Policy Disc.: When do rules apply? (Incl. dead talk, etc.)

[jeep]

The rules of the game apply to everyone until the game is over. Even though you are dead, you are still bound by the rules of the game.

-JEEP

That does not (or should not) apply to people talking to each other after they're both dead, because that can not affect the game in any way.

I disagree.

I've spoken outside of topics because I knew that neither of us would have any chance at replacing, but it was still breaking the rules. Also, anyone who has spoken about a game outside of the topic should be excluded from eligibility to replace.

BUt when you're dead you're technically not in the game anymore.

I totally disagree with this too. If this is the case, then if you are killed, you should lose. I think that you win with your side and as long as you can win or lose you are CLEARLY in the game. This leaves open the argument of "what if you can no longer win," but I still say that until the game is concluded, you are part of it.

-JEEP

[Yosarian2]

The rules of the game apply to everyone until the game is over. Even though you are dead, you are still bound by the rules of the game.

-JEEP

That does not (or should not) apply to people talking to each other after they're both dead, because that can not affect the game in any way.

I disagree.

I've spoken outside of topics because I knew that neither of us would have any chance at replacing, but it was still breaking the rules. Also, anyone who has spoken about a game outside of the topic should be excluded from eligibility to replace.

Well, anyone who's talked about the game shouldn't replace into it, sure. But if that's not an issue, I don't think you're breaking the rules by talking about the game with someone who's not playing in the game after you're dead.

[ShadowLurker]

jeep is right.

[IH]

I totally disagree with this too. If this is the case, then if you are killed, you should lose. I think that you win with your side and as long as you can win or lose you are CLEARLY in the game. This leaves open the argument of "what if you can no longer win," but I still say that until the game is concluded, you are part of it.

I'd consider it more like getting kicked out of other games. Your team, and therefore you, can still win, but you're not part of the game anymore. You can't make anymore impact.

Let's take... soccer, or not american football. You get the redcard. You're out. Your team keeps playing though, and if they win, you win as well. You talk about your strategies with people on the sidelines, point out players flaws, with another player on the opposing side who has gotten a redcard. You both leave the stadium even, and keep watching. Are you expecting that player to get back in the game or not?

I have a feeling that analogy isn't as good as I thought it was, because of the connotations of talking to teamates, but it's still the same principle if they aren't allowed contact with their teamates/coach if they're not playing.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Rules do not apply in scumchat.

[Talitha]

It's a slightly tricky issue because I think it'd be hard to find ANY player who hadn't talked to someone else about an on-going game. For instance when you get lynched as a townie you often need to blow off some steam to somebody.

But having said that, Jeep is right. The rules of the game continue to apply after you are dead and until the game is over. You are NOT free to speak to whomever you wish about an ongoing game that you have player information about. If you must do it, both parties should be aware that the dead player is breaking the rules of the game, and be suitably discrete about it. The dead player should also be completely sure that the person they are speaking to won't ever be considered as a replacement.

[Talitha]

And a player (dead or live) speaking about an ongoing game in scum chat is absolutely a no-no... If someone from a game I was modding did that, I'd be furious.

[ShadowLurker]

Rules do not apply in scumchat.

You are an idiot.

[Sir Tornado]

edited out -- Sir T

[ShadowLurker]

Sir T, you just confirmed a player fucking innocent.

Way to fucking go.

Mods please lock this thread.

[Sir Tornado]

I'm assuming it is that scumchat game we are still talking about?

[pickemgenius]

jeep is right.

word

[Zindaras]

And a player (dead or live) speaking about an ongoing game in scum chat is absolutely a no-no... If someone from a game I was modding did that, I'd be furious.

It's happened to me in one of my games. I luckily only had to replace one player because of it, but I was very unhappy.

[Mr. Flay]

Well, anyone who's talked about the game shouldn't replace into it, sure. But if that's not an issue, I don't think you're breaking the rules by talking about the game with someone who's not playing in the game after you're dead.

But since apparently people DO replace into games after talking about them with dead players, it's a problem. Yes, Y was more explicitly af fault, but Y could not have done anything wrong if X hadn't stretched the rules first.

As mod, I've spoken with dead players after their death confirming some of their suspicions, but that's the ONLY post-death discussion I can see as harmless, since the mod already knows that player won't be coming back. If Player X talks to Y who mentions it to C who lives with B, and B replaces in, how is the mod supposed to know that B isn't just a Paragon of Mafia Hunters? I bet this happens in more games than we'd like to admit, and not just in scumchat.

[Talitha]

Yeah - talking to the mod is an exception to the rule I believe. It's fine for any player (live or dead) to speak to the mod about an ongoing game. I don't think anyone would see this as breaking the rules, because that is what the mod is there for.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Person X didn't do anything wrong. I don't know the full situation, but Person Y seems to be completely in the wrong. If Person X just pmed Person Y and gave them his scumpartners, that's bad. But if they were just talking about the game and Person X said who his scumbuddies were, that's not really his fault. Person Y shouldn't have replaced after talking about the game to other people that were dead in it.

[IH]

I agree with MoS.

You can talk about the game rules, but I mean, if you had outside knowledge of a game you're replacing into, you're willingly entering a game with that outside knowledge.

[dotchan]

Doesn't this violate the rules of "don't talk about an ongoing game", though? That should still apply even if you're dead. But yeah, player Y shouldn't have replaced in.

On another board that I play, the thread stays open at Night and the dead characters are allowed to "haunt" the thread with fluff posts, and there are certain roles you can't replace into any more if you have potentially game-breaking information.

[gorckat]

But when you're dead you're technically not in the game anymore. It's even counted as "completed" as you're no longer on the mini/newbie list for it anyways.

In my mind, these are two different rules issues.

1) You may only be alive in X number of games at any given time.
2) If you are dead or have been replaced in a game, you may not communicate with other players about that game.


I don't think a person should share with anyone else info he couldn't post in a thread in MD. If a person comes into that info, its straight cheating and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Shanba]

But what is the point of the rule, gorckat? It's to stop a player who's dead, or who isn't in the game influencing it. If that's the point of the rule, then talking to a player who's never going to replace in to a game (after you're dead, if you're still alive then their opinions could influence the game) about what you know isn't going to hurt. If the player talked to then replaces in, knowing that they have extra knowledge, they are then cheating. In fact, I would argue that the player who told them the info should then tell the mod and the replacing player should be punished. It's not the first player's problem if the other player broke the rules in that way.

Frankly, if I wasn't allowed to rant after I was lynched or mislynched or nked, sometimes I would scream. A lot of tension gets built up over the course of a game and often it needs an outlet. In a large game, it could be months before you get the chance to vent publically.

[Shanba]

That's not the only thing. If a new player gets lynched in a game, it's more helpful for them to receive critiques (privately, from a player not playing in the game) about how they could improve their play then, rather than later after the game was over.

[gorckat]

I phrased that badly. The last line should be:

"If a person comes into that info

and replaces into the game

, its straight cheating and should be dealt with accordingly."


I've never felt the need to blow off steam like that, so I might be coming at the issue a bit idealistically (seeking a pure mafia experience that's never ruined by douchebags )

[Dasquian]

ISTM that X

was

technically breaking the letter of the rules and so "was at fault", but I can't really fault him. Y certainly is outright cheating. He

knows

he knows too much about the game yet replaced in anyway, he should not have done that. Furthermore, X fessed up and complained as soon as Y replaced in, supporting his "moral rightness" in this issue.

It's the fundamental "Mafia runs on the honour system" issue; if players set out to cheat or conspire to cheat, we'll always have a hard time stopping them. People need to be honest else there's no point. In this case, Y used information given to him in good faith to cheat.

The one caveat would be if X gave Y the choice to receive the information or not. If Y intended to replace into the game, he should have had the option to refuse any information offered to him by X (or others) so that he could remain a viable replacement. If he wasn't given this choice by X, then X was at fault for ruling out Y as a replacement against his will.

I don't see any problem with people not in games talking about a game (perhaps with privileged information) as long as they accept they are no longer potential replacements. Clearly this can be problematic if replacements aren't available because they're all discussing the game in private, but does that happen?

[Mr. Flay]

It's the fundamental "Mafia runs on the honour system" issue; if players set out to cheat or conspire to cheat, we'll always have a hard time stopping them. People need to be honest else there's no point.

QFFT.

[Yosarian2]

I agree with Shanba 100% here.

Allowing people to quietly and privatly discuss a game with soemone who's not involved with it after they're dead is really a safety valve that helps stop people from either letting their frustration with what happened in one game hurt other games, or from blurting out stuff in scumchat or mafia discussion that they shouldn't out of frustration. So long as the other person is an intellegent, descreet, non-cheater, it should be fine. And if person Y does try to cheat by replacing into the game and using that info, you should feel free to tell the mod about it without worrying about if you broke a rule yourself or whatever.