Posts from Mafia: general discussions. Auto-translated

Where are the words about a specific game?

But it’s clear that the pressure is really on with this one.

Because in normal games, there’s 0-1 reveal, but here there are at least two.

Similar discussions and comments arose during previous investigations, and they always happen. What's so special about this one? However, since this is happening repeatedly, it makes sense to make the rules stricter.

Two cups of tea for Neire.

Added 25 minutes later
I have a suggestion.

Whoever is caught cheating receives a reduced chance of triggering a Night Detective (ND) for the entire next game (not the next game that will be held, but the next game they sign up for!). In the case of indirect cheating (Dag), let's say it's 50%, and in the case of direct cheating (Orton), it's 25%.

And the cheater has two options. Either they get offended with the entire forum and stop playing altogether, or they honestly serve their punishment throughout the entire next game and rejoin the ranks of normal, honest players.

I don't think anyone would enjoy sitting through all the Mafia games with almost no chance of being the Night Detective.

I have an even better suggestion. Let's tell the rule-breaker, "Well, that wasn't very nice, please don't do that again."
And the rule-breaker has two options. Either he gets offended with the entire forum and stops playing altogether, or he honestly accepts the punishment and rejoins the ranks of normal, honest players.

You, as someone who doesn't play Mafia, wouldn't understand what it means to be deprived of Non-Disclosure.

Whoever gets caught cheating receives a reduced chance of triggering a negative event in the next game (not the next tournament, but the next game they sign up for!). In the case of indirect cheating (Dag), it's 50%, let's say, and with direct cheating (Orton), it's 25%.

You recently argued that a team shouldn't be penalized because of one player. But a failed negative event trigger is also a penalty for the team. And the percentage is just a matter of chance.

Well, I guess I'll chime in too. I wouldn't consider Dag's "reveal" as such, even if he really was Vader. It was just an unsubstantiated claim, like saying "I'm a peaceful guy." But with Orton, it's a different story. We need to figure out how to handle these "reveals":smile32:

Well, Zubr, 25% chance of a Night Detective on one player is still better than a 25% chance of a Night Detective on everyone, even if it's just for one night. During that one night, the Mafia can do just about anything, and the player could be eliminated in the first or second day.

Since you don't play Mafia, you won't understand what it means to be deprived of Non-Disclosure.

If I played Mafia, people would say that I'm biased.

It should be forbidden to make any direct or indirect references to one's own role and the roles of other players, regardless of their authenticity. This includes unsubstantiated shouts like "He's Mafia! I'm a Town member." :D

I wouldn't consider Dag's "reveal" as such, even if he really was Vader. It was just an unproven statement, like "I'm peaceful." But with Orton, it's a different story. We need to figure out how to deal with these reveals.:smile32:

That was an indirect false reveal. I wasn't going to modkill for that. But Orton acted rudely.

The punishment for revealing should be made stricter, as this is not the first case. This means that the previous punishment – a modkill – does not have the desired effect. Additional sanctions against the violator will not change the situation, as the player reveals information for the sake of the team; their top priority is victory. Therefore, collective responsibility should be introduced, which will make the probability of victory more difficult. Of course, the severity of the punishment should vary depending on the situation.

The world without Neutral Buildings is the strongest role.

It was an indirect false accusation. I wasn't going to modkill for that.

I wanted to say that such behavior shouldn't be punished at all. So someone shouted, "Oh, you're all like that, I'm going to switch to the Mafia..." or "Oh, you're hanging me? Aren't you afraid that I'll buy an executioner and kill you all with a triple kill?":D Where is the basis for taking such things seriously, even if the person shouting is actually who they claim to be? But if there's an argument, like "Yesterday, I went to so-and-so and found out this and that," then I agree that it should be punished, and punished severely. However, all sorts of "self-defeats" and the like are too much. I think a modkill and ending the day without an execution is quite good. -1 world + a surviving Mafia member is not better for the town than an execution by mistake. You could also add a random night defense penalty to the town, just to make it even worse.;)