Host/Moderator Responsibility And Threats

[ThePaladin]

I think we really need to have a serious discussion about threatening to rulebreak(gamethrow,spam,etc.) and the punishment(if it should be punished) for it, even if it's a void threat.

Do you think we should make threatening to break rules explicitly against rules(all threats or just threatening to gamethrow for example) and if so what should the punishment for it be(same as the actual, warning first, etc.?

Spoiler : My Opinion :

Should Be Against Rules but with lesser punishment than equivalent unless continued after being warned. Perhaps 2 warnings per 3-4 games? The main issue is that this type of behavior isn't well defined and having it explicit would probably prevent players from doing it about as much as them not doing the actual thing,

Also How should we solve the problems of players believing that host is not taking action against possible offenses without the host confirming/denying/or being too involved in the game.

Spoiler : My Opinion :

Personally, I think if we had some sort of indicator at the top of the page that said a host and/or mod had viewed and read the game up to a certain post which the host could check off without making a post. The indicator then has a post number next to it in some non-gray/white/black colour(such as green), assuring players that the host is monitoring the game. I do not know if it is possible to implement such a thing without the host having to post with how this site is set up.

[BananaCucho]

In b4 censored

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

I asked before I said it, just for the record.

I think it is a valid strategy personally, trying to force another player to vote with you. It is a game of deception after all.

[MattZed]

I personally find threatening to break a rule rather distasteful. The reason it's not already a rule is that FM historically has a very strong free speech tradition; you're allowed to be an asshole in-game. However, there's also a strong tradition for letting hosts dictate how their games are played, and hosts are always free to prohibit tactics they find distasteful. (I'll likely make a "no threatening to break rules" rule in my future games, myself.)

Strictly speaking, I'm not opposed to making an FM-wide rule against threatening to break rules, and I get the impression there are many in the community who would like to see such a rule.

[ThePaladin]

I asked before I said it, just for the record.

I think it is a valid strategy personally, trying to force another player to vote with you. It is a game of deception after all.

Argument of Extremes but If player X threatens to ddos the site if you didn't vote with him/her would it be a fair strategy, same logic applies as threatening to rulebreak I believe.

Also this is in general(not specific to Mafia Wars II, but certainly as a response to it). Do you feel as long as you ask the host first and the host approves it, it should be considered a legal play? What if the player didn't ask first?

[ThePaladin]

I personally find threatening to break a rule rather distasteful. The reason it's not already a rule is that FM historically has a very strong free speech tradition; you're allowed to be an asshole in-game. However, there's also a strong tradition for letting hosts dictate how their games are played, and hosts are always free to prohibit tactics they find distasteful. (I'll likely make a "no threatening to break rules" rule in my future games, myself.)

Strictly speaking, I'm not opposed to making an FM-wide rule against threatening to break rules, and I get the impression there are many in the community who would like to see such a rule.

Would not spamming and personal attacks both be considered being an asshole in-game(especially the latter) but both are against the rules fm-wide?

And I feel like threatening to gamethrow changes the game dynamic in a way very different from threatening let's say to spam. If a person spams after the threat, he gets warned, if he doesn't the game countinues.

However if the person was to gamethrow then the opposing faction gain the equivalent of another player, and if he does not follow through with the threat then game countinues as normal. It forces players to have to choose between following this guy for the sole purpose of not letting the setup become imbalanced by the other team having the equivalent of gaining the player, or doing what they feel is best otherwise and hoping the person was bluffing. A traditional bluff of claiming a false role, or information is very different from this.

[Quick]

I personally find threatening to break a rule rather distasteful. The reason it's not already a rule is that FM historically has a very strong free speech tradition; you're allowed to be an asshole in-game. However, there's also a strong tradition for letting hosts dictate how their games are played, and hosts are always free to prohibit tactics they find distasteful. (I'll likely make a "no threatening to break rules" rule in my future games, myself.)

Strictly speaking, I'm not opposed to making an FM-wide rule against threatening to break rules, and I get the impression there are many in the community who would like to see such a rule.

I actually understand your POV here. If its not in the game rules it kinda hard to punish people for it. I do however think players who try to cheat the system or use underhanded tactics do so because they are not proficient enough to play fairly and thus are a bit tainted IMO.

[Calix]

There is no deception required when threatening to game-throw. It's a childish "do this or I'll deliberately ruin the game out of spite" ultimatum.

Under no circumstances does it garner any alignment-indicative reactions. All it does is make people resent playing with you.

If you cannot play the game properly without resorting to threats of game-throwing, you're not a good player.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Argument of Extremes but If player X threatens to ddos the site if you didn't vote with him/her would it be a fair strategy, same logic applies as threatening to rulebreak I believe.

Also this is in general(not specific to Mafia Wars II, but certainly as a response to it). Do you feel as long as you ask the host first and the host approves it, it should be considered a legal play? What if the player didn't ask first?

ddosing is a player controlling every player's ability to play the game. If one player threatens to vote someone that is them using their vote power as leverage, and not the same effect of a ddos which makes the game not playable at all.

Mattzed told me it was legal, I posted that I would gamethrow, then I tabbed out and he said but its in bad taste. It should obviously be up to the host, had he said it is not allowed, I would not have done it. The original comments of them saying I was gamethrowing was when I said if they do not vote shifty I can't trust any future flips, and they should recognize this. Them not recognizing it would make me forced to vote them despite believing they are town because a town would never vote kovath over shifty there. It was them crying GT over and over, that made me even have the idea to do it.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

There is no deception required when threatening to game-throw. It's a childish "do this or I'll deliberately ruin the game out of spite" ultimatum.

Under no circumstances does it garner any alignment-indicative reactions. All it does is make people resent playing with you.

If you cannot play the game properly without resorting to threats of game-throwing, you're not a good player.

If you cry, and quit the game when things are not going your way, I would argue you are not a good player either.

[MattZed]

Would not spamming and personal attacks both be considered being an asshole in-game(especially the latter) but both are against the rules fm-wide?

Spamming actually isn't directly against the rules. "Don't spam" is basically a self-enforcing rule because it's highly anti-town and increases your probability of getting lynched. (although honestly the main reason there isn't a rule for spamming is that it historically has never been a major issue)

Personal attacks are against the rules, but they're considered a lighter offense simply because the line between aggressive play (which can be productive) and personal attack is very thin, and a stricter punishment might deter legitimate tactics.

The general reasoning in all of this is that we don't tell you how to play.

[ThePaladin]

ddosing is a player controlling every player's ability to play the game. If one player threatens to vote someone that is them using their vote power as leverage, and not the same effect of a ddos which makes the game not playable at all.

Mattzed told me it was legal, I posted that I would gamethrow, then I tabbed out and he said but its in bad taste. It should obviously be up to the host, had he said it is not allowed, I would not have done it. The original comments of them saying I was gamethrowing was when I said if they do not vote shifty I can't trust any future flips, and they should recognize this. Them not recognizing it would make me forced to vote them despite believing they are town because a town would never vote kovath over shifty there. It was them crying GT over and over, that made me even have the idea to do it.

If You had gone through with gamethrowing, would you not be altering the setup to be off-balanced though thereby changing the dynamic of the entire game? I was merely using ddos as an example, we could also say you claimed you were investigative and was going to OGC the scum the town's tpr, this would give scum additional abilities which were never intended.

[Calix]

If you cry, and quit the game when things are not going your way, I would argue you are not a good player either.

The fact that you admit that your play was terrible is the first step. Try improving it instead of blaming others for your defects.

[ThePaladin]

Spamming actually isn't directly against the rules. "Don't spam" is basically a self-enforcing rule because it's highly anti-town and increases your probability of getting lynched. (although honestly the main reason there isn't a rule for spamming is that it historically has never been a major issue)

Personal attacks are against the rules, but they're considered a lighter offense simply because the line between aggressive play (which can be productive) and personal attack is very thin, and a stricter punishment might deter legitimate tactics.

The general reasoning in all of this is that we don't tell you how to play.

From= https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...um-Mafia-Rules
"No Spamming
If people did not care the first time, they will not care the next twenty times.
Infraction: Regular Post Spam, 1 point"

Isn't this directly against rules?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

If You had gone through with gamethrowing, would you not be altering the setup to be off-balanced though thereby changing the dynamic of the entire game? I was merely using ddos as an example, we could also say you claimed you were investigative and was going to OGC the scum the town's tpr, this would give scum additional abilities which were never intended.

It was a bluff, I wouldn't game throw on purpose.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

The fact that you admit that your play was terrible is the first step. Try improving it instead of blaming others for your defects.

I was referring to you, you were by far the most detrimental player to town that game.

[ThePaladin]

It was a bluff, I wouldn't game throw on purpose.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my point.

I am stating how this isn't a typical bluff.

It would be like me and you are playing poker and instead of me going all in. I whisper to you I already know all your cards and one of the guys at the table are messaging me what they are. If you also don't cooperate I will play the rest of this game against you till you are out.

[ThePaladin]

Perhaps you misinterpreted my point.

I am stating how this isn't a typical bluff.

It would be like me and you are playing poker and instead of me going all in. I whisper to you I already know all your cards and one of the guys at the table are messaging me what they are. If you also don't cooperate I will play the rest of this game against you till you are out.

The consequences of the bluff being real or not are VERY different from me just going all in on a hand(the maximum bluff by the rules normally).

[MattZed]

From= https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...um-Mafia-Rules
"No Spamming
If people did not care the first time, they will not care the next twenty times.
Infraction: Regular Post Spam, 1 point"

Isn't this directly against rules?

Er... that's an out-of-game rule, not an in-game rule. (not that I'm opposed to making it apply to both going forward)

[ThePaladin]

Er... that's an out-of-game rule, not an in-game rule. (not that I'm opposed to making it apply to both going forward)

I can't read English apparently...

GJ Me.

[DarknessB]

I was referring to you, you were by far the most detrimental player to town that game.

Yeah, Calix really screwed up with her claiming one role, forcing the actual one of that role to counterclaim, then another head of hers claiming a second role, then her claiming a third role, and forcing her ally to out herself as well. Oh, and then holding the game hostage at gunpoint by threatening to gamethrow four different times if she didn't get a Town player lynched the way she wanted. She's a terrible player.

[Fatalis]

I personally find threatening to break a rule rather distasteful. The reason it's not already a rule is that FM historically has a very strong free speech tradition; you're allowed to be an asshole in-game. However, there's also a strong tradition for letting hosts dictate how their games are played, and hosts are always free to prohibit tactics they find distasteful. (I'll likely make a "no threatening to break rules" rule in my future games, myself.)

Strictly speaking, I'm not opposed to making an FM-wide rule against threatening to break rules, and I get the impression there are many in the community who would like to see such a rule.

This is what makes games interesting FM Batman

[ThePaladin]

Yeah, Calix really screwed up with her claiming one role, forcing the actual one of that role to counterclaim, then another head of hers claiming a second role, then her claiming a third role, and forcing her ally to out herself as well. Oh, and then holding the game hostage at gunpoint by threatening to gamethrow four different times if she didn't get a Town player lynched the way she wanted. She's a terrible player.

Can We Either Limit Stuff About the Game To The Game Thread or at least coorelate it back to the discussion this thread was made for. Thanks?

[Calix]

The only reason we even have to consider this as a rule is because of one player.

Everyone else is sensible and considerate enough to realise that all variations of game-throwing as a "strategy" are unsportsmanlike at best and ruin the game at worst.

However, because it wasn't explicitly stated that it was against the rules, he justifies this play. That is his defence. "Oh it didn't ACTUALLY violate any rules."

That's the only reason he keeps pulling this shit. It has nothing to do with the rules themselves and everything to do with the fact that he's looking for a loophole to justify his behaviour.

[ThePaladin]

This is what makes games interesting

Care To Comment On My Example Of What The Equivalent Is In Poker?

Would you also say that doing that if that was allowed it would be something that makes games interesting and therefore allowed even if it's explicitly stated by a player?

[DarknessB]

I asked before I said it, just for the record.

I think it is a valid strategy personally, trying to force another player to vote with you. It is a game of deception after all.

"Because I technically am permitted to make everyone's Forum Mafia experience miserable under the current rules due to an interpretation loophole that all hosts are in now in the process of patching, that's exactly what I intend to do whenever possible. I'm also a great player despite needed to resort to such tactics to play games."

[ThePaladin]

Also How Would This Be Decided? Would it be completly up to the S-FM Mods, All Staff, Majority Or Supermajority vote from all active players or how?

[DarknessB]

Also How Would This Be Decided? Would it be completly up to the S-FM Mods, All Staff, Majority Or Supermajority vote from all active players or how?

The immediate solution is for hosts to add an anti-threatened, attempted, or faked game-throwing rule to their setups. That's what I've been encouraging and so far, every host that has been requested to add the rule has. Seems promising so far.

[ThePaladin]

The immediate solution is for hosts to add an anti-threatened, attempted, or faked game-throwing rule to their setups. That's what I've been encouraging and so far, every host that has been requested to add the rule has. Seems promising so far.

Is there a place on the site for recommended rules for hosts by chance?
Perhaps we could also add it there if so.

[Calix]

Is there a place on the site for recommended rules for hosts by chance?
Perhaps we could also add it there if so.

Perhaps adding these new rules to the "in-game" rule thread would help?

Then it automatically applies to all future games without the hosts having to manually add it in.

[DarknessB]

Is there a place on the site for recommended rules for hosts by chance?
Perhaps we could also add it there if so.

I don't think there is, but that would be a good idea for a sticky, even if it's just options for rules explaining why players think they are good.

[DarknessB]

Perhaps adding these new rules to the "in-game" rule thread would help?

Then it automatically applies to all future games without the hosts having to manually add it in.

FM Staff does not necessarily agree with making the rule universal, which is the issue. Some believe that while reprehensible, it should technically be allowed. Hence my "host by host" approach in the interim / unless that changes.

[ThePaladin]

I don't think there is, but that would be a good idea for a sticky, even if it's just options for rules explaining why players think they are good.

It would also be nice if it had hosts name next to certain rules they standardly use in their games.

[Calix]

It would also be nice if it had hosts name next to certain rules they standardly use in their games.

You're thinking of a setup thread

[ThePaladin]

You're thinking of a setup thread

I meant in general for (new) players/(new) hosts to get an idea (in one place) of what hosts they like generally use or what hosted games would they like to be a part of.
This is mostly an extraneous idea also.



I know setup threads have them X_X.

[Quick]

Will be making a new rule in my setup right about... now. Yeah, I think now is a good time to do this.

[DarknessB]

I meant in general for (new) players/(new) hosts to get an idea (in one place) of what hosts they like generally use or what hosted games would they like to be a part of.
This is mostly an extraneous idea also.



I know setup threads have them X_X.

Paladin means like a "How To Host" guide or thread that lists the commonly used or suggested rules for a game. Not a bad idea, especially if we have to do this patchwork to solve this particular issue.

[ThePaladin]

Also if this becomes implemented should stating that one does not care about the game be inclusive to threatening to gamethrow?

Note: This does not mean a person getting fed up and saying " I honestly don't care at this point" as a sign of being tired but still demonstrating care. It means a person going, "I don't care about this game so I'm just going to do this!" or the like.

[Calix]

Also if this becomes implemented should stating that one does not care about the game be inclusive to threatening to gamethrow?

Depends on the context, but apathy towards a game is not the same thing as actively making a threat to work against your win condition.

[DarknessB]

Also if this becomes implemented should stating that one does not care about the game be inclusive to threatening to gamethrow?

Probably host discretion or initial warning in that case. I feel like that is a somewhat flippant type of comment and not necessarily suggesting that the player will gamethrow, as opposed to overtly saying "if you do not do X, I will gamethrow". It's always going to depend on the judgment of the host honestly, in terms of whether the player should be warned, replaced out, or modkilled. In other words, facts and circumstances.

[Fatalis]

Care To Comment On My Example Of What The Equivalent Is In Poker?

Would you also say that doing that if that was allowed it would be something that makes games interesting and therefore allowed even if it's explicitly stated by a player?

I can't see how the example is relevant. Although I don't oppose the proposed rule, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary. We should preserve the freedom of speech in mafia, if a player threatens to game-throw, it may be a valid scum tactic. In the case of a confirmed town threatening to game-throw (obviously some people are pertaining to SexyDucK's play in the last S-FM), its up to the other players as to how they want to react. Keep in mind that the act of game-throwing is still not allowed. Keep in mind that said confirmed town may be using the tactic in an effort to win the game.

[ThePaladin]

Depends on the context, but apathy towards a game is not the same thing as actively making a threat to work against your win condition.

Which Is Why I'm Asking if it should still be disallowed under a rule "no threatening to break rules." since it's technically different but a person not playing to win by being apathetic can also be considered gamethrowing under some definitions.

[BananaCucho]

All this arguing.

My solution is simple. I won't allow players with a history of ruining games repeatedly into my future games, and simply won't sign for games in which they are in anymore.

[ThePaladin]

I can't see how the example is relevant. Although I don't oppose the proposed rule, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary. We should preserve the freedom of speech in mafia, if a player threatens to game-throw, it may be a valid scum tactic. In the case of a confirmed town threatening to game-throw (obviously some people are pertaining to SexyDucK's play in the last S-FM), its up to the other players as to how they want to react. Keep in mind that the act of game-throwing is still not allowed. Keep in mind that said confirmed town may be using the tactic in an effort to win the game.

It's a coorelation example.

Gamethrowing to break rules in mafia (a game of deception like you said) vs
Gamethrowign to break rules in poker(a game of deception).

If it is okay in one, it should be allowed in the other based on your logic and the inverse. I was also illustrating how a traditional bluff differs from a threatening to break rules bluff.

[DarknessB]

I can't see how the example is relevant. Although I don't oppose the proposed rule, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary. We should preserve the freedom of speech in mafia, if a player threatens to game-throw, it may be a valid scum tactic. In the case of a confirmed town threatening to game-throw (obviously some people are pertaining to SexyDucK's play in the last S-FM), its up to the other players as to how they want to react. Keep in mind that the act of game-throwing is still not allowed. Keep in mind that said confirmed town may be using the tactic in an effort to win the game.

Honestly, it's a question of what the majority of hosts and players feel is appropriate. I feel like the number of players who would be alienated by this type of play greatly exceeds the value of the play as a scum tactic or otherwise. There are other limits to freedom of speech in Mafia include faking host communications / OGC, personal attacks, etc. I don't see this as being any different or abridging a strategy that should be encouraged at all.

[DarknessB]

Which Is Why I'm Asking if it should still be disallowed under a rule "no threatening to break rules." since it's technically different but a person not playing to win by being apathetic can also be considered gamethrowing under some definitions.

Host's discretion, like anything else. You can't have a bright line rule here given every situation will be different.

[Quick]

I can't see how the example is relevant. Although I don't oppose the proposed rule, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary. We should preserve the freedom of speech in mafia, if a player threatens to game-throw, it may be a valid scum tactic. In the case of a confirmed town threatening to game-throw (obviously some people are pertaining to SexyDucK's play in the last S-FM), its up to the other players as to how they want to react. Keep in mind that the act of game-throwing is still not allowed. Keep in mind that said confirmed town may be using the tactic in an effort to win the game.

The question tho, is why resort to that? I was in a game a few weeks ago where a player posted an image of their role from the host. Even tho they were lynched anyways, it still left a sour taste in my mouth.

[ThePaladin]

All this arguing.

My solution is simple. I won't allow players with a history of ruining games repeatedly into my future games, and simply won't sign for games in which they are in anymore.

That's good and all but what about new players who haven't played before and we don't have information on playstyle.
What if old players who traditionally don't follow this decide to try it?

The point of this thread is about

*State of Site
*How To Remedy Behavoir that is considered distasteful
*What qualifies within freedom of speech and its boundaries
*Whether Action Or Inaction against this behavior Should Be Standardized or Up To Host
*Helping Hosts Setup Rules

[DarknessB]

It's a coorelation example.

Gamethrowing to break rules in mafia (a game of deception like you said) vs
Gamethrowign to break rules in poker(a game of deception).

If it is okay in one, it should be allowed in the other based on your logic and the inverse. I was also illustrating how a traditional bluff differs from a threatening to break rules bluff.

It's the equivalent of playing poker and saying, if you don't fold right here, I am going to grab my chips and run away so you can't collect on the bet for the round -- it's your choice! Even if you didn't mean it, I'm pretty sure you're getting thrown out of the casino at that point.

[DarknessB]

The question tho, is why resort to that? I was in a game a few weeks ago where a player posted an image of their role from the host. Even tho they were lynched anyways, it still left a sour taste in my mouth.

That's the fake gamethrow part of the rule I am proposing. It just creates needless drama that is external to the game IMO.