wD Mafia Master Post

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:44 pm

If you are saying that what I did was inapporpriate and you dont want to play in a community where a GM would protect their game then I may very well have to rethink if id ever want to GM at all.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:42 pm

The player in question got modkilled and then banned from the forum.

Are you saying I acted inappropriately in randing my setup by excluding a sample of my 3 where he was a Pr?

Are you saying I acted inappropriately in failing to anticipate he would screenshot his role pm and then get himself banned from webdip?

Was I supposed to “know” that would happen and this be able to deny his enrollment

I thought there was a chance given his flaking he would need to be subbed but never. Anything that egregious.

From my point of view I saved my game from damages.

by **FlaviusAetius** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:46 pm

Mafia is a social game, if you cant play nice in the sandbox, then it should not diminish the game experience of everyone. Which would happen when we know GM's are using outside considerations to make sure certain kinds of people have certain kinds of roles.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:39 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 1:50 pm
Now, as far as a solution to the perplextiy problem. The GMs can refuse a player to play, and in the past these actions have been toxic and met with backlash. It is alot of drama. It is bad publicity, and it reflects poorly on the community to have to publicly tell a player they cant play. As we have seen even with this current issue happening there is a herd mentality here. "US" vs the "GM", or "US vs the "Kouncil" and it spreads like wildfire. it becomes easy and fun and popular to rush to the defense of some thing.

A gm tells someone they cant play, and a flood of people rush to join the disenfranchised person: "if he cant play then im not playing either", "why isnt he allowed to play why are you denying someone from playing".

And of course there is also the opposite "why is he being allowed to play he should be banned", "if he plays im not singing up, nope, not dealing with that".

A GMs game should not become a forum for exacting players personal desires for retribution upon other players. Our job as a GM is to act as a recruiter, a creator, an administrator, a judge, and a caretaker. We have plenty of duties. Deciding on if a player is maybe too unethical to allow to play when they maybe dont even have a formal sanction from the kouncil is going to create toxic drama and negativity, right smack in the middle of when the GM is just trying their heart out to fill their player lists.

As such, I am opposed to the GM telling people they cant play as any solution to how to avoid reranding a setup, or handpicking a rand that causes less damage. I still think this falls under the GM may make these decisions as needed in extreme situations clause.

The only other solution would be the kouncil can bar players from playing who they feel would complicate things.

The only person this level of authority was enacted on was chippeerock who the ban for signups when even above the kouncil, and became an issue for the actual moderation team of webdip, saying he would not be allowed to post or try to signup in these games.

I havent heard someone suggest how to create a fair and drama free system for this. but I also am aware there have been mafia invitational games where only certain players were permitted to sign up, and that was also somewhat shitty as it created cliques within the community of "acceptable" player types, and left out people who were basically just degenerate in their play style. I of course was not invited to that game, and I think doing games like that should probably just be done somewhere else or on a discord, and not meant to make people feel unwelcomed.

thoughts?

I am not suggesting that GMs ban players or ask players not to play. I am saying that allowing someone to play, but only on the condition that they get a certain role or faction is a poor solution and has the potential to break or diminish the game. I think that if we allow someone to play, it should be on the same terms as every other player. If it isn’t, it injects GM preference into the role sorting process in a way that goes against the spirit and object of the game.

As for other solutions to toxic players or blood feuds, I think that’s outside the scope of the issue I wanted to raise — that player-roll assignments should be random.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:30 pm

@brainbomb, on Monday you posted the quote below. Just seems very different from the idea that you create three rands and pick randomly between them.

I think this discussion shows there are pretty significant differences in how people think players should be assigned to roles and it would be a good idea to have some guidance.

I am already shuttering at the idea of playing a game where it would be helpful to do research on the GM and on what sorts of role assignments seem okay with them and what sorts do not. Do they allow super new, quiet or controversial players to be strong PRs? Do they allow people with known public animosity to be on a mafia team together? Do they seem to make sure teams are balanced in terms of experience and activity?

My position is that none of this should be part of any game and GM-preference in role assignment is the wrong way to approach the edge-case problems that have been mentioned here.

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:39 pm
As was stated in discord, I think the following opinions reflect responsible GMing standards that are intended to provide the least amount of handpicking or tampering.

I support where a GM gets either 1-2 adjustments, or up to 3 rng rolls
-brainbomb

I will admit i have fully rerolled setups in very rare cases if I find it would be detrimental to a solid game. But I think randomness in role assignment is a cornerstone in mafia and if it isn't officially a rule it should probably be
for example when all mafia and PRs are very new players
-Chaqa

It's going to be a bit of a trade secret for each person
-Chaqa

I've re-rolled when 3/4 members of a scum team were all new players because I didn't think the game quality would be good. Otherwise I stick to my dice rolls
-Worcej

I would never reroll
I think the GM is providing the game. The scum provide the hunt. And rerolling adds a mess of a guess
-Bunnygo

I don't, but if I did, I'd lie about it. Lol
-Eden

Officially, you shouldn't be rerolling if you see something wrong and the assumption is that most GMs aren't, but obviously nobody knows what you're doing, so just keep it that way
What we don't want is a situation where someone can say "well, ghug is GM, so I know that the whole scumteam isn't new/inactive/his lovers/whatever"
- ghug

I think the consensus is, its impossible to police this because the GM can just claim everything is random. I think there is a justifiable methodology not in rerolling but in giving yourself up to three roles, then rnging which one of those three occurs. or allowing a GM to make an adjustment where they see fit for either what roles ended up in the setup or for which players end up as which. But it is just unspoken and never revealed if this happened or not.

Overall, this is a non issue until someone thinks this was an issue. And there is again never going to be a way to verify someone did something unethical.

the only way to enforce this would be that a kouncil member must always be the one to randomize the setup for the GM and take the GM entirely out of it. Then you would need a kouncil member to oversee the kouncil member who rolls it to ensure they also didnt alter anything.

Seems unecessary right? just set a standard of dont ask dont tell

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:50 pm

Now, as far as a solution to the perplextiy problem. The GMs can refuse a player to play, and in the past these actions have been toxic and met with backlash. It is alot of drama. It is bad publicity, and it reflects poorly on the community to have to publicly tell a player they cant play. As we have seen even with this current issue happening there is a herd mentality here. "US" vs the "GM", or "US vs the "Kouncil" and it spreads like wildfire. it becomes easy and fun and popular to rush to the defense of some thing.

A gm tells someone they cant play, and a flood of people rush to join the disenfranchised person: "if he cant play then im not playing either", "why isnt he allowed to play why are you denying someone from playing".

And of course there is also the opposite "why is he being allowed to play he should be banned", "if he plays im not singing up, nope, not dealing with that".

A GMs game should not become a forum for exacting players personal desires for retribution upon other players. Our job as a GM is to act as a recruiter, a creator, an administrator, a judge, and a caretaker. We have plenty of duties. Deciding on if a player is maybe too unethical to allow to play when they maybe dont even have a formal sanction from the kouncil is going to create toxic drama and negativity, right smack in the middle of when the GM is just trying their heart out to fill their player lists.

As such, I am opposed to the GM telling people they cant play as any solution to how to avoid reranding a setup, or handpicking a rand that causes less damage. I still think this falls under the GM may make these decisions as needed in extreme situations clause.

The only other solution would be the kouncil can bar players from playing who they feel would complicate things.

The only person this level of authority was enacted on was chippeerock who the ban for signups when even above the kouncil, and became an issue for the actual moderation team of webdip, saying he would not be allowed to post or try to signup in these games.

I havent heard someone suggest how to create a fair and drama free system for this. but I also am aware there have been mafia invitational games where only certain players were permitted to sign up, and that was also somewhat shitty as it created cliques within the community of "acceptable" player types, and left out people who were basically just degenerate in their play style. I of course was not invited to that game, and I think doing games like that should probably just be done somewhere else or on a discord, and not meant to make people feel unwelcomed.

thoughts?

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:44 pm

Thanks for the clarification brain.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:36 pm

I was talking to sweetandcool last night and it occurred to me that this whole dialogue began as a result of some things I said that lacked clarity. Specifically when I said I make 1-2 adjustments, or that I rand the setup 3 times.

What my system entails is I take the list and make three rolls. the adjustments are having the two extra rolls. As was previously mentioned there was only one time ever where a person with severe character issues signed up for a game and I took measures to protect the game by just choosing 2 rands where he was VT. this was however a 1 off scenario.

In all other scenarios, I would rand the setup 3 times and then go to my co gm and ask them to pick 1 2 or 3. they would not be told what was in the rand, and they would not see what they were picking.

So in this case, you were saying I was handpicking which of the three I wanted, what I was actually doing was having my co gm blind pick what rand we are going with. the only handpicking was in the one instance where one of the rands was thrown out that had a problem player put into an important role. the result was forced to make him a vt on the other two rands, not by handpicking but literally by the rand itself.

The other examples of times where this happened was a game where worcej was my co gm, I randed the setup and realized that enrollment was so abysmally low for magic the gathering mafia, that only 10 players had signed up. So I asked worcej to play instead. and the game was able to be 11 players, and we reranded as a result to get more players into the game.

I think what you guys are asking for is well intentioned, but I also think that you are trying to apply a hard rule on top of everything even though you have all accepted there should also be other types of rands, and that it should be part of the setup. In the end, the GM should be the ultimate authority over their own game, its setup, and its responsibly administered rand.

This debate was caused by a joke I made in postgame of M88, one which implied I am handpicking the way my setup randomizes and then moving people around. What my comment about adjustments means is there are three rands, and then they are randomly picked from without much concern for the result. to avoid me handpicking, and to incorporate my co gm being part of the process, this has always been the final step was them to pick a random number.

I hope this clears the confusion up and explains my system better? ive been very confused last few days wondering why any of this was even an issue, and I think this is probably why.

by **DiplomacyandWarfare** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:49 am

Werewolf and Mafia both fall into damo's hat of secret role games. Personally, "Werewolf" reminds me of either Ultimate Werewolf or One Night Ultimate Werewolf, but as far as forum games go they're mostly a choice of flavor.

by **kingofthepirates** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:45 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:22 am

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.
I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)
You seem to be agreeing with me.

Pardon me, my brain seems to be a jumbled mess. Yes, your math is mathing. I misread it as 2380 scum teams needing rerolling and skipped over the 5 bit all together. I will now proceed to excuse myself and wallow in embarrassment due to my lack of paying attention and/or sight…

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:22 am

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.
I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)

You seem to be agreeing with me.

by **kingofthepirates** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.

I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am

To put things in perspective I just thought I'd explore how rare a reroll due to an all new player scumteam actually is and its affect.

Let's assume a 13 town v 4 scum game with 5 new players signed up (which in itself is pretty unlikely - but includes say 4 new + 1 notorious lurker/flaker).

There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.

From a town player's pov (who is not one of the 5) it reduces the number of possible scumteams from 1820 to 1815 or 1 in 364.

From the pov of one of the 5 themselves it reduces the number of possible scumteams from 1820 to 1819.

Obviously if there were only 4 new/lurkys the chances are even tinier.

Conclusion: it's not significant.

@Bunny check my arithmetic please.

by **sweetandcool** » Wed May 22, 2024 9:20 am

colborn wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 5:07 am
I have a small question about Mafia then: on the first turn I see people often call out "obvscums" – is that simply guesses to start the conversation or is there somehow some way of actually feeling it?

I feel like in this community we don't throw that term around very much during the first day. However, to answer your question, I would say that sometimes it's intuition based on previous experiences, that can lead a player to correctly guess the alignment of another player. Or it can be a reaction test, to cause some drama in the game to see how players react.

If you are interested in our community, I recommend reading through some of our last game, to get a feel for what it is like playing Mafia on this forum: https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5389

Or you can dive straight into playing and experience it firsthand: https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5443

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 8:33 am

dargorygel wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 11:38 pm
Rest assured that the Kouncil, new and older, are considering, reading, discussing, pondering, and rolling random numbers: a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

And if we don't like the answer we roll again....

by **colborn** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:09 am

Looked around online to be sure and it seems that most people think Werewolf and Mafia are basically the same:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/2989/game-werewolf-mafia
https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/4a3ktt/mafia_vs_werewolf/

by **colborn** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:07 am

I have a small question about Mafia then: on the first turn I see people often call out "obvscums" – is that simply guesses to start the conversation or is there somehow some way of actually feeling it?

by **colborn** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:06 am

As for gaming here, I'm a high school teen and my parents don't like Diplomacy, so lol I'm playing Gunboat practice against the bots but am afraid of getting busted and computer banned and missing turns for games with real people. Later if things change I'll be super excited to play.

by **colborn** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:04 am

dargorygel wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 4:13 am
@colborn (or colbot)

Welcome to webdip... are you playing any games yet?

The thread you are writing is is dedicated to Mafia. Many of us have played werewolf, but are playing mafia here, based out of this thread, dedicated to mafia, with tradition and infrastructure built around that game. We do not see it as luck oriented, but rather deduction and induction.

If you desire to start a forum werewolf game, feel free to do it on the forum game section of the forum.

Also, are you a bot?

Hi! I'm not a bot. I wasn't aware of the difference between Mafia and Werewolf and thought the latter is just a specific setting based on the former, so assumed this is the right place to come to for proposing a Werewolf game. Sorry for disturbing you guys, then.

by **dargorygel** » Wed May 22, 2024 4:13 am

@colborn (or colbot)

Welcome to webdip... are you playing any games yet?

The thread you are writing is is dedicated to Mafia. Many of us have played werewolf, but are playing mafia here, based out of this thread, dedicated to mafia, with tradition and infrastructure built around that game. We do not see it as luck oriented, but rather deduction and induction.

If you desire to start a forum werewolf game, feel free to do it on the forum game section of the forum.

Also, are you a bot?

wD Mafia Master Post

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post