Consistency of the Rule Regarding Quotation

[jjh927]

Recent events within some games have led me to believe that game mods handle the site rule regarding quotation of moderator communications very differently. It would be helpful to have some discussion around this and some listmod input and 'official' clarification as to how the rule is supposed to be handled.

The rule in question is:
"Do not quote communications with the moderator (in particular, your role PM). Paraphrasing is usually ok."


As it stands, an overzealous approach to this rule can lead to completely avoidable modkills where the infraction has not at all damaged the gamestate. Personally, I have always interpreted "quote" to require attribution to the moderator, whereas at least some other game moderators appear to consider the use of identical short phrases to be an infraction worthy of a modkill- even when this does not harm the gamestate. This is particularly dangerous as different moderators inclined towards this school of thought will have different bars as to what constitutes sufficient paraphrasing, meaning what a player is used to in one game could get their slot modkilled in another.

I would propose that as a simple litmus test before a listmod approves a modkill for quotation of role PM, they look at the post(s) in question without looking at the actual role PM and see if they can determine if any of the words and phrases used were copied or not. At this moment I feel the general approach favours modkills in situations where there was no damage to the game, which is absolutely not how game rules should be being enforced.


How do other people feel about this? I think this is an area with little consistency in how it is handled and with potential for negative consequences on games, particularly in the theme queues where abnormal role PMs are commonplace.

[jjh927]

anytime a player is talking about their role or other information from a moderator, it is attributed to the moderator, as where else would that information have come from, so if the phrasing is the same or particularly similar, it is quoting, even if plagiarizing as opposed to crediting

I think that completely devalues the assumption that players are making an honest effort to paraphrase. Paraphrasing is where the different phrasing would come from. And it's when a player has made an honest effort to paraphrase that there is no damage to the game from similar phrasing being used, but some moderators would still modkill the slot.

i think the rule should probably be expanded to also include things like timestamps and the source of pms if the game has multiple moderators among various other things,

I agree with that- I would consider timestamps to be in the exact same category of thing, as such discussion would be from a player attempting to gain an advantage by using the nature of the moderator's communication.

[jjh927]

I think the central idea here is pretty simple. Regardless of the quoting rules, modkilling breaks the game. You shouldn't do it unless the game would be broken harder if you didn't. To that end, you should only modkill someone for admitting (or otherwise making it obvious) that they quoted mod communication.

100% agree. Frankly, when the advice for if one player literally PMs their role PM to another player is to replace both slots, it's jarring to see modkills being sought and approved when players have made an honest effort to paraphrase and there is no damage to the game. Modkills are last ditch damage control, not a punishment

[jjh927]

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

[jjh927]

When I asked in PMs, MariaR said:

Directly quoting communication from the mod is a modkill, it has been like this for ages. What mastina did was quote lines directly from their role pm with taking out a single word (that basically has the same meaning) and replacing it. It has never mattered if it does not 'look' like a role pm it is the action you are doing in regards to it.

I'd like to know if that's how all the listmods are resolving this kind of thing. If that is the case then I think their approach definitely needs to be reconsidered.

[jjh927]

Ultimately I want to see a commitment to a consistent approach which does not result in unnecessary modkills in whatever form that takes

[jjh927]

infraction has not at all damaged the gamestate.

A moderator also has the responsibility to head off future damage to the game state.

If a player is able to clear themselves by quoting large sections of their role pm, there is then the incentive for other players to follow suit.

If such a mass quoting occurred - the game would be irreparably damaged as players would be examining the wording to figure out what was written by the moderator and what is fabricated - the game would no longer be about mafia, it would be word analysis.

Quoting Moderator communications has always been a no-no on this site

Right, but if a player is able to clear themselves by quoting large sections of their role PM then their HAS been damage to the gamestate. I'm talking about the situation where nobody even knows that they've used the same phrasing as the moderator

[jjh927]

I would think there are three major points of discussion here;

1. Is a modkill a required response to all infractions of this rule, regardless of context?
2. For something to be a "quote", does it need to be clearly attributable to the moderator?
3. If no to 2, where is the line drawn on how much can be identical to a PM?

[jjh927]

I am curious if you have found this to be a prevalent problem across the site, or if you only find this one example to have crossed a line? Are there other games that you are aware of that had modkills for this reason that you think were misruled?

That is actually the only game I have seen where someone was modkilled for this (admittedly, my personal sample size is on the small side).

viewtopic.php?p=12436092#p12436092

Exact same issue. Partial copy of a string of text from the role PM, a different skittle ruled, modkilled.

Here's the post- I don't think that's the same issue at all. They literally have a long phrase in quotation marks

[jjh927]

I don't know if it's a widespread issue- I'll need to know how the listmods officially approach these kind of things

What I do know is it is a possible crack that things can fall down and it's worth discussing as a result

[jjh927]

But there are other punishments besides modkills... like force-replacement, new game bans, etc. Even just a public warning is still enough to indicate that it isn't okay.

a public warning or force replacement of the slot would be even more damaging to game integrity than a straight up modkill as it would confirm the slot as claimed, giving advantage to the slot - this is unfair to every other player in the game.

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]

I have always considered the flavour names of abilities to be 100% claimable unless discussion of flavour is explicitly prohibited

[jjh927]

An example is helpful for demonstrating the need for more transparency in the rules

[jjh927]

I mean, the two questions I guess are
1. Was this correct
2. Should it be correct

and ultimately, unless the answer to 1 is "no" then I'm far more interested in the answer to 2, and of course 1 is really answered by the listmods

[jjh927]

When claiming your role you can use the full title of your role, in addition to any flavour titles. It's the explanation that gets hazy.

When explaining your roleclaim and what you are capable of, I would say that the objective is to sufficiently reword it such that it is your own voice and not the moderator's. I think it's fine to use some of the same words and phrases that the moderator has used provided that it is no longer the moderator's voice. It's not about avoiding plagiarism checkers. The bar should be on whether it is possible for game damage to be caused by the post in question, rather than an arbitrary decision on what constitutes too little paraphrasing.

I stand by the below as a standard by which you can determine whether something should be modkillable or not, perhaps with the addendum that if something is clearly presented as being the words of the moderator then it should be modkilled regardless of whether it is truthful or not:

I would propose that as a simple litmus test before a listmod approves a modkill for quotation of role PM, they look at the post(s) in question without looking at the actual role PM and see if they can determine if any of the words and phrases used were copied or not. At this moment I feel the general approach favours modkills in situations where there was no damage to the game, which is absolutely not how game rules should be being enforced.

In the example in tenet, there's a 20 word phrase in quotation marks, so it's pretty clear that the moderator has been quoted or the player has attempted to appear as though they are doing so.
In the example in Yggdrasil, I do not believe a spectator would be able to pinpoint any phrases as definitely the words of unwnd.


So, my stance is that a post is okay if it does not appear to be the voice of the moderator, and I feel this should be represented in the rules.

[jjh927]

Like, it's fine to say that the rules should be enforced the same way regardless of intent or context. . . but you can rewrite the rules such that they only cover the situations in which they harm the gamestate. The gamestate is only ever harmed by an infraction of this rule when a post is perceived to include the words of the moderator, so a modkill should only occur when that perception is possible.

[jjh927]

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

[jjh927]

As another element, I would note that key words are key words for a reason and you can't paraphrase them when they have in-game meaning. When designing a game, good design practice is to use consistent wording with consistent meaning over the game. You cannot consider the use of a key word as a quote as a synonym does not mean the same thing.

As a simple example, take "target". That means a very specific thing in the context of a game. It is a key word that describes that a player has designated another player in order to act upon them. "Target" means a different thing to "Visit", as a player who has targeted a player has not necessarily visited a player, although a player who has visited a player has always targeted them.

"Charm" and "Mark" would both be key words. "Support" and "Utility" would both be key words denoting a category of ability. "SP" and "Damage" are both key words known to every player in the game. The names of the abilities, particularly those referenced in other abilities such as "Curse Circle" are key words.

[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.

[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

[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.

[jjh927]

Would you modkill in the scenario in my thought experiment?

[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

[jjh927]

Then say "I have had dirty money since Day 1" there is always a way to paraphrase.

Not true, you only know you started the game with it but do not know what happened afterwards as it could have been stolen or moved. It is also not specific, as you know you started the game with 1 pile of dirty money and this quantity is important. You may have more than 1 pile of dirty money, and in fact a Mafia Bourgeoisie starts the game with 2 piles of dirty money.

[jjh927]

I don't think that the issue boiled down to key terms, like the "dirty money," example.

There was just so much of Unwnd's exact wording. Like look back at post 52. Like, every single line. Mastina's sentences do not look/feel like they are in Mastina's own words.

I also think that it is clear that that is the issue. I mean, 15 or so players successfully claimed that game, but only the one crossed the line, so clearly there were acceptable ways to claim your role.

And I imagine every player who claimed after Mastina did so with a far greater level of care than they would normally. She also had the most complicated role PM in the game. Finally, when you split it up to try and make it obvious for comparison's sake, you are actively making an effort to sift through the paraphrasing, so of course it will end up looking unnatural.

[jjh927]

"I have had dirty money since Day 1"
"How much?"
"1 pile"

It is your responsibility as a player to avoid copying word for word phrases. In your example if there is another miller they could confirm the claim based on what you posted.

That is a conversation which inherently conveys something different to offering the full information all at once by its nature as a conversation and the desired information only being offered on request by another player

[jjh927]

I do not think there is a way of saying that you started the game with 1 pile of dirty money without saying the words "1 pile of dirty money" in roughly that order

[jjh927]

Like, looking at each line side by side, it does not look like paraphrasing to me

Paraphrasing is literally saying the same thing using different words. How is that not paraphrasing?

It does not look like "adequate" paraphrasing to me.

Having both written and graded papers, I know that there is a thresh hold where something has been put into your own words, but I also know that, even in that setting, that thresh hold is a bit hard to pin down.

What I was trying to say, is that based on my experience, I don't think that it crossed that thresh hold.

The threshold for plagiarism isn't a good baseline for this. Claiming your role would always be plagiarism, just with varying levels of rewording- as even with rewording it will still be plagiarism regardless of whether plagiarism detectors detect it or not, as your goal is to accurately describe the thing first described to you by the moderator. I think to be considered a quote is a different standard, and it requires attribution.

[jjh927]

"I can't die, even if a player modkills me.
The only time I can die is if the Moderator Modkills me"

If you were a player in a game and you had just seen this claim, could you determine if this is copying from their role, or paraphrasing their role?

They're paraphrasing at best because a player can't modkill anyone. I'd assume they're lying about their role

[jjh927]

It seems impossible to disentangle this discussion from just debating the Yggdrasil ruling - despite a couple people saying that we should.

I think I am back to wondering if this is even a issue that needs to be fixed. Especially since you seemed to agree with the modkill in the only other example of a modkill over this issue.

Is this an issue that you are think you are likely to run into in your future games - when unwnd is not the mod?

Because, if you have been on the site for 4 years, and in your experience, there is only 1 example of the current system having the wrong ruling - then is that really a big problem? A system that "maybe" messes up once every 4 years?

It really annoyed me when it did happen so I would like to remove any possibility of it ever happening again