Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[Umlaut]

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

My understanding is that saying one of these things is okay for ongoing game reads PROVIDED THAT you don't solely use these reasons for ongoing game reads. In other words, as long as it is ambiguous whether the read is really a gut read or actually based on an ongoing game, it's okay to lie a little and say that the read is based on gut etc.

I feel like making a site rule that requires town to lie about their reads sometimes, even if it's just a little, is not so great.

[Umlaut]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

I think this needs a response. That example is an old one that was already present before the rules were updated, but it does make it clear that this update is an actual change in the

intent

of the rule. It seems like the mod responses to questions here are trying to suggest that this is just the rule as it was always intended to be, just "rewritten" to close up some loopholes, when that is evidently not the case. Saying "so-and-so has posted in other games but not here," to support a read, was not previously regarded as a loophole to be closed up, it was something explicitly and intentionally permitted.

[Umlaut]

Back in 2013, zoraster wrote:

This isn't a hard rule to stay on the right side of the line on.

I believe this was true of the rule circa 2013, but not of the rule now.

[Umlaut]

Also again, we are using OGI to mean “out-of-game influence” and

OGI is explicitly against the rules in any form

. If this isn’t what you’re talking about, I’m finding it really confusing to see the abbreviation OGI used but people talking about it being allowed, because OGI is not allowed.

I just do not know how to reconcile this with the text of the site rules themselves, which say that

Replacements are an unavoidable

out-of-game influence

.

If I take what you are saying seriously then I have to conclude that replacements are against the site rules (while also being unavoidable). I assume that is not the intent, in which case you are flat-out contradicting the written rules of the site in your explanation of them. You might call this example nitpicky, but I'm not the one correcting anyone on their inaccurate use of the term "OGI" and insisting it refers only to things which are clearly not allowed and they shouldn't use the term in any other way.

If I take seriously that you are "finding it really confusing" then I have to take that as an admission that the rules as written are confusing. Which they are: this is only one more among the several self-contradictory excerpts others have pointed out in this thread. I find it alarming that the regular users here are expected to correctly interpret a set of rules that the people who drafted it cannot.