[IMPORTANT] Gamethrow Rule Change

[AppleyNO]

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]

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]

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.

[st.rage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Awww... I can no longer claim white witch no more?

[ika]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Neutrals should be able to do whatever they want.

[Apocist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What about suiciding can they not suicide anymore

[cxx]

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]

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]

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]

This rule should be revoked

[Orpz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Keepers are just reviewer. We are like a lawyer. The warden is like the judge. He have a final say at decision.

[louiswill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.