Mafia: general discussions. — Mafia

Nyashechka Kavai

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I remembered a case with the Sorceress in game 12, haha.

Wow, I thought no one would remember that. Compare that case to yours, haha.

Added 1 minute ago

I surrendered to the mercy of the debater, how could I prove anything a second time after that?

And what do you think can be proven after foolishly losing in a foolishly started argument?

Happy Life

15 years ago

Auto-translated

What a fool I am. I still don't understand anything! :smile05:

Added 3 minutes later
Basically, I gave an example from previous games. I don't understand at all what you're talking about,

Moderated: USE OF OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE in the message

you're spouting some nonsense, looking for proof for him, as if I have nothing else to do but dig through old topics. Those who played remember. Then you twisted my example to suit yourself and accused me of losing some argument. What's going on?

Arandor

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't remember what happened in that Mafia, but I do remember that some people were against modding.

Nyashechka Kavai

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Essentially, I gave an example from previous games. I don't understand what you're talking about at all.
Moderated: INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE in message
You're spouting some nonsense and asking me to find proof, as if I don't have anything better to do than to dig through old threads.

Take a break; you've already said you're not interested in this.

Happy Life

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Ah yes, in that same argument, he said: "I won't prove anything, simply because that's how it is, camel and humps." Good argumentation, in short. I don't know, Hoss, what you were even trying to achieve, what are you talking about? Some random stories.

Added 1 minute later
Correct. Don't forget to ignore the last declarative sentence of post #1071, and also what was written above, latching onto the only straw "you said you weren't interested."

Nyashechka Kavai

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Correct. Don't forget to ignore the last declarative sentence in post #1071, as well as what was written above, focusing only on the single straw: "you said you weren't interested."

Did you dig it up? Congratulations. Now, for those who were playing in the sandbox.

Essentially, I provided an example from previous games.

Some random nonsense.

These quotes refer to the same thing because there is absolutely no specific information from you. I don't care about your statement "EVERYONE DID IT, BUT IT WAS FINE!" until you provide evidence. So, digging up old topics is your problem. What's important to me is that no one wastes time in this thread.

Ple-Sen

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Can this forum go even just one day without trolling?

Happy Life

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I could just as easily claim that Archik's outburst was perfectly valid and in line with the rules, and what would you say to that? He didn't reveal himself, he didn't disclose his role. There haven't been any similar punishable precedents before.
When a Mafia player says during a vote, "town, I'm innocent!!! you'll make a huge mistake if you vote me out" (and you wouldn't demand proof for that, would you?), would you accuse him of revealing his role? It's the same situation, but Archik was at least thoroughly investigated. Or is only lying allowed? And if he tells the truth, is he immediately "modkilled" because it makes the game easier for the town?

Nyashechka Kavai

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I could just as easily claim that Archik's outburst was perfectly valid, in line with the rules, and that you wouldn't be able to argue against it. He didn't reveal himself, he didn't reveal his role. There haven't been any similar punishable precedents before.
When a Mafia player says during the execution, "town, I'm innocent!!! you'll make a huge mistake if you execute me" (and you wouldn't demand proof for such cases, lol?), would you accuse him of revealing his role? It's the same situation, but at least Archik was thoroughly investigated. Or is only lying allowed? And truth gets met with a modkill, because it makes the game easier for the town?

In all of this, you're missing the point that status is an element of the role, and revealing an element of the role is comparable to revealing the role itself. There's also a confusion of concepts: "I'm innocent," "he's Mafia" - this is an indication of affiliation, and its unargued (and even if argued, it's based on publicly available information) publication is permissible; "my status is the same as potentially-revealed Zeliboba" - this is an indication of role elements, which is not allowed regardless of its truthfulness.

Happy Life

15 years ago

Auto-translated

An unsubstantiated and unsupported claim of “I’m a peaceful player, he’s the Mafia!” is equivalent to an unsubstantiated and unsupported claim of “I have this role, and he has that role!”.

In reply to Werevolka

Registr

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Regarding the proposed rule changes, I believe that nothing should be changed. The rules already cover everything.

16. It is forbidden to reveal one's own/another player's role, or its elements, as well as any information obtained about it, in public places or among players who are not in the same group as you. The same applies to information about other players. Phrases like "well, I also know something about him that I can't say" are a violation, regardless of whether you actually know something or are lying.
Statements like "I checked," "according to my information, which I cannot disclose," "I know for sure," etc., are prohibited. Unsubstantiated shouts like "he's MAFIA!" or "I'm INNOCENT!" are allowed.
To avoid violating this rule, try to express your thoughts as assumptions or as an IMHO, based, for example, on clues or behavior.
It is allowed to refer to the rules, the GM, your own posts, or the posts of other players, as well as to any external sources where you found information about the clues.

I have highlighted the key points. That is, the current rules prohibit revealing elements of one's role. As I understand it, the elements of a role are its special abilities, role characteristics, and its status. It doesn't matter whether the revelation is true or false. Statements like "guys, I'm innocent!!! you'll make a huge mistake if you execute me" or "aaa, it's obvious, you're mafia!" are currently allowed by the rules. Therefore, I believe that nothing needs to be changed, except perhaps to clearly define what constitutes the elements of a role. The responsibility for enforcing this and other rules lies with the game master. In this situation, the game master decided that this violation did not warrant a modkill, so that is the case. In fact, he considered the violation to be minor. And according to this rule, there should be no modkill for a single minor violation.

14. A modkill (in rare cases - a replacement) is performed:
- in the case of a serious violation of the rules or a repeated minor violation;

If I were the GM, I would do exactly the same. I would limit myself to a warning.

Zybr

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I agree with GamaUn; the GM should handle such situations themselves. There's no need to change the rules every time, especially not by making them stricter.

kcfgogbfalgfl

15 years ago

Auto-translated

In such situations, the GM can at most issue a modkill, but they are unable to prevent the consequences.

Gil4

For example, I prefer a situation where Ar simply doesn't reveal the status, rather than one where he does reveal it and receives a modkill.

I completely agree with this.

Zybr

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Gets a modkill and doesn't get caught a second time. And if you don't allow modkills, what's the point of banning everything else according to the rules?

Gil4

15 years ago

Auto-translated

The GM can only punish a player for a violation. The rules, however, prevent these violations. That's the whole difference. Let's recall Arandor's words...

Arandor

Why would I be against it? I'm not even going to argue. I don't really care about the rules in general. If they're adopted, fine, the main thing is that they're clear, and then I won't do it again, but there weren't any clear rules here, so...

As you can see, Ar himself admits that he used this tactic only because of the "vagueness of the rules." Therefore, the rules need to be changed. I'm not criticizing the fact that Nebo limited himself to a warning; not at all – he's the GM, and it's up to him to decide. But even if the GM uses a modkill in a similar situation, it won't erase the burned-out information from the players' memories. Furthermore, a modkill will affect the current balance. This is what I'm talking about: punishment, but not prevention. And if you also consider this a minor violation... it turns out that anyone can use this tactic once. Then, stricter rules? And where in the version of the rules I proposed is there stricter enforcement? Is it a ban on burning out role elements? But in the original sixteenth rule, this was already prohibited. There is no stricter enforcement there; it's the same rule, just rewritten in a more clearly formulated manner. So that players don't rely on the vagueness to say, "I'm not breaking any rules." And note that I said this is just a draft, and I'm waiting for suggestions. At the same time, despite the fact that the essence of the rules is the same, many want to keep the old version. But what's the point? Wouldn't it be better to ensure a quality game? So that players don't violate the rules just because this time it probably won't be noticed. If you see stricter enforcement there, just say so, and we'll discuss it (for example, the ambiguity). That's not a problem.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Mafia: general discussions.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 4 users 1257 guests

Today's Visitors 21