Mafiascum.net

pagetop

In post 41, Menalque wrote: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

I don't think it's that hard to imagine a situation where this could be the case, even if you think Datisi's post isn't that. Say player x and player y are in a game together, and player y gets banned for cheating in another game. Player x comments in sgb "whoa, didn't see that coming". This could have implications on how much player x and player y have interacted, which could have implications on whether they're scum together. Say they comment "Sad," and that player y had been playing very well in their game together; this could have implications e.g. that player x is sad that a person who was playing well is going to have to be replaced. Etc, etc. Sure there's not a perfect concrete link necessarily but it's definitely possible to read info into something like that, no matter how innocuous the post is. Things get more clear-cut as having information if we make the post slightly less innocuous, like "huh, hadn't really directly interacted with player y but didn't see that coming", a reaction that sort of clearly would imply that they're less likely to be scum together but on its face is still just a single reaction post.

But I think more important is the principle of the matter; strictly speaking, it could have alignment info, which means it's possible for a player to see it and come to a conclusion based on it. In a sort of pure information-theoretic way, its relevance is nonzero. The line is just hard to draw.

In that case, should bans even be visible to players that are in ongoing mafia games then?

Don't make us choose between games and bans I hear we've already got a slowdown

In post 49, bugspray wrote: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

ego