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

[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.

[Zindaras]

*sad*

I was totally planning to recruit you if I ever got the opportunity.

[mikeburnfire]

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.

[Mr. Flay]

Hi PJ. Glad to see it was a ruse, but now you see the peril of metagaming for future advantage; you can't really control your own future here... I was pretty sure it was all a lie anyway, but was willing to play along/discuss the hypothetical.

By the way, I didn't think people were bashing you, so much as being frank about what they'd do if you

did

do such a thing. Since you haven't, it's all hypothetical, and I will personally tear the first person to ban you from a game based on this thread a new one.

Still want to see that essay, though.

[TheEyeOfMordor]

I have put cults into 3 of my completed games so far and as of yet they haven't managed a single recruit between them.
Usually I have Masons immune to culting and sometimes other roles are too, for instance in one game of mine the Pope(Cult Leader) could not convert heathen priests, which had some town power roles.

[EmpTyger]

Flay:

I'm not sure why you see it as "screwing you over for good play", when there's every chance they're rewarding you (and themselves) for your good play, because it made you a good recruit possibility.

Let’s say that there’s player X and player Y, both townspeople, against cultists C1 and C2. X being the superlative mafia player that they are, cleverly analyzes the game and identifies C1 and C2 as antitowns. The town lynches C1 on D1, and C2 on D2. However, in the intervening night, the cult recruits X. So X has gotten their teammates killed by playing the best as they could. (Temporarily ignoring the factor of whether X’s actions made them more or less likely to be recruited.) Y, who did not play optimally, comes out ahead. (We can even call this pj’s Paradox, so that he gets *something* out of this thread.)

EmpTyger, I'm completely opposed to declaring games "cult free", just like I am for declaring them "scum mason free" or "Godfather free" or anything else. AFAIK, cults are outside the parameters for "Normal" games, so anyone who wants to avoid them entirely has the option to play just those style of games. Obviously an Open game would declare if it had a Cult Recruiter.

Yeah, I know. There are oodles of problems with the idea, but I figured it was worth mentioning in case there was some workaround I couldn’t think of.

[mith]

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.

pj, I guessed it was something along those lines, but I felt the question needed to be asked because in my view there are actually two different ethical problems here:

The first is: Is ratting out your cult-mates acceptable? Everyone seems to agree that the answer to this is no, which is good. This is the one thing I've banned people for in the past.

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.

In general, I agree with you on cults. We've had a whole Ethics thread about them, and maybe it should feature more prominently in how-to-mod type things on the wiki. (On the other hand, after the ethics discussion I deliberately put recruiting zombies in MeMeMeet Mafia - though in that case it was very much thematic, and I think the way they recruited eliminated many of the potential ethical problems.) I look forward to your essay.

[Mr. Flay]

Previous thread on balancing cults: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4130

Best way to balance cults:

Don't use cults.

[Kelly Chen]

Late entry.

No, it's clearly unethical. You can't rat out your partners; it ruins the game.

It may be unethical, but there's no rule against it, so he is allowed to do it.

Actually I explicitly banned this in the ruleset of my fifth game.

Not that I would have tolerated it prior to this. I insist that players have a responsibility to use common sense no matter what the ruleset, and that actually has been added to my ruleset also.

[Glork]

By the way, I didn't think people were bashing you, so much as being frank about what they'd do if you

did

do such a thing.

[MrBuddyLee]

For the record, PJ and I were partners in the game in question. We both hate cults primarily because their existence wrecks scumhunting to a great extent.

But yeah, we decided that due to PJ's well-known public loathing for cults, the best way to get cult not to target us (we were scum) was to make a fuss. And boy did PJ make a fuss

If we were recruited, I'm 98% certain PJ wouldn't have ratted us out. And since that matches what he's saying here, I think everyone should give him the benefit of the doubt and turn this into a discussion on the hypothetical issue at hand.

Personally, I don't think it's ethical to rat your team out. Replacement, as Flay said, is the preferable alternative. Preferably a subtly carried out replacement, not one that makes the happening obvious.

[mikeburnfire]

Dont cults usually DIE if they try to recruit scum? You should have been begging to be recruited.

[MrBuddyLee]

Not necessarily, and since we were the only remaining scum, we'd have been outed in the eyes of all other cult members.

[Mr. Flay]

They should die, otherwise they become a cult cop which is even worse. See Wheel of Time for an example.

[Glork]

They should die, otherwise they become a cult cop which is even worse. See Wheel of Time for an example.

In the game in question (Two-Headed Mafia), the cult leaders found two of the members of our 3-giant mafia (Pooky/Adele, then Glork/MoS) because they tried recruiting us.

[Seol]

If PJ's threat was something that would only have ruined the game for the cult, that, in my opinion, is fair game. Trouble is, Mafia doesn't work like that - the threat is one of wrecking the entire game. Indicating you're willing to wreck the entire game because of a legal in-game action is, I have to say, massively offensive - even if you're not intending to follow through. I appreciate the thought process (and, FWIW, I dislike cults immensely too), but if an action is that taboo (and it is), then threatening it is taboo too.

ie I agree with mith.

[GreenLiquid]

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

Then if you didn't like being mafia, would you agree it would be ok to threaten mods that you would out your scumbuddies if they made you mafia?

Sabotaging a game like this is completely and totally unacceptable. I am shocked to hear it coming from a respected player like PJ.

[Thestatusquo]

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

PJ, It was never my intention to call you out, or make this you v. everyone else. I deliberately edited names out of posts in order to discuss this without people feeling personally attacked.

I apologize if I have failed in that purpose.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I think I should point out the irony of PJ's actions in that game. Because he made such a fuss about, I would've been recruited and as such the cult would've won if kleb hadn't forgotten to send in a choice that fateful Night.

[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.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

the easiest way to solve the whole dilemna is to consider your alignment unchanged while still doing the best you can for the cult.

In a realistic gameplay standpoint, you don't really "win" by being turned into the mindless slave of a cult leader.. if your cult wins, you shouldn't consider that a win. If your cult loses, and your original alignment you should consider that a win.

However you still must play as well for the cult as you possibly can because you are the helpless slave of your cult master it would be completely out of character to do otherwise.

[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.

But they do. 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. And in game/not arguments are moot. You're not using it as a strategy, you're using it because you hate the role.

[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

.

[Fiasco]

PJ, do you disagree with the principle that it's unethical to make a threat that you can't ethically follow through on? I think that's a good principle -- for all the people in that game knew, you were actually going to ruin it, and I think it's unfair for you to benefit from that possibility.

I'm glad you don't actually think outing your cultmates is OK. I object to people lying about ethics (or strategy) issues in Mafia Discussion, but I can understand why you did it.

In a realistic gameplay standpoint, you don't really "win" by being turned into the mindless slave of a cult leader.. if your cult wins, you shouldn't consider that a win. If your cult loses, and your original alignment you should consider that a win.

Well, realistic bishops have no problems walking in main compass directions, but that shouldn't affect the rules of chess.

[MrBuddyLee]

Basically, the logical conclusion derived here is that you should ignore such threats, because if the player actually carried them out, their reputation would be ruined.