Skip to content

Posts from Mafia: general discussions. Auto-translated

5.0 (2 ratings)
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4585
Auto-translated
One way to deceive a town is to pretend to be someone else, which is what Tox did, albeit rather clumsily.
Not entirely correct. This works in psychomafia, but in street mafia, you can't clumsily pretend to be someone else.
If there's a hint and no modkill is received, even a fool will realize that the player pretending to be that role is not actually that role.
I don't know where this came from, but it should be punished in both directions, regardless of whether it's a false reveal or a real reveal.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4586
Auto-translated
This works in psychomafia, but in ulitkomafia, you can't blatantly pretend to be someone else.
Does the moderator forbid it? If the newspaper doesn't clearly show that the mafia player is obviously pretending to be a certain role, and it's also not clear whether that role is definitively claimed by someone else, then it's allowed.
I don't know where this came from, but it should be punished in both directions, regardless of whether it's a false reveal or a real reveal.
A real reveal is already punished with a modkill. A false reveal isn't punished, but it's exposed by the absence of a modkill. Punishing both sides for a reveal is absurd; it's like forbidding the mafia from lying when their survival often depends on it. Punishing only the town for a reveal is stupid for the reason mentioned above, but it's better than nothing. However, in our games, only Tox reveals, while the others play fairly. In my opinion, such ill-conceived punishments are unnecessary, especially since there's a huge difference between a reveal and pretending to be someone. What's next? In the December game with Vistrita, for example, Hostor pretended to be a double-voice, with the help of his team and the misguided town players. A modkill of the team that supposedly revealed a mafia player as a town player during the day to gain an advantage? If someone is so bothered by reveals (of a single player, haha), then you can punish them with external methods: sanctions or exclusion from the next n games, but not with modkill-warnings that ruin the current game.
My sword, my trusted ally, unphased by my aspect.
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4587
Auto-translated
Does the moderator forbid it? If it's not obvious from the game that a player is clearly not playing the role they're pretending to be, and it's also not clear whether they definitively belong to another faction, then it's acceptable.
Okay, so the town reveals its roles, and then, based on the results of the night actions, confirms those reveals.
Punishing both sides for revealing roles is excessive; forbidding the Mafia from lying when their survival often depends on it is also excessive.
It's not about not lying; it's about clearly revealing themselves as another role.
Punishing only the town for revealing roles is foolish for the reasons mentioned above, but it's better than nothing.
It's not better. The rules shouldn't be different for different sides.
However, in our games, only Tox reveals roles; the others play fairly.
Many players reveal their roles to some extent. But if we're talking about Tox's merits, it was he who popularized the practice of fully revealing a town role when it's about to be eliminated.
Is it okay for a team to "modkill" a player who, during the day, supposedly revealed a Mafia member as a townie to gain an advantage? If someone is so bothered by reveals (even if it's just one player, haha), then they can be punished through external methods: sanctions or being excluded from the next n games, but not by "modkilling" or issuing warnings during the current game.
If you like reveals, false reveals, and pretending to be other roles, then go play psychological Mafia; what's the problem?
Don't mix everything together. In evidence-based Mafia, you can use other methods to deal with negativity: framing people with false evidence, using night actions or skipping actions, etc.
The issue here is different: the town should never be allowed to give obvious hints about their roles – this is what really makes it difficult for the Mafia to figure things out.
sanctions or being excluded from the next n games, but not by "modkilling" or issuing warnings during the current game.
Isn't "Adeptus" disruptive to the game?
there's a huge difference between revealing and pretending
In theory, yes. Ideally, if you're pretending to be a role, you should only do it through your own behavior. But it shouldn't involve giving hints.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4588
Auto-translated
Okay, then the town reveals its roles, and then, based on the results of the night actions, confirms its reveals.
Read above.
Not to lie, but to clearly reveal another's role.
Not better. The rules should not differ for different sides.
Of course, they should. They already differ due to the specifics of each side. But, as I wrote in the previous post, they should be well-thought-out, and not result in a modkill for everyone due to the introduction of a new rule.
Many people reveal their role to some extent. But if we are talking about Tox's merits, it was he who started the practice of fully revealing a peaceful role when it is being accused.
Does he reveal his role with "hints"? The moderator cited messages from Tox and Neyra, said that Neyra deserves a penalty, and you disagreed. I also think that she doesn't deserve it, but a modkill is not given for such ambiguous hints. It is given only for the kind of reveal that Tox does, and which no one else resorts to. Well, today there was Orton, a newbie from other forums who made a mistake, that's a big deal. Every game, new players come and are surprised by the local rules. So, I don't know what "started" with Tox, but most players play normally.
If you like reveals, false reveals, and pretending to be other roles, then go play psychological mafia, what's the problem?
Don't mix everything together. In Werewolf, negative actions can be countered in other ways: by framing someone with false evidence, with night actions/skipping actions, etc.
Here, the point is different: the town should not be allowed to give obvious hints about its roles - this is what really makes it difficult for the mafia to confuse things.
You go play psychological mafia if you don't have any problems. But the players do have problems - the inability to come up with normal rules that would work and not cause arguments after the game. Players are constantly coming up with new moves and methods of play, so the rules have to be adapted and expanded, it is wrong to blindly stick to one set of rules. If the mafia also gives "obvious hints," it can successfully deceive the town.
Does "Adept" break the game?
Read above.
In theory, yes. Ideally, if you pretend to be a role by building it only through your own behavior, then why not? But it should have nothing to do with hints.
I didn't understand the thought. If the mafia pretends to be a role, then it doesn't do it randomly, but has several confirmations and interpretations of the move or newspaper in its arsenal, otherwise it will be exposed. So, a hint without proof is worth little, whether it comes from the mafia or a town member. Any town member who naively accepts a hint has every chance of naively making a fool of himself.
It is precisely the fact that the restrictions work in both directions that increases the likelihood that a violation of the rules will not affect the course of the game.
You should also read above.
My sword, my trusted ally, unphased by my aspect.
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4589
Auto-translated
If a Mafia player is pretending to be a certain role, they don't do it randomly.
In this case, that wasn't the case. The only thing Tox was guided by when revealing the role was the status of Hama, in case the Winner checked him (but he didn't). That's how I understood it.
You should also read the previous posts.
Why? It's obvious.
But as I wrote in the previous post, it should be well-thought-out, not just a modkill for the sake of it.
Everything is well-thought-out.
Subtle hints don't work for modkills anyway.
They would be subtle if they could have multiple meanings.
It seems like there's almost no discussion about the Mafia's actions anymore, it's just theory. Maybe we should move it to the discussion section?
 

К А
Стикеры GBF в Telegram
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4590
Auto-translated
Of course, they should. They already differ, considering the specifics of each side. But, as I wrote in the previous post, they should be well-thought-out, not just a modkill for everyone at the expense of introducing them.
No, the rules shouldn't be different for each side. They shouldn't regulate the game balance of the sides; otherwise, it will be detrimental even at the stage of creating the setting.
Ment cited quotes from Tox and Neyra's messages, said that Neyra deserves a punishment, and you disagreed. I also think that she doesn't deserve it, but modkills are not given for such ambiguous hints.
Well, what's wrong with that? No one has given a modkill yet. Ment just called it out.
Read above.
I still don't think that the mafia should be strengthened because of this. It's possible to ban it for the town, but it would be incorrect to allow it for the mafia.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4591
Auto-translated
Maybe we should move this to the discussion section?
Well, I hope Kosha will move it later:)
They would be meaningful if they could have multiple meanings.
No, this kind of thing has a fixed meaning. It just adds to the suspicion. If you're hinting, it should be at something specific. The whole question is how. The posts by Neyra and Tox, which you mentioned, are perfectly normal, except that Tox has "Damn, Winner, should I just come out and get an adept, ruining the game?!" (out-of-game pressure, roughly the same as "I bet his role isn't like that (or is it)?"), which is bad, of course, but it's a different issue.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4592
Auto-translated
The ban on revealing roles implies that revealing roles is prohibited. How can this be interpreted in two ways? Regardless of the side, if a player is prohibited from revealing a role, they shouldn't do it. Anyone. Because it's information either way.
A Town member, a "Khokhol," for example (described below), is revealed by another (strong) role in order to cover it up. Where is the non-revelation here? And it's beneficial.

The rules shouldn't be flexible. It creates double standards. They can't be tailored to different sides, to all sorts of players. And with anyone, even the most bland, there is room for perversions, maneuvers, etc., and the human factor must be taken into account.

A feint is not the same as a reveal. Psychologically, any player who has information, even a little, gives themselves away. In their reasoning, actions, attempts at analysis. One side does this naturally, the other artificially.

Khokhol - a town role. If he is killed, the killer dies along with him.
Все псы попадают в рай



Какие бы законы мы не писали,
нас все равно расстреляют,
если мы проиграем эту войну.
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4593
Auto-translated
Perhaps, but a haircut and a medical examination can provide equally beneficial results.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4594
Auto-translated
A peaceful player, or "Khokhol" (explained below), reveals another (strong) player's role in order to protect them. Where is the "unveiling" here? It's actually beneficial.
In a typical Mafia game, a normal player wouldn't do this because the actual role might think it's a Mafia player, as usually happens. In a psychological Mafia game, this is a good move, even from the Mafia's perspective, as I did in one of the games.

Khokhol - a player. If he doesn't like something, he reveals himself and gets a "modkill."

Be strong. Believe
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4595
Auto-translated
In psychomafia, hinting is not an option because revealing information is allowed.
But where revealing information is prohibited, a player can emphasize something, and this will give them away to other players. No one forbade them from mumbling with their mouth closed.
But a feint doesn't reveal all the cards because there is always more than one interpretation (there is room to maneuver). Revealing information is precise information.
And an artificial feint is a kind of countermeasure from the mafia. They need to circumvent their role. It's a natural thing.

Added 1 minute ago
Orandor, this is an option with flexible rules. "A player reveals themselves with a role that isn't theirs and doesn't get killed, which means it's the mafia." This is what it refers to.
Все псы попадают в рай



Какие бы законы мы не писали,
нас все равно расстреляют,
если мы проиграем эту войну.
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4596
Auto-translated
But the bluff doesn't reveal all the cards, as there is always more than one interpretation (there's room for maneuver).
Actually, there isn't much room for maneuver.
The bluff is checked at night.
But where autopsies are prohibited, the player can emphasize something, and this will give him away to other players. No one prohibited mumbling with a closed mouth.
Yeah, and it turns out that there's a ban, but it's almost non-existent.


Барон
"Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!



In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4597
Auto-translated
Do you think that the role isn't verified during investigations? I'm not saying that everyone should absolutely and unanimously agree and start accusing each other, figuring out the negatives. I'm saying that it's natural. With five people, you can hint at belonging to the same role. Who are you going to investigate? You'll investigate yourself.
Все псы попадают в рай



Какие бы законы мы не писали,
нас все равно расстреляют,
если мы проиграем эту войну.
In reply to Zybr
User Avatar
#4598
Auto-translated
"If a player reveals their role but doesn't get any kills, then they must be Mafia."
In this case, the purpose of revealing for the Mafia is lost, so it's better to either completely prohibit it or allow it for the Mafia, but it will be meaningless for them, as the player doesn't get a modkill, which means they are lying and are a member of the Mafia.

Let's play the new Mafia game.

Be strong. Believe
User Avatar
#4599
Auto-translated
Oh, Orandorets....))
Starting point: A player revealed their role, and they weren't killed - it wasn't their role. But they didn't consider that, besides the mafia, peaceful players can also reveal other players' roles.
Therefore: the ban on revealing roles should be read as "revealing roles is prohibited."
Все псы попадают в рай



Какие бы законы мы не писали,
нас все равно расстреляют,
если мы проиграем эту войну.