PDA

View Full Version : [IMPORTANT] Gamethrow Rule Change



AppleyNO
February 10th, 2014, 08:12 PM
Fixing a mistake:

[9:05:05 PM] Dark Revenant: "Gamethrowing is when you actively work against your victory condition."

This includes every Neutral role. All new games fall under this rule.

Please voice your questions and comments about this new rule change.

Aldaris
February 10th, 2014, 08:22 PM
How would this apply to

1. Jesters.
2. Amnesiacs
3. Survivors
4. Executioners

All of these can act pretty crazy to survive and win.

AppleyNO
February 10th, 2014, 08:26 PM
How would this apply to

1. Jesters.
2. Amnesiacs
3. Survivors
4. Executioners

All of these can act pretty crazy to survive and win.
As long as they try to win, its okay. :D

st.rage
February 10th, 2014, 08:34 PM
What about Russian Roulette? Will people get in trouble if they pull the trigger when they have a better chance of surviving if they pass?

Espozito
February 10th, 2014, 08:34 PM
So... if a Jester works with town/maf/etc. instead of trying to get lynched is it a gamethrow?
P.S. Survivors can't gamethrow imo.

Arrow
February 10th, 2014, 08:39 PM
Is there an exception for lost-causes? Example: A jester who is a known jester in a tight endgame providing a tiebreak vote, since he just wants the game over and the chance the town will lynch him is zero?

This is the only problem I see, is that sometimes after a certain point as jester or exec, you simply don't have any cards left to play; people know you're not with them and ignore you and you can no longer win at all.

Also, I'd clarify "Actively" as "Intentionally." Either way, this rule change may increase the number of reports against certain neutral roles who are viewed as gamethrowing, regardless of whether they are. As a Witch or a Judge or an Auditor, it becomes relatively hard to know who is actually on your side early in the game, which could lead to them accidentally killing a mafia as witch or hanging one as judge.

Mugy
February 10th, 2014, 08:49 PM
Also, I'd clarify "Actively" as "Intentionally." Either way, this rule change may increase the number of reports against certain neutral roles who are viewed as gamethrowing, regardless of whether they are. As a Witch or a Judge or an Auditor, it becomes relatively hard to know who is actually on your side early in the game, which could lead to them accidentally killing a mafia as witch or hanging one as judge.

We take this into consideration, that is why we have humans around :)


What about Russian Roulette? Will people get in trouble if they pull the trigger when they have a better chance of surviving if they pass?

The only person that is negatively affected is the game-thrower.

louiswill
February 10th, 2014, 10:33 PM
Awww... I can no longer claim white witch no more?

ika
February 10th, 2014, 10:39 PM
my primary question is why?

i also see some gamethrow very situational. neutral saying "lynch me to summon mothership" (which i loved doing) is a good reason but im guessing each report will be taken case by case becasue a neutral playing "against" their wincon can be situation.

Arrow
February 11th, 2014, 11:35 AM
Also, does this affect Execs who decide to screw over the faction that killed them?

For example, if I'm exec, and my target is guaranteed to be town, I often leave in my Last Will who my target was (assuming I haven't offed them yet) as a sort of final one-finger salute to the Mafia that opted to kill me by creating a confirmed town for them to have to worry about.

If I instead get lynched during the day by the town, I often edit the LW on the stand to change who my target is to someone random to give them some extra cover. Not sure how the new rule handles this behavior.

Slaol
February 11th, 2014, 11:44 AM
This thread reminds me of a game.

My 3rd best game of all time was as a Serial Killer. I claimed Serial Killer day 1 and proceeded to FoS myself using color, number, name, role, and 'that guy' many times this game. I was put on trial no less than 4 times and voted innocent during all of them. I also refused to kill throughout the majority of the game. The final day was 2 Town, 2 Mafia, and myself. We lynched the Godfather with my help and went to night. 2 v 1 v 1. I killed the Mafioso who killed a Town. I won.

In the event that someone doesn't care about winning in a game, like myself, but does sort of luck into the victory how would it be factored? I blatantly worked against my own condition by not killing and by suggesting my own lynch. However I ended up winning.

Do I add myself to banlist?

louiswill
February 11th, 2014, 11:51 AM
This thread reminds me of a game.

My 3rd best game of all time was as a Serial Killer. I claimed Serial Killer day 1 and proceeded to FoS myself using color, number, name, role, and 'that guy' many times this game. I was put on trial no less than 4 times and voted innocent during all of them. I also refused to kill throughout the majority of the game. The final day was 2 Town, 2 Mafia, and myself. We lynched the Godfather with my help and went to night. 2 v 1 v 1. I killed the Mafioso who killed a Town. I won.

In the event that someone doesn't care about winning in a game, like myself, but does sort of luck into the victory how would it be factored? I blatantly worked against my own condition by not killing and by suggesting my own lynch. However I ended up winning.

Do I add myself to banlist?

No you shouldn't. I will construct a topic on SK later.

You didn't work against your own condition. OR if you did, it no longer matters. because you win.

I will argue that a neutral throwing is only judgable when it actually lose the game.

Gyver
February 11th, 2014, 12:12 PM
Also, does this affect Execs who decide to screw over the faction that killed them?

For example, if I'm exec, and my target is guaranteed to be town, I often leave in my Last Will who my target was (assuming I haven't offed them yet) as a sort of final one-finger salute to the Mafia that opted to kill me by creating a confirmed town for them to have to worry about.

If I instead get lynched during the day by the town, I often edit the LW on the stand to change who my target is to someone random to give them some extra cover. Not sure how the new rule handles this behavior.

I'd argue a neutrals LW is completely irrelevant. By the time you are dead, it is impossible for you to win. Doesn't matter who you help with your LW

Gyver
February 11th, 2014, 12:14 PM
So... if a Jester works with town/maf/etc. instead of trying to get lynched is it a gamethrow?
P.S. Survivors can't gamethrow imo.

Survivor can intentionally try to get themselves lynched. It messes with the balance of the save if town sees a set survivor and no other neut benigns.

Apocist
February 11th, 2014, 08:32 PM
Survivor can intentionally try to get themselves lynched. It messes with the balance of the save if town sees a set survivor and no other neut benigns.

That would mean the survivor intentional lost the game of his own freewill. Thus game throwing.

Admiral
February 11th, 2014, 10:30 PM
Neutrals should be able to do whatever they want.

Apocist
February 12th, 2014, 01:12 AM
Neutrals should be able to do whatever they want.

The problem is it kinda ruins the point of the setup. They are used as a balanced factor due to then having goals apart from the two main branches.

Elixir
February 12th, 2014, 01:28 AM
Still think this is counter productive and a waste of Keeper assets on fringe Neutral cases

Its a broad statement either way.

Guess it doesn't concern me any more anyway so there it is

AppleyNO
February 12th, 2014, 05:46 AM
This thread reminds me of a game.

My 3rd best game of all time was as a Serial Killer. I claimed Serial Killer day 1 and proceeded to FoS myself using color, number, name, role, and 'that guy' many times this game. I was put on trial no less than 4 times and voted innocent during all of them. I also refused to kill throughout the majority of the game. The final day was 2 Town, 2 Mafia, and myself. We lynched the Godfather with my help and went to night. 2 v 1 v 1. I killed the Mafioso who killed a Town. I won.

In the event that someone doesn't care about winning in a game, like myself, but does sort of luck into the victory how would it be factored? I blatantly worked against my own condition by not killing and by suggesting my own lynch. However I ended up winning.

Do I add myself to banlist?

You won the game.

If you hadn't, it was obvious you didn't care about winning and yes, it would been considered a gamethrow.

kyle1234513
February 12th, 2014, 07:44 AM
i dont like this, i still think if it only hurts themselves and goes against their own win condition they should be able to suicide or get themselves lynched as they see fit. its the purpose of being neutral, you can do whatever you want in order to benefit your own team (self). who are we to judge what they think is best for themselves.

Gyver
February 12th, 2014, 07:54 AM
i dont like this, i still think if it only hurts themselves and goes against their own win condition they should be able to suicide or get themselves lynched as they see fit. its the purpose of being neutral, you can do whatever you want in order to benefit your own team (self). who are we to judge what they think is best for themselves.

But they don't only hurt themselves. Games are balanced around neutrals and a serial killer revealing and vowing to only kill people town decides are mafia throws balance out the window.

Orpz
February 12th, 2014, 08:04 AM
This thread reminds me of a game.

My 3rd best game of all time was as a Serial Killer. I claimed Serial Killer day 1 and proceeded to FoS myself using color, number, name, role, and 'that guy' many times this game. I was put on trial no less than 4 times and voted innocent during all of them. I also refused to kill throughout the majority of the game. The final day was 2 Town, 2 Mafia, and myself. We lynched the Godfather with my help and went to night. 2 v 1 v 1. I killed the Mafioso who killed a Town. I won.

In the event that someone doesn't care about winning in a game, like myself, but does sort of luck into the victory how would it be factored? I blatantly worked against my own condition by not killing and by suggesting my own lynch. However I ended up winning.

Do I add myself to banlist?

that was only your third best????????????

Slaol
February 12th, 2014, 08:13 AM
that was only your third best????????????

Yes. Possibly 4th.
One was a Witch game. I was jailed night 1 and claimed Amnesiac. I was attacked and saved by a Doctor on night 2. On day 3 I was put on trial and claimed Doctor. On the night following the same Jailor jailed me and I managed to convince 1: that i lied on night 1. 2: that my lying on night 1 meant I was Town. Later that game I took control of the Mafia kill and lead them to victory. You'll find a brief description of this particular game in the MVP Corner thread, it's basically where the idea arose.

Also, I have 2 Consigliere games that were of this tier. Directing Town, dead Godfather and afk Mafioso, getting jailed and yoloing out of it, getting Jesters lynched, purposely being the only player to guilty and gambling on the Doctor to save to me. Shit like that.
The other Consigliere game my Mafia survived the entire game, but I was calling mad shots and leading mislynch after mislynch. Confirmed Town that was killing Town. Words too stronk.

I don't boast about games as like Jailor or anything, i'm not impressed with myself unless the game is 95+% chat oriented.

kyle1234513
February 12th, 2014, 08:19 AM
But they don't only hurt themselves. Games are balanced around neutrals and a serial killer revealing and vowing to only kill people town decides are mafia throws balance out the window.


then it would be moreso griefing(ruining game for the whole room) rather than gamethrowing (ruining chances for your team and potentially the game). what you are describing is no different than jailor n1 hits the gf or sk. and the jailor is gunna execute anyway regardless of what you claim.

Hypersniper
February 12th, 2014, 01:13 PM
What about suiciding can they not suicide anymore

cxx
February 12th, 2014, 01:39 PM
Stop bitching please. It will affect Neutral evils. I am very sure no one will get punished for "gamethrowing" as a neutral benign. Also, suiciding is like leaving. You are always free to do that.

creedkingsx
February 12th, 2014, 01:40 PM
You won the game.

If you hadn't, it was obvious you didn't care about winning and yes, it would been considered a gamethrow.

So if he had failed in his strategy, it would be game-throwing?

This issue is way too not black and white for a "rule" like this to be made.
And I really, aggressively hate that.


Stop bitching please. It will affect Neutral evils. I am very sure no one will get punished for "gamethrowing" as a neutral benign. Also, suiciding is like leaving. You are always free to do that.

They are quite literally saying that you can be punished as any neutral.

cxx
February 12th, 2014, 02:27 PM
I know.

Some achievements are based on gamethrowing, Hoist by His Own Molotov is the best example. But I don't think anyone will get punished for acquiring that achievement in the future. That's what I meant to say, don't take DR's words too literally. To my eyes, it is meant to restrict Neutral Evils working with Town. So report people who do that. I wouldn't waste anyone's time reporting a survivor who used -suicide.

Hypersniper
February 12th, 2014, 04:29 PM
This rule should be revoked

Orpz
February 13th, 2014, 08:48 AM
This rule should be revoked

it's not a rule as much as it is a very loose guideline for reports/keepers when determining neutral gamethrowing

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 08:57 AM
it's not a rule as much as it is a very loose guideline for reports/keepers when determining neutral gamethrowing

Many people thinks keepers are vigilante. Thus, what is the actual picture?

SkysTehLimit
February 13th, 2014, 09:39 AM
So... if a Jester works with town/maf/etc. instead of trying to get lynched is it a gamethrow?
P.S. Survivors can't gamethrow imo.


Ive been reported before by clowns as a survivor for gamethrowing. I beleive the same thing as well survivor CANT, along with other neutral benigns CANNOT gamethrow but the ignorant staff seems other wise.

What about Nuet evils that want a solo win? They can possibly go against the mafia, per say, in a 1v1v1 situation just so they can get acheievements. Technically that would be somewhat gamethrowing, even though there is no such rule in the role cards that say. You must win with other evils to achieve your goal.

Lets broaden the spectrum. Switzerland is a neutral country. WWlll Happens, the new world power Chine destroys everyone Muahahahaha... Yada yada... Are we going to blame Switzerland just because "They didn't help us win our little game"?

Gyrlander
February 13th, 2014, 12:06 PM
I have a question, if you are neutral evil as witch, for example, and you want the solo witch archievement and there is a mafioso and a doctor.... Can you make the mafioso suicide and win? Or not?

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 12:07 PM
I have a question, if you are neutral evil as witch, for example, and you want the solo witch archievement and there is a mafioso and a doctor.... Can you make the mafioso suicide and win? Or not?

Sure you can. As long as the doctor lose, it is fine.

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 12:11 PM
Ive been reported before by clowns as a survivor for gamethrowing. I beleive the same thing as well survivor CANT, along with other neutral benigns CANNOT gamethrow but the ignorant staff seems other wise.

What about Nuet evils that want a solo win? They can possibly go against the mafia, per say, in a 1v1v1 situation just so they can get acheievements. Technically that would be somewhat gamethrowing, even though there is no such rule in the role cards that say. You must win with other evils to achieve your goal.

Lets broaden the spectrum. Switzerland is a neutral country. WWlll Happens, the new world power Chine destroys everyone Muahahahaha... Yada yada... Are we going to blame Switzerland just because "They didn't help us win our little game"?

None single behavior can be game throwing, doesnt mean that the role can not game throw.

12345678, none of a single number is greater than 9, but when they add together is greater than 9.

SkysTehLimit
February 13th, 2014, 12:39 PM
None single behavior can be game throwing, doesnt mean that the role can not game throw.

12345678, none of a single number is greater than 9, but when they add together is greater than 9.

Are you implying when, per say more like in the middle of the game with more players? If so, at that point it is unclear who will win or is in the lead. If you're not implying that then CONGRATS! you've lost my lizard brain along that road somewhere down in the ditch.

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 01:01 PM
Are you implying when, per say more like in the middle of the game with more players? If so, at that point it is unclear who will win or is in the lead. If you're not implying that then CONGRATS! you've lost my lizard brain along that road somewhere down in the ditch.

My logic is this:


If you accidentally behave against your goal once or twice, it is not sufficient to say you are game throwing.
If you intentionally behave against your goal once or twice, it is still not sufficient to say you are game throwing.
If you intentionally behave against your goal whole game, it is stronger suspicions that you are game throwing.
If you intentionally behave against your goal whole game, lost your game and let major opponent survive, you are guilty of game throwing.

For witch, I argue that town has to win in order to necessarily say that witch is indeed game throwing.

"Town win" is not a final line but a must condition for witch gamethrowing guilt.

You don't just draw a line and say that witch can/can not gamethrowing because they can or can not be over the line.

AppleyNO
February 13th, 2014, 05:04 PM
We will review on a case-by-case basis and determine if a neutral is gamethrowing.

The rules are here to promote a good gaming experience for the many, so we will have that in mind while reviewing a gamethrowing report on a neutral.

Dark.Revenant
February 13th, 2014, 05:17 PM
The golden rule is that if nobody is bothered by it in-game, it's not gamethrowing. If everyone is having fun there is no need for a punishment. It's when someone's game is ruined that we should punish the offender.

EagleMan
February 13th, 2014, 10:58 PM
Fixing a mistake:

[9:05:05 PM] Dark Revenant: "Gamethrowing is when you actively work against your victory condition."

This includes every Neutral role. All new games fall under this rule.

Please voice your questions and comments about this new rule change.
How is this to be objectively assessed? Part of the allure of Neutral roles is that you're free to play with the meta, to play with people's minds. Sometimes this can backfire. From a third person perspective you can either look like an idiot, a gamethrower, or a genius depending on how all it works out. Sometimes I play to "lose" as a Neutral for the ultimate goal of winning, because I'm betting no one will want to waste their time/abilities on me.

Say as Exec, I'll randomly call out a person different from my target in the hopes of establishing credibility. If they think I'm Exec, that means they think my target is y, when it's really x, so they think x will be safe to lynch. If they lynch y, and he happens to be evil, I have credibility now. If he's town they think I've won as Exec and they no longer have any reason to bother me, and now I can try to encourage people to lynch x. But how is a keeper supposed to know my intent, the strategy I'm trying to do? Especially if I die before I get a chance to push the lynch on my true target. It's impossible.

It'd be hard to have many clear cut cases, short of a player deciding to commit suicide to avoid winning. It's pretty easy to judge when a person has teammates, because it's gamethrowing to involve your allies against their will in some meta plan, and it can possibly be skyping if you already have it arranged (with town, or if you arrange it with your evil faction outside of SC2 where Spy can't hear you). But both those are moot for neutrals so they're free to experiment with mind games that can on the surface look like game throwing, but those manipulations have won me many games before. And by god they're the most satisfying wins. And sometimes they don't work out and I just look like a failed gamethrower who didn't even try to win.

Say the SK at the top of the page who vows only to kill whoever Town says. What if that's just a feint to stay alive long enough to win? I've done something of the sort before and won, and it was my gamble paying off.

I was actually a bit bewildered to read your post Appley that you basically admit you'll only want to punish the failures. Does that really sound right? It fits into my point about intent: how can you truly know someone is working against their victory condition outside of very rare circumstances? The whole point of Mafia is the duplicitousness, the WIFOM, of betting that you're on the right side of the mind game table. Often the best way to victory as a neutral (mostly as a nonkilling) can be trying to lose. Depending on how strictly you enforce the rule, you'll be encouraging stagnant gameplay. Which makes it easier for a smart Town to win as the behavior of neutral players will be more predictable because they know they can't act too crazy without having it count as gamethrowing.

But if DR's golden rule is incorporated into it, I won't mind, but of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason. And maybe you will only be enforcing it for the most clear cut cases, when again I wouldn't mind then. I apologize for this post if you're already going to do it that way, I just don't want to have to assume.

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 11:34 PM
After all, Dr' s golden rule handed the decision back to keepers and their days.

"of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason."

So the keeper again have tremendous power on ruling.

In a long term, a loose defined rules will allow extra space for corruption.

I trust Fred, but it is impossible to burden everything on the few.

creedkingsx
February 13th, 2014, 11:38 PM
After all, Dr' s golden rule handed the decision back to keepers and their days.

"of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason."

So the keeper again have tremendous power on ruling.

In a long term, a loose defined rules will allow extra space for corruption.

I trust Fred, but it is impossible to burden everything on the few.

Keepers actually have no power, tbh. They can suggest and do ultimately decide what reports we have to look at and delegate punishments to, so I guess, in that regard, they've some power.
Keepers have a limit of power due to the history of how abusive they can get in the wrong hands.

powerofdeath
February 13th, 2014, 11:44 PM
Keepers are just reviewer. We are like a lawyer. The warden is like the judge. He have a final say at decision.

louiswill
February 13th, 2014, 11:54 PM
The neutral case/golden left a giant space for them to suggest, because all decision will be considered reasonable.

Not a council nor a jury is presented,

what actually limit the power of punishing suggestion from keepers?

Would wardens replay cases often enough to verify and justify the decision?

The outcome is largely depend on keepers.

Of course my worry is ahead of time, for we have many good keepers.

but both good and evil accumulate over time, leave a legal gap is always risky.

Mateo
February 14th, 2014, 12:02 AM
this is stupid. like elixir said its a waste of keeper time. all keepers should mark neutral gamethrow reports ignored automatically

which staffmember lost to a 'gamethrowing' neutral for this change to occur?

Mugy
February 14th, 2014, 12:18 AM
The neutral case/golden left a giant space for them to suggest, because all decision will be considered reasonable.

Not a council nor a jury is presented,

what actually limit the power of punishing suggestion from keepers?

Would wardens replay cases often enough to verify and justify the decision?

The outcome is largely depend on keepers.

Of course my worry is ahead of time, for we have many good keepers.

but both good and evil accumulate over time, leave a legal gap is always risky.

That is why keepers make a summary. When I'm processing the approves, I change the punishment from the recommendation very frequently based on their own summary, nine times out of ten to be lesser punishment.

louiswill
February 14th, 2014, 12:22 AM
That is why keepers make a summary. When I'm processing the approves, I change the punishment from the recommendation very frequently based on their own summary, nine times out of ten to be lesser punishment.

Which is why I said im worry ahead of time. If someday, some vigorous wild vigilante warden lvl 99 appeared. What should we do? apply to be a keeper too?

I do not want to worry every time I make some series gambit as neutral.

No one want to worry that.

Mugy
February 14th, 2014, 12:27 AM
Which is why I said im worry ahead of time. If someday, some vigorous wild vigilante warden lvl 99 appeared. What should we do? apply to be a keeper?

Serious warden abuse should be reported to raptorblaze or revenant himself, although the rest of the staff hypothetically would bring up the issue faster since they have access to more information.


do not want to worry every time I make some series gambit as neutral.

No one want to worry that.
It's all about intention of the play, it's easy to see what the intention is in sc2mafia. It's either "LOLOLOLOL I'M WITCH, 3 IS GF AND 9 IS THE SK, I HATE BEING WITCH" or "I'm investigator, 3 came up as cit/amn/crier/gf"
In rare cases where people go for blurred line gambits, we will give them the benefit of a doubt, until we get more reports of the same behaviour.

kyle1234513
February 14th, 2014, 05:51 AM
this new gamethrow rule will only make more reports for keepers, in addition what people are describing is actually really hard to achieve. basically all solo witch attempts will be reported (regardless of winning or not). survivor not siding with your team(or anyone else), reported. failed jester attempts (when openly claiming jester) reported. arson not dousing at night, reported. serial killer playing it slowly and waiting until the last possible night to kill just 1 person and come out with a 1v1tie and win, reported.

all of these things are existing scenarios where people are experimenting with the role, and have all worked at one point or another and gotten them their win. by "actively playing against your win condition"

and the justification will be "it didnt work out, he mustve been gamethrowing" when in reality in that players mind they all had the intention to win, we just cant see it in the replay.
keepers process the report, see no evidence they tried to win, and it gets approved, puts some random player on a list. this will effectively force players to play a certain predictable way. this hurts mafia.

AppleyNO
February 14th, 2014, 08:16 AM
this new gamethrow rule will only make more reports for keepers, in addition what people are describing is actually really hard to achieve. basically all solo witch attempts will be reported (regardless of winning or not). survivor not siding with your team(or anyone else), reported. failed jester attempts (when openly claiming jester) reported. arson not dousing at night, reported. serial killer playing it slowly and waiting until the last possible night to kill just 1 person and come out with a 1v1tie and win, reported.

all of these things are existing scenarios where people are experimenting with the role, and have all worked at one point or another and gotten them their win. by "actively playing against your win condition"

and the justification will be "it didnt work out, he mustve been gamethrowing" when in reality in that players mind they all had the intention to win, we just cant see it in the replay.
keepers process the report, see no evidence they tried to win, and it gets approved, puts some random player on a list. this will effectively force players to play a certain predictable way. this hurts mafia.
As a keeper, its concerning to read that. As Mugy has said, we should be able to tell the difference between neutrals going for weird plays, and neutrals who go "I HATE WITCH 3 IS GODFATHER BEEN CONTROLLING HIM".

This is really for neutrals who ruin balance by gamethrowing in some way. Too many setups have been ruined imo by Neutral Killers who target the mafia and -suicide afterwards because the hate the role. (Obv more situations than that, and that doesn't happen often, but still).

@RainHeaven, you would be alright.

Gyver
February 14th, 2014, 08:52 AM
Okay guys, I need your opinions on this.

So I was an Executioner in this one game yesterday. On day 2, someone claimed Survivor but there was only one neutral benign in the game and that was me, the Executioner. I instinctively called out that I was Executioner and that he was lieing. He was voted less than a second before the day and was lynched. He said he was reporting me for gamethrow. He was a Judge. I didn't tell them who my target was or anything and still had a chance to win. However, my target was a confirmed Sheriff the next day for lynching a Triad. He died the next night because nobody protected him and I became a Jester. I had another chance to win and started to innocent obvious Triad. However, I died by the last Triad when I was helping him. It was kind of dumb to kill a claimed neutral benign instead of a townie which resulted in Triad's loss.

TL;DR

Executioner reveals himself and gets Neutral evil killed as they claim Survivor. I didn't say who my target was and still had two chances to win. Game throwing or not? I am sorry and apologize if it is according to new rules.

So, why did you reveal to prove the judge was lying? There is no reason for an executioner to do that. Furthermore, it is counter-productive to your win as someone claiming to be surv gives you the ability to say executioner is not possible when accusing someone.

AppleyNO
February 14th, 2014, 08:55 AM
So, why did you reveal to prove the judge was lying? There is no reason for an executioner to do that. Furthermore, it is counter-productive to your win as someone claiming to be surv gives you the ability to say executioner is not possible when accusing someone.

I think he had enough chances to win afterwards that its not a significant factor.

oops_ur_dead
February 14th, 2014, 09:10 AM
shit rule 0/10 would not implement

Cryptonic
February 14th, 2014, 09:13 AM
I agree with oops. Can we at least say this doesn't apply to Benign? D;

& also say that if there is no one the Evil Neutral can win with, then they are exempt as well?

Damus_Graves
February 14th, 2014, 09:40 AM
How is this to be objectively assessed? Part of the allure of Neutral roles is that you're free to play with the meta, to play with people's minds. Sometimes this can backfire. From a third person perspective you can either look like an idiot, a gamethrower, or a genius depending on how all it works out. Sometimes I play to "lose" as a Neutral for the ultimate goal of winning, because I'm betting no one will want to waste their time/abilities on me.

Say as Exec, I'll randomly call out a person different from my target in the hopes of establishing credibility. If they think I'm Exec, that means they think my target is y, when it's really x, so they think x will be safe to lynch. If they lynch y, and he happens to be evil, I have credibility now. If he's town they think I've won as Exec and they no longer have any reason to bother me, and now I can try to encourage people to lynch x. But how is a keeper supposed to know my intent, the strategy I'm trying to do? Especially if I die before I get a chance to push the lynch on my true target. It's impossible.

It'd be hard to have many clear cut cases, short of a player deciding to commit suicide to avoid winning. It's pretty easy to judge when a person has teammates, because it's gamethrowing to involve your allies against their will in some meta plan, and it can possibly be skyping if you already have it arranged (with town, or if you arrange it with your evil faction outside of SC2 where Spy can't hear you). But both those are moot for neutrals so they're free to experiment with mind games that can on the surface look like game throwing, but those manipulations have won me many games before. And by god they're the most satisfying wins. And sometimes they don't work out and I just look like a failed gamethrower who didn't even try to win.

Say the SK at the top of the page who vows only to kill whoever Town says. What if that's just a feint to stay alive long enough to win? I've done something of the sort before and won, and it was my gamble paying off.

I was actually a bit bewildered to read your post Appley that you basically admit you'll only want to punish the failures. Does that really sound right? It fits into my point about intent: how can you truly know someone is working against their victory condition outside of very rare circumstances? The whole point of Mafia is the duplicitousness, the WIFOM, of betting that you're on the right side of the mind game table. Often the best way to victory as a neutral (mostly as a nonkilling) can be trying to lose. Depending on how strictly you enforce the rule, you'll be encouraging stagnant gameplay. Which makes it easier for a smart Town to win as the behavior of neutral players will be more predictable because they know they can't act too crazy without having it count as gamethrowing.

But if DR's golden rule is incorporated into it, I won't mind, but of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason. And maybe you will only be enforcing it for the most clear cut cases, when again I wouldn't mind then. I apologize for this post if you're already going to do it that way, I just don't want to have to assume.

If I were a keeper still and this rule came into effect I would only punish the neutrals for game-throwing should they be obviously working against their win conditions.
An example of this, as I stated in the staff chat earlier, would be a witch using the mafia killing role to eliminate the other mafia roles and then announcing to the town who the last mafia player is and thus suicide or leave.
Cases such as that would be, imo, the only times where neutral gamethrowing can be properly evaluated and I'd really like the Keepers to keep that in mind. With this rule they will have to be extra careful and more aware of the games they are reviewing to avoid making the wrong choice that leads to flaming from the regular users.

louiswill
February 14th, 2014, 10:22 AM
Damus : I would only punish the neutrals for game-throwing should they be obviously working against their win conditions.


That is exactly what I'm trying to achieve from legal discussion.

Voss
February 14th, 2014, 04:05 PM
I agree with oops. Can we at least say this doesn't apply to Benign? D;

& also say that if there is no one the Evil Neutral can win with, then they are exempt as well?

What about cases like
Gets survivor,
"LYNCH ME I HATE THIS ROLE"
True he could have rolled a jester and it would have been the same, except no one dies from this, thus affecting the game.

kyle1234513
February 14th, 2014, 04:23 PM
i would feel a lot better if this was just renamed "neutrals can now be considered griefing" as opposed to gamethrowing. ruined game vs working against win objective.

Gyver
February 14th, 2014, 07:03 PM
i would feel a lot better if this was just renamed "neutrals can now be considered griefing" as opposed to gamethrowing. ruined game vs working against win objective.

I would support this, I have a hard time considering a full non-cult neutral gamethrow as severe as a team gamethrow.

Cryptonic
February 14th, 2014, 07:26 PM
What about cases like
Gets survivor,
"LYNCH ME I HATE THIS ROLE"
True he could have rolled a jester and it would have been the same, except no one dies from this, thus affecting the game.

idk, i think it'd be pretty dumb to take everything at face value in mafia. just because he says that doesn't mean he wants to be lynched. how can you ever be sure? you can never be certain if it changes the game. Survivor gamethrow is -suicide, as it's the only way you can be 100% certain he's working against his current win condition.

louiswill
February 14th, 2014, 07:53 PM
Only Clear and Dynamic rules will help.

-suicide can be considered game throw for all roles that has no faction. ----we all know it is just joking around.

Damus_Graves
February 14th, 2014, 08:30 PM
Only Clear and Dynamic rules will help.

-suicide can be considered game throw for all roles that has no faction. ----we all know it is just joking around.

I kinda want to touch up on something I missed out on.

In my own personal opinion I don't believe that it would be worth the time to report the benign roles, such as Survivor, Jester, Executioner.
These roles arent bound by the same restrictions that the other roles are, which is to eliminate one or more factions and survive to the end, in some cases. Because survivor, jester, and executioner have unique win conditions it becomes increasingly more difficult to judge if they are actively seeking to throw away their potential win. Survivors have a wide variety of ways to achieve victory which can be considered gamethrowing if they fail. (like calling survivor, never using a vest, leading (mis)lynches, stating plox lynch me hate life).
what I'm basically saying is that just about 10/10 cases I, personally, would not find a survivor, jester, or executioner guilty of gamethrowing if they lose a game and seem to try to lose. It's just not objectively worth the time to attempt to figure out if these roles should be punished or if they shouldn't because of their unique win conditions. There isn't enough of a baseline to worth with imo.

Witch, Cult, Mass Murderer, SK, Arson do, however, have a way to gamethrow that can be objectively evaluated. (SK that never kills and suicides to give town/mafia a win is one example.)

Bruno
February 17th, 2014, 06:32 PM
this is stupid. like elixir said its a waste of keeper time. all keepers should mark neutral gamethrow reports ignored automatically

which staffmember lost to a 'gamethrowing' neutral for this change to occur?

No, the only strategy that won't get you banned is the pre-approved staff strategy, I think the one where you grief?

Also, I guess we now know.

Lysergic
February 21st, 2014, 02:38 PM
Witch, Cult, Mass Murderer, SK, Arson do, however, have a way to gamethrow that can be objectively evaluated. (SK that never kills and suicides to give town/mafia a win is one example.)

Cult has a team, and has always been able to be punished for game throwing behavior. Including them in this conversation is irrelevant because of that.

Including Witch seems like a good reason to not support this rule change, too. One of the last games I played, I was Witch. I controlled the GF a few times (long enough to establish he was GF) and then PMed him, asking who the other Mafia were so I wouldn't target them by accident.

He immediately outed me to town. I responded in kind.

The only reason we weren't both immediately lynched was because town played horribly. In the end, it came down to a 2v2 - me and the SK vs. the two remaining Mafia. I teamed up with the SK for the win.

Still, if town had listened to him and lynched me, I would have been guilty of game throwing for outing him, even if I did so in my Last Words. The Witch victory condition is to see the town lose; even in death, revealing the Mafia becomes a Witch game throw with this new rule - even if the Mafia are the ones who led the lynch.

IMO, this is a bad rule change. Agree with Lix that it wastes our precious little Keeper resources.

powerofdeath
February 21st, 2014, 02:43 PM
So... I cant claim Arsonist as Arsonist anymore and try to play Jester card? I won as Arsonist using this strategy twice, but in the report it will look like i was gamethrowing if I failded.

AppleyNO
February 21st, 2014, 02:46 PM
Cult has a team, and has always been able to be punished for game throwing behavior. Including them in this conversation is irrelevant because of that.

Including Witch seems like a good reason to not support this rule change, too. One of the last games I played, I was Witch. I controlled the GF a few times (long enough to establish he was GF) and then PMed him, asking who the other Mafia were so I wouldn't target them by accident.

He immediately outed me to town. I responded in kind.

The only reason we weren't both immediately lynched was because town played horribly. In the end, it came down to a 2v2 - me and the SK vs. the two remaining Mafia. I teamed up with the SK for the win.

Still, if town had listened to him and lynched me, I would have been guilty of game throwing for outing him, even if I did so in my Last Words. The Witch victory condition is to see the town lose; even in death, revealing the Mafia becomes a Witch game throw with this new rule - even if the Mafia are the ones who led the lynch.

IMO, this is a bad rule change. Agree with Lix that it wastes our precious little Keeper resources.
lol no, you played to win. You outing the godfather != you threw the game.

Also, the witch can only win if it wins, so if you die its whatever.

Lysergic
February 21st, 2014, 07:06 PM
lol no, you played to win. You outing the godfather != you threw the game.

Also, the witch can only win if it wins, so if you die its whatever.

My point wasn't that I threw that game; by winning, I didn't throw.

However, had the town put me on trial and lynched me, outing the GF that got me killed would be playing against my objective (make the Town lose) and thus throwing under this new rule.

EDIT:
By the way, Maf did try to claim that I was game throwing by revealing them (even though they revealed me first). If they had seen this new rule (and if I had been lynched instead of living long enough to find and side with the SK), they could very well have reported me.

Now which report do we want our Keepers responding to: this one (a shade-of-gray situation that would probably end up getting multiple reviews from Keepers or higher ranked staff) or one where someone actually, legitimately game threw?

I think that was Lix's point - limited staff resources are better spent on clearer cut cases of malicious cheating rather than minor issues like these.

Raptorblaze
February 21st, 2014, 07:27 PM
I'm just gonna throw out there that I'm with Lys, Lix, and Oops on this one. It's always been our policy that if an entire team agrees to throwing the game for themselves, then it is not a punishable offense. Solo neutrals are one man teams, therefore they cannot throw a game because any throw was agreed to by their entire team.

louiswill
February 21st, 2014, 07:51 PM
I'm just gonna throw out there that I'm with Lys, Lix, and Oops on this one. It's always been our policy that if an entire team agrees to throwing the game for themselves, then it is not a punishable offense. Solo neutrals are one man teams, therefore they cannot throw a game because any throw was agreed to by their entire team.

It depends on if gamethrow defined mechanically or consciously.
DR's define of gamethrow is mechanic-wise definition.

Normally we use conscious-wise definition.

The problem, if there is one, of Raptor's definition is that the team has totally no responsibility to game flow.

This point is very clear to all of you.

Care to explain why or why not, a player has responsibility to every bystanders?

Or if we are looking for a balance between the two, where is it?

Voss
February 22nd, 2014, 05:27 AM
I'm just gonna throw out there that I'm with Lys, Lix, and Oops on this one. It's always been our policy that if an entire team agrees to throwing the game for themselves, then it is not a punishable offense. Solo neutrals are one man teams, therefore they cannot throw a game because any throw was agreed to by their entire team.

the entire game is ruined too though if the entire mafia team just outs themselves (agreeing to throw) and says, we're going to help you townies find the serial killer here (or whatever). These are the situations that shouldn't be let by.
Can't a 'lower level' keeper just ignore the fringe neutral benign cases, or cases like Lysergics? It doesn't need to waste keeper time.

AppleyNO
February 22nd, 2014, 11:00 AM
My point wasn't that I threw that game; by winning, I didn't throw.

However, had the town put me on trial and lynched me, outing the GF that got me killed would be playing against my objective (make the Town lose) and thus throwing under this new rule.

EDIT:
By the way, Maf did try to claim that I was game throwing by revealing them (even though they revealed me first). If they had seen this new rule (and if I had been lynched instead of living long enough to find and side with the SK), they could very well have reported me.

Now which report do we want our Keepers responding to: this one (a shade-of-gray situation that would probably end up getting multiple reviews from Keepers or higher ranked staff) or one where someone actually, legitimately game threw?

I think that was Lix's point - limited staff resources are better spent on clearer cut cases of malicious cheating rather than minor issues like these.
Again, I don't think you understand what I mean. I am saying that you aren't with the mafia. Revealing the Godfather, esp if you are lynched(because witches can't win if they are dead), wouldn't have any offenses against you. As long as you didn't claim that you were a witch and -suicided at the end of the game, even revealing the godfather wouldn't be gamethrowing.

Its the same policy that we have for hacking, if you claim it, we ban you. (I think Raptor or fred started that)

The reason DR stated this rule change is to combat setups that have a Neutral Evil who obviously plays against their win condition, ruining games. That's the point of the rules, right? We want to promote a fun environment. How is a game fun if the town is handed the win by a judge at a 3 Mafia/Judge V 3 Town, and who uses the -court twice to lynch the mafia, then -suicides?

As a keeper for over a year now, I think the upperstaff really overestimate the time it takes to review non-cheating/hacking reports. We just don't do reports all the time because its not fun. A gamethrowing report literally takes 5-10 minutes.

Aldaris
February 22nd, 2014, 11:10 AM
I don't understand why we have rules when the mods openly claim they will not follow them and reassure us that they are benevolent dictators.

Just do away with rules and say be nice but trust us because we are generally nice and fair people.

AppleyNO
February 22nd, 2014, 11:13 AM
I don't understand why we have rules when the mods openly claim they will not follow them and reassure us that they are benevolent dictators.

Just do away with rules and say be nice but trust us because we are generally nice and fair people.

I'm confused. When has a Mod, ever, said we don't follow rules?

Aldaris
February 22nd, 2014, 11:15 AM
Mugy7 has admitted before that he does not follow the rules all the way. We have mods in this thread admitting they will enforce rules as they see fit.

AppleyNO
February 22nd, 2014, 11:18 AM
Mugy7 has admitted before that he does not follow the rules all the way. We have mods in this thread admitting they will enforce rules as they see fit.

I'm sure its either a fake Mugy or you are taking his statements out of context. Can I have a PM quote or a replay of him saying as much?

Also, we just broadened and greyed up the Gamethrowing rule, so discussion on what is the best way to enforce and possibly change this rule is fine.

Raptorblaze
February 22nd, 2014, 11:36 AM
Mugy7 has admitted before that he does not follow the rules all the way. We have mods in this thread admitting they will enforce rules as they see fit.

If that was the case I'd have stripped them of their powers, Appley and others can attest to my low tolerance for insubordination.

The problem, Appley, is that making situational exceptions to rules like this is dishonest and disingenuous. The rule, as you're announcing it, is extremely flawed because it outlaws -suicide, surrendering, among other things.

ika
February 22nd, 2014, 11:46 AM
Also, we just broadened and greyed up the Gamethrowing rule, so discussion on what is the best way to enforce and possibly change this rule is fine.

The bolded white part is the biggest problem imo. Its all it an even bigger gray area now. Some are black and white (ie mafia outing others). Neutrals will almost always have that gray because of their solo win cons.

AppleyNO
February 22nd, 2014, 11:53 AM
Look, I think we can change the rules to be obvious gamethrowing, those neutrals who don't even try to win.

I think you bring up a good point between surrendering/trying for solo wins/and legit gamethrowing. If we continue, we will have to draw a line somewhere, and that line will be arbitrary.

If we had very limited, but still expanded, neutral gamethrowing rules, we could nail the bad guys without getting the innocent ones. However, I'm not a good rule writer, and that would be a job for the upperstaff.

Acriel
March 3rd, 2014, 02:44 AM
I got a question about this rule:

Yesterday I had a game where I was Auditor, I audited a triad member to enforcer then I pmed him "Sorry about yesterday but now you know im Auditor, I'am on your side", but no answer from him.

Because most of the time triad will just kill the neutral evil (yes it seems to be an habit in EU) for no reason I decided to put his name on my lw (only triad was able to kill and I wouldnt do it if there were vigi/sk/arso/witch/bd left and I would also delete the lw in case of trial).

And then the next night triad intentionally killed me... as expected.. and finaly they lost the game cause of my lw, gf said he will report me.

Is that considered gamethrow?
I did it cause i'am really bored to see maf/triad killing neutral evil all the time as soon as they know who it is...

ika
March 3rd, 2014, 03:47 AM
I got a question about this rule:

Yesterday I had a game where I was Auditor, I audited a triad member to enforcer then I pmed him "Sorry about yesterday but now you know im Auditor, I'am on your side", but no answer from him.

Because most of the time triad will just kill the neutral evil (yes it seems to be an habit in EU) for no reason I decided to put his name on my lw (only triad was able to kill and I wouldnt do it if there were vigi/sk/arso/witch/bd left and I would also delete the lw in case of trial).

And then the next night triad intentionally killed me... as expected.. and finaly they lost the game cause of my lw, gf said he will report me.

Is that considered gamethrow?
I did it cause i'am really bored to see maf/triad killing neutral evil all the time as soon as they know who it is...

no, triad killed you making you ineligible for a win. Only fair that they get a taste of that as well.

Acriel
March 3rd, 2014, 03:56 AM
no, triad killed you making you ineligible for a win. Only fair that they get a taste of that as well.

Thanks for the answer, I was pretty satisfied that they lost cause of their stupidity.