My case for amendment of rules 2 and 3

[Menalque]

Do private threads show up in post counts for other users though? I think they don't but I don't know for sure.

i checked this a bit ago, they do not.

something every sweaty tryhard has looked at lol

I think I found this out like a month in on site

[Menalque]

I sr datisi and tr ythan but can't say why.

why not just make up reasons for the reads, I'm not seeing an issue here

edit: I also don't see how saying "I think that X is gonna get force repped for transphobia" goes against rule 3 as written at all, so I think you would have been fine saying "uh can we wait on limming for a day or two bc I think they're gonna get repped"

like the things prohibited are (1) telling someone to rep out and (2) threatening to rep out yourself

speculating that someone might get replaced isn't either of those things

[Menalque]

After the game I privately pm'd isis about if predicting a force replace is against the rules and was told it is against the rule of bringing outside influences to the game. I share it with her permission.

Hi bugspray,

The existence of reports against a user is an outside influence being brought into the mafia game. This is part of Mafia rule 2 from site rules. As such, you're not allowed to discuss them as part of the mafia game. Therefore, you did play to your win condition to the greatest extent the rules allow. Thank you for asking.

I think that’s kind of a bizarre interpretation of the rule as written and think that if you’d done it it would have been very hard for mod action to be pursued against you. If that is how the mod team are interpreting tule 2 then they should either make it explicit within the list of things prohibited there, or they should change their interpretation. Ambiguity in the rules is useless.

I sr datisi and tr ythan but can't say why.

why not just make up reasons for the reads, I'm not seeing an issue here

Because it would be a definitive lie at that point, something which either the scum could capitalize on (Proving that you are a liar), or something that you yourself can't back up.

If people were that good at realising when ur lying then mafia would be a lot easier

[Menalque]

I sr datisi and tr ythan but can't say why.

why not just make up reasons for the reads, I'm not seeing an issue here

Because it would be a definitive lie at that point, something which either the scum could capitalize on (Proving that you are a liar), or something that you yourself can't back up.

If people were that good at realising when ur lying then mafia would be a lot easier

You can't back up a lie you make based upon things that are either inside the main thread or inside other game threads.[/quote]

Sure you can, you just base it on in game stuff and exaggerate your confidence level

[Menalque]

Maybe the best path forward is to discourage people who are in a game from discussing bans that occurred due to that game? Or maybe just a more general "if it seems like it might relate to an ongoing game, don't post it".

I don’t think a single reaction post to a ban is ever going to indicate someone’s alignment in game to an accuracy of better than luck

Like bugs thinks it was a scummy post for dats to make, but it’s basically just as likely that they could have been wrong about him and I think if you re-ran the whole thing 1000 times then bugs would be right about dats being scum 1/4 of the time

[Menalque]

I’m pretty sure isis was joking

[Menalque]

I am legitimately surprised that you weren’t and am still not more than like 90% confident that you’re not still joking

[Menalque]

There should be no reason for you to believe that a listmod is joking about something like that

the reason is that it sounds like a joke to me when we talk about if someone should should have received more severe sanction for posting “l m a o” anywhere, whether we’re in serious thread or a joke one, and whether it’s a listmod or any other site user saying it

~

regarding what implo is saying, sure, if there’s a more substantive post than “lmao” or “whoa” I think that’s problematic and could generate more alignment info. But I think a single word reaction post is just incredibly NAI for anyone generally active on site who’s not infrequently in SGB, and who often responds in a similar way (I’m not certain on this, but hasn’t dats posted similar things about other transphobes getting banned?)

Also it’s a double edged sword: if you rely on that and someone posts something that you *think* doesn’t make sense as scum for them and townlock then but they are scum then you’re probably just losing that game

I admit that the line becomes harder to discern the more that’s posted, but bringing it back to here: I don’t think that even tho bugs was right here that they’d be right more than random. Therefore if they’d used it to form their read and been right — okay, cool for them for this game, the gamble worked out. But next game there’s every chance they get burned by doing the same thing. Hence I think it’s not really an issue

I would just suggest that moderation (if the initial interpretation of bugs’ question is still being adhered to) either alter the rules to make it clear that referring to potential incoming bans is outside influence, or that a clarifying statement be issued that that is acceptable, because I think atm there’s a situation where that’s not at all clearly prohibited from how the rules are written