wD Mafia Master Post

[dargorygel]

That's what I have

[Jamiet99uk]

I would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.

For reference, I am open to running either:

- Astraight vanilla game

OR

- A 'RHK Special'

with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)

I do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?

[Foxcastle]

I would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.

For reference, I am open to running either:

- Astraight vanilla game

OR

- A 'RHK Special'

with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)

I do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?

I think the idea is that town players have "partial" PRs that they can combine with dead townies to form an active PR. So if you're the empty gun townie, and I'm the bullet townie, and you die, I can inherit your gun and become the Vig and then I get a shot.

[bo_sox48]

That's kinda weird, and probably a bit townsided.

[Jamiet99uk]

That's really weird.

[Chaqa]

Worcej - what's your time frame on M55? I'm thinking of running a Mini-Mafia.

Also, Dargo - we should touch base about setting me up on the peterbot to help with game setup/management

[Jamiet99uk]

Also, I'll just put my name down here as by M58 I think I'll be ready to run another one...

M 55 worcej
M 56 ND
M 57 Kitsune, Chaqa
M 58 Jamiet
M 59 Temasek22, ItsHosuke
M 60 Avengers Ike
M 61 Kitsune, emc
M 62
M 63
M 64
M 65 Kitsune, darg
M 69 Chaqa & EMC & Kitsune

[DemonRHK]

I would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.

For reference, I am open to running either:

- Astraight vanilla game

OR

- A 'RHK Special'

with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)

I do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?

Those were abilities.

The game would start with no PRs at all. groups of three players would be one formable nation. At the end of a phase if two of the three are deaad, the remaining player can "form" and become a PR. Each PR gets a base ability plus one of two additional abilities based on a choice they must submit N1.

In addition, Both sides might get an instant win condition in flavor of the game (That isn't going to fire early you can be sure)

[Jamiet99uk]

I am starting to develop the M58 setup.

Draft flavour: The witch-hunts of Matthew Hopkins, "Witch-finder General".

(If you'd like some early hype for this, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98gzk6VSzfU)

Draft setup: Semi-open, 20 to 22 players.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am starting to develop the M58 setup.

Draft flavour: The witch-hunts of Matthew Hopkins, "Witch-finder General".

(If you'd like some early hype for this, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98gzk6VSzfU)

Draft setup: Semi-open, 20 to 22 players.

For those who are somewhat new to forum Mafia, a semi-open setup is one where a variety of Power Roles are described in the setup, but only some, and not all, of these are present in the game. So for example, the setup might contain role descriptions for a (traditional) Cop, and a Vanilla Cop, and an Item Cop, but not all three of these would actually be in the game.

[damo666]

Hello, webDip Mafia players!

I would like to propose that wD Mafia adopt a Player Code of Conduct into the rules. Nothing fancy, just something like:

"All webDip Mafia participants agree to treat other players with respect, play with good sportsmanship, and refrain from making personal attacks."

The purpose of such a Code is not to give admins, mods or GMs a tool to ban or otherwise punish players. The goal is to have an aspirational vision for how we expect players and the community at large to conduct itself during the game, making it a more fun, inclusive and competitive place as a result.

I've been mulling this over for several months not least because I have acted at times contrary to the spirit of this Code. In the most recent game of mini-mafia, I made a rude and inappropriate remark to another player. I think that the entire player pool should've felt comfortable in saying something to the effect of, "Hey, foodcoats, you need to cool it." I immediately knew what I said was wrong and I don't doubt others felt the same way. Similarly, I've found myself in situations where I was surprised or upset at the behaviour of other players and wondered why we permitted things to get so out of control.

Mafia is a game that naturally leads to hot heads, and this is undoubtedly exacerbated on the Internet with the effects of anonymity and a lack of body language. But much as in academia, politics, or any other arena of competitive debate, ground rules create a better experience for all. Furthermore, this should not be a burden that GMs have to carry on their own: as a community, we need to know the kind of game space we want to foster.

Finally, there are two oft-heard laments here: a lack of new players, and a "toxic" environment. I think this might address both.

My 2

Food has brought this up again in the M55 sign up thread.

In view of the recent spate of rants, ragequits, vile posts etc. it is probably worth having an intelligent discussion about this.

There are many questions:

How do we determine if someone has 'crossed the line'? Mafia council or whatever it's called? Quorum of in game players or any members of the mafia community (however defined)? Other?

Penalties: Expulsion from game(s), suspension, warning, some kind of traffic light (yellow card red card type) system? Other? Who decides?

I'm sure there are lots of other points as well.

Certainly the current trend is making the game far less enjoyable.

Let's discuss.

[Jamiet99uk]

Ok let's discuss.

First of all I am aware that I can come across as an asshole and some people don't like my style. I accept that if a code of conduct came in I would sometimes have to moderate my salty comments towards people.

Having said that, I want to look at some things that happened in the last mini-game:

- Foxcastle fake claimed scum, fakeclaimed the names of his supposed scum team-mates, and pretended to concede, in the thread.

- Bo_Sox had a massive meltdown which he later claimed was some kind of reaction test, in which he called, in the thread, for the GM to replace him. At the same time, in private, he sent a PM to the GM explaining this was all a fake and demanding *not* to be replaced.

- Brainbomb also made (fake) claims about messages from the GM to support his Vengeful Townie fakeclaim.

In the previous big game, Vecna end-hammered on himself, as Town.

So, what Foxcastle did is a violation of Rule 8, what Bo_Sox and Brainbomb did in trying to involve the GM in their fakery is a borderline violation of Rule 6, and what Vecna did in the prior game is a clear violation of Rule 7.

As far as I know none of these people have been banned or sanctioned. I am not necessarily advocating for such sanction, but I think it is relevant to mention these things.

If you are going to have a "Code of Conduct" which includes a commitment to "good sportsmanship", then I think that demands a much stronger commitment to playing by the rules that already currently exists.

Is it "good sportsmanship", for example, to publicly claim in the thread that you want the GM to replace you, whilst also PM-ing the GM to indicate the opposite?

Good sportsmanship means playing by the rules, but it also implies an acceptance that if you don't play by the rules, you accept the sanctions that come with that.

Let's discuss.

[Foxcastle]

I did not publicly concede, in any way. It is impossible for town to publicly concede by claiming to be scum.

And more to the point, I want to draw a clear bright line between a few things up for debate here.

--- Fakeclaiming (even fakeclaiming to be scum), self-hammering, or similar tactics should not be against the rules. It's entirely in-game and can be processed by players in the context of the game. And I understand you don't like it, Jamiet, but it's entirely within the scope of gameplay, and there are plenty of cases where fakeclaiming scum or a PR, self-voting and even self-hammering, or any number of other suicidal approaches could be good play that absolutely could advance a townie's win condition. If a GM feels that a player is going outside the spirit of the rules, they can intervene as they see fit, but there is no reasonable way to judge whether players are sufficiently advancing their win condition and GMs should not be under any obligation to try to divine the intention behind a player's actions and intervene.

---Invoking the GM for game purposes should be against the rules, and GMs should be more active to intervene and wave off players who are going down that road. If Bo claims he's going to ask to be replaced or if Brainbomb is going to talk about PMs or about how the game is some kind of secret-closed-setup outside the stated setup, then GMs should tell them to knock it off. That's not about a code of conduct, it's about GMs being willing to step in.

---What foodcoats and damo are actually talking about is abusive language. "Coming across as an asshole" and "salty" are not a problem. Devolving into abusive, vicious attacks on other players is a problem. Jamiet, you are one of the worst offenders on that front, particularly when it comes to Brainbomb. It takes away from the game, it makes people want to stop reading the thread. It probably drives away new players who don't to get involved in a community with so much toxicity, it certainly seems to have driven away veteran players who are tired of it.

This isn't about rules compliance. It's about players who cannot control themselves and bring their behavior into range of basic decency.

[brainbomb]

it was only a matter of time before jamie tried to start getting people banned. its what he does openly in every game.

[Jamiet99uk]

Hi Foxcastle thanks for your points.

...there is no reasonable way to judge whether players are sufficiently advancing their win condition and GMs should not be under any obligation to try to divine the intention behind a player's actions and intervene.

Is it therefore your view that the current Rule 7 should be removed, on the basis that it is impossible to enforce?

Invoking the GM for game purposes should be against the rules, and GMs should be more active to intervene and wave off players who are going down that road. If Bo claims he's going to ask to be replaced or if Brainbomb is going to talk about PMs or about how the game is some kind of secret-closed-setup outside the stated setup, then GMs should tell them to knock it off. That's not about a code of conduct, it's about GMs being willing to step in.

I think we're in complete agreement on this.

---What foodcoats and damo are actually talking about is abusive language. "Coming across as an asshole" and "salty" are not a problem. Devolving into abusive, vicious attacks on other players is a problem. Jamiet, you are one of the worst offenders on that front, particularly when it comes to Brainbomb. It takes away from the game, it makes people want to stop reading the thread. It probably drives away new players who don't to get involved in a community with so much toxicity, it certainly seems to have driven away veteran players who are tired of it.

Where is the line here, and who is to draw it?

While I have at times regretted my words, I have on multiple occasions been on the receiving end of personal abuse from Vecna, Bo_Sox, Ghug, Brainbomb and others, and I remember a time not that long ago when RagingIke wanted to stop playing a game I was GM-ing because he felt Durga was being deeply personally abusive towards him.

I agree there may be an issue here and I am happy for this discussion to be taking place. But asking who is to police this "code of conduct" is a serious question because I guarantee that there will be people who will test its limits.

[Jamiet99uk]

it was only a matter of time before jamie tried to start getting people banned. its what he does openly in every game.

I am absolutely not trying to do that. I am contributing to a debate.

This post from you illustrates perfectly to me, how you are part of the problem we currently have.

[Jamiet99uk]

I even specifically said I was not advocating for people to be banned or sanctioned.

Yet suddenly here is Brainbomb with "oh here is Jamie trying to get people banned uhuh"

Jesus. No wonder I get annoyed with this shit.

[Foxcastle]

...there is no reasonable way to judge whether players are sufficiently advancing their win condition and GMs should not be under any obligation to try to divine the intention behind a player's actions and intervene.

Is it therefore your view that the current Rule 7 should be removed, on the basis that it is impossible to enforce?

I don't think it particularly matters. GMs need to have a basis to deal with players who are doing things against the spirit of the game. I think there are plenty of provisions that give them that cover elsewhere in the rules. But it's not like any of these rules helped us deal with a recent episode where a player refused to acknowledge the authority of the GMs and had to be dealt with by the mods. I like to think that the community would accept a GM's decision, but it's really up to the GM of the next game, and we're a bunch of softies, because if we start making people sit games out for minor stuff that's not really a problem, then nobody will manage to fill a large game.

---What foodcoats and damo are actually talking about is abusive language. "Coming across as an asshole" and "salty" are not a problem. Devolving into abusive, vicious attacks on other players is a problem. Jamiet, you are one of the worst offenders on that front, particularly when it comes to Brainbomb. It takes away from the game, it makes people want to stop reading the thread. It probably drives away new players who don't to get involved in a community with so much toxicity, it certainly seems to have driven away veteran players who are tired of it.

Where is the line here, and who is to draw it?

While I have at times regretted my words, I have on multiple occasions been on the receiving end of personal abuse from Vecna, Bo_Sox, Ghug, Brainbomb and others, and I remember a time not that long ago when RagingIke wanted to stop playing a game I was GM-ing because he felt Durga was being deeply personally abusive towards him.

I agree there may be an issue here and I am happy for this discussion to be taking place. But asking who is to police this "code of conduct" is a serious question because I guarantee that there will be people who will test its limits.

The line is where other people feel uncomfortable, including those who are on the sidelines of the exchange. I have often felt uncomfortable with some of the worse attacks that have been lobbed (both by you, Jamiet, and at you). But I haven't felt like wading into the thread to try to get the players involved to stop would do anything or be helpful.

To some extent, we have to be self-policing as the game goes. Players need to be able to ask others to tone it down, and have some expectation that those who are being asked will make some kind of effort to do so. GMs need to be more willing to ask players to calm down or take a break, and be able to do so without being accused of interfering with the game. And players who take the approach that being vicious (often trying to pass it off as "asshole") is part of how they play the game need to find a different way.

[brainbomb]

I can go back and find posts where you accuse me of cheating, and find posts where you tell vecna never to sign up again

then when I got modkilled for unvoting you acvused me again of cheating. called me tl be banned. sent degrading pms to me accusing me of lying about not knowing the unvote rule after i was dead

[brainbomb]

Sent: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:17 pm
From: Jamiet99uk
Recipient: brainbomb

What? That you're not allowed to end the phase on "unvote"?

That's been a rule for at least the last 20 games.

You have played in multiple games with that rule.

It's in the text of the standard "must vote" rule. Rule 1. That's why "no lynch" is allowed, but ending on "unvote" is not permitted.

Seriously this has been a well established rule for several years. It predates the new forum.

I don't know what is wrong with you.