Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sudgy]

Basic Mafia Ruleset

The Golden Rule:

Please remember that this is a game and your main objective is to have fun!  Be considerate of each other, don’t get personal, and enjoy the game.

Please read The Civility Pledge before signing up for any mafia game on this site.  If you have not /pledged there, you cannot play.

Excessive personal attacks or uncivil behavior may be dealt with by modifiers or modkills.

Game Summary:

Mafia is a social deduction game.  There is an "informed minority" (the mafia) and an "uninformed majority" (the town).  The mafia know who each other are, and are trying to be the only people left alive.  The town doesn't know who anybody else is, and are trying to find and lynch all of the mafia.  The mafia, to make sure the town doesn't know who they are, must pretend to be town to win.  The mafia usually can kill at night, to help them in being the only ones left alive.

1. General Gameplay and Etiquette:

1. You may not quote private Moderator-supplied information (either real or fabricated) of any kind.  Paraphrasing (for role claims, etc.) is acceptable.
2. There is to be NO personal communication outside of the forum postings unless your role PM specifically allows it.  Mafia members may communicate at night and during the confirmation stage.
3. If you have a role with a Night action your choices are due to all mods by the posted deadline (generally 48 hours from Night start during the first few Nights; later Nights may have shorter deadlines).  If we do not receive your PM by the posted deadline you will forfeit your actions.  In case of multiple submissions, the last valid one before the deadline will be used.  If your Night action was mandatory, it will be decided randomly.
4. Roles with Night actions will not be able to submit an action on Night 0 (i.e. during the confirmation stage).
5. Any player with a Night action may instead submit a “No Action” PM to let the Mods know that you do not want to perform your expected action that Night phase.
6. As a general rule you should aim for one post every 24 hours, minimum, to keep the game moving.

2. Voting, Deadlines, and Player Death:

1. A simple majority (rounded up) of all living members must agree on one person for a lynch to occur prior to deadline.
2. Once you have reached a simple majority no further unvoting will change someone’s fate.  Further votes will also be ignored.
3. Once a player is lynched the game enters twilight until the mods lock the thread; all players including the one who was lynched may continue to post during twilight.
4. The length of deadlines is up to the mod's discretion.
5. What happens when the deadline is hit and nobody has a majority of votes is up to the mod's discretion.
6. Please submit votes as: Vote: PlayerName.  Votes will NOT be counted if they are not bold or do not follow this syntax! Obvious abbreviations or nicknames will be counted so long as they are unambiguous.
7. Please submit vote revocations as either Unvote: PlayerName or Unvote. Unvotes are not necessary before changing votes.
8. You may Vote: No Lynch - a simple majority of these vote types are required to send the game to Night phase without a lynch.
9. Once you are killed (either via lynch or night kill) you may no longer post in the game or in Quicktopics. This means that you do not even get a “Bah” post. The dead in this game are silent.
10. If the thread is locked, you may not post.  Threads can be locked for various reasons, but no matter what the reason, you may not post.  The mod may forget to lock the thread, but if they say it is locked, it is still locked.
11. Do not edit or delete posts.  We don't want some players having more information than others.  If you want to clarify posts, feel free to double post. Mods will not edit posts for you.

3. Miscellaneous/Mechanics:

1. Bold, colored text is reserved for the Mods.  No invisible/small text is allowed, nor is cryptography.
2. If you have an issue/problem with the game, please PM the Mods privately.  Do not post issues/complaints in the game thread.
3. The Mods may make mistakes - please point out any mistakes gently.  Mistakes will be corrected where possible, but sometimes mistakes are made that cannot be reversed.  These will stand as final to be commiserated over after the game.
4. Please bold all requests to the Mods so that they don’t get missed.
5. Prods of missing players will be issued upon request after 24 hours of no activity.  A prodded player has 48 hours to respond or risks replacement.  A player who has been prodded 2 times is subject to replacement under rule 3.10 without further notice.
6. Please do not discuss ongoing games, it can unintentionally affect the other game.
7. Rule violations will be dealt with according to their severity, which may include modkill(s) if needed.
8. If you anticipate being unavailable for more than a 48-hour period please post a notice to that effect in the thread.  Treat this game as a commitment.  Be considerate – don’t leave us hanging.
9. Players who discover they are too busy to play in a game or want to leave the game for civility issues are not allowed to officially /out in the thread.  A request to /out must only be done via a PM to the moderator.  Please do not use this as a manipulation technique.  (Note players may continue to threaten to /out or imply that they might as long as it does not include an official request).  Requests to /out are final once submitted.  There will be no /outing and then /inning back into the game so make sure that when you /out you have thought it through and really want to do it. Players that can't be replaced will simply be mod-killed.
10. If a player wants to /out, they may be replaced by anyone on D1-N1.  On D2-N2, no one from the speccy may replace the player.  After this, a player who /outs may not be replaced.  It is up to the mod's discretion whether to modkill the player or do something else under these circumstances.

Helpful Links:

Wiki Links:

--Main Wiki Page

--Newbie Guide

--Frequently Asked Questions

--Commonly Used Abbreviations

--Mafia Theory

Forum Links:

--Vacation/Limited Access announcements

--Mafia Lingo/Dictionary

[sudgy]

I realized, why do we not have the rules of normal mafia on here?  And why do we post every single rule even though they are mostly the same in each game?  That's what this thread is for.  Instead of listing all the rules in each game, all the rules (and a few new ones for basic mafia rules) will be posted here, and mods may just link here and say the few differences from the normal rules to here.  Any changes to rules can be refered to as "Rule 2.4" (which is how to vote).  Any feedback to all of this, especially the game summary as it was written from scratch, would be helpful.  I'll move this paragraph into the second post when a fair bit of people have seen the thread.

[sudgy]

And then absolutely nobody says anything...  Is it because it's so amazing you don't have any comments, that it's so horrible you ignored it, or you just plain didn't feel like saying anything?

[EFHW]

This is great sudgy.  It will streamline things quite a bit.

[Archetype]

yep yep yep, good idea. I'll just link this when modding.

[sudgy]

Also, note, no deadline length rules are here, as that changes from game to game.

[sudgy]

I added a thread lock rule, 2.8.  If anybody has a suggestion as to how to word it better if needed, please say so.

[yuma]

I added a thread lock rule, 2.8.  If anybody has a suggestion as to how to word it better if needed, please say so.

Worded fine, but I would add that threads can be locked for 1. nights 2. for civility issues or 3. pre-game setup 4. for other things that may occur (mod-confirmation, mistakes, etc...) but that any lock for any reason prohibits posting

[sudgy]

I added a thread lock rule, 2.8.  If anybody has a suggestion as to how to word it better if needed, please say so.

Worded fine, but I would add that threads can be locked for 1. nights 2. for civility issues or 3. pre-game setup 4. for other things that may occur (mod-confirmation, mistakes, etc...) but that any lock for any reason prohibits posting

I felt listing the reasons was too clunky, so I just said that no matter what the reason...

[mail-mi]

/t to the ag.

[ashersky]

I like that a lot of this is my edits to old versions.  +1

[sudgy]

I like that a lot of this is my edits to old versions.  +1

I actually used the rules for NMIV as a guideline, which in turn were taken from NMIII.  I don't know about before that.

[ashersky]

I like that a lot of this is my edits to old versions.  +1

I actually used the rules for NMIV as a guideline, which in turn were taken from NMIII.  I don't know about before that.

The Golden Rule as written was me.  Some of the other language I had tightened up.  It's good to have in one place.

[sudgy]

Do you think this should get stickied?

[mail-mi]

Do you think this should get stickied?

Yes. Robz? Galz?

[sudgy]

I think a new rule should be added: "If someone purposely breaks a rule thinking it will benefit his faction, his faction automatically loses."

[sudgy]

I think a new rule should be added: "If someone purposely breaks a rule thinking it will benefit his faction, his faction automatically loses."

I was wanting feedback on this before putting it in, just so you know.

[liopoil]

I'm like that rule, although, it really should never be a good idea to purposely break a rule.

[nkirbit]

I think a new rule should be added: "If someone purposely breaks a rule thinking it will benefit his faction, his faction automatically loses."

I disagree.  Any ruling that would result in an entire faction losing is sensitive enough that it should absolutely be handled on a case-by-case basis.

[sudgy]

I think a new rule should be added: "If someone purposely breaks a rule thinking it will benefit his faction, his faction automatically loses."

I disagree.  Any ruling that would result in an entire faction losing is sensitive enough that it should absolutely be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Think of this: "I'm going to break a rule so that I will be modkilled, and I think my flip will help my faction."  This should definitely be discouraged, and doing this will make them not want to do that.  If somebody says they hate the game and break a rule in the hopes of getting their faction to lose, then just they will be modkilled.  Of course it would be case by case and mods should only invoke the rule if they think it's severe enough, but sometimes the penalty needs to be worse than a modkill, since some players think that them dying is good.

[nkirbit]

I kind of see what situations you're talking about.  Imagine a situation with 4 people:  1 scum, 1 cop, 2 VTs.  The cop has a successful investigation on mafia.  He claims his result, breaks a rule to get mod-killed, so the VT's know he's telling the truth, then lynch mafia.  Yes, that sort of situation should be stopped.  But I don't think we need this rule for that situation... moderators already have the power to handle it appropriately.  And whether or not that should result in a faction loss is unclear.  Perhaps it results in a mod-kill with no flip?  I'm not sure, and I don't think we should have a rule that definitively says this one way or the other.

If anything, this rule takes away power from the moderators, which I'm not in favor of.  They should have the ability to handle any situation that arises in their games how they best decide, not based on some pre-set rule that was written for extreme situations without knowing exactly what those extreme situations are.

[sudgy]

I kind of see what situations you're talking about.  Imagine a situation with 4 people:  1 scum, 1 cop, 2 VTs.  The cop has a successful investigation on mafia.  He claims his result, breaks a rule to get mod-killed, so the VT's know he's telling the truth, then lynch mafia.  Yes, that sort of situation should be stopped.  But I don't think we need this rule for that situation... moderators already have the power to handle it appropriately.  And whether or not that should result in a faction loss is unclear.  Perhaps it results in a mod-kill with no flip?  I'm not sure, and I don't think we should have a rule that definitively says this one way or the other.

If anything, this rule takes away power from the moderators, which I'm not in favor of.  They should have the ability to handle any situation that arises in their games how they best decide, not based on some pre-set rule that was written for extreme situations without knowing exactly what those extreme situations are.

I see where our misunderstanding comes in, you say the mods have all power, I say that mods only have power from the rules.  I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in on the rule.

[liopoil]

there is no rule that says "if you do this, you will be modkilled". All of the rules, if broken, should be punished in a way that hurts that player's faction. If a modkill helps that player's faction, then that is not the appropriate punishment.

[Voltaire]

I personally feel this sort of situation is covered by the Civility Pledge - namely, we're here to play a game, and anyone intentionally breaking rules to get their faction to win isn't being sportsmanlike.

Basically this situation is extremely tricky to deal with as a "rule" - it comes more down to the players agreeing not to do this sort of thing, and the moderator having the power to issue one-off rulings/punishments as (s)he sees fit to maintain this environment.

[Twistedarcher]

Have we experienced a player blatantly breaking game rules? I don't think this is something we need to be prepared for and if it happens the moderator should deal with it. But I seriously doubt such a rule will be needed.

[sudgy]

Have we experienced a player blatantly breaking game rules? I don't think this is something we need to be prepared for and if it happens the moderator should deal with it. But I seriously doubt such a rule will be needed.

We have had people threaten to, and it usually detracts from the fun of the game.  I think there needs to be something that stops people from even threatening to.

[Robz888]

I kind of see what situations you're talking about.  Imagine a situation with 4 people:  1 scum, 1 cop, 2 VTs.  The cop has a successful investigation on mafia.  He claims his result, breaks a rule to get mod-killed, so the VT's know he's telling the truth, then lynch mafia.  Yes, that sort of situation should be stopped.  But I don't think we need this rule for that situation... moderators already have the power to handle it appropriately.  And whether or not that should result in a faction loss is unclear.  Perhaps it results in a mod-kill with no flip?  I'm not sure, and I don't think we should have a rule that definitively says this one way or the other.

Existing protocol already sorts this out. In case of modkill, whether you immediately proceed to night or not is based on what will penalize the offending faction. If a mafia member is modkilled, the day continues, giving town another chance to kill mafia. If a town member is modkilled, it's customary to progress the day to night immediately, essentially depriving town of their lynch and giving mafia another shot.

[sudgy]

The point of me putting out this rule is to stop people from even trying in the first place.  Something else that could be said, I don't know if it would work, is that people who purposely break the rules don't win even if their faction wins.

[ashersky]

The point of me putting out this rule is to stop people from even trying in the first place.  Something else that could be said, I don't know if it would work, is that people who purposely break the rules don't win even if their faction wins.

Clearly we need to not talk about ongoing games, right?  That IS a clear rule of these forums.

[Archetype]

I say leave it up to the mod to decide what to do if someone purposefully breaks the rules. Sometimes it's accidental (and I will name names: Archetype) and as far as I have seen, the mods have handled things well.

[yuma]

The point of me putting out this rule is to stop people from even trying in the first place.  Something else that could be said, I don't know if it would work, is that people who purposely break the rules don't win even if their faction wins.

Clearly we need to not talk about ongoing games, right?  That IS a clear rule of these forums.

agreed!

[Galzria]

I basically believe that Article III.6 covers this, and any other rules violations:

"Rule violations will be dealt with according to their severity, up to and including a Modkill"

That implies to me that each Rule Violation is an independent infraction whose consequences will be dictated by the Mod (the only person responsible for doling out punishments) according to the severity of the infraction. The "up to and including" is not a maximum threshold, merely generic (albeit generally severe) consequence. One that nobody wants to see occur, but will if necessary. If the rule infraction dictates a more severe punishment, it's in the hands of the Mod to declare and enforce whatever punishment they feel fits the crime.

[theorel]

Although this came to a head in a current game, I'm not really talking about that game.  This isn't specific to that game (though the idea that it's an issue is derived from conversation therein).  Regardless of anything that's come happened up until now, we should have a handle on Rules Violations.

I think the issue might be that we have a process for handling rules violations that operates within the confines of the game.  Basically, There are 2 ways to handle rules:

1. Rules are guidelines, with penalties for disobeying them (i.e. "sports").  In this case, rules violations need clear penalties, and should be expected to happen variously (either accidentally or for advantage...since they're well-defined and a player can decide what's best for them/their team)

2. Disobeying rules is "cheating", and will not be tolerated (i.e. "board-game").  In this case, rules violations do not need clear "penalties".  Intentional violation of rules should result in being banned from the community.  Unintentional violations should be dealt with as appropriate, including at least a warning to "obey the rules".
-In this case if a rules violation occurs, the mod is responsible for determining if balance can be "restored", or the game needs scrapped.
-If an intentional violation occurs, the player is removed from the game, and the mod tries to restore balance/scraps the game.  Then we would probably want community guidelines for how cheating is dealt with (i.e. at what point do we ban someone from playing)

Now, there's a trick of determining if a rules violation is intentional in there.  But that can be handled by the community moderators.

As mafia is essentially a type of board-game, and this is a board-game forum, I'm in favor of option 2.  But, saying "rules violations will result in punishment up to and including mod-kill" I think pushes option 1.  Basically if you punish someone in-game for actions taken in-game, then it's just another rule.  If you want to prevent rules-violations, you have to take action out-of-game to prevent it.  I would personally alter Article III.6 to state: "Rules violations will be dealt with according to their severity, up to and including being banned from the community."

That said, there's a place for game rules that CAN be violated.  There are board games where you can cheat and you get punished for it.  Then there are games that are a little more ambiguous (i.e. they give ways to handle illegal game positions, but don't explicitly allow you to do that).  Some people view those situations as "allowed cheating".  To be clear, I don't think there's a problem with that.  However, if you bring someone who views it as cheating together with someone who doesn't there's gonna be issues.  As a group which plays games together, we need to make it clear how we view that situation.

[Robz888]

So, really, ongoing games can't be discussed. Like, really, seriously. Please stop doing it.

Anyone who has a concern about rule violations in ongoing games should consult with the moderators of that game, or the Board Moderators (note: Do not consult directly with board moderators if they are IN the game).

Keep in mind that a big goal in mafia is to permit a maximum amount of discussion, because there's strategy and meta strategy. I have always maintained that it is not illegal to threaten to break the rules. If the mod of a given game wants to have a more "restricted" conversation, he should specify that in his own game rules.

[Robz888]

And I will also note that we don't seem to have a problem with serial rule breaking. I don't know of an occasion in which the rules were broken deliberately or egregiously.

Breaking the rules has come up of course as an in-game conversation, sure, but so long as it remains a topic of in-game conversation, I continue to see ntohing wrong with it. Anyone who has questions about actual rules violations in a game should PM the moderator, who will make a ruling or consult with Galz or I as fitting.

[yuma]

can this thread be locked until games being alluded to are over?

I know that means that we won't be able to talk about other mafia rules in this thread in the mean time, but that is what we get for talking about ongoing games... A small price worth paying.

[sudgy]

I would say I wasn't talking about ongoing games but was talking about what to do in the event of that happening, but I'll lock the thread.

[sudgy]

Unlocking the thread now that both games are over.

The main thing for me is that I feel like threatening to break rules ruins that section of the game for me, even if they never intended to actually break them, so I feel like something should be done in some way to fix that.

[Robz888]

The main thing for me is that I feel like threatening to break rules ruins that section of the game for me, even if they never intended to actually break them, so I feel like something should be done in some way to fix that.

I would rather not restrict this legitimate strategic space of the game, though, unless it was annoying to like absolutely everyone.

[Voltaire]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

[ashersky]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

This is true, and should be the case, generally.

Breaking the rules intentionally to help their own team, as in the example of role claiming when it isn't allowed to get modkilled to let town know who to kill or something, feels differently than breaking the rules intentionally to be spiteful, though.  I think there needs to be some leeway there.

As noted by Robz, I've used the threatening to break the rule thing as a tactic previously, with no intention of doing it.  On a smaller scale, there was a game where I didn't post for 72 hours or more, which is technically against the rules.  There is strategy space there.

[sudgy]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

This is true, and should be the case, generally.

Breaking the rules intentionally to help their own team, as in the example of role claiming when it isn't allowed to get modkilled to let town know who to kill or something, feels differently than breaking the rules intentionally to be spiteful, though.  I think there needs to be some leeway there.

As noted by Robz, I've used the threatening to break the rule thing as a tactic previously, with no intention of doing it.  On a smaller scale, there was a game where I didn't post for 72 hours or more, which is technically against the rules.  There is strategy space there.

I would still say that things like this shouldn't be done, while they may help people win, it doesn't always help people have fun.

[ashersky]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

This is true, and should be the case, generally.

Breaking the rules intentionally to help their own team, as in the example of role claiming when it isn't allowed to get modkilled to let town know who to kill or something, feels differently than breaking the rules intentionally to be spiteful, though.  I think there needs to be some leeway there.

As noted by Robz, I've used the threatening to break the rule thing as a tactic previously, with no intention of doing it.  On a smaller scale, there was a game where I didn't post for 72 hours or more, which is technically against the rules.  There is strategy space there.

I would still say that things like this shouldn't be done, while they may help people win, it doesn't always help people have fun.

This was the argument Voltaire and I were having.

It comes down to a personal decision: what's more important, winning or having fun?

For me, winning is having fun.  So winning wins every time, and Luis Suarez is my hero.

[sudgy]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

This is true, and should be the case, generally.

Breaking the rules intentionally to help their own team, as in the example of role claiming when it isn't allowed to get modkilled to let town know who to kill or something, feels differently than breaking the rules intentionally to be spiteful, though.  I think there needs to be some leeway there.

As noted by Robz, I've used the threatening to break the rule thing as a tactic previously, with no intention of doing it.  On a smaller scale, there was a game where I didn't post for 72 hours or more, which is technically against the rules.  There is strategy space there.

I would still say that things like this shouldn't be done, while they may help people win, it doesn't always help people have fun.

This was the argument Voltaire and I were having.

It comes down to a personal decision: what's more important, winning or having fun?

For me, winning is having fun.  So winning wins every time, and Luis Suarez is my hero.

For me, winning is having fun.  But situations like this detract from the experience to me.

[Ozle]

I think it's incredibly anti-civil personally, but since I doubt we'll see such actions banned, my hope is that it becomes ignored since it's clear no-one actually follows through. If a player does, and the mod feels it intentional, it should be within their power to deal a punishment to that player's team, if they so choose.

This is true, and should be the case, generally.

Breaking the rules intentionally to help their own team, as in the example of role claiming when it isn't allowed to get modkilled to let town know who to kill or something, feels differently than breaking the rules intentionally to be spiteful, though.  I think there needs to be some leeway there.

As noted by Robz, I've used the threatening to break the rule thing as a tactic previously, with no intention of doing it.  On a smaller scale, there was a game where I didn't post for 72 hours or more, which is technically against the rules.  There is strategy space there.

I would still say that things like this shouldn't be done, while they may help people win, it doesn't always help people have fun.

This was the argument Voltaire and I were having.

It comes down to a personal decision: what's more important, winning or having fun?

For me, winning is having fun.  So winning wins every time, and Luis Suarez is my hero.

hang on...SUAREZ??!

Suarez is a cheat though, a tried and documented cheat and a scumbag to boot. None of that has anything to do with playing to win, its cheating to win.

Biting an opponent isn't about winning
Throwing racial slurs at opponents isn't about winning
Getting Banned for 18 games doesn't exactly count as Winning does it?

Depriving your team of the best player for large chunks of the season due to incomprehensible actions has the OPPOSITE effect of winning.

Why would you not pick someone who wins lots of things as your hero rather than someone who just cheats a lot?

There are so many better examples of players who actually play to win (rather than playing for fun) than the second biggest scumbag in the premier league!

[ashersky]

I was referring solely to his game-saving handball in the World Cup vs. Ghana.  I actually couldn't tell you anything else about his career.

But that handball is the perfect example of intentionally breaking the rules and accepting the punishment in an effort to help your team win.

[sudgy]

I was referring solely to his game-saving handball in the World Cup vs. Ghana.  I actually couldn't tell you anything else about his career.

But that handball is the perfect example of intentionally breaking the rules and accepting the punishment in an effort to help your team win.

Rules are to be followed, not abused.  If the punishment isn't enough to make you not want to break the rule, the punishment needs to be worse.  In an ideal game, absolutely NO rules should be broken.

[liopoil]

sometimes breaking rules occasionally being optimal play is intended to be part of the game, like it is in basketball, and arguably soccer too.

in mafia, I don't think that is intended. It may be true that it currently can be optimal play in certain situations. If this is the case, that is bad and should be fixed.

[Voltaire]

sometimes breaking rules occasionally being optimal play is intended to be part of the game, like it is in basketball, and arguably soccer too.

in mafia, I don't think that is intended. It may be true that it currently can be optimal play in certain situations. If this is the case, that is bad and should be fixed.

This is my stance on it. I like the solution mcmc created in DW - intentional rulebreaking may be punished at mod's discretion. Mod retains the power to invent a punishment that will be worse that expected for the team cheating intentionally. This leaves it up to mod judgement, which is fine by me.

[sudgy]

sometimes breaking rules occasionally being optimal play is intended to be part of the game, like it is in basketball, and arguably soccer too.

in mafia, I don't think that is intended. It may be true that it currently can be optimal play in certain situations. If this is the case, that is bad and should be fixed.

This is my stance on it. I like the solution mcmc created in DW - intentional rulebreaking may be punished at mod's discretion. Mod retains the power to invent a punishment that will be worse that expected for the team cheating intentionally. This leaves it up to mod judgement, which is fine by me.

Then rule 3.6 should be changed, which I would be okay with.  I read it as "The most severe punishment possible is a modkill."

[Ozle]

I was referring solely to his game-saving handball in the World Cup vs. Ghana.  I actually couldn't tell you anything else about his career.

But that handball is the perfect example of intentionally breaking the rules and accepting the punishment in an effort to help your team win.

Or in other words......cheating?

[Voltaire]

Then rule 3.6 should be changed, which I would be okay with.  I read it as "The most severe punishment possible is a modkill."

I agree. How about "Rule violations will be dealt with according to their severity, which may include modkill(s) if needed."

[liopoil]

yeah, I don't think the most severe punishment is a modkill neccessarily. I think that whenever a serious rule infraction occurs, the mod should do something at their discretion that lowers the faction(s) involved's chance of winning. that's pretty much what voltaire said too.

[nkirbit]

sometimes breaking rules occasionally being optimal play is intended to be part of the game, like it is in basketball, and arguably soccer too.

in mafia, I don't think that is intended. It may be true that it currently can be optimal play in certain situations. If this is the case, that is bad and should be fixed.

This is my stance on it. I like the solution mcmc created in DW - intentional rulebreaking may be punished at mod's discretion. Mod retains the power to invent a punishment that will be worse that expected for the team cheating intentionally. This leaves it up to mod judgement, which is fine by me.

Then rule 3.6 should be changed, which I would be okay with.  I read it as "The most severe punishment possible is a modkill."

Again, I just theoretically disagree with you.  Mods are free to do whatever they wish.  If I wanted to kill off 4 townies in Game of Thrones because I was bored, I could, and no one could do anything to stop me.

The rules are, as I see them, covering what a mod should do in an ordinary situation.  If a situation becomes extraordinary, which it could for any number of reasons, the moderators have freedom to do as they deem best to resolve that situation.  They don't need to refer to rule 14.a.II.c.~~.654 to do so.. they can just make rulings without needing to reference any specific rule.

I view these as more "guidelines" than hard rules.

[Voltaire]

Yup. The way current rule reads (as pointed out by sudgy), you would think that the harshest possible punishment is currently a modkill. My suggested tweak above.

[nkirbit]

Yup. The way current rule reads (as pointed out by sudgy), you would think that the harshest possible punishment is currently a modkill. My suggested tweak above.

Yeah, I would support this change!

[nkirbit]

Do you think that we should have a post called, "How to play mafia"?  These rules cover a lot, but they don't actually do a great job of explaining what mafia is and how a game generally proceeds.  Maybe if we had such a thread stickied it would help draw in players who had never played before.

It was already intimidating enough playing my first game here with all the lingo and abbreviations that I didn't know... I can't imagine ever joining a game if I just didn't know how to play mafia.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Again, I just theoretically disagree with you.  Mods are free to do whatever they wish.  If I wanted to kill off 4 townies in Game of Thrones because I was bored, I could, and no one could do anything to stop me.

BURN THEM ALL.

[Voltaire]

Again, I just theoretically disagree with you.  Mods are free to do whatever they wish.  If I wanted to kill off 4 townies in Game of Thrones because I was bored, I could, and no one could do anything to stop me.

BURN THEM ALL.

No talking about ongoing fantasy epic heptalogies!

[Archetype]

Again, I just theoretically disagree with you.  Mods are free to do whatever they wish.  If I wanted to kill off 4 townies in Game of Thrones because I was bored, I could, and no one could do anything to stop me.

BURN THEM ALL.

I laughed harder than I should've.

[sudgy]

Do you think that we should have a post called, "How to play mafia"?  These rules cover a lot, but they don't actually do a great job of explaining what mafia is and how a game generally proceeds.  Maybe if we had such a thread stickied it would help draw in players who had never played before.

It was already intimidating enough playing my first game here with all the lingo and abbreviations that I didn't know... I can't imagine ever joining a game if I just didn't know how to play mafia.

I have a game summary in this thread meant for that.  If you think something should be added, I can add it.

[sudgy]

If no one objects, I'll change the rule to Voltaire's suggestion.

[sudgy]

If no one objects, I'll change the rule to Voltaire's suggestion.

I'll do this, and I suggest adding a couple more rules:

Rule 2.4 (all other rules that need to will get bumped up a number):
If the deadline is hit and nobody has a majority of votes, a no lynch occurs.

I just realized this isn't in the rules.

Also, I think yuma's rule 3.8 should be added:

Players who discover they are too busy to play in a game or want to leave the game for civility issues are not allowed to officially /out in the thread.  A request to /out must only be done via a PM to the moderator.  Please do not use this as a manipulation technique.  (Note players may continue to threaten to /out or imply that they might as long as it does not include an official request).  Requests to /out are final once submitted.  There will be no /outing and then /inning back into the game so make sure that when you /out you have thought it through and really want to do it. Players that can't be replaced will simply be mod-killed.

If nobody objects, I'll insert these rules.

[Voltaire]

Seconded.

[ashersky]

No lynch at deadline isn't a rule in every game.  That's a setup consideration.  I oppose it's inclusion here.

[sudgy]

No lynch at deadline isn't a rule in every game.  That's a setup consideration.  I oppose it's inclusion here.

It's almost in every game, and mods can say that it's different in the game thread.  I've only seen two or three games not use it (other than blitz games).

[Jimmmmm]

No lynch at deadline isn't a rule in every game.  That's a setup consideration.  I oppose it's inclusion here.

It's almost in every game, and people can say that it's different in the game thread.  I've only seen two or three games not use it (other than blitz games).

I always thought the default was whoever had the most votes at deadline.

[sudgy]

In a lot of games, the mod doesn't say anything, so I think something should be mentioned here.

[Voltaire]

Since these rules are intended to be the default and each game lists how its rules differ, I support including the "no lynch" clause because that is the standard most games use (which is the spirit behind all these other rules).

[ashersky]

In a lot of games, the mod doesn't say anything, so I think something should be mentioned here.

Mods should specify every game.

[sudgy]

Actually, talking about deadlines, what happens when the deadline hits and the mod isn't around, then a majority is hit afterwards?


Also, I could have a couple rules saying that rules are specified in the game thread (which would be deadline length and what happens when deadline hits)

So, for instance, 2.4 would say that deadlines will be up to the mod's discretion, and 2.5 would say that what happens when the deadline hits and nobody has a majority vote is up to the mod's discretion.

[ashersky]

For my games, votes post deadline don't count.

[Voltaire]

Actually, talking about deadlines, what happens when the deadline hits and the mod isn't around, then a majority is hit afterwards?


Also, I could have a couple rules saying that rules are specified in the game thread (which would be deadline length and what happens when deadline hits)

So, for instance, 2.4 would say that deadlines will be up to the mod's discretion, and 2.5 would say that what happens when the deadline hits and nobody has a majority vote is up to the mod's discretion.

In that scenario, I think it's extremely clear that only votes up until the deadline count. So whatever the rules for "no majority" are in that game would take affect.

[sudgy]

Actually, talking about deadlines, what happens when the deadline hits and the mod isn't around, then a majority is hit afterwards?


Also, I could have a couple rules saying that rules are specified in the game thread (which would be deadline length and what happens when deadline hits)

So, for instance, 2.4 would say that deadlines will be up to the mod's discretion, and 2.5 would say that what happens when the deadline hits and nobody has a majority vote is up to the mod's discretion.

In that scenario, I think it's extremely clear that only votes up until the deadline count. So whatever the rules for "no majority" are in that game would take affect.

That's what I thought.

So, these are the rules I'm thinking of putting on there:

2.4. The length of deadlines is up to the mod's discretion.
2.5. What happens when the deadline is hit and nobody has a majority of votes is up to the mod's discretion.

3.8. Players who discover they are too busy to play in a game or want to leave the game for civility issues are not allowed to officially /out in the thread.  A request to /out must only be done via a PM to the moderator.  Please do not use this as a manipulation technique.  (Note players may continue to threaten to /out or imply that they might as long as it does not include an official request).  Requests to /out are final once submitted.  There will be no /outing and then /inning back into the game so make sure that when you /out you have thought it through and really want to do it. Players that can't be replaced will simply be mod-killed.

[yuma]

One problem with this thread is that mods who link it at the beginning of a game start of with the rule state as it stood then, but if additions are added or parts removed then the link has changed the rules of the game so that the rules are no longer what they were at the start of the game. This might not be significant that often, but I could foresee an unfortunate situation.

Mostly I think this shouldnt' be linked, but instead should be copy/pasted into a thread so that those rules can't change throughout the game

[Jimmmmm]

Mostly I think this shouldnt' be linked, but instead should be copy/pasted into a thread so that those rules can't change throughout the game

I agree. This thread shouldn't be the rules we use - it should be a tool for giving mods a standard starting point, and a good idea of what people expect so they can highlight any changes.

[ashersky]

One problem with this thread is that mods who link it at the beginning of a game start of with the rule state as it stood then, but if additions are added or parts removed then the link has changed the rules of the game so that the rules are no longer what they were at the start of the game. This might not be significant that often, but I could foresee an unfortunate situation.

Mostly I think this shouldnt' be linked, but instead should be copy/pasted into a thread so that those rules can't change throughout the game

Good point.  I'm contributing to this thread, for example, but I don't use this post for my rules.  But I'm affecting other games, including ongoing ones.  That's an issue.

[sudgy]

One problem with this thread is that mods who link it at the beginning of a game start of with the rule state as it stood then, but if additions are added or parts removed then the link has changed the rules of the game so that the rules are no longer what they were at the start of the game. This might not be significant that often, but I could foresee an unfortunate situation.

Mostly I think this shouldnt' be linked, but instead should be copy/pasted into a thread so that those rules can't change throughout the game

Looking back on this, I'm not wanting the rules to change, but certain situations call for it.  I feel like I should say more but can't think of anything.

I'm putting in the suggested rule changes, as I don't see anybody complaining.

[chairs]

One problem with this thread is that mods who link it at the beginning of a game start of with the rule state as it stood then, but if additions are added or parts removed then the link has changed the rules of the game so that the rules are no longer what they were at the start of the game. This might not be significant that often, but I could foresee an unfortunate situation.

Mostly I think this shouldnt' be linked, but instead should be copy/pasted into a thread so that those rules can't change throughout the game

/sign

[sudgy]

I added uncontroversial rule 3.6, about ongoing games.  It's never mentioned anywhere but is a pretty big rule that we have.

[Jimmmmm]

I added uncontroversial rule 3.6, about ongoing games.  It's never mentioned anywhere but is a pretty big rule that we have.

I think the rule is stated incorrectly. A Mafia game generally has the rule that there cannot be discussion about it between players outside of the game thread and official QTs. If you talk about Game A in the thread of Game B, you're breaking the rules of Game A, not of Game B.

[yuma]

I added uncontroversial rule 3.6, about ongoing games.  It's never mentioned anywhere but is a pretty big rule that we have.

I think the rule is stated incorrectly. A Mafia game generally has the rule that there cannot be discussion about it between players outside of the game thread and official QTs. If you talk about Game A in the thread of Game B, you're breaking the rules of Game A, not of Game B.

I would argue you are breaking the rules for both games and have asked players as a mod to stop talking about Game A in the hypothetical Game B.

[Jimmmmm]

I added uncontroversial rule 3.6, about ongoing games.  It's never mentioned anywhere but is a pretty big rule that we have.

I think the rule is stated incorrectly. A Mafia game generally has the rule that there cannot be discussion about it between players outside of the game thread and official QTs. If you talk about Game A in the thread of Game B, you're breaking the rules of Game A, not of Game B.

I would argue you are breaking the rules for both games and have asked players as a mod to stop talking about Game A in the hypothetical Game B.

Well maybe. But there are no rules in, say, the memes thread or on Facebook saying you can't discuss ongoing Mafia games. There's nothing special about other Mafia games - you can't discuss them anywhere.

[sudgy]

Oh, oops, I didn't notice that the rules here say prods are issued automatically.  I thought it wasn't like that.  Since everybody makes them by request, I changed that rule.

[Teproc]

Here's something that should be done I think : state at which point replacements will be ruled out in the initial rules post for each game. It has been a contested issue recently, and I think everyone would benefit if things were clear from the very beginning of the game.

[Robz888]

Here's something that should be done I think : state at which point replacements will be ruled out in the initial rules post for each game. It has been a contested issue recently, and I think everyone would benefit if things were clear from the very beginning of the game.

Good thinking.

My own inclination would be, anyone can replace in during Day 1. During Day 2, only people who are not in the spec qt can replace in. On Day 3 and on, no replacements.

[ashersky]

Here's something that should be done I think : state at which point replacements will be ruled out in the initial rules post for each game. It has been a contested issue recently, and I think everyone would benefit if things were clear from the very beginning of the game.

Good thinking.

My own inclination would be, anyone can replace in during Day 1. During Day 2, only people who are not in the spec qt can replace in. On Day 3 and on, no replacements.

I agree with this assessment.  I would expand it to include N1 (for D1) and N2 (for D2).

I would leave it up to mod discretion if the departing player is modkilled or tree stumped or just left to rot.

[sudgy]

If nobody objects, I'll add that into the rules.

[EFHW]

I think it would be better to leave more room for the mod to make case-by-case decisions.  But I guess this isn't really official, right?  Mods can mod the rules how they need to for their particular game?

[Voltaire]

I think it would be better to leave more room for the mod to make case-by-case decisions.  But I guess this isn't really official, right?  Mods can mod the rules how they need to for their particular game?

Right. The idea of this thread is that it's a great template, and then mods can tweak it as necessary and notify players of the changes from what is listed here.

[sudgy]

Alright, I added rule 3.10.

[mcmcsalot]

Rules rules rules

[Twistedarcher]

Rules rules rules

I feel like you just discovered the rest of F.DS besides mafia game threads today...

[mcmcsalot]

Rules rules rules

I feel like you just discovered the rest of F.DS besides mafia game threads today...

I new it existed prior to yesterday, I had just never ventured out there it's truly a magical place.

[sudgy]

I'm going to open a can of worms here, but I have two things that I think we need to put up for discussion about whether these are allowed or not:

1. Whether or not mods can change the rules in the middle of the game
2. Whether or not mods can make rules not allowing certain types of discussion

I think that they both should be disallowed.  For 1, it can make people's actions useless and some people might not have wanted to play with those new rules.  For 2, you can't say what is too far and what isn't.  I personally only will make something like this in a BM game.

[ashersky]

I'm going to open a can of worms here, but I have two things that I think we need to put up for discussion about whether these are allowed or not:

1. Whether or not mods can change the rules in the middle of the game
2. Whether or not mods can make rules not allowing certain types of discussion

I think that they both should be disallowed.  For 1, it can make people's actions useless and some people might not have wanted to play with those new rules.  For 2, you can't say what is too far and what isn't.  I personally only will make something like this in a BM game.

#2 does venture close to posting restrictions, which is a normal BM trope.

[liopoil]

#1 I think should only be permissable if absolutely neccessary - i.e., the mod thinks it is ruining the game. #2 I agree should be disallowed, except perhaps disallowing flavor claiming... although really, just make sure town don't gain anything by flavor claiming.

[Archetype]

#2 should be disallowed

[yuma]

As someone who has wanted to change rules twice (or rather I noticed after the fact that I had errors in the OP that deviated from my original intent of the setup) I established that I would only change the rule if it did not impact how scum or town would have planned their strategy around.

In both of these games (Arrested and X-shots) the rule change I was considering would have changed how scum would have approached the game. Therefore I felt it wasn't appropriate for me to change the rules.

However, in another game (Modern Community) ash and I changed a PR (EFHW's SK role) because we felt that we designed it too weak and that it needed a buff. This was less of a rule change and more of a setup change, but because it didn't change how people approached the game, except in a positive way toward balance for EFHW, we felt it was appropriate.

So the answer is, it is complicated and should be discouraged but not strictly forbidden.

As for the second rule. Again I feel that it depends. I am generally against posting restrictions but there are cases of where it is warranted. For example disallowing discussion of when people received PMs. Or the obvious case of not allowing quoting of mod supplied information. So there are certainly cases where it is appropriate and may even be necessary given a certain setup modification. I would lean toward staying away from posting restrictions but again not strictly forbid them.

[sudgy]

The prodding rule says that prods will be issued on request after 48 hours, or on request after 24.  Which should it be?

[ashersky]

The prodding rule says that prods will be issued on request after 48 hours, or on request after 24.  Which should it be?

Depends on the kingdom mod.

[sudgy]

I just changed it to 24 hours, because that's when you could do it on request originally.

[faust]

I have a change request (or, more accurately, I am announcing that there is a rule I will change in every of my modded games, and would like to see it changed here as well):

Change 1.1 to

"You may not quote information (either real or fabricated) from any source other than the thread you are posting in. This means no quotes from PMs and no quotes from QTs in the main thread or in another QT. Paraphrasing is acceptable. If you are unsure whether a post is legal, please ask the moderator before posting."

[Teproc]

I'm trying to come up with a wording to give a clean resolution to end-game stalemates. I'm not suggesting it to necessarily be included in the rules themselves, but this seems like the right place. Here's what I have :

"If a no lynch occurs as the third consecutive game phase with no death, mafia wins. If a voluntary no kill occurs as the third consecutive game phase with no death, town wins."

Basically it forces whichever faction started the stalemate to end it. I'm not suggesting this should be the solution for every game, but I'm wondering if this wording works. It means that if mafia's kill doesn't get through and then town no lynches, scum has to try to kill someone (but this should cover the case where their kill failg again so that they don't just lose). That's a little weird maybe but I'm fine with it. Any other problems ?

[ashersky]

I'm trying to come up with a wording to give a clean resolution to end-game stalemates. I'm not suggesting it to necessarily be included in the rules themselves, but this seems like the right place. Here's what I have :

"If a no lynch occurs as the third consecutive game phase with no death, mafia wins. If a voluntary no kill occurs as the third consecutive game phase with no death, town wins."

Basically it forces whichever faction started the stalemate to end it. I'm not suggesting this should be the solution for every game, but I'm wondering if this wording works. It means that if mafia's kill doesn't get through and then town no lynches, scum has to try to kill someone (but this should cover the case where their kill failg again so that they don't just lose). That's a little weird maybe but I'm fine with it. Any other problems ?

It gives town information they normally wouldn't have in closed games.  That I'd, scum can't use the roleblocker/doctor stopped the kill excuse/fake claim.

[ashersky]

Take out voluntary and it works better.

[Teproc]

Take out voluntary and it works better.

I didn't have it initially, but what if a doctor blocks the kill two nights in a row ? If town no lynched in the meantime, scum just loses without the "voluntary". Not elegant though.

[Teproc]

Didn't read the initial part, you're right. Yeah, that doesn't work, even in semi-open setups.

[ashersky]

I mean,I get your point.  You want to end stalemates when one faction forces it.  Except, well, both sides are forcing it (no kill, no lynch), and sometimes there's a strategic advantage that's more than "avoid POE".

I think a hidden rule (that is, warning scum in QT) for no kills is better.

[Teproc]

But then scum has info ahead of time that town doesn't have about how a stalemate situation is resolved.

I guess it doesn't care that much, I was looking at the Legend of Zelda mafia postgame and S_P seemed annoyed that the end-game stalemate was resolved on the fly, so I thought I'd try to make up a rule. Doesn't seem easy to do, probably fine.

[Teproc]

"it doesn't" is supposed to say "I do". I'm neither a robot nor Alain Delon (or whoever your American celebrity who talks about himself in the third person of choice is).

[EgorK]

But why not making it tied game?

[Teproc]

But why not making it tied game?

Because I'd never actually want that to happen, ties suck. And there will be situations where scum or town (but mostly scum I think) is pessimistic enough about their chances that they might be tempted to go for a tie.

[scott_pilgrim]

But then scum has info ahead of time that town doesn't have about how a stalemate situation is resolved.

I guess it doesn't care that much, I was looking at the Legend of Zelda mafia postgame and S_P seemed annoyed that the end-game stalemate was resolved on the fly, so I thought I'd try to make up a rule. Doesn't seem easy to do, probably fine.

I don't think I was frustrated that it was resolved on the fly, just that the resolution would have led to prolonging the game indefinitely with optimal play by both sides (IIRC the mod just said, the game keeps going until a lynch or kill happens).  At some point we just had to go for a lynch because we didn't want to wait forever, but it doesn't feel right to break a stalemate situation with suboptimal play when you're not forced to.

[ashersky]

I think if you want a hard and fast rule, it's more like:

"In the case of a forced stalemate, the faction that causes the stalemate more than twice consecutively will forfeit."

Again, you are removing possible strategy choices from scum, but then again, most stalemates start with a No Lynch.

[scott_pilgrim]

But I agree it's probably good to at least set a default ruling on it.

[Teproc]

I think if you want a hard and fast rule, it's more like:

"In the case of a forced stalemate, the faction that causes the stalemate more than twice consecutively will forfeit."

Again, you are removing possible strategy choices from scum, but then again, most stalemates start with a No Lynch.

I'll go with that.

[yuma]

Cool... "Ignore lists" work in mafia games. I just tested it!

So now the question becomes... should this be legal? And if it is illegal is there a way to enforce it? Obviously mods should take care to make sure they aren't ignoring players in their games, but should it be legal for players to ignore other players?

For those of you wondering you can still see that said player posted something, but you can't see it unless you specifically click on a button that will allow you to see what they posted.

[Witherweaver]

Cool... "Ignore lists" work in mafia games. I just tested it!

So now the question becomes... should this be legal? And if it is illegal is there a way to enforce it? Obviously mods should take care to make sure they aren't ignoring players in their games, but should it be legal for players to ignore other players?

For those of you wondering you can still see that said player posted something, but you can't see it unless you specifically click on a button that will allow you to see what they posted.

I would respond, but I've already ignored you!

[yuma]

Cool... "Ignore lists" work in mafia games. I just tested it!

So now the question becomes... should this be legal? And if it is illegal is there a way to enforce it? Obviously mods should take care to make sure they aren't ignoring players in their games, but should it be legal for players to ignore other players?

For those of you wondering you can still see that said player posted something, but you can't see it unless you specifically click on a button that will allow you to see what they posted.

I would respond, but I've already ignored you!

what did you say? You are you calling me names?

I know you are but what am I?

[yuma]

completely ignored bastard mafia should probably become a thing...

[Awaclus]

Cool... "Ignore lists" work in mafia games. I just tested it!

So now the question becomes... should this be legal? And if it is illegal is there a way to enforce it? Obviously mods should take care to make sure they aren't ignoring players in their games, but should it be legal for players to ignore other players?

For those of you wondering you can still see that said player posted something, but you can't see it unless you specifically click on a button that will allow you to see what they posted.

I don't think there's a problem. You can still choose to read the post, so it's not any different from the current situation where you can choose to scroll through posts you don't want to read. Although, it will probably be inconvenient enough that it's better to un-ignore the person for the duration of the game in practice.

[Witherweaver]

Really though, I don't think it needs a special rule.  It should be up to each player.

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't think it should be illegal, for two main reasons:

1. It's not enforceable.  Maybe it is actually, I don't know how exactly the ignore list works.  But it seems at least like it would be hard to enforce.  Even if ignore lists are illegal, it's impossible to enforce manually ignoring players by just not looking at their posts; ignore lists are just an automated way of doing that.

2. I don't think it provides anyone with an advantage to ignore other players, at least not an advantage that can't already be gotten by other means.  You can already search for posts by a player, in some sense ignoring some set of players is the same as searching for posts by the complement of that set.  In theory the only advantage you get from ignoring players is that you have less to read, but you can already do that by just skipping over those players' posts.  Giving yourself less information is strictly bad for your alignment.

[yuma]

Maybe a rule suggestion or reminder then more for convenience. However, I do think it should be mandatory that mods remove all players from the ignored list that are in their games... Too easy to miss votes and mess up vote counts/or miss mod questions. Plus if you don't want to read the posts of your players what are you modding for?