Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[DkKoba]

Game moderators may not use individual users of the site as flavor in the game without obtaining list moderator approval and review of the text.

i'm a bit confused on what the point of this rule is, since i can't recall any issues related to it in recent times. i'd understand if there was approval needed from the person whose name was being used as flavour. why listmod approval + review?

does this mean that any games that use player names in the "story" of the game can't do that anymore, since that text can't really be written pregame? or will we have to have a listmod on standby to review the text before flips etc. are posted?

Anything Upick comes to mind

[DkKoba]

I feel like in the lategame of a game I am very aware of how my game has diverged from how I would play as scum and I am able to point all this out - this isn't necessarily a trust tell because I attempt the same thing in a mafia position - but I'm afraid that the trust tell update might sorta prevent me from self defending via self-meta/etc.

I'm not sure where the line is drawn because for example, a common reason I pull out is referencing actions that have occurred I claim I would never allow to happen when I am mafia - granted its a pretty complex series of events and I am telling the truth when I am town - but it's not like a simple "i wouldnt claim VT as scum" kinda deal.

[DkKoba]

pagetop

maybe it's more valuable to just

not play more than one game at once and not read ongoing games so that you'd never have this problem?

Excuse me that'd be too little mafia happening at the same time

[DkKoba]

with replacements, this is how I interpret it:

You can acknowledge someone has been replaced. You can state an inactive player is likely to be replaced soon.

You cannot discuss why someone was replaced unless it was clearly flaking(getting prodded and replaced), and only the fact that the player was completely inactive, which basically translates to discussing their *activity* prior to replace-out rather than the replace out itself.

When "discussing" replacements within the confines of the rules you are still strictly only allowed to discuss what has been said in the game thread(or lack of).

[DkKoba]

elitelling is when you call someone out for being active on another part of the site and specifically not in the game thread. i have no clue where the name originated but this is what it means

[DkKoba]

why people play mafia to only win as 1 alignment is beyond me, I am proud of the fact I can hold my own as *both* alignments and not because I play poorly as 1, the game is so much more interesting from your pov if you play to win always

[DkKoba]

thats just a simple codeword type deal tbh

[DkKoba]

Spoiler:

Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:

1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
   green
   ):

   5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired

   and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup

   , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.

   4.

   Having information that not all players have access to

   and is not required to be provided to you by the setup

   .

   
   
   If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available

   and was not required to be provided to you by the setup

   , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

   
   
2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
   removed
   :

   Discussions about Activity

   
   Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.
   
   

   OKAY:

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

   NOT OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
   

   OKAY:

   "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>

   The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.

These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.

So if they are *only* posting in other ongoing games except one(the one you are looking to post in), and have their online status set to invisible so you cannot see they are online, this means you cannot claim they are "avoiding thread" for instance?

[DkKoba]

You need approval to modkill, force replacement is purely mod discretion.

[DkKoba]

If you're using a force replacement as retaliation against someone though, or something similar, I suspect that listmods might take notice and intervene though.

[DkKoba]

in a situation where you are potentially modkilling a slot, you are going to have your game thread locked anyways so eh

[DkKoba]

I dont convert to survivor unless it was due to malicious behavior i have to modkill a slot.