results are not guaranteed 100% accurate" or "baring GF shenanigans" etc. That might seem obvious, but at the same time, I wouldn't omit such a statement just because everyone knows those are possibilities.

I wouldn't tell someone they are "Masons" with someone else if the other player was non-town, because Mason has a specific connotation to me. I'd just say they can communicate at Night. Scum "Masons" are nasty roles that I don't care for at all.

I don't like the concept of the "death-miller" either, as I tend to rely on death descriptions. I don't think I'd ever have one without giving some kind of warning to the town ahead of time that things aren't always what they seem, or some such nonsense.

Bottom line: People should be able to figure stuff out. Everything should be fair in the end analysis, and not just crazy for craziness sake.

[Yosarian2]

Well, I agree that people should have some chance of figuring things out. However, telling a person that he's a death miller in their PM means the person can choose to tell telling the town he's a death miller before he dies, which should give the town at least a chance to believe or disbelieve him, so I would consider that fair.

[Commodore Amazing]

I didn't read this thread, but I'm throwing my vote on the "mods should never need to lie to their players" side of the argument.

[Osloboditelj]

I'd say that the descriptions of actions given by the mod should be 100% trustworthy. If there's a chance a vig will miss, don't say "that person will die" or the like. Weasel-wording is fine; in fact, it's the best way to introduce uncertainty without having the players question the mod. The mod should always be telling the truth, but it doesn't always have to be the whole truth.

Also, I like to delineate between flavour and pratical role function in PMs; I haven't actually modded yet, but when I do all flavour in role PMs will be posted in italics, and the rules post will say something to the effect of "all italicized text in your PM is flavour. Any non-italicized text can be trusted completely."

[warpdragon]

But as a general rule, roles and mechanisms that turn the mod into a participant rather than an arbiter seem dangerous.

Worse than the mod registering an alt and playing in the game himself as a neutral (ie, no wincon) character? I was considering doing that once...

...That was a long time ago.

Seen it, or something similar, on a different forum. The game was with puppet accounts, and the mod was a player as his real name. He was known to be scum, but unlynchable until all other scum died. I forgot if he told the town when this was possible or if he made them guess. The days were quick and if noone was lynched, he modkilled. He was able to wifom with his votes to protect the scum. Forgot how it ended, but it looked cool. If any people here remember Electra, she was in it under a different name.

[Dr. Doom]

I never modded before, but I have GMed lots of RPG-sessions, and there the role is kinda the same: a referee and Information giver. I would always keep the right to withhold information, or to use halftruths so players believe what I want them to believe (especially in a very elaborate set-up). Withhold Information can add to the suspense (and thus fun) of the game.

[cuban smoker]

I'll be blunt: I've withheld information, not used weaselwords and subsequently 'lied' to players, outright lied to players (such as with not-sane cops), and told players things I wish I hadn't and later overruled myself.

I always try and keep the game running with the flavour the meta-game of mafia has developed. Cops aren't necessarily sane. Roles can be blocked. Mods make mistakes and have to correct them. I try and spare the players all the confusion I can, but I will not hesitate to make decisions on the fly for the purposes of balance and fairplay.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I agree with CES. I plan on stating that role pms state how the character sees reality, not how it actually is.

In addition, I think death miller is a creative scumchat role that should never be used in a forum game, because it doesn't really have a logical use (i.e. there is no good reason for a mod to add such a role into the game).

[Adele]

2 jobs that a Mod has: (1) Designing the setup and (2) running the game.

(1) Desiging the Setup: If mafia was a boardgame, the mod would be the board. It has the rules - maybe a few surprises - but it's not part of the game, but merely sets the context for it. Bastardmod mafia's a different story, as is Worst Role Ever Mafia, as these are like boardgames that advertise themselves to be capricious. By contrast, if Trivial Pursuit started spitting out wrong answers, that'd destroy the gamejoy.

(2) Running the Game: Here I consider the mod like a courtroom Judge; disinterested (though never uninterested), he should be preserving the stability of proceedings and is essentially an overseer (this in a trial-by-jury, of course; if Rainbow Brite sued me for yesterday's GD insinuations and I areed to being tried by Judge Judy, I could hardly complain if she was, at some point, short with me and didn't listen to the whole story. Like,

duh

. So again, Bastardmod mafia makes bastardmoddery unbastardy)

[GreenLiquid]

I think we should start doing these Ethics threads again for IMM. I enjoyed them while they lasted.

[Yosarian2]

I agree with CES. I plan on stating that role pms state how the character sees reality, not how it actually is.

In addition, I think death miller is a creative scumchat role that should never be used in a forum game, because it doesn't really have a logical use (i.e. there is no good reason for a mod to add such a role into the game).

Eh, I don't know about death millers having no place in forum mafia. I'd just love to see someone try the defense: "Sure, I defended person X! I said X was innocent, and I'm SURE I was right! He must have been a death miller!"

Heh...ok, so it probably wouldn't work as a defense, but it'd be funny to see someone try it, wouldn't it?

In other words, if things like death millers are known to be possible (but very improbable), it adds new layers to the debates and arguments that can happen in games, which seems like it's a good thing.

[Yosarian2]

I agree with CES. I plan on stating that role pms state how the character sees reality, not how it actually is.

In addition, I think death miller is a creative scumchat role that should never be used in a forum game, because it doesn't really have a logical use (i.e. there is no good reason for a mod to add such a role into the game).

Eh, I don't know about death millers having no place in forum mafia. I'd just love to see someone try the defense: "Sure, I defended person X! I said X was innocent, and I'm SURE I was right! He must have been a death miller!"

Heh...ok, so it probably wouldn't work as a defense, but it'd be funny to see someone try it, wouldn't it?

In other words, if things like death millers are known to be possible (but very improbable), it adds new layers to the debates and arguments that can happen in games, which seems like it's a good thing.

[Kelly Chen]

I kind of think death millers shouldn't be off-limits for forum games, because if it's understood that they are, scum can't claim before dying that they're death millers. They'd never be believed.

[gorckat]

What I gather from this thread is that opinions are varied, and mods have very different thoughts on acceptable roles.

Perhaps, when posting signups for specific games, or on a mod's wiki page (if possible), mod's should include some kind of summary like:

-I weasel word. Here's what my cop PMs look like. You'll never know if you're an insane cop. (Or- If I weasel word it means I'm hiding something. Enjoy )
-I despise scum masons and will never use them.
-Death millers, however, are bastardmoddery deliciousness
etc...

This lets prospective players double check a mod's history/style and know heads-up what they could be in for (or not in for).