Print

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

[faust]

Well yeah, but if it is in the very nature of the game that I have to skip school and transcend the need to sleep in order to play scum well, it's not really a game that I want to play.

I think it is true for almost any game that if you played it professionally (i.e. not doing anything else), you would play it better.

[Witherweaver]

But look, I think this is a completely avoidable issue.

If I asked Awaclus to post his QT and he said he didn't post anything in it, I would in no way think he's more likely to be scum than town.  I expect both town and scum Awaclus to not do it.

If Teproc comes out and says "it's too much work to keep doing, I didn't post extensively", that's completely believable and not an alignment indicator either.

After all, meta is everything.

The counter here is that the lack of a "super townie QT dump" prohibits giving a strong town read, but it doesn't in its own right give a higher scum read.  The problem from scum's perspective is that town players can suddenly become super townie and unlynchable, but as we've said, we only need one example of someone faking it to debunk that.  And we don't even need the example, because we've talked so much of faking it, we're going to start to get super suspicious of these things in the future.

[Haddock]

But look, I think this is a completely avoidable issue.

If I asked Awaclus to post his QT and he said he didn't post anything in it, I would in no way think he's more likely to be scum than town.  I expect both town and scum Awaclus to not do it.

If Teproc comes out and says "it's too much work to keep doing, I didn't post extensively", that's completely believable and not an alignment indicator either.

After all, meta is everything.

The counter here is that the lack of a "super townie QT dump" prohibits giving a strong town read, but it doesn't in its own right give a higher scum read.  The problem from scum's perspective is that town players can suddenly become super townie and unlynchable, but as we've said, we only need one example of someone faking it to debunk that.  And we don't even need the example, because we've talked so much of faking it, we're going to start to get super suspicious of these things in the future.

So much this.  I just don't see the meta evolving to the state where this is a common thing that people take seriously.
If it does, then yeah maybe there's a problem here.

[Teproc]

I think it absolutely will, and it will be very hard for scum to deal with it. Both people who don(t need to do it (like Awaclus) and people like me, simply because it will create ICs. I don't think it's easy to fake. People will try, of course they will, but I think they'll get caught.

If I'm wrong, then yes, this is a non-issue.

[Witherweaver]

I did have in the back of my head as I was posting in the personal QT that I might end up posting it (I didn't know if it was allowed or not).  I was already worrying  that people would feel it was constructed as scum to make my claim more believable.  And it kind of was constructed, since I did know that I just justify myself at least to Yuma and people reading afterwards, even if I didn't end up posting it.  I think everything I did regarding the claim could have been easily able to construct as scum.  The reads on other players and those thoughts are probably what indicated towniness. 

[Awaclus]

Well yeah, but if it is in the very nature of the game that I have to skip school and transcend the need to sleep in order to play scum well, it's not really a game that I want to play.

I think it is true for almost any game that if you played it professionally (i.e. not doing anything else), you would play it better.

I can play a game of Dominion in a few minutes and then it's over. I don't have to skip anything and I can still try my best to win that game. Writing fake QTs takes so much time for weeks that it's literally impossible to do it in addition to sleeping and studying, and if I don't spend all that time writing fake QTs, it's pretty much the equivalent of pulling a reinoe.

but as we've said, we only need one example of someone faking it to debunk that.

That's not how it works, though. We've had countless of examples of scum faking things that are still universally accepted as town tells.

[Witherweaver]

I think it absolutely will, and it will be very hard for scum to deal with it. Both people who don(t need to do it (like Awaclus) and people like me, simply because it will create ICs. I don't think it's easy to fake. People will try, of course they will, but I think they'll get caught.

If I'm wrong, then yes, this is a non-issue.

I kind of think we'll end up mislynching a true town because we think he's trying to fake it.

[XerxesPraelor]

 "and if I don't spend all that time writing fake QTs, it's pretty much the equivalent of pulling a reinoe."

 

Okay, you can say "it's like pulling a reinoe in the sense that it plays against your win condition" but those are so, so, so different in both magnitude (if you don't write fake QTs, that's slightly scummy - if you pM the mafia qt, that's infinitely scumm) and intent (one is: I don't want to work at this, the other: I'm angry and want to make the mod angry).

[Haddock]

"and if I don't spend all that time writing fake QTs, it's pretty much the equivalent of pulling a reinoe."

 

Okay, you can say "it's like pulling a reinoe in the sense that it plays against your win condition" but those are so, so, so different in both magnitude (if you don't write fake QTs, that's slightly scummy - if you pM the mafia qt, that's infinitely scumm) and intent (one is: I don't want to work at this, the other: I'm angry and want to make the mod angry).

You've been around a while right XP?  So you've known Awa as long as any of us.
The fact that this kind of overblown hyperbole is Awa's bread and butter should not surprise you.

[Awaclus]

Okay, you can say "it's like pulling a reinoe in the sense that it plays against your win condition" but those are so, so, so different in both magnitude (if you don't write fake QTs, that's slightly scummy - if you pM the mafia qt, that's infinitely scumm) and intent (one is: I don't want to work at this, the other: I'm angry and want to make the mod angry).

Yes, it is different in both magnitude and intent, but it is the same because in both cases, you're not playing the game.

[ashersky]

Did I break your rule for making mafia games more perfect?  Do I get modkilled?

I'd prefer it if people would not be hostile here. This is not a game, we do not rely on AtE, we can all just be civil. Thank you. This does not apply only to ashersky.

I honestly have no clue what you are referring to here.

[ashersky]

At that point, it's a honor system rule, right?  One that's easily manipulated without breaking.

I think there's a major difference between an unstated honor system and a unenforcable rule.

If you look at it, plenty of rules are unenforcable. For example if two scum players decided to daychat via PM, nothing could stop them from doing so. It would clearly be against the rule, there'd be no way for anyone outside to know, but we trust people to follow the rules because otherwise why even play ?

An honor system that's not stated does not work, because people have different view of what's fine to do and what isn't. This is why I'm not worried about the practicality of making a rule here, even if it is technically impossible to enforce.

In my mind, your example ash would be against the rules because you're quoting. However, this would be fine :

When he claimed, I was unsure because his claim seemed pretty tame compared to mine

Just a blanket rule saying "don't quote from anywhere else than the thread" seems fine to me. I don't think it prevents people from doing what yuma's describing, because that's not quoting that's copy-pasting. It's like when people progressively catch up, and you see them posting without knowledge of some major thing that's happened. That's not a problem because it's very limited in nature. Mafiascum you can just link to. I guess you could link to the QT you created yourself...

Maybe faust is right, but I don't like it.

You are saying you are completely fine with someone copying and pasting lines from their QT, just so long as we don't say it is from a QT.  Is that correct?

What if I write something and say it is from a QT but it actually isn't?  Did I break a rule?  I lied, but we know that is completely within the rules of Mafia. 

What you want banned is the QT dump, not cross posting from QTs.  That's how it sounds to me, anyway.

[ashersky]

But look, I think this is a completely avoidable issue.

If I asked Awaclus to post his QT and he said he didn't post anything in it, I would in no way think he's more likely to be scum than town.  I expect both town and scum Awaclus to not do it.

If Teproc comes out and says "it's too much work to keep doing, I didn't post extensively", that's completely believable and not an alignment indicator either.

After all, meta is everything.

The counter here is that the lack of a "super townie QT dump" prohibits giving a strong town read, but it doesn't in its own right give a higher scum read.  The problem from scum's perspective is that town players can suddenly become super townie and unlynchable, but as we've said, we only need one example of someone faking it to debunk that.  And we don't even need the example, because we've talked so much of faking it, we're going to start to get super suspicious of these things in the future.

So much this.  I just don't see the meta evolving to the state where this is a common thing that people take seriously.
If it does, then yeah maybe there's a problem here.

I think this is all correct.  To me, we're talking about it so much it has already permeated the meta of the game and it just won't serve the purpose people are afraid of. 

We will have mods disallow it, and mods allow it.  I for one want to see what happens when players push those boundaries.

[silverspawn]

I don't understand what's happening.

When I opened my RMM, I made this rule

- It is not allowed to quote from QTs, nor is it allowed to use a substitute in order to quote from (this does not include writing posts somewhere else with the intention of posting them later). Paraphrasing is acceptable. Since this rule is exploitable, I hope that no-one tries to do so.

How does this not solve everything? Why does anyone want to do anything other than puting an equivalent of this rule in the basic rule set and then move on? That's  all we need to do, and the issue is closed. The rule is exploitable, who cares, no-one is going to exploit it, everyone knows what the intent is. I don't understand why no-one sees how easy it is.

[ashersky]

I don't understand what's happening.

When I opened my RMM, I made this rule

- It is not allowed to quote from QTs, nor is it allowed to use a substitute in order to quote from (this does not include writing posts somewhere else with the intention of posting them later). Paraphrasing is acceptable. Since this rule is exploitable, I hope that no-one tries to do so.

How does this not solve everything? Why does anyone want to do anything other than puting an equivalent of this rule in the basic rule set and then move on? That's  all we need to do, and the issue is closed. The rule is exploitable, who cares, no-one is going to exploit it, everyone knows what the intent is. I don't understand why no-one sees how easy it is.

No one is arguing against the "ease" of making such a rule.  We (the ones against you) are arguing against the rule itself.

I do not want to limit this in my games.  I think it hurts games to do this.

[silverspawn]

No one is arguing against the "ease" of making such a rule.  We (the ones against you) are arguing against the rule itself.

I do not want to limit this in my games.  I think it hurts games to do this.

Okay, now I at least understand where you're coming from.

But is that really everyone who was against forbidding it, or just you? I had the impression that faust and Haddock were not arguing against the intent.

[ashersky]

No one is arguing against the "ease" of making such a rule.  We (the ones against you) are arguing against the rule itself.

I do not want to limit this in my games.  I think it hurts games to do this.

Okay, now I at least understand where you're coming from.

But is that really everyone who was against forbidding it, or just you? I had the impression that faust and Haddock were not arguing against the intent.

I think Yuma agrees with me that it would be better NOT to ban them.

The others may feel more ambivalent, or not care, or something.  I don't want to speak for anyone here.

Faust, as far as I read him, believes it is an issue, but not one to deal with via rules.

[Witherweaver]

I don't understand what's happening.

When I opened my RMM, I made this rule

- It is not allowed to quote from QTs, nor is it allowed to use a substitute in order to quote from (this does not include writing posts somewhere else with the intention of posting them later). Paraphrasing is acceptable. Since this rule is exploitable, I hope that no-one tries to do so.

How does this not solve everything? Why does anyone want to do anything other than puting an equivalent of this rule in the basic rule set and then move on? That's  all we need to do, and the issue is closed. The rule is exploitable, who cares, no-one is going to exploit it, everyone knows what the intent is. I don't understand why no-one sees how easy it is.

I believe the main issue people have is the gratuitous hyphen use in 'no-one'.

[silverspawn]

I believe the main issue people have is the gratuitous hyphen use in 'no-one'.

So your point is that you don't trust everyone to be play fair?

[Witherweaver]

I believe the main issue people have is the gratuitous hyphen use in 'no-one'.

So your point is that you don't trust everyone to be play fair?

Not sure if joking....

[silverspawn]

I believe the main issue people have is the gratuitous hyphen use in 'no-one'.

So your point is that you don't trust everyone to be play fair?

Not sure if joking....

not joking

[Witherweaver]

I believe the main issue people have is the gratuitous hyphen use in 'no-one'.

So your point is that you don't trust everyone to be play fair?

Not sure if joking....

not joking

Well, I was.

[silverspawn]

Well, I was.

I don't follow. So you didn't have any point initially?

[Witherweaver]

Just that you can say "no one" instead of "no-one".  I'd say it's preferable, but there are probably camps that disagree.

[silverspawn]

oh...  I see. I didn't know the word 'hyphen', so I didn't get it.