Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

This forum is for discussion related to the game.
User avatar
DkKoba
DkKoba
They/Them
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
DkKoba
They/Them
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 20625
Joined: January 28, 2020
Pronoun: They/Them

Post Post #150 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:34 am

Post by DkKoba »

thats just a simple codeword type deal tbh
retired
"1 thing I will give you Dk, I think you are very good at manipulating. I don't mean that in a bad way, I just think you [have] this way with yourself. You know what to say and when to say [it]." ~VFP
"Koba doesn't really have a scumrange/townrange, Koba will kill your pet cat to win a game" ~Pooky
User avatar
Dwlee99
Dwlee99
They/them
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Dwlee99
They/them
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25777
Joined: July 3, 2015
Pronoun: They/them
Location: Northeast USA

Post Post #151 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:35 am

Post by Dwlee99 »

I feel like that type of thing
should
be allowed.
I prefer they, thanks :)
User avatar
Gamma Emerald
Gamma Emerald
She/It
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Gamma Emerald
She/It
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 69101
Joined: August 9, 2016
Pronoun: She/It
Location: Hell on Earth (aka Texas)

Post Post #152 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:03 pm

Post by Gamma Emerald »

148 seems like something that should be allowed?
<Embrace The Void>


My pronouns are she and it, please respect that. I don't mind the occasional slip.
User avatar
Korina
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
User avatar
User avatar
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posts: 6482
Joined: February 12, 2018
Pronoun: Ask, prefers they
Location: Oclax
Contact:

Post Post #153 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:16 pm

Post by Korina »

I don’t see any issue with 148
GTKAS:
The most recent one and the only one that actually matters. | ROOMS HAVE AIR ~ Who | Not_Mafia did not submit a naive cop action. big mistake there tbh ~ xyzzy
I dissociate, any signed posts are from my headmates. Refer to GTKAS, or DM me for more information.


#
C
u
l
t
s
A
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
t
a
r
d
| Plurality Discussion Thread
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
User avatar
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
Not that Inno Scent
Posts: 14979
Joined: January 14, 2018
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: HYDRAs 4EVA!!!
Contact:

Post Post #154 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:54 pm

Post by Nancy Drew 39 »

Spoiler:
In post 145, lilith2013 wrote:Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:
  1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
    green
    ):
    Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote:5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired
    and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup
    , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
    Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.
    Having information that not all players have access to
    and is not required to be provided to you by the setup
    .


    If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available
    and was not required to be provided to you by the setup
    , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

  2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
    removed
    :
    Discussions about Activity

    Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

    OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
    NOT OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
    OKAY:
    "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
    NOT OKAY:
    "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>
    The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.
These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).


Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.
~Taly
***
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #155 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:25 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 145, lilith2013 wrote:Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:
  1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
    green
    ):
    Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote:5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired
    and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup
    , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
    Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.
    Having information that not all players have access to
    and is not required to be provided to you by the setup
    .


    If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available
    and was not required to be provided to you by the setup
    , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

  2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
    removed
    :
    Discussions about Activity

    Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

    OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
    NOT OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
    OKAY:
    "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
    NOT OKAY:
    "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>
    The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.
These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).


Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?
I've definitely called out and scumread players for specifically avoiding the game while posting content in others. It was definitely ok when I was playing but I'm not sure what the rule on it is now.
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
User avatar
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
Not that Inno Scent
Posts: 14979
Joined: January 14, 2018
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: HYDRAs 4EVA!!!
Contact:

Post Post #156 (ISO) » Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:14 pm

Post by Nancy Drew 39 »

In post 155, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 145, lilith2013 wrote:Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:
  1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
    green
    ):
    Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote:5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired
    and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup
    , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
    Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.
    Having information that not all players have access to
    and is not required to be provided to you by the setup
    .


    If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available
    and was not required to be provided to you by the setup
    , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

  2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
    removed
    :
    Discussions about Activity

    Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

    OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
    NOT OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
    OKAY:
    "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
    NOT OKAY:
    "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>
    The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.
These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).


Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?
I've definitely called out and scumread players for specifically avoiding the game while posting content in others. It was definitely ok when I was playing but I'm not sure what the rule on it is now.
+1

I don’t want to find myself banned again for misunderstanding what this site does/doesn’t constitute OGI. And this should also include replace out reads. They’re verboten on MU for very good reason.
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.
~Taly
***
User avatar
MathBlade
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
User avatar
User avatar
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
Technical Support
Posts: 42761
Joined: September 9, 2013
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Western US

Post Post #157 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:54 am

Post by MathBlade »

In post 149, Farren wrote:Not a listmod, but my personal opinion on - it's not cryptography or hidden text, but it is taking an action to "create a private communication channel in plain sight to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game." Even if that communication is limited to "I object!", it's still communication.

I'd think logically that'd apply to as well?

If the new rule isn't intended to forbid those sorts of actions, I'd say it needs rewording.
148 is crumbing town does but by scum so I see no issues
ScumBlade's eloquent performance left me utterly disoriented, debased, depraved and sent me spiraling into a horrific murky abyss with emotional turmoil and immense despair as my only companions until slowly I suffocate in my own gloom, surrounded by failure. I will never recover. -- Zachstralkita about Mini 1841
GTKAS -- MathBlade
User avatar
MathBlade
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
User avatar
User avatar
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
Technical Support
Posts: 42761
Joined: September 9, 2013
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Western US

Post Post #158 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:55 am

Post by MathBlade »

147 is unclear if the discussion thread is the game thread
ScumBlade's eloquent performance left me utterly disoriented, debased, depraved and sent me spiraling into a horrific murky abyss with emotional turmoil and immense despair as my only companions until slowly I suffocate in my own gloom, surrounded by failure. I will never recover. -- Zachstralkita about Mini 1841
GTKAS -- MathBlade
User avatar
TemporalLich
TemporalLich
Grand Scheme
User avatar
User avatar
TemporalLich
Grand Scheme
Grand Scheme
Posts: 5721
Joined: January 30, 2019
Location: A Lost Timeline

Post Post #159 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:39 am

Post by TemporalLich »

In post 158, MathBlade wrote:147 is unclear if the discussion thread is the game thread
Grand Idea Deflated Bubble was a pretty unusual Grand Idea.

The Discussion Thread was a thread in Mafia Discussion that allowed discussion of the game while it was still ongoing. (that is why it was called Deflated Bubble, as the game's ongoing discussion "bubble" was deflated)

So the answer to your question was no, but the discussion thread was public anyway. I'd consider it a "PT code word" and imo I think those should be allowed as those are just a form of crumbing.

This is an example of a rule break that requires listmod approval.
time will end
User avatar
lilith2013
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
User avatar
User avatar
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
Spice of Life
Posts: 7395
Joined: September 22, 2015
Pronoun: she/her
Location: New York
Contact:

Post Post #160 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:35 am

Post by lilith2013 »

Using codewords based on an in-game agreement would be okay - like deciding on a signal with your scum partner in your scum PT to tell the others when you're available to hammer if you don't have daytalk is fine. It's specifically using outside references that is against the rule. We're working on updating the language to make this clearer, so definitely appreciate the feedback here.
User avatar
lilith2013
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
User avatar
User avatar
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
Spice of Life
Posts: 7395
Joined: September 22, 2015
Pronoun: she/her
Location: New York
Contact:

Post Post #161 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am

Post by lilith2013 »

In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 145, lilith2013 wrote:Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:
  1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
    green
    ):
    Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote:5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired
    and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup
    , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
    Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.
    Having information that not all players have access to
    and is not required to be provided to you by the setup
    .


    If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available
    and was not required to be provided to you by the setup
    , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

  2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
    removed
    :
    Discussions about Activity

    Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

    OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
    NOT OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
    OKAY:
    "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
    NOT OKAY:
    "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>
    The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.
These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).


Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?
You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.
User avatar
DkKoba
DkKoba
They/Them
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
DkKoba
They/Them
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 20625
Joined: January 28, 2020
Pronoun: They/Them

Post Post #162 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:03 pm

Post by DkKoba »

In post 161, lilith2013 wrote:
In post 154, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 145, lilith2013 wrote:Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:
  1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
    green
    ):
    Forum Rules and Guidelines Thread wrote:5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired
    and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup
    , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
    Out-of-Game Influence Thread wrote:4.
    Having information that not all players have access to
    and is not required to be provided to you by the setup
    .


    If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available
    and was not required to be provided to you by the setup
    , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

  2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
    removed
    :
    Discussions about Activity

    Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.

    OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
    NOT OKAY:
    "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
    OKAY:
    "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
    NOT OKAY:
    "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>
    The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.
These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).


Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?
You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.
So if they are *only* posting in other ongoing games except one(the one you are looking to post in), and have their online status set to invisible so you cannot see they are online, this means you cannot claim they are "avoiding thread" for instance?
retired
"1 thing I will give you Dk, I think you are very good at manipulating. I don't mean that in a bad way, I just think you [have] this way with yourself. You know what to say and when to say [it]." ~VFP
"Koba doesn't really have a scumrange/townrange, Koba will kill your pet cat to win a game" ~Pooky
User avatar
lilith2013
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
User avatar
User avatar
lilith2013
she/her
Spice of Life
Spice of Life
Posts: 7395
Joined: September 22, 2015
Pronoun: she/her
Location: New York
Contact:

Post Post #163 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:47 pm

Post by lilith2013 »

I think it depends on the reasoning you're using to explain the claim. Saying or implying "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she's posting elsewhere," when "elsewhere" is only in ongoing games, would be considered discussing ongoing games. It would be okay if you only talked about whether they are posting in your game, like "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she hasn't posted in this game in 2 days" would be fine.
User avatar
MathBlade
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
User avatar
User avatar
MathBlade
He/Him
Technical Support
Technical Support
Posts: 42761
Joined: September 9, 2013
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Western US

Post Post #164 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:30 pm

Post by MathBlade »

In post 160, lilith2013 wrote:Using codewords based on an in-game agreement would be okay - like deciding on a signal with your scum partner in your scum PT to tell the others when you're available to hammer if you don't have daytalk is fine. It's specifically using outside references that is against the rule. We're working on updating the language to make this clearer, so definitely appreciate the feedback here.
To be extra nitpicky that code between two players must be generated in game only

Eg I can’t tell Titus before alignment is rolled

If I say Lilith likes tomatoes I tracked her to a kill.

But if I tell her in a PT or randomly say it then explain it later it’s fine
ScumBlade's eloquent performance left me utterly disoriented, debased, depraved and sent me spiraling into a horrific murky abyss with emotional turmoil and immense despair as my only companions until slowly I suffocate in my own gloom, surrounded by failure. I will never recover. -- Zachstralkita about Mini 1841
GTKAS -- MathBlade
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #165 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:53 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 163, lilith2013 wrote:I think it depends on the reasoning you're using to explain the claim. Saying or implying "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she's posting elsewhere," when "elsewhere" is only in ongoing games, would be considered discussing ongoing games. It would be okay if you only talked about whether they are posting in your game, like "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she hasn't posted in this game in 2 days" would be fine.
So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way? Because that's basically what this interpretation of the rules allows.

I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.
User avatar
Ythan
Ythan
She
Welcome to the Haystack
User avatar
User avatar
Ythan
She
Welcome to the Haystack
Welcome to the Haystack
Posts: 15148
Joined: August 11, 2009
Pronoun: She

Post Post #166 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:56 pm

Post by Ythan »

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way?
That's on players imo.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #167 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:00 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 166, Ythan wrote:
In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:So players should be allowed to get away with selective lurking as long as they do it exactly in the right way?
That's on players imo.
Lurking persay is not scummy unless it's deliberate and tactical and there's no way to prove that otherwise. (I definitely feel strongly that being able to use a player's general activity to make that case has and should always be fair game.)
User avatar
Gamma Emerald
Gamma Emerald
She/It
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Gamma Emerald
She/It
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 69101
Joined: August 9, 2016
Pronoun: She/It
Location: Hell on Earth (aka Texas)

Post Post #168 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:49 pm

Post by Gamma Emerald »

I feel like that’s not really true. My homesite doesn’t really allow arguments along the line of “this person has been online but hasn’t posted in-game” because it creates pressure that isn’t appreciated. Is it that big of a deal if that kind of argument gets restricted here? My one concern is limiting ability to handle players coasting activity-wise but I feel like there’s other venues to remedy that.
<Embrace The Void>


My pronouns are she and it, please respect that. I don't mind the occasional slip.
User avatar
implosion
implosion
he/him
Polymath
User avatar
User avatar
implosion
he/him
Polymath
Polymath
Posts: 14346
Joined: September 9, 2010
Pronoun: he/him
Location: zoraster's wine cellar

Post Post #169 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:27 pm

Post by implosion »

In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.
Like Lilith said, it's fine to point out that a player hasn't posted in a very long time specifically within this game, and to call them scum because of this. It's also fine to do this even if you've noticed they're being active in other games, or even if your actual reason is because they're being active in other games. After all, thought crime isn't crime, and we can't police the actual reason for you doing something, just the action itself. The problem just comes from referencing activity in other ongoing games, because there's always some risk of leaking info.

Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #170 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:18 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 169, implosion wrote:Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.
I mean the last time I played a game was in 2015 so this would have happened too long ago for you to do anything about it but I'm just attesting to the fact that I've actually experienced it before.
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
User avatar
User avatar
Nancy Drew 39
She/Her
Not that Inno Scent
Not that Inno Scent
Posts: 14979
Joined: January 14, 2018
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: HYDRAs 4EVA!!!
Contact:

Post Post #171 (ISO) » Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:40 pm

Post by Nancy Drew 39 »

In post 169, implosion wrote:
In post 165, Zachrulez wrote:I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.
Like Lilith said, it's fine to point out that a player hasn't posted in a very long time specifically within this game, and to call them scum because of this. It's also fine to do this even if you've noticed they're being active in other games, or even if your actual reason is because they're being active in other games. After all, thought crime isn't crime, and we can't police the actual reason for you doing something, just the action itself. The problem just comes from referencing activity in other ongoing games, because there's always some risk of leaking info.

Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.
Mods being ridiculously lax wrt to prods, happens far too often and adversely impacts games. Few thing hurt agale more than long time inactive slots.
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.
~Taly
***
User avatar
Micc
Micc
He/Him
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Micc
He/Him
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7408
Joined: October 1, 2013
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: At Home

Post Post #172 (ISO) » Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:14 am

Post by Micc »

normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.
"To hide a tree, use a forest" -Ninja Boy Hideo
User avatar
catboi
catboi
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
catboi
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8101
Joined: March 26, 2013

Post Post #173 (ISO) » Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:34 am

Post by catboi »

In post 172, Micc wrote:normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.
You're allowed to force replace players at your own discretion. I have a clause against prodging in my rules, which I have enforced exactly once. I don't think this is a particularly widespread problem for the most part.
User avatar
Lady Lambdadelta
Lady Lambdadelta
She/Faer
Rise of the Phoenix
User avatar
User avatar
Lady Lambdadelta
She/Faer
Rise of the Phoenix
Rise of the Phoenix
Posts: 25197
Joined: August 31, 2010
Pronoun: She/Faer
Location: formerly in a Rage

Post Post #174 (ISO) » Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:54 am

Post by Lady Lambdadelta »

In post 173, catboi wrote:
In post 172, Micc wrote:normalize early game policy eliminations on players who aren't producing content!

Yes, a certain level of promptness is required from game mods with respect to giving prods/replacement. If they aren't sufficiently prompt then report to a listmod. These rule updates have a section deliciated to standards for game mods after all.

But a game mod has no power to remove a player for giving two sentences of nonsense posting every 36-48 hours. That's on the players to deal with through elimination. Especially early game with eliminations to give.
You're allowed to force replace players at your own discretion. I have a clause against prodging in my rules, which I have enforced exactly once. I don't think this is a particularly widespread problem for the most part.

Not true anymore. You need site moderation approval to force replace players, no?
Yes my Lord, but questions are dangerous, for they have answers.

13 heads and counting now, plurality is adaptive. If our experience might help you,
click here
.
If you wish to
speak to one of us
, we are Niamh, Rhiannon, Rhea, Aisling, Saoirse, Selene, Aoife, Fírinne, Aurélie, Lyra, Airna, Fiadh and Laoise.
Soar on wings of retribution and set the world ablaze
Post Reply

Return to “Mafia Discussion”