Exeter: 1-S2-1-5640160

[SaladAss]

Account Name: Exeter
Account ID: 1-S2-1-5640160
In-Game Name: Kang Gary ( 7 )

Crimes Committed: Cheating, (insulting ?)

Your Account Name: SaladAss
Summary: So 7 and 8 know and trust each other. 8 gets sheriff and invests 7 N1. He sees that 7 is "ns" ( still might be DH or SK ) but reveals himself to 7 to start pming and trying to win the game easier since they trust each other. Well I don't like this kind of behavior but I don't consider it as cheating.
During N3, I got witched into 7 and therefore killed him ( I'm informant so I took his place ). And since 7 and 8 trust each other, I instantly received a pm from 7 telling me some info he gathered during the night. Then the notification appears, someone got killed and has (???) as his role. Which means that there is either an incence master or an informant. 8 knowing that INSTANTLY pm'd me asking me for my battle.net name, this is PURE cheating, how could I get myself out of this situation ?

I understood that I had lost the game so I blamed him of cheating and what did he answer ? This guy has a LIST OF PEOPLE (that use the same name every game) HE TRUSTS AND THEIR BATTLE.NET NAME, he even c/c'd it !!!!
Honestly, what the fuck ? this guy can pretty much spot out the informant in any game....
So yeah of course, I get instantly lynched.... Bravo you're such a good player, you spotted me !

But it doesn't stops here, this guy dies the night after -> I threaten to report him for cheating in dead people chat -> he gets toxic, here are some sentences I just c/c'd :
" get lost kid "
" you must be a new kid "
" silly new kids "
" silly, silly new kids "
" fucking scrubs "
" listen up you little shit "
" stop qqing you little bitch "
" LISTEN TO THIS LITTLE SHIT TALK "
" LOLOLOLOLOL "
" salty little faggot "
" oh shit guys, you hear this little shit talk ?"
" LOLOLOLOLOL "
" I spend most of my time reporting players, kid"
" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOL "
" let the little shit talk big all he wants "
" most likely he's one of those little brats that talk big but do nothing "
" in the event he actually does something, nothing can be done anyway LMAO "
" LOLOLOLOLOL "
" GG dude (while talking to 8 ), thanks for adding your name to my list ;)"
" shitty lil kid"
" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"
" THIS GUY IS FUNNY "
" HE'S SO SALTY ITS FUNNY "
" we should form a group of regular players, one day we play together, all with "trademark" names that'll be fun as hell, so we know exactly who's who"
other guy saying "we get achievements on the wayu"
"Oh hell yes "

Here's my report, hf

[PowersThatBe]

SC ID VERIFICATION
1. Exeter Correct. 1-S2-1-5640160


Respective Hotkeys
1. 7

Was the Game Result altered?
1. Probable, Triad lost. Had Exeter not used out of game information, Informant might have been successful.

Previous Offenses
1. None.


Player Offenses
1. Cheating/Additional Information



Summary
Exeter rolls Jailor.
N1: Jails (1) Player 1 claims BG, Exeter lets him go. There are no Triad kills.
D2: Exeter is PM’d by player (EIGHT) who states that Exeter is NS and that he is sheriff and will trust Exeter. Exeter tells him that he is jailor and that 1 is most likely DH.
N2: Exeter jails and executes 1.
(Informant kill sequence is heard)
D3: One flips BG. Exeter pm’s 8 to see if he was disguised or not. When 8 does not answer with his Battle.net name, Exeter calls for his lynch. Player 8 immediately calls this cheating, and 8 is hanged. Exeter during this day admits that he keeps a list of all players who use the same name from game to game. This allowed him to figure out 8 was disguised.
N3: Exeter is killed and a lengthy argument starts in death chat.

The rest of the game proceeds normally with DH and Liaison being killed without controversy. SK goes on to win the game. Exeter used “Out Of Game (OOG)” information to make in-game decisions, this is frowned upon and not acceptable behavior.

Spoiler : Chat Log 1: :

Spoiler : Chat Log 2: :

Spoiler : Chat Log 3: :

Conclusion: Cheating/additional information

*Had to use Imgur because the program that reads the chat log could not pull this replay for some reason. Thanks*


Recommended Action
1. Watch-List x3


Additional Notes
Thanks for the report! This report required some thought and discussion. While the player may have thought what he was doing was acceptable, and not cheating, he was actually in violation of the rules. It is important to note, that forcing anyone to give you their battle.net name as a means to confirm their identity flies in the face of what the core principle of Mafia is, anonymity. In this instance, Exeter knew that his friend had been disguised because he would no longer PM him, and he would not give his battle.net name. Using this information, Exeter was able to gain an unfair advantage over the informant player and completely blockade his game-play. Please do not hesitate to send in more reports.

A note to Exeter: Being a well-known community member, and player reporter, you are held to a higher standard, and we expect players like you to know and to follow the rules just as any other player. While we know you, and have played with you, that does not grant you special treatment or excuse you from punishment. While you might have thought what you were doing was acceptable, it was not. You of all people should know how damaging and disruptive cheating can be to the good of the game. Gloating to other players about how you report a lot of people, and stating that you will not get into trouble while insulting this player was deeply disappointing. We appreciate your community involvement, however, all of us are held to the same standard when it applies to violation of community rules. I hope this will not deter your involvement in the future, and we ask that you and anyone you play with destroy any list that you have of frequent same name users, and that you never use any of that information to you or your teams benefit ever again. It's great to make friends in the community, but like everyone else, we expect that you will not use information external to the game itself when playing the game, because that is unfair to the other players who do not know the same people that you do. Thank you.

[SaladAss]

Thanks. And sorry for my english, I'm playing from Europe.

[Arrow]

1-S2-1-5640160: 3x WL

[Exeter350]

Hmm. Well, I get the point that knowing who's who is unfair for anyone who doesn't know the same people that I do, since it gives me an unfair advantage - sure, I acknowledge that. I just want to argue whether or not it's "cheating".

May I point out that since I do know who many players are, it is impossible for me to pretend like I don't know who they are? For instance, long-time players would know that Balthy frequently uses a purple Akemi Homura as his name, and he talks in a distinct manner ("I am Spy." "I am the Investigator."). If someone were to disguise as Balthy, then talks in a completely different manner, is it cheating if long-time players identify that instantly, and call him out for it?

If yes - I have nothing else to say and accept my punishment, because apparently we're expected to pretend like we don't know anything.

If no - then that is precisely what I was doing with EAMP in this report. I'm sure the people reviewing this know Balthy, the name he uses, and the way he speaks. That FireBringer always uses a (something)bringer name. That AIVION uses MEOWMIX. You guys should get my point better than anyone else.

Maybe it's the fact that I compiled a list.
I put a list of names in a Mafia.txt file with my coloured names, blacklists, prefers and stuff. But with or without that written list I will still remember who everyone is. Just like how everyone knows Balthy is Akemi Homura without writing it down. I have deleted the file for prudence's sake, but it doesn't make a difference, the list is in my head, and I still know who's who.

Maybe it's the fact that I asked for a Bnet name.
Same thing as the Balthy example. If Akemi Homura suddenly fails to tell everyone he's Balthy, I'm sure all long-time players will insta-lynch him.

Tbh, I would've lynched the Informant in this game with or without the Bnet name question, since he stopped replying to my pm's in game. As I mentioned in the death chat, as soon as he stopped replying me I knew something was up. I could just as easily asked him "What did we talk about yesterday?" and when he fails to answer I would've led a lynch on him. It really, really would not have made a difference. It's just that my particular question made the Informant salty, that's all.

The fact that this report is here at all, that I have to defend myself like this, is simply because someone is salted af. I have witnessed similar strategies before - asking for Bnet name, asking for coloured text, etc etc. No problem ever came out of that, because no one was ever bothered enough to write a report - except this salty ass kid.

[PowersThatBe]

Hmm. Well, I get the point that knowing who's who is unfair for anyone who doesn't know the same people that I do, since it gives me an unfair advantage - sure, I acknowledge that. I just want to argue whether or not it's "cheating".

May I point out that since I do know who many players are, it is impossible for me to pretend like I don't know who they are? For instance, long-time players would know that Balthy frequently uses a purple Akemi Homura as his name, and he talks in a distinct manner ("I am Spy." "I am the Investigator."). If someone were to disguise as Balthy, then talks in a completely different manner, is it cheating if long-time players identify that instantly, and call him out for it?

If yes - I have nothing else to say and accept my punishment, because apparently we're expected to pretend like we don't know anything.

If no - then that is precisely what I was doing with EAMP in this report. I'm sure the people reviewing this know Balthy, the name he uses, and the way he speaks. That FireBringer always uses a (something)bringer name. That AIVION uses MEOWMIX. You guys should get my point better than anyone else.

Maybe it's the fact that I compiled a list.
I put a list of names in a Mafia.txt file with my coloured names, blacklists, prefers and stuff. But with or without that written list I will still remember who everyone is. Just like how everyone knows Balthy is Akemi Homura without writing it down. I have deleted the file for prudence's sake, but it doesn't make a difference, the list is in my head, and I still know who's who.

Maybe it's the fact that I asked for a Bnet name.
Same thing as the Balthy example. If Akemi Homura suddenly fails to tell everyone he's Balthy, I'm sure all long-time players will insta-lynch him.

Tbh, I would've lynched the Informant in this game with or without the Bnet name question, since he stopped replying to my pm's in game. As I mentioned in the death chat, as soon as he stopped replying me I knew something was up. I could just as easily asked him "What did we talk about yesterday?" and when he fails to answer I would've led a lynch on him. It really, really would not have made a difference. It's just that my particular question made the Informant salty, that's all.

The fact that this report is here at all, that I have to defend myself like this, is simply because someone is salted af. I have witnessed similar strategies before - asking for Bnet name, asking for coloured text, etc etc. No problem ever came out of that, because no one was ever bothered enough to write a report - except this salty ass kid.

Your last paragraph is great, and had you done that you would have been in the clear. But because you solicited out of game information, that gave you an unfair advantage you were in violation. Whether or not you needed the question is truly a moot point, the only thing that matters is what you did or didn't do. In this instance you chose to use the information about the player and his real SC2 name and that is where the violation occurred.

Also, the other curious thing was the fact that he checked you N1 and said you were NS and then he claimed Sheriff. You both instantly trusted each other without hesitation. I understand you play a lot, and you are devoted to the community, however, actions that you made in game crossed a line.

You are always welcome to appeal, and someone else can review and make a final decision if you'd like.

But there were several factors leading to this decision, and while you probably didn't intentionally cheat, you still violated the rules when you asked for information that was impossible for anyone in the game to give you other than EAMP himself. And while yes, what you talked about the day before is also something only you two knew, that conversation happened within the game, that's where the difference lays.

[Exeter350]

I am an advocate of the "actions, not intents" principle, so I agree whole-heartedly with this:

But because you solicited out of game information, that gave you an unfair advantage you were in violation. Whether or not you needed the question is truly a moot point, the only thing that matters is what you did or didn't do.

My intention may have been to lynch the Informant as soon as he didn't reply my pm, with or without the question, but because I did ask the subsequent question, I'm screwed. Sure, I can accept that.

I'd like to appeal for an audit, all the same. I believe the reviewer will take into account the effect of the offense on the game's outcome, when reviewing a report. As I've argued:

Tbh, I would've lynched the Informant in this game with or without the Bnet name question, since he stopped replying to my pm's in game. As I mentioned in the death chat, as soon as he stopped replying me I knew something was up. I could just as easily asked him "What did we talk about yesterday?" and when he fails to answer I would've led a lynch on him. It really, really would not have made a difference.

If the reviewer agrees that the Informant was doomed from the moment he stopped replying my pm's, that he would've lynched him after that point in the game if he were in my shoes, I think we can agree my subsequent Bnet name question didn't make a difference at all.


Side-note:
Anyone who plays a few games with EAMP is likely to know his name. He created a reputation for himself by spamming the same line every game, which goes something like this if I remember correctly, "For more information about Star Citizen, please visit RobertsSpaceIndustries.com."

This is the same reasoning I gave for the Balthy example - play a few games with anyone who constantly uses the same name and you'll know quite a bit about them - their Bnet name, the way they speak, etc. It is NOT information that only EAMP and myself would know. If someone was disguised in game and Star Citizen suddenly fails to copy and paste his spam message, I'm sure everyone will insta-lynch him.

It doesn't have to be a spammer, and it doesn't have to be a bad reputation. The same logic applies to any player who constantly uses the same name.

Again, it's not a big deal, and people normally aren't bothered enough to report this. It's just one salty kid QQ-ing, that's all.

[PowersThatBe]

Your PMs were in quick succession, I don't think the B.net name question can be ruled out. You also used it as part of your reasoning to get him lynched in public. It still matters IMO, even if you claim it doesn't.

You shouldn't simply dismiss the person reporting as being salty. He felt his game was unfairly ruined by factors outside of the game, and after personally reviewing the game, we know where I stand on the matter.

[Exeter350]

Fair enough. I'd still like to apply for an audit, to get another perspective on this.

[PowersThatBe]

Of course.

[Lysergic]

Tbh, I would've lynched the Informant in this game with or without the Bnet name question, since he stopped replying to my pm's in game. As I mentioned in the death chat, as soon as he stopped replying me I knew something was up. I could just as easily asked him "What did we talk about yesterday?" and when he fails to answer I would've led a lynch on him. It really, really would not have made a difference. It's just that my particular question made the Informant salty, that's all.

Yeah, but you didn't do it without the Bnet name question, so this is a moot point.

I'm sure that some of the people who role hack in Mafia are great players, who could win games. But the fact that they chose to cheat is what got them punished, not the fact that they were great players who were prosecuted by "salty af" players.

The issue here is that doing what you did very clearly goes against the spirit of the game. It's the same reason why forcing a jailed person to quickly type their role card in chat was deemed cheating (this was before you could mouse hover over your role card, so literally the only way around this was to memorize all of them verbatim, and you'd still often get executed for not typing it quickly enough or having minor typos).

Using out of game methods to gain an advantage in the game is cheating. And the scenario you described about long term players knowing each other is exactly why Forum Mafia games on this site require random anonymous names and explicitly ban hunting for people's real identities.

I have witnessed similar strategies before - asking for Bnet name, asking for coloured text, etc etc. No problem ever came out of that, because no one was ever bothered enough to write a report - except this salty ass kid.

Whether or not the reporter is "salty" doesn't change what happened in the replay.

I know that when I report people, it's usually after they just ruined a game that I was trying to enjoy, so being upset about it is pretty natural.

[Exeter350]

Heh alright, the votes are in and have been counted. I concede and won't do it again then.

[Lysergic]

Heh alright, the votes are in and have been counted. I concede and won't do it again then.

I mean, I'm just going off PTB's review of what happened. I haven't watched the replay first hand, so I can't say what did or didn't happen for certain. If you want a real audit, I'm happy to mark the thread for it.

[Exeter350]

Yeah I want a real audit. xD Thanks Lysergic.

[Exeter350]

On second thoughts, I'd like to rescind my request for an audit. There's no need to waste any of the moderators' time, I'll just accept the punishment. It was an honest mistake, but since I now have a better understanding of the rules, I can avoid committing the same offense again. As for SaladAss, he's not the first salty kid I've encountered that has reported me, he's just the first that got lucky because I made a legit mistake. Next time we meet things will be very different LOL.

At least by accepting my punishment I can walk away with my dignity intact, and SaladAss (who's still lurking around watching this thread lmao) won't have the satisfaction of seeing me "beg" for an audit. ;)

Balthy was telling me how he and Thug have been punished before. If even great players like them have been watchlisted/banlisted before, I think I can take this 3x watchlist in my stride.

[DarknessB]

Exeter, we understand that players sometimes violate rules without realizing what they are doing is against them. We appreciate your involvement in the Mafia community, including the reports you file, and take you at your word that this type of thing won't happen again.

Candidly, we had some internal discussion about this fact pattern when it first arose and had the appeal review uncovered what PTB said happened, the punishment would have likely stayed the same. To that end, we thank you for helping us to be efficient here and learning from the mistake vs. making a big scene about it which helps no one. Hope to see you around in games.

[Exeter350]

Hahhaha aye. See you around.

[SaladAss]

-It's just one salty kid QQ-ing, that's all.

-except this salty ass kid.

Uh, I didn't even talk that much in-game, you were the one to spam the lines I've written on the first post... " LOLOLOL" "fucking scrub", I didn't even insult you once dude...
Also, I wasn't the one to make fun of the other once we met in another game.
And by the way, I don't understand why you matter so much to mods, you're so damn arrogant mate, must be a pain for your relatives.

[DarknessB]

Uh, I didn't even talk that much in-game, you were the one to spam the lines I've written on the first post... " LOLOLOL" "fucking scrub", I didn't even insult you once dude...
Also, I wasn't the one to make fun of the other once we met in another game.
And by the way, I don't understand why you matter so much to mods, you're so damn arrogant mate, must be a pain for your relatives.

Guys, I get that games become heated sometimes, but you're both community members here. Let's all try to get along and play the game well, ok? It's a game that we're supposed to be having fun playing. Sometimes, it's helpful if everyone takes it down a notch and remember that the idea is to have fun and do a good job.

On that note, please no personal attacks here. I get that you two aren't going to be best friends, but let's keep it civil for everyone's sake. This report is resolved and we should all move on.