Posts from Mafia: general discussions.

Disappointed.

In your rosy dreams?

About me, a person who doesn't care about the situation at all.

It's obvious. And also, when asked to justify your words, you bury your head in the sand. I was wrong about the camel; I should have written about an ostrich.

Heh, for a camel to see humps on its back, it needs to look in a mirror.

Yes, I meant "feels" and missed the verb.

Hey, why are you the only one providing arguments?

Because you're not accusing anyone of anything, but trying to figure things out.

Think of me as the legislative body, and you as the prosecutor. For you to be able to prove the defendant's guilt, I need to provide you with the necessary tools for this by changing the current legislation. If I were to become an assistant to the prosecutor, there would be no point.
And in this case, the mirror was something like an allegory (I'm not an expert in literary terms). Ar would have lost because of such a blatant move from the opposing side, and he might have reacted differently.

Hostor, he's just trolling... well, okay...

And, by the way, for those who think the wording is too complicated – I specifically tested it by having a friend who has never played Mafia read it. And he understood everything because he read it carefully.

I am against rules that regulate literally every action of the player and prescribe how he should act in a particular case. For the simple reason that because of such rules, and especially those written in such dry legal language, the very essence of the game is lost, and the fun evaporates. Everything in the existing rules is written clearly and comprehensively. Any controversial points (if they arise) should be decided by the GM, and that's all.

Such dry, legalistic language doesn't allow for exploiting loopholes in the rules; that's all. And the fun doesn't disappear when the rules become more restrictive; the fun disappears when, due to such exploitation of loopholes, the game is artificially simplified for one side.

Gil, I didn't mean for you to get involved in the argument. Your position is absolutely correct. I would just draw an analogy to jurors – you listen to everyone and draw a conclusion. Everyone should do that.

Hostor, it's all just trolling... well, well...

According to the rules of the Russian language, I should read this as an address to me. But then what "everyone" is doing is trolling, and where can I see it? xD

probably, it's like "everything turned blue with flames"))

Gil4, I genuinely believe that the GM is capable of resolving any controversial situation. And arguing with him should be considered bad form (you don't argue with the jury or with the referees in contests and competitions, or you might get disqualified). What do we have here? A controversial situation arose during the game. The GM didn't react to what was happening (he just joked, as far as I remember). That's a minus for him. Because he could have easily issued a mod kill, or, on the contrary, said that he didn't see any violation in Arandor's actions (or Hostor's). And that's it! There's no need to complicate things with additional rules and additional explanations to additional rules.
Nebos, of course, came up with something interesting, the setting, the newspapers are excellent. But he still lacks experience, no offense to him.

Damn mafia. They killed a Russian player. Groups of overpowered mafia members. The rules have been updated. Double vote. New newspaper. All NNs are displayed. The night lasted for three days. Fake notes. Execution based on behavior. Researching the wiki. Light clues. The rake is tied to an axe. Dissatisfaction with complex chains. Rate my setting. The last number always has a protector. The doctor isn't playing. The town blocked a good guy. Execution of the town sharpshooter. I won't execute anyone on the first night. Revealing a good guy. Berber. Killed on the first night. Arandor is asking for protection. Modkill. Triple swap. The maniac is useful to the town. An uber-maniac loses on the second day. Obvious. Playing as a team. Hints about roles. You are the mafia, and I am a good guy. Sincerely, Gur. Victory due to luck. Early day closure. Planted clues. Pressure in the database. Paranoia. New ability. Role received. Searching for images for the setting. Fantasy mafia. Newspaper at three in the morning. Vegtam the gamemaster. A wall of revelations. Didn't read ten pages while NNV. NNV on the sixth day. Execute NNV. The mafia always gets caught. Calculating probabilities on paper cards. Minus for a misspelled nickname. Recruiting cannon fodder. Links to the profile. Three open tabs. Low activity. I figured out the roles from the beginning. Killing strong players. Setting with two mafia members. Negative status. All NNs in private messages. The kill failed. The killer dropped a book. Error in counting votes. The player closes the day.

GamaUn, I agree that the GM can resolve any controversial situation. But they also might not. And that's why having such a rule is useful – you don't need to rely on the GM. Moreover, when a player knows there's a rule they're sure to break with their post, they won't do it to avoid getting modkilled. In the case of relying on the GM's decision, a player might decide that they won't be punished. Wouldn't it be better to ensure the quality of the game in advance? For example, I prefer a situation where Ar simply doesn't reveal the status, rather than revealing it and getting modkilled (it's not about the fact that we're on the same team – I wasn't happy about Gur getting modkilled either).

Morni, one more, please. :D

I was already tired of generating that.

In your rosy dreams?

It's obvious. And also, when asked to justify your words, you bury your head in the sand. I was wrong about the camel; I should have written about an ostrich.

I give up, Hos, you're being an idiot.

Brothers – acrobats detected.

I give up, Hos, you're being an idiot.

You still don't understand what I was talking about. You proved it twice in one message. What a mess... And next time, bury yourself completely in the sand – it will be safer.

I remembered an incident with the Sorceress in Might and Magic XII, haha.

I just gave up and accepted defeat; how could I possibly prove anything a second time after that?