What annoys you in mafia posts RULESET PAGE 2

[Something_Smart]

If you do this, you should try to time it so it's Mini 1984, because that's what the theme reminds me of.

Attempting to game the rules for the purposes of achieving a second directed lynch: 20 points.

What if people try to game the rules to suicide?

[Something_Smart]

Your concern is something chamber pointed out also in the initial pass through the rules. I'm not really sure how to handle it? I could include stipulations that if I think you are trying to game the rules in any way I will take the action that benefits you the least? Like a mod kill that ends the day? I don't know.

The issue with that is that it's not always obvious if this has occurred. I feel like the modkill is inherently problematic, though you could potentially balance it by not flipping the players but that would be horrible as a player.

Perhaps instead of modkills you could give PR's to the players with the fewest points? Like for each night, you'd have a certain set of PR's available (which may or may not be public), each with a threshold N, and then for that PR you'd randomize it among the players with the fewest N points. You could also give negative effects to the players with the most points like voteless or hated.

[Something_Smart]

Also I'd just like to note that these rules would massively decrease the quality of play and would lead to people either disregarding the rules or playing a very sanitized and formulaic game that will make scumhunting almost impossible (or some mixture of the two). I don't think that's bad as long as the players know what they're getting into, but it will certainly be challenging.

Pedit: Creature said some of what I was thinking, lol

[Something_Smart]

It's like 1984, lol.

[Something_Smart]

Well, just thinking of how I would react to a game like that, the strongest part of my townplay is my ability to give genuine reactions and questions that aren't super thought-out that make it pretty obvious I'm town. If I had to post 5 sentences in every post and I couldn't post more than once in a row without a reason, a LOT of that would go away.

[Something_Smart]

Also it's really bad when you're pressed for time and need to just say something quickly.

(Here's a situation like the ones I was referring to, by the way: I made my post and thought of something else I wanted to say. It would be super annoying if I had to wait until someone else posted to say it, as well as coming up with 4 other things to say as well.)

(Ironically, Plotinus and Gamma ninja'd me lol. But the point still stands.)

[Something_Smart]

And the situation described in the first P.S. would be especially annoying if general activity is relatively low. It's frustrating enough waiting for people to post and not seeing anything, but it would be even more so if you weren't allowed to post either.

[Something_Smart]

I don't know that I wouldn't enjoy it; as I said it would be a challenge for sure. But I would be a hell of a lot harder to read, as would most people I think.

[Something_Smart]

Policy lynches (aka not playing to your wincon)

Actually policy lynches are one potential response to other people not playing to their wincon... under this ruleset there should already be no need for policy lynches.

Blindly sheeping townreads or experienced players

I don't think this is bad as long as one is also producing content.

The rest in that post I agree with, maybe you could add a rule that votes will not work until 72 hours into LYLO or something. (Although that's a pain in the ass if there's a mechanical 1v1, so you could maybe say that this rule doesn't apply if the players crossvote.)

Oh and

"This tunneling is probably TvS even though neither player is actually scummy"

If I'm understanding this right, it's calling a pair of people tunneling each other TvS even if you don't scumread either one individually, which I think is valid as a double burden of proficiency argument: even if you think they're town it would require both of them to be wrong on each other.