Mafia XXXIV Signups

If you have a game you want to play on the forum, you can do so here.
Forum rules
This is an area for forum games. Please note that to support mafia games players cannot edit their own posts in this forum. Off Topic threads will be relocated or deleted. Issues taking place in forum games should be dealt with by respective game GMs and escalated to the moderators only if absolutely necessary.
Message
Author
jmo1121109
Developer
Developer
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 2839
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#41 Post by jmo1121109 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:55 pm

There are a variety of options that can be altered for this specific category. I'll defer to the mafia council here...if that's a real thing and someone can tell me who's on it...and can make adjustments based on their request. Quick Replies for example are a 1 button press for me to enable. Not everything is possible, but ask if something would help the game go smoothly.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 315
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#42 Post by peterlund » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:41 pm

Anyhow I need an answer from HR the GM in this game if he wants to count ##VOTE from inside a block quote or not. I will fix my bot accordingly...

I though though that it was obvious that this was a quote and not your own vote so that is why I initially implemented it not to count those votes since that is not the vote of the user making the quote.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 315
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#43 Post by peterlund » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:42 pm

though thought...

Durga
Posts: 7265
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 1680

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#44 Post by Durga » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:02 pm

I wouldn't make the bot count votes in the quote box, that's just silly.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 16527
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 7433
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#45 Post by Jamiet99uk » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:34 pm

@DemonOverlord:

But that's what's happened in all previous games...

That is, when you cut and pasted someone else's post, and it had a vote in it, if you left the "##" in place, that would get counted as your vote.

Some players use this strategically to move their vote and make it look like an accident.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 16527
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 7433
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#46 Post by Jamiet99uk » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:35 pm

Also, this isn't really about whether the *bot* should count them - it's whether the GM should.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 522
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#47 Post by TrPrado » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:38 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:34 pm
@Durga:

But that's what's happened in all previous games...

That is, when you cut and pasted someone else's post, and it had a vote in it, if you left the "##" in place, that would get counted as your vote.

Some players use this strategically to move their vote and make it look like an accident.
And if someone uses cut and paste to quote someone for some reason that could still happen that way. A quote button is easier for a GM to read and ignore than all on the same white background on the old forum.

Durga
Posts: 7265
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 1680

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#48 Post by Durga » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:55 pm

TrPrado wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:38 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:34 pm
@Durga:

But that's what's happened in all previous games...

That is, when you cut and pasted someone else's post, and it had a vote in it, if you left the "##" in place, that would get counted as your vote.

Some players use this strategically to move their vote and make it look like an accident.
And if someone uses cut and paste to quote someone for some reason that could still happen that way. A quote button is easier for a GM to read and ignore than all on the same white background on the old forum.
If there's a player using that as their strategy they should probably quit lol - I've never seen someone actually want to change their vote like that. Just seems like a hindrance, and plus if we establish that votes in the quote do not work as valid votes then it should be fine. The issue on the old forum was that it was all one big block of text, whereas this is very clearly defined - as TrPrado points out.

VashtaNeurotic
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:34 am
Karma: 16

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#49 Post by VashtaNeurotic » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:28 pm

Do we really need the ##Vote thing anymore given that we can

bold, underline, italicize or change the font color. Or can the bot not accommodate those?

VashtaNeurotic
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:34 am
Karma: 16

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#50 Post by VashtaNeurotic » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:28 pm

Oh and

1. DemonRHK (RHK)
2. Foxcastle
3. ND
4. bozo
5. Ezio
6.rdrivera2005
7.yavuzovic
8.Rjmcf
9. peterlund
10. Jamiet99uk
11.Reedeer1
12. Brainbomb
13. Vash
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 315
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#51 Post by peterlund » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:53 pm

Of course the method of voting could change but I am afraid that any change only would confuse players. I (and I guess most others) would prefer to .keep to the old ##VOTE style. It is also probably simpler to put in 2 # instead of learning how to underline or bold some text.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 522
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#52 Post by TrPrado » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:44 pm

It’s also easier for GM’s to search for votes if they can just Ctrl+F for ## to figure out the votes.

Hellenic Riot
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:28 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Karma: 829

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#53 Post by Hellenic Riot » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:09 am

Whilst I'm open to ideas on the vote thing, I do think embracing the new forum and its features is a good idea. Not counting votes inside a block quote seems like the logical way to go here.

VashtaNeurotic
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:34 am
Karma: 16

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#54 Post by VashtaNeurotic » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:31 am

I mean, I was thinking of just using a different set aside a bolded font color. That would be useful to the casual viewer who is scrolling through. The entire reason we had the control F thing was because it was hard to parse the text of posts.

Durga
Posts: 7265
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 1680

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#55 Post by Durga » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:51 am

Agreed. I feel like bold would be nice

Durga
Posts: 7265
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 1680

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#56 Post by Durga » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:52 am

Like ##vote hr

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 522
Contact:

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#57 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:57 am

Durga wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:52 am
Like ##vote hr
yeah but like how much of this can you find with Ctrl+F?

VashtaNeurotic
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:34 am
Karma: 16

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#58 Post by VashtaNeurotic » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:32 am

The point is, who needs ctrl + F when you can see it fine like this (inserting a long essay to demonstrate):

Social contract arguments are incredibly painful to watch. A debater is making a speech. He wants to argue that some person has such-and-such a legal right. Or maybe such-and-such an obligation. But he can't for the life of him think of why. Flash of brilliance: There exists a mythical contract that no one has ever seen or signed, and its terms include exactly the moral stipulation that he's looking to prove.

This approach has its slightly more contorted variations. Maybe the social contract was broken, so the person breaking that contract is going to lose certain legal/moral rights. (Often only loosely connected to the clause 'broken' in the first place.) Or maybe the speaker asserts that the social contract involved some 'trading' of rights, where some pre-civilised caveman gained certain social duties in return for a right not to be clubbed over the head. All these variations are also terrible.

Few top-tier debaters, and virtually no professional political philosophers, would nowadays make or defend the social contract argument as it is used in debating today. Here's why: Social contract arguments are transparently false and intellectually dishonest, even though they are so commonplace in debating that most debaters don't question their basic premises. Let's run through several interpretations of what a 'social contract' could mean, and see why they are all deeply problematic.

There is a social contract: Citizens, by joining a society, consented to some set of common rules, so they are morally bound to obey them.
This purported contract is entirely fictional. It existed at no point in history. Why should I be bound by a fictional contract cooked up by an over-imaginative political theorist?
Most citizens do not choose their states. Citizens are born into states (without their own consent), and from birth are bound by legal and social rules that they did not choose.
Moreover, if life in the 'state of nature' is nasty, brutish and short, then in what sense can I be said to have consented to its alternative? If I'm drowning in the sea, and you offer me a 'contract' in order to allow me onto your boat, that contract is made under duress and is of no moral or legal significance.
Ok, citizens obviously don't choose their states. But they implicitly consent to a social contract by not leaving.
Immigration is prohibitively expensive for the majority of human beings on the planet.
Even if immigration were affordable, most human beings have unchosen, intimate, connections to people and groups within their states, which make it unreasonable to demand that they leave. If the only way for you to signal disagreement with a contract that I'm foisting on you is for you to promise never to see your mother again, it's clearly not reasonable to take your silence as an indication of agreement.
Where would citizens leave to? We aren't living in the sixteenth century; there aren't large, habitable tracts of land where people may live free of state power. If persons leave, they must almost always leave to join another state. But that's not consent. Suppose I lived on an island with no travel to the outside world. There is a Northern Mafia that controls the North half, and a Southern Mafia for the South half. Each takes my presence in its half as a sign that I have consented to obey its rules. Each points out, correctly, that I could leave (for the other half) if I chose. Can I be said to have consented to live under the rule of the mafia?
Ok, so that approach is hopeless. But maybe citizens consent to the social contract by voting?
Either voting is optional, in which case many citizens will not in fact have 'consented' (almost half, in the case of many Western liberal democracies), or voting is compulsory, in which case it cannot be a sign of consent.
Many citizens may in fact have voted for the losing side in an election. How can they be said to have consented to the winner's rule?
Even citizens voting for the winning side may have been forced to make a choice between poor alternatives. If I offer you a choice between torture or death, can you be said to have consented to torture? Why is it different if there is a 'Torture' party and a 'Death' party?
Good grief! So maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)?
There are many government services which I cannot opt out of. (Take, for instance, the benefits of clean air or military defence.)
If the state takes my resources by force (through taxation), and then converts those into services, I may have to consume those services. That doesn't imply that I consented to any wider set of rules that the state dreamt up!
Since the state generally exercises a monopoly on the use of violence, it drives other providers out of business, forcing me to consume its services. I have to rely on the state police, because the state takes steps to make sure that their police force is the only one. A monopoly that systematically destroys all its competitors does not thereby have consenting customers.
So maybe the social contract is entirely hypothetical; it is a claim about what reasonable people would consent to, ##vote HR if they had the choice.
A hypothetical contract is not a 'milder' form of contract; it is not a contract at all! It is therefore not morally binding. A court would look rather dimly on my having stolen your car and left you a reasonable sum of money, even if I argue that you would (hypothetically) have consented to the exchange.
Why do we imagine whether a person would agree to this contract in totality? Maybe he agrees with some clauses but not with others. If the contract is: "I will take you out of a state of nature in which your life is nasty, brutish and short. I will feed you and give you safety. In return, you will make me dictator for life." It may be that it is reasonable to consent to that contract if the alternative is a Hobbesian world. But why is that the appropriate alternative to consider?
Finally: If you are making this form of social contract argument, you need to provide reasons why reasonable people would (hypothetically) consent to this form of contract. But in that case, don't waste everyone's time. Skip the words 'social contract', and just give reasons for the desired legal duty/obligation directly. The words 'social contract' add nothing.
I add as an addendum: The use of hypothetical contracts as 'intuition pumps' to help us think about what set of rules a reasonable person would find desirable is still prevalent in modern political philosophy. This kind of claim is occasionally a useful rhetorical strategy in debating, but it's often better made without the jargon "social contract"; e.g. "Look, a reasonable person would agree to rules X because of Y, so we should implement rules X."
Equally still alive is the claim that, if a perfectly rational person would consent to a certain system of rules, then people are (in some sense) obliged to obey them. This is not a very useful argument in debating, because proving that a rational person would consent to or desire your proposed rules is generally the entire debate.
In summary: Social contract arguments - cliche, bad strategy, and just plain wrong. Debating would be better if they didn't exist.

Hellenic Riot
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:28 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Karma: 829

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#59 Post by Hellenic Riot » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:37 am

I feel like Vash has just proven in one post why something that can be found by Ctrl+F is better than anything that forces GM's to actually read the games ;)

Tom Bombadil
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 2474
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:52 pm
Location: Detroit, MI
Karma: 1779

Re: Mafia XXXIV Signups

#60 Post by Tom Bombadil » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:49 pm

1. DemonRHK (RHK)
2. Foxcastle
3. ND
4. bozo
5. Ezio
6.rdrivera2005
7.yavuzovic
8.Rjmcf
9. peterlund
10. Jamiet99uk
11.Reedeer1
12. Brainbomb
13. Vash
14. Tom Bombadil
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
1

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests