Spoiler : Accolades :
shit rule 0/10 would not implement
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?
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.
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.
When we talked about pubs, we are talking about us.
When they talked about pubs, they exclude themselves.
They say only bad players want to modify citizens, and they do not satisfy bad players.
Are we bad players? We include bad players, but that is just a part of us.
---They put veteran, mayor, allowed jester to visit for nothing, and they regretted and say those things are brainless.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
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.
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.
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.
When we talked about pubs, we are talking about us.
When they talked about pubs, they exclude themselves.
They say only bad players want to modify citizens, and they do not satisfy bad players.
Are we bad players? We include bad players, but that is just a part of us.
---They put veteran, mayor, allowed jester to visit for nothing, and they regretted and say those things are brainless.
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.)
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.
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.
Last edited by powerofdeath; February 21st, 2014 at 02:45 PM.
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.
Last edited by Lysergic; February 21st, 2014 at 07:11 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?
When we talked about pubs, we are talking about us.
When they talked about pubs, they exclude themselves.
They say only bad players want to modify citizens, and they do not satisfy bad players.
Are we bad players? We include bad players, but that is just a part of us.
---They put veteran, mayor, allowed jester to visit for nothing, and they regretted and say those things are brainless.
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.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...