Rule Standardization & Feedback

[Alisha]

Hey, so with the recent game concluded and a few unanswered debates still around, I think it would be a good idea to get a consistent set of rules nailed down so we can avoid a lot of the problems that resurface every now and again here.

I'm going to put a couple terms here that I believe need to be enforced tighter as they're beginning to get out of hand. I'll put my rationalizations as for why they are a problem below each one;

Hostposting - Asking the host for clarification or even just interacting with the host outside the main thread and then using the host's response as a legitimate point in an argument.
- The host of the game has to remain disconnected from the game. Once the host becomes directly or indirectly involved in whatever is currently going on, they cease to be an impartial observer and moderator of the game. Hosts make mistakes every now and then and those have natural consequences, but even everyday questions being answered can indirectly confirm a mechanic previously unknown. I think part of the host's responsibility is to know when to refuse a question, but it's also on the players not to subsequently say “Well the host refused to answer me here”.

PM Mechanics - Analyzing the word choice and structure of a role confirmation PM in comparison to other players, and using that in an argument. Many games do allow for paraphrasing of the PM.
- Asking for word choice and structure arguments in a role PM is directly skirting the parahprasing rule and should be avoided. The host can take better steps to avoid that by either providing a role template at the start of the game, or varying up their word choices. It's also on the players to respect the other end of this rule.

I think a standardized ruleset won't be very hard to create as the current bullet point lists do the job relatively well, but I do foresee the two above aspects being the most controversal. I'd love to get some feedback on if I'm hardlining it too much or not enough, or if you have any other concerns about the common rules we use please add them in with a reply. :)

 

[Alisha]

(Also I would like to thank the lovely Timdood3 for the rule standardization idea)

 

[Timdood3]

One thing I would like to add is something I talked about during last game but I feel is very important:

It is the player's responsibility to thoroughly understand their role. I've seen it plenty of times where a player will misinterpret or misread something about their role and when they go to claim...They claim something they can't do. And it can get them into trouble. Personally as a host I would rather have every player ask me a whole string of questions about their role than see that happen.

Also during the last game I had two separate players, Aqua and Infected_alien8_ ask me if it would be rulebreaking to spam-rate posts of a particular player to try to convey a message. They can elaborate on that if they wish. And that's sort of what sparked me to start this discussion because I was looking back through the rules and found....No, it wouldn't be. But it definitely should be.
Somewhere down the line the standard rule banning cryptography and cyphers was removed, and that (alongside out of game communication) is the rule that would prevent that from happening.

So that's a rule that needs reinstated.

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

I think a standardized ruleset won't be very hard to create as the current bullet point lists do the job relatively well, but I do foresee the two above aspects being the most controversal.

I do agree we need a more standardized ruleset.

Hostposting - Asking the host for clarification or even just interacting with the host outside the main thread and then using the host's response as a legitimate point in an argument. - The host of the game has to remain disconnected from the game. Once the host becomes directly or indirectly involved in whatever is currently going on, they cease to be an impartial observer and moderator of the game. Hosts make mistakes every now and then and those have natural consequences, but even everyday questions being answered can indirectly confirm a mechanic previously unknown. I think part of the host's responsibility is to know when to refuse a question, but it's also on the players not to subsequently say “Well the host refused to answer me here”.

I do agree that we need to crack down on hostposting more b/c it is getting out of hand but the issue is that I don't want that to limit players ability to figure out what their role does. There may be legitimate scenarios where "Inffy asked me a question about my role that didn't occur to me earlier, let me go ask the host." and flat out not allowing the player to say the answer to the question or having the host put an answer in the public thread are obviously not acceptable answers here. I think a specific limit on saying "the host said this" is ok. Alternatively, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit lying about what the host said in PMs.
Another idea that might help mitigate this is a standardized Role PM template as well. While I do agree with Timdood that players are responsible for knowing everything about their role, I also think we should put a fair amount of onus on the hosts to write detailed Role PMs as well that clearly specify the role's name, alignment, abilities, and win conditions to avoid scenarios where players have to ask entire strings of questions.

PM Mechanics - Analyzing the word choice and structure of a role confirmation PM in comparison to other players, and using that in an argument. Many games do allow for paraphrasing of the PM.
- Asking for word choice and structure arguments in a role PM is directly skirting the parahprasing rule and should be avoided. The host can take better steps to avoid that by either providing a role template at the start of the game, or varying up their word choices. It's also on the players to respect the other end of this rule.

I agree with this role as written. Again, a standardized role PM template would go a long way towards alleviating this problem as well.

Somewhere down the line the standard rule banning cryptography and cyphers was removed, and that (alongside out of game communication) is the rule that would prevent that from happening.

IMO we should have a discussion about out-of-game communication at some point too. Since I started hosting I've noticed that people have been fairly lax about this, and I haven't really minded since I trust the players whom I know have been talking about the game out of game not to cheat or go behind my back. I could see this becoming an issue in the future though if we don't set some clear boundaries for it.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

my issue with hostposting rule is that i think it should only apply to things that couldve been asked in the thread, cuz if we're unable to disclose host messages that clarify our role then that could cause problems

but honestly i still dont fully even understand what the issue with hostposting even is so maybe im missing something

 

[Alisha]

IMO we should have a discussion about out-of-game communication at some point too. Since I started hosting I've noticed that people have been fairly lax about this, and I haven't really minded since I trust the players whom I know have been talking about the game out of game not to cheat

In all honesty I've been lax and a bit borderline at times too. I get along with everyone too well now ;-;

People who know each other well are going to talk and there's nothing I can really do to say don't talk to each other at all - So I'll just say that I trust everyone to be able to police themselves on that one, and give a generic reminder to use restraint on themselves when necessary :)

 

[Alisha]

my issue with hostposting rule is that i think it should only apply to things that couldve been asked in the thread, cuz if we're unable to disclose host messages that clarify our role then that could cause problems

but honestly i still dont fully even understand what the issue with hostposting even is so maybe im missing something

The issue with hostposting is if it's ran unchecked, it brings the host's actions into an argument and can be used to prove a point. Therefore, the host is directly influencing the game. Worst case scenario I can imagine is it leading to accusations of the host 'helping out' specific players more than others.

You could say that's ultimately the host's responsiblity, and I agree that a lot of it falls down to the host to prevent occuring in the first place. It's also a player's responsibility to not go wild with it - comparing hostposting incidents to other players is a good way to get very, very messy quickly.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

The issue with hostposting is if it's ran unchecked, it brings the host's actions into an argument and can be used to prove a point. Therefore, the host is directly influencing the game. Worst case scenario I can imagine is it leading to accusations of the host 'helping out' specific players more than others.

You could say that's ultimately the host's responsiblity, and I agree that a lot of it falls down to the host to prevent occuring in the first place. It's also a player's responsibility to not go wild with it - comparing hostposting incidents to other players is a good way to get very, very messy quickly.

thing is if a host made a mistake and had to clarify something to you privately then its kinda unavoidable to then bring that clarification into your defence though without letting the host mistake get town mislynch a fellow townie, and its always possible said person is lying about what the host said, so in my eyes saying 'oh the host clarified about my role' isn't an issue right? it doesnt matter if the host's input is now affecting the game because its the exact same influence as me quoting my role pm and saying 'my role does this'; except the host clarified on my role info later and now i can update everyone with 'ok so my role actually does this'. so i dont see that as an issue itself (unless im STILL missing something)

the one point that i do see is if a host answers a question to a player privately that couldve been asked publically since it could give a read on that player for kinda meta/hostposting reasons instead of being in the spirit of the game - e.g. player A asks the host about <publically known mechanic>, gets an answer, then later when player B asks publically, player A says they already asked and says the answer, and player B then gets confirmation of this - cuz this then sorta proves player A asked the question privately, which could be a tell about their role

i agree that comparing hostposting incidents isnt in the spirit of the game if it can give clues about people's alignments as well

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

The issue with hostposting is if it's ran unchecked, it brings the host's actions into an argument and can be used to prove a point. Therefore, the host is directly influencing the game. Worst case scenario I can imagine is it leading to accusations of the host 'helping out' specific players more than others.

You could say that's ultimately the host's responsiblity, and I agree that a lot of it falls down to the host to prevent occuring in the first place. It's also a player's responsibility to not go wild with it - comparing hostposting incidents to other players is a good way to get very, very messy quickly.

Here's a thought: Would a flat out ban on lying about what the host has said in PMs be a good way to address this?

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Here's a thought: Would a flat out ban on lying about what the host has said in PMs be a good way to address this?

i dont think so but why do you think it could?

i dont think the issue is that people lie about what was said (unless ive completely misunderstood it all again)

plus if you cant lie about what the host said then that'd make fakeclaiming even harder

 

[Aqua]

Also during the last game I had two separate players, @Aqua and @Infected_alien8_ ask me if it would be rulebreaking to spam-rate posts of a particular player to try to convey a message. They can elaborate on that if they wish. And that's sort of what sparked me to start this discussion because I was looking back through the rules and found....No, it wouldn't be. But it definitely should be.

Infected_alien8_ stop copying me nerd.

 

[Alisha]

thing is if a host made a mistake and had to clarify something to you privately then its kinda unavoidable to then bring that clarification into your defence though without letting the host mistake get town mislynch a fellow townie, and its always possible said person is lying about what the host said, so in my eyes saying 'oh the host clarified about my role' isn't an issue right? it doesnt matter if the host's input is now affecting the game because its the exact same influence as me quoting my role pm and saying 'my role does this'; except the host clarified on my role info later and now i can update everyone with 'ok so my role actually does this'. so i dont see that as an issue itself (unless im STILL missing something)

Yeah since that resulted from a host mistake in the first place, it can't really be avoided in that situation.

the one point that i do see is if a host answers a question to a player privately that couldve been asked publically since it could give a read on that player for kinda meta/hostposting reasons instead of being in the spirit of the game - e.g. player A asks the host about <publically known mechanic>, gets an answer, then later when player B asks publically, player A says they already asked and says the answer, and player B then gets confirmation of this - cuz this then sorta proves player A asked the question privately, which could be a tell about their role

i agree that comparing hostposting incidents isnt in the spirit of the game if it can give clues about people's alignments as well

This was my main concern with hostposting.

 

[Alisha]

Here's a thought: Would a flat out ban on lying about what the host has said in PMs be a good way to address this?

I don't think so, as then you could do some really screwy strategies involving telling the truth.

Mafia's a game of lying and deception, taking that away at any point is too generous!

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

I'll own up to being tired last night and not really thinking that one through lol.

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

In all honesty I've been lax and a bit borderline at times too. I get along with everyone too well now ;-;

People who know each other well are going to talk and there's nothing I can really do to say don't talk to each other at all - So I'll just say that I trust everyone to be able to police themselves on that one, and give a generic reminder to use restraint on themselves when necessary :)

I wasn't suggesting we be DM police or anything, b/c I have zero interest in doing that either. What I meant by this is that we more clearly define what isn't ok to discuss out of game just to make sure everyone is on the same page. I think we just need some more clear boundaries here so there aren't disagreements on this in future (similarly to recent conversations about PM mechanics).

 

[Timdood3]

There may be legitimate scenarios where "Inffy asked me a question about my role that didn't occur to me earlier, let me go ask the host." and flat out not allowing the player to say the answer to the question or having the host put an answer in the public thread are obviously not acceptable answers here. I think a specific limit on saying "the host said this" is ok. Alternatively, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit lying about what the host said in PMs.

And in that situation, what you should do is go ask the host, and then answer the question, without mentioning that you ever talked to the host.

I wasn't suggesting we be DM police or anything, b/c I have zero interest in doing that either. What I meant by this is that we more clearly define what isn't ok to discuss out of game just to make sure everyone is on the same page. I think we just need some more clear boundaries here so there aren't disagreements on this in future (similarly to recent conversations about PM mechanics).

I mean, many of us here are pretty good friends, and friends talk. I would say that the boundary is: Don't talk about things pertaining to an ongoing game. Realistically though, it's an honor system, and a certain degree of trust has to exist between the host and the players (as well as the players and each other).

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

I mean, many of us here are pretty good friends, and friends talk. I would say that the boundary is: Don't talk about things pertaining to an ongoing game. Realistically though, it's an honor system, and a certain degree of trust has to exist between the host and the players (as well as the players and each other).

That's fair. I haven't really been here anywhere near as long as most of you and admittedly I don't really interact with most people here outside of mafia so that may just be my perspective as an outsider or whatever.

 

[Alisha]

so that may just be my perspective as an outsider or whatever.

you're not an outsider.

 

[Alisha]

Let's try a draft here, let me know if you like or do not like anything.

1. Be respectful and polite to each other.
2. No editing or deleting posts.
3. No posting or rating posts if you're dead/not playing.
4. Don't use forum status in an argument. (Online status, conversation status, etc)
5. Don't use PM mechanics in an argument. This means do not analyze the wording or phrasing of your role PM in comparison to other players.
6. Don't quote or screenshot your role PM. You may paraphrase it.
7. No discussing the game outside of the game.
8. Don't lie to the hosts, don't cheat, use common sense.
9. Play to your win condition. No gamethrowing.
10. Be active throughout the entire game.
11. Avoid hostposting whenever possible. Don't depend on the host's responses to questions during an argument.
12. If you need to leave the game, PM the host about it. Once you're out, do not discuss the game with anybody still alive in it or reveal your role in public.
13. Bold your votes for them to count.

 

[Stranger from Myst Island]

Let's try a draft here, let me know if you like or do not like anything.

1. Be respectful and polite to each other.
2. No editing or deleting posts.
3. No posting or rating posts if you're dead/not playing.
4. Don't use forum status in an argument. (Online status, conversation status, etc)
5. Don't use PM mechanics in an argument. This means do not analyze the wording or phrasing of your role PM in comparison to other players.
6. Don't quote or screenshot your role PM. You may paraphrase it.
7. No discussing the game outside of the game.
8. Don't lie to the hosts, don't cheat, use common sense.
9. Play to your win condition. No gamethrowing.
10. Be active throughout the entire game.
11. Avoid hostposting whenever possible. Don't depend on the host's responses to questions during an argument.
12. If you need to leave the game, PM the host about it. Once you're out, do not discuss the game with anybody still alive in it or reveal your role in public.
13. Bold your votes for them to count.

I think we should put a rule banning cryptography/ciphers/hidden messaging as well.

 

[Timdood3]

I think we should put a rule banning cryptography/ciphers/hidden messaging as well.

I must have missed that that wasn't in the to begin with, I second this

 

[sessybessy]

I also think there should be some sort of “AFK” rule to try and crack down on that. These past few games have always resulted in major AFKing members and eventually the threads die out because it’s only three or four people arguing with each other. I don’t want to resort to outright banning people but sometimes enough is enough, I don’t know what your thoughts are on this though.


I’m kinda new to mafia games in the sense that I didn’t play the games for a good year or so (maybe even longer) so I’ve forgotten a few things, can some one give me an example of hostposting please? :)

 

[Timdood3]

I also think there should be some sort of “AFK” rule to try and crack down on that. These past few games have always resulted in major AFKing members and eventually the threads die out because it’s only three or four people arguing with each other. I don’t want to resort to outright banning people but sometimes enough is enough, I don’t know what your thoughts are on this though.


I’m kinda new to mafia games in the sense that I didn’t play the games for a good year or so (maybe even longer) so I’ve forgotten a few things, can some one give me an example of hostposting please? :)

Well

Be active throughout the entire game.

The rule is there, and always has been.
The problem comes with enforcement. We don't have the players around to simply say "we're going to replace you with someone else" because...well, there is no one else.

 

[sessybessy]

Well

The rule is there, and always has been.
The problem comes with enforcement. We don't have the players around to simply say "we're going to replace you with someone else" because...well, there is no one else.

Yeah I feel like it’s time we just crack down imo, if you’re known to AFK then the host has the right to be reluctant to let you play.
We’ve all seen afking ruin games, especially these past few weeks. I’m not too keen on ‘banning’ people per se since we don’t have the active player base to just do that and our numbers will dwindle but something has to be put into place.

I’d maybe say an afk thing for voting (depends on the setup) wherein if someone hasn’t posted for X amount of days in the thread then the vote count doesn’t rely on them. I’ve seen games where, for example, it’s like 7/9 people need to vote for a lynch so if there’s 1 person afk the number will be 6/8 or whatever. I think same goes for night actions, if someone doesn’t respond then their action doesn’t get counted

(this could make or break a game though so it would have to depend on the setup)

Maybe even implement a “vote night” feature so active players can ‘skip’ the remaining time when the thread dies out.

Idk what you all think about that suggestion ?‍

 

[Timdood3]

I’d maybe say an afk thing for voting (depends on the setup) wherein if someone hasn’t posted for X amount of days in the thread then the vote count doesn’t rely on them. I’ve seen games where, for example, it’s like 7/9 people need to vote for a lynch so if there’s 1 person afk the number will be 6/8 or whatever. I think same goes for night actions, if someone doesn’t respond then their action doesn’t get counted

We've already implanted this by way of not requiring majority.

We don't really have the means to attract new players, and I'm sad to say it but it may be time that those who want to play...find somewhere else with a more active base of players :/