Consistency of the Rule Regarding Quotation

[MURDERCAT]

Right now there is a very simple rule: don't lift any direct phrases from you role pm
You are arguing to make the rule worse by suggesting that you should be able to do this as long it doesn't effect the gamestate and here's a test to know if it affects the gamestate

Just don't lift direct phrases from your role pm. Cut and dry, there is no reason to make the rule and more complicated than that. It is not a high bar.

[Jake The Wolfie]

For contexxt, the example that has driven me to action here is this modkill, which did have listmod approval. I'm not particularly happy with the way that this "murky situation" is being addressed by the list mods when it arises, and would prefer a consistently defined approach to how that situation is resolved in a way that does not result in unnecessary game-damaging modkills

What I'm seeing here is "Look! Mastina fluffed up what she copied, and therefore hath

sinned

! She will promptly be executed for.. her good-faith attempt to claim!"

[jjh927]

Right now there is a very simple rule: don't lift any direct phrases from you role pm
You are arguing to make the rule worse by suggesting that you should be able to do this as long it doesn't effect the gamestate and here's a test to know if it affects the gamestate

Just don't lift direct phrases from your role pm. Cut and dry, there is no reason to make the rule and more complicated than that. It is not a high bar.

The reason to make the rule more complicated than that is that a modkill is a nuclear response that causes serious damage to a game, and should not be considered where there is no game damage.

[Jake The Wolfie]

To clarify: I am not trying to lacerate an old wound of Unwnd's. After reading what went on in that game, I can understand how this has happened. Were better circumstances to be implemented here, things might have been different. I apologize to unwnd if they take offense to this. I am not trying to harass Unwnd here, as they were trying to run their game in good faith.

[MURDERCAT]

There may be game damage if someone has similar phrases in their own role PM and can use that to confirm the claim. Again, it is not a high bar and it is pretty rare

[Something_Smart]

You are arguing to make the rule worse by suggesting that you should be able to do this as long it doesn't effect the gamestate and here's a test to know if it affects the gamestate

Uh no, nobody is arguing that any kind of role PM quoting should be allowed. We just think that it shouldn't be punished by a modkill unless the integrity of the slot is completely ruined.

[jjh927]

Similar phrases to that end are usually keywords that are part of the game design

eg if a player had an ability that invented shots of something that was "a form of marking"

If that happens that's not game damage, that's a natural part of the game design playing out

[MURDERCAT]

We just think that it shouldn't be punished by a modkill unless the integrity of the slot is completely ruined.

It is hard to know if that will be the case and if you wait around the game could potentially become unsalvageable.

[Lukewarm]

I mean, I think the example is tainted at this point because you can't look at it without knowing what you know. Particularly as you have got some definite false positives in there- look at nerve circle.

As a player in that game who read through Mastina's post I did not suspect any of it was taken from unwnd

Hmm... maybe it is tainted for me. I was in the spectator chat, and so I saw Unwnd processing Mastina's post, and trying to figure out how to handle it, and being very upset about the final decision, because he loved the role he spent so much time creating.

Although I would like to say that you seem very convinced that the modkill was unnecessary because you personally did not think anything of it at the time -- but I would suggest taking into consideration that the mod, the back up mod, and the list mod all approving the mod kill, and now a couple spectators and a number of other players from that game have commented to say that they agreed with the mod kill -- I think that that is decent enough evidence that Mastina's post, was, at the very least, deep in the grey area.

I will also say that I am getting the feeling that this example may be tainted for you as well - it feels like you are somewhat focused on defending mastina, who I assume is a friend of yours, and I get that. But I also get the feeling that talking about this example in particular is going to just have us all going around in circles.

I understand that being modkilled must have sucked for mastina, but I think it is beneficial to realize that it sucked for Unwnd as well.

It was a crappy situation, that no one wanted to have to deal with.

[Something_Smart]

It is hard to know if that will be the case and if you wait around the game could potentially become unsalvageable.

Well I mean nobody said this kind of thing was easy. The same is true in the other direction, too-- modkilling unnecessarily can really screw up the game.

[MURDERCAT]

I just don't see how loosening anything helps. Don't break the very simple rule and you won't get modkilled

[Something_Smart]

Don't break the very simple rule and you won't get modkilled

I must be missing something. I feel like the rule of thumb here is to just

not quote moderator communications and then this would stop happening.

The thing you're missing is that shit happens. We can't just say "don't quote moderator communications" and then magically nobody will ever quote moderator communications. We still have to have a plan for when the rule is broken. The rule isn't what's being discussed here-- it's the proper response to someone breaking it.

[Something_Smart]

Also, the rule is not as simple as it seems. Is using one word from your role PM quoting? Two? Three? If the mod messages me "You received a piece of fruit last night" and then I go to sleep, wake up in the morning, forget the exact phrasing of the message, and post "I received a piece of fruit last night", should I be modkilled?

[jjh927]

Thought experiment time!


Player A receives the following role PM:

Town Tax Collector
You are a Tax Collector, aligned with the town!
Once per night, you may target a player to check to see if they have any piles of dirty money. Mafia start the game with a pile of dirty money by default.
You win when all threats to the town are eliminated.

Player B receives the following role PM, which I will place in a spoiler in case you wish to read it after reading the scenario as a test of the litmus test aspect:

Spoiler:

Town Bourgeoisie
You are a Bourgeoisie, aligned with the town!
You start the game with one pile of dirty money.
You win when all threats to the town are eliminated.

In night 1, Player A targets Player B. At the start of day 2, Player A claims an unspecified guilty on Player B. Player B claims:

I think I know what the guilty is. I'm a town Bourgeoisie, which means I started the game with a pile of dirty money. I wasn't sure what that meant but I think I'm like a miller?

Spoiler: My thoughts

I will start by saying I think this is completely acceptable.

However, note the similarity between the claim and the role PM:
Role PM: You start the game with one pile of dirty money.
Claim: I started the game with a pile of dirty money.

This is okay because "pile of dirty money" is a key phrase relating to the game mechanics. The same goes for "start the game". You absolutely cannot prevent players from using game terminology in a game. Player A will likely assume Player B is town and is telling the truth due to their claim in relation to their own role. However, this is not an advantage that they have gained illicitly by quoting moderator communication, but something that is inherent to the nature of a setup.

[MURDERCAT]

I do think perhaps the rules should include some examples given people seem to have a difference of opinions about where the line is.

But I think the line should stay where it is.

pedit: I get that, but I think the "it's always a modkill" is fine because it can easily lead to confirmed roles. Better to be strict as the game can always go on from a modkill.

[Something_Smart]

But I think the line should stay where it is.

The line isn't anywhere. It isn't properly defined.

[jjh927]

Would you modkill in the scenario in my thought experiment?

[MURDERCAT]

Would you modkill in the scenario in my thought experiment?

If the mod modkilled in that scenario because they felt it was over the line and could give an advantage I would be ok with it

You can just say, "I think I'm a miller because my role pm mentions dirty money" to achieve the same effect

[Lukewarm]

SS, I think that modkilled is the only way to handle this particular issue tbh.

What other response do you suggest?

Public warnings and/or force replace would both amplify the damage from the original post, and would just make the situation worse, right?

[MURDERCAT]

I think it's worth remembering that if you are a mod and you choose not to modkill that is fine. But if another mod chooses to modkill because they think it can give an advantage and multiple words are copied I think it's fine for a mod to do that to do what they need to do to protect the gamestate.

[jjh927]

SS, I think that modkilled is the only way to handle this particular issue tbh.

What other response do you suggest?

Public warnings and/or force replace would both amplify the damage from the original post, and would just make the situation worse, right?

Either the situation is bad enough to require a modkill, or it is not. In a fringe case where it is not bad enough to warrant a modkill, you can PM the player in question and say that they have not paraphrased sufficiently and should avoid attributing the words they used to the moderator or bringing attention to how close it resembles the original wording, as if they do so a modkill will be required.

[jjh927]

Would you modkill in the scenario in my thought experiment?

If the mod modkilled in that scenario because they felt it was over the line and could give an advantage I would be ok with it

You can just say, "I think I'm a miller because my role pm mentions dirty money" to achieve the same effect

That does not communicate the same thing at all.

Spoiler: Pirate Role PM

Pirate
You are a third-party Pirate!
Once per night, you may target a player to steal all dirty money from them, if they have any. Mafia start the game with dirty money by default.
You win when you gather 3 dirty money

Spoiler: Mafia Accountant Role PM

Mafia Accountant
You are an Accountant, aligned with the Mafia!
Once per night, you can target two players. You will move any dirty money from the first target to the second. Mafia start the game with dirty money by default.

[jjh927]

I do not believe there is any way to unambiguously communicate all the information in that scenario that without using the key phrases that form the entire meat of the town bourgeousie role PM in that example

Key words relating to game mechanics must therefore be fine, even when those mechanics are not public

[MURDERCAT]

Then say "I have had dirty money since Day 1" there is always a way to paraphrase. Even situations like the one SS posted with the fruit can allow an outside influence to impact the game. Mods almost never want to modkill and if they do that's what the listmods are there for. Trust mods and listmods to determine if there is a risk to the gamestate. Even seemingly minor phrasing could cause problems. Don't get anywhere near the line in your own games.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I think there is something missing here, when a player is transmitting their role PM:

Only that player knows what their role PM says exactly. Any other players they are trying to transmit their role PM to does not know what their role pm says exactly.

There are a few minor caveats to this (Mafia members will most likely know eachother's role PMs) but aside from those, the above statement should be a core consideration.