I think there's pretty clearly a distinction between "shade," which is wholly expected in a game about lying to and manipulating people, and actual insults.
Calling someone a wolf or saying their posts are wolfy, scummy, or have any other kind of quality to them (greasy, slippery, etc.) pretty much has to be okay.
Ascribing negative motives to them ("you're doing XXXX because you're a wolf / trying to get me lynched") similarly *has* to be okay.
You can't really... play Mafia and expect to never be lynched or called wolfy or accused of being things you probably aren't even. Misinterpretation, even when intentional, *has* to be okay. Lying about game related stuff *has* to be okay. Even name-calling *has* to be okay to some extent; I don't really think it's arguable that calling someone "slippery" isn't an insult, even if it is somewhat less derogatory than the similar "greasy," but is *greasy* too derogatory?
I think we should draw *a* line at insulting other people's mental faculties directly. Calling someone stupid, retarded, etc. is pretty much over the line in all situations.
But sometimes when you say someone *did* something stupid, or made a stupid post, or call their theory stupid, they take that as a personal attack even though you aren't attacking them as a person just their night action / plan / post / whatever.
And sometimes someone has a string of bad ideas and telling them all of their ideas are dumb creates a pattern that makes them feel unwelcome or ganged up on.
Soooo. What I'm saying is the line is blurry, fuzzy, and indistinct. I won't really take it as an insult if you aren't directly attacking me. Some people have a thinner skin and take it personally when you criticize their ideas. I think we should make an effort to use "more positive" words like slippery instead of greasy, bad instead of stupid, just don't even use retarded if you can help it.
There are ways to criticize ideas tactfully without insulting the character or mental ability of someone.
Buuuut. When it comes down to it, the game is fundamentally about ascribing motives to and smearing other people or figuring out who is doing those things. You can't really be an intellectually honest wolf if you're really, honestly playing to win. And sometimes winning as a wolf is going to involve spinning narratives where other people have lied when they haven't, did something dumb, etc.
Something I've sort of been struggling with myself is that it's particularly problematic from a *game meta* perspective that some people think these are acceptable for wolves to do but *not* for villagers to do because it creates an unwinnable situation for wolves on the whole. They're "bad people" if they play their wolf meta as town and lose all their wolf games if they're a "good" person as town. If you're town and you think someone is scum, using your wolf tactics to get them lynched should *always* be on the table, and if you're a wolf it should be acceptable to do the same things to get out of a lynch as if you're a villager. I've sort of been grappling with this specific question since I got Vaimes to clear me in BareBones with a kind of, in hindsight, gross appeal to emotion. And he told me he hoped I wouldn't do that if I was a wolf, and I realized he was right, that I *wouldn't* and even probably *couldn't* make that post as a wolf, and the post was sort of even grosser for that. *It was that very fact* that made the post inappropriate.
I guess what I'm really saying is, you can't really draw a line in the sand and say "this is always unacceptable," and you similarly can't say "this is always acceptable" either.
Well, yeah, slurs are clearly unacceptable. I guess I just take that as a general given that people shouldn't use slurs, and we don't really have a problem with people using slurs anyway. At least not the commonly accepted ones.
The point about calling out bad/incorrect play is a line I'm really interested in. My toxicity this game came largely from a frustration of feeling like I was incorrectly being told my ideas were bad/wrong. Doesn't make my response okay. I still needed to not rise to that.
But it's a really hard line to manage. Letting players tell each other their reads are wrong and talk it through is important. Telling someone that they have worthless ideas and should not share obviously isn't okay. But the point where it goes from okay to unacceptable is past the line where more thin skinned players (like myself) will get upset.
The hostility killed this game for me. I think we as a forum have room to reel back aggressiveness, like, 90% and still have fun games of mafia. Sure, there's a grey area, but this game wasn't in it. And a lot of what I've seen in other games isn't in it.
I've played a lot of games of Mafia, Werewolf, and variants thereof, both online and in real life. I've played tons of games where no one ever told anyone else "that play is bad." I'm not even talking about "don't insult players" - I'm saying that you can have an excellent game without even insulting actions. You just don't need it! It's not a core part of the game!
The core part of the game is accusations of lying, which is perfectly fine. And you can tell people they're mistaken and it's fine. But I don't agree with the idea that we have to have any amount of attacks aimed at competence and intelligence. At all. At any level.
I get that many people are used to that. I get that a lot of people will think I'm just thin skinned. The thing is, I can handle a game with insults flying around - I never replaced out of this game, for example. I just don't want to. We don't have to accept this. There are other ways to play.
And I get that I'm just one rando in a forum of many, and I'm not demanding that MTGS jumps alllll the way to that point where no one makes any insults. But it's certainly possible to make large steps in the direction of fewer insults, less aggressiveness, less dismissal, long before we get to that point. At minimum stronger enforcement of the actual existing rules - we did get modkills in this game, but only after the line had been crossed egregiously, over and over.
I think there's a difference between insults and saying "that choice was incorrect because XXX."
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack? Which words can we substitute for "incorrect" that aren't offensive to anyone? Should we just always use "incorrect" instead of synonyms like "boneheaded" or "dumb"? It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
And I'm not defending anyone's actions in this game in particular, I'm just saying I don't think you can draw a line in the sand and say "stuff on this side is always okay and stuff on this side is never okay" because you can't really define which side of the line stuff like, say, "boneheaded" is.
I think there's a difference between insults and saying "that choice was incorrect because XXX."
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack? Which words can we substitute for "incorrect" that aren't offensive to anyone? Should we just always use "incorrect" instead of synonyms like "boneheaded" or "dumb"? It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
And I'm not defending anyone's actions in this game in particular, I'm just saying I don't think you can draw a line in the sand and say "stuff on this side is always okay and stuff on this side is never okay" because you can't really define which side of the line stuff like, say, "boneheaded" is.
The point where I lost my temper was not just about the language, but in it coming from multiple directions. I only lashed out at DV but when I started seeing red was when I had multiple people accuse me of making things up rather than reading the game. Some of the language was more mocking as well but it was the repeated remarks from multiple sources that got under my skin. Which was in fact rather thin.
I don't think that's helpful in trying to create moderation guidelines but it's my experience. Building on your point I think it's when people pile on without adding to the conversation that becomes the issue for thin skinned people like myself. Obviously I'm not saying that makes it okay to insult individuals.
@LW GJ was a rolecop who could also steal abilities. Wuffles was a RB who if he sucessfully RB'd someone unlocked a daykill the next day. Wuffles chose to hold the shot after preventing tom's NK the previous night and the following night GJ stole his abiltiy gaining the Daykill. The ability was worded in such a way that he could only steal the kill if Wuffles had unlocked it and chosen not to fire the shot. If he'd stolen before it was unlocked it was impossible for GJ to unlock the kill.
I'm way too busy to take this to the conclusion that it ultimately should be taken to.
First, How was this approved to be a normal? I have no idea how this was approved at all as a normal, because it definitely is not a normal.
Second, the mod kills were a good thing. I could really go into lengths about this, but overall I was largely forcibly replaced out. I don't agree with that decision, simply because I think there were a lot of other players that should have also been forcibly replaced out.
I'm still directly saying that Kpaca purposefully incited things with me there at the end. With they way he treated that situation I don't for a minute think it was genuine. But ignoring that,
GJ's behavior this game was pretty silly at some points and people seem to have glossed over that. Terry, basically called Last a retard and that should have been an insta mod kill or a replacement out.
I have talked to the council, and Ecophagy's response to me is that treating players equally by mods is not a requirement. Zionite has now stated the exact opposite in his post in the council thread. Eco has agreed with me that I was treated unequally, but has no interest in doing anything about it.
My basic problem with this game, is that I think there were a lot of problems this game. I think Shadow was in a tough spot, however, I think he made the wrong decisions. Him, in my opinion, lying to me about the situation as well doesn't sit well with me. But, really the problem to me is that players were not treated equally this game. Shadow largely said that I hadn't really broken the rules of the game, but that I had broken the "Spirit of the rules". Honestly, I agree. My problem becomes is that there were players breaking the actual rules of the game, and they were not being addressed in the slightest. That isn't fair. You don't replace one player for breaking the rules, and then not replace others because you can't find replacements. You really don't replace a borderline case, and then not replace people that actually cross the line.
I'm also moving that Dota be placed on probation. His lurking has gotten god damn untenable to me. Having him replace me and then have 3 more posts than Fuwa is just god damn insulting.
I want to start by thanking you for playing, and specifically several of you who stuck it out for the sake of the game. Also thanks to all of my replacements for jumping into the game.
Designing this game was incredibly fun, and getting to see things play out from a mechanical standpoint was fantastic. I hope people found the roles interesting and those who rolled them I hope enjoyed them.
Some design notes:
-The night skip was the keynote design piece; everything in the game was designed to keep the role in the game, and thanks to my reviewers for helping make that possible. It was also the backbone for the flavor; this game started as a mishmash or different flavors from all over the place, and in an attempt to make it more cohesive and a better game, I streamlined the flavor to be PlayStation themed so that I could keep the role as Amaterasu, because it started off as a top down design in the first place.
-Darth Vader was designed to unlock a kill for almost the exact scenario that happened; being a town roleblocker and blocking the night kill is such a satisfying feeling, and getting to immediately kill the blocked player was intended both to be really cool, and to progress the game forward instead of having a day where the lynch is set and it doesn’t matter. While I disagree with Wuffles decision to holster, I can see his logic and don’t really fault him for it. Additionally, the daykill unlock clause originally said “you unlock a second ability if you successfully block an ability” and this was changed due to seeing the strength of the roleblocker ability in Arkham Mafia; knowing whether you blocked someone or not turns out to be very good.
-The Role thief was intended to be a Vanilla-izor in most scenarios, the theft of the ability was there as an added bonus.
-If anyone has any other design questions ask me, like I said, this game was super fun to make and I learned quite a bit.With regards to mod action:
My primary take away from this was that I was far too limp wristed early in and gave far too much leeway before stepping in with real consequences. In my attempt to be kind and forgiving, I put you guys in a bad spot; and for that I am sorry.
The biggest example of this was DV. I should have force replaced DV much earlier in the game, but I waited, I talked to him, and in the end I actually asked if he wouldn’t mind replacing, and he agreed. This wasn’t particularly fair to him, as it was pansy modding on my part and didn’t give a clear direction as to what was acceptable and what wasn’t.
That being said, I shouldn’t have to stand by any player and guide them on what is an isn’t allowed from a reasonable behavior standpoint; and his behavior both in game and then privately towards me was unacceptable on so many levels, and downright nasty. I will be moving this conversation specifically to the council thread.
~~~~~
The activity this game took a dive at points, which often happens later in many games. I’m not entirely sure if there is a fix, as because of definitive activity standards, someone can make a post that technically has content, but not meaningfully contribute for far too long. I know I missed a few times where a prod was warranted though, and I do apologize for that (though I also did give out some prods and forgot to publicly note them down).The actual play in this game:
I think the town lacked true leadership, and ultimately tore itself apart as much if not more than the scum undermined it. There were days when very good stuff happened; the day Tom was lynched was a good start to that, and definitely some players gears really began to turn, but too little, too late. I think town having 3/4 PRs out in the open before the first night phase really damaged their chances, and think that good town play by a few players is really what brought the game back to the brink of winnable.
I think the scum team was a workhorse. Nothing crazy fancy, no real moments that had that shock and awe, but absolutely solid and consistent play through the game. Kpaca faking a daykill on Last is about the closest there was to this moment, and it was definitely a high point, but I think the team kept it together as they needed to, and deserved the win they got here.I hope you guys enjoyed the flavor, from the Role PMs to the scenes. I definitely got a bit lazy with the scenes as the game went on, a couple reasons went into this (some of those personal), but I hope it was at least some value added.
~~~~~
Overall, I am feel like this game was a net positive, but I will strive for improvement, and very much hope that this is the floor as we move into the future games.
You gotta be joking when saying that the thing that set you off was people calling you for not reading the thread.
The problem was that you made statements that made no sense acting like you held the absolute truth.
I don't really have a problem with people not reading the game, but I expect them to own up to it.
That is what set me off. I was wrong about almost everything and I did need to be pushed away from my reads. But the way it happened still set me off.
I didn't phrase it well earlier but I wasn't saying this to be accusatory but to share my experience this game. I don't think it's helpful for learning from but I wanted to share it in case it was. I was too arrogant (I almost always am) but I was reading and attempting to contribute.
Was just trying to illustrate some of the gray areas Silver was talking about.
I didn't make note of nor can I recall every single over-the-line instances of ********ry that happened this game, but it was a weird mix of personal attacks and passive-aggression, the only purpose of which was to piss people off.
A clear line can't be drawn, but it's pretty easy to either 1) take a minute and think on whether you really need to call player xyz a moron who should do everyone a favor and quit mafia forever (this never happened, just an example), or 2) say the mean thing you want to say but apologize and stop the first time if you are asked to do so.
I don't mind some name calling or getting creative with insults. I'm no saint and sometimes it feels really good to be a snarky *****. But people have feelings, and everyone wants to enjoy the game, and it is never acceptable to continue behaving in a certain way when it's clearly pissing people off just because the rules don't explicity forbid you from doing so. Social harmony should come first (and it kind of does, rule 0 or 1 is respect other players or something, so).
I think there's a difference between insults and saying "that choice was incorrect because XXX."
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack?
Depends on context.
Which words can we substitute for "incorrect" that aren't offensive to anyone? Should we just always use "incorrect" instead of synonyms like "boneheaded" or "dumb"?
It's not about the words, it's about the meaning.
It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
I strongly disagree.
And I'm not defending anyone's actions in this game in particular, I'm just saying I don't think you can draw a line in the sand and say "stuff on this side is always okay and stuff on this side is never okay" because you can't really define which side of the line stuff like, say, "boneheaded" is.
Sure you can. You don't need an exhaustive, perfect list of terms. We have human mods; they're capable of discerning the contextual meaning conveyed by a post. "Don't insult people or actions" is sufficient to cover 90% of cases easily; the harder 10% is fine to have, because you're always going to have some gray area no matter how your rules are shaped.
The core of my point isn't just about where "the line" is. The point is that I'm suggesting a different philosophy. I think the current philosophy is something along the lines of "avoid intervening and limiting player behavior unless absolutely necessary." There's an alternate philosophy that is possible, along the lines of "guide player behavior toward constructive interaction, intervening whenever it is beneficial." Stripping everything else away, it's simply about whether the mod is hands-on or hands-off. I'm saying I would prefer mods to be much more hands-on.
First off, yes I lost my temper and I regret it. Preface this with I play a LOT of poker.
I can understand anger at being told "are you even paying attention" when you are. It is very easy to miss things, especially when people are spamming the thread. Calling someone an angle shooter is completely out of line. You are basically calling me a cheater, or playing in bad form. You don't just throw the word around, it's not like we are 9 years old, and you can just call some kid a cheater because they out played you. I don't angleshoot, or try to manipulate any part of the game I am not supposed to. I feel bad that I got angry, but trust me, the rage was real as shadow can attest to.
I think what ended up happening was a bunch of players who have very aggressive styles (DV, Kpaca, and aparently LW) all ran into each other headfirst, and things escalated from there. If Manasi is still around, it was basically like three Phighters going toe-to-toe
Shadow, thank you for modding. While we did get the cheese with the extra kill, I still think it was balanced, considering the town still got there three mislynches (and would have had a fourth more often than not, in addition to the wolves having no roleblocker, and the town having multiple ways to angel kills).
@GJ
I stand by my opinion on what you did, my fault was posting it in thread, rather then going to the mods, and it def doesn't make me a 9 year old...
@Terry
I don't doubt that you could be a great player, but if you make mistakes own up to them...
@kpaca
Hate me for being me, but you don't know enough about me, I can be a very good scum Hunter, and on my Homesite I am, this site just forces me to play a little different... I was really wish washy, and at one point I reread most of the game, including your posts and rage's and I came to a firm conclusion that you were scum because of your hyper aggressive attitude, there really wasn't much of a case I could push, that's why I was so forceful... Do I regret pushing, you, Terry, or even GJs buttons, of course I do
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
@Grapefruit
Feels bad to be so wrong, how you think I feel?
Anyone here can talk to me personally on discord if you want to discuss my behavior and my gameplay, I encourage it, I am a very open player
@GJ
I stand by my opinion on what you did, my fault was posting it in thread, rather then going to the mods, and it def doesn't make me a 9 year old...
My opinion was clear, you were out of line. The 9 year old part was when 9 year olds ***** about other kids "cheating" when the game doesn't go your way. Don't call people angleshooters.
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy. Check out the Shop Thread
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
this statement says a lot about the kind of player you are... noted
@GJ
I stand by my opinion on what you did, my fault was posting it in thread, rather then going to the mods, and it def doesn't make me a 9 year old...
My opinion was clear, you were out of line. The 9 year old part was when 9 year olds ***** about other kids "cheating" when the game doesn't go your way. Don't call people angleshooters.
im not gunna push this any farther on here, if you wanna discuss this any farther, bring it to discord or like shadow said, the council
and I agree posting it in the game was out of line, but I stand by what I said...
I think there's a difference between insults and saying "that choice was incorrect because XXX."
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack?
Depends on context.
When is calling someone's night action suggestion "boneheaded" not an attack?
Which words can we substitute for "incorrect" that aren't offensive to anyone? Should we just always use "incorrect" instead of synonyms like "boneheaded" or "dumb"?
It's not about the words, it's about the meaning.
Words have meanings, some of them have similar denotations and negative connotations. I don't think there's a context where the use of "boneheaded" has a non-negative connotation. Should we just never use negative words?
It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
I strongly disagree.
You can disagree all you want; the problem is that words like "stupid" and "boneheaded" provoke an emotional response in a way that "incorrect" probably does not. I'm not saying they're good argumentation or make your argument more logically persuasive because obviously that's ludicrous.
And I'm not defending anyone's actions in this game in particular, I'm just saying I don't think you can draw a line in the sand and say "stuff on this side is always okay and stuff on this side is never okay" because you can't really define which side of the line stuff like, say, "boneheaded" is.
Sure you can. You don't need an exhaustive, perfect list of terms. We have human mods; they're capable of discerning the contextual meaning conveyed by a post. "Don't insult people or actions" is sufficient to cover 90% of cases easily; the harder 10% is fine to have, because you're always going to have some gray area no matter how your rules are shaped.
How can I communicate how viscerally terrible I feel about being the designated vig target without insulting the vig's predicated action (for example)? Either saying "The vig shouldn't shoot me because X" or "The vig shooting me is incorrect because X" is sufficient or insulting actions is necessary.
The core of my point isn't just about where "the line" is. The point is that I'm suggesting a different philosophy. I think the current philosophy is something along the lines of "avoid intervening and limiting player behavior unless absolutely necessary." There's an alternate philosophy that is possible, along the lines of "guide player behavior toward constructive interaction, intervening whenever it is beneficial." Stripping everything else away, it's simply about whether the mod is hands-on or hands-off. I'm saying I would prefer mods to be much more hands-on.
If all you're saying is mods need to be more hands-on about enforcing flaming rules, I don't really have a problem with that. My issue is that I feel like you're trying to police emotional content that I find valuable in a game of Mafia even if I don't often use it myself.
It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
I missed this earlier.I think that this is fundamentally false as plenty of us play politely and have no issue with being persuasive.
Either this is a game about manipulation or it isn't, and manipulation either includes emotional manipulation or it does not.
I don't usually use emotional manipulation intentionally, but I don't think I'd enjoy Mafia nearly as much if it was stripped of all emotional manipulation period.
If we decide as a community that all emotional manipulation is off limits because it's gross, I'm fine with that, but you can't pretend you aren't reducing the game to pure logic and forcing wolf teams into a harder position by taking one of their tools. I say that as someone who has never completed a scum game (other than 1 hour turbos, lol).
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
I think most people would disagree with you here. If the town doesn't perceive you as town, you are clearly doing something wrong, as you are forcing the town to divert effort away from hunting actual scum.
IMO, mafia was intended to not be played as an emotional game, but it's inevitable that emotions will come out at various points depending on the individuals you have playing a given game. I appreciate that it is a tool that others feel they can take advantage of using, but it's not something I find appealing, personally.
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
this statement says a lot about the kind of player you are... noted
Excuse me while I go cry in the corner. Your advice has been invaluable and I'll try to take it to heart. Sorry, I ever doubted you. /s
I'm bored and feel like explaining to you why posts like these do nothing to help your standing with the community.
Point zero: You can't go around telling people to improve their play when you got modkilled in a game because of your attitude.
Point 1: In the few games I've played with you, your play has been simply atrocious. Highlights: Blocking a cop who caught scum in Arkham, antagonizing half the players in this game after you got derpcleared. You can't come at me and tell me I'm playing badly, when you've done much worse stuff. Side note: Getting lynched is a group effort. Using your actions wrong is not.
Point 2: Telling someone "Hey, your play sucks and you should feel bad." has about the same usefulness as the phrase : "Chicken, chicken, swamp come home." If you want to have someone improve, you need to give them constructive criticism, not empty insults.
Point 3: Basic mafia theory says that the more townier you look, the bigger your chance of getting nightkilled. This is bad, because you can't solve the game after the game. Hanging out in the possible lynch category assures you a longer lifetime. On another note, the purpose of the game is to kill all the scum, not to not get lynched. Endgaming doesn't help if scum are still alive.
As for your claims that my play has sucked this game, they are mostly unfounded. I caught GJ in the first few pages, kpaca too, but changed my mind after the daykill gambit. I wanted to lynch anak in order to see if tom was right or not. Suprise tom was wrong and scum on that front. So you can harp all you want about how I play this game, but saying I do it badly is just false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy. Check out the Shop Thread
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
this statement says a lot about the kind of player you are... noted
Excuse me while I go cry in the corner. Your advice has been invaluable and I'll try to take it to heart. Sorry, I ever doubted you. /s
I'm bored and feel like explaining to you why posts like these do nothing to help your standing with the community.
Point zero: You can't go around telling people to improve their play when you got modkilled in a game because of your attitude.
Point 1: In the few games I've played with you, your play has been simply atrocious. Highlights: Blocking a cop who caught scum in Arkham, antagonizing half the players in this game after you got derpcleared. You can't come at me and tell me I'm playing badly, when you've done much worse stuff. Side note: Getting lynched is a group effort. Using your actions wrong is not.
Point 2: Telling someone "Hey, your play sucks and you should feel bad." has about the same usefulness as the phrase : "Chicken, chicken, swamp come home." If you want to have someone improve, you need to give them constructive criticism, not empty insults.
Point 3: Basic mafia theory says that the more townier you look, the bigger your chance of getting nightkilled. This is bad, because you can't solve the game after the game. Hanging out in the possible lynch category assures you a longer lifetime. On another note, the purpose of the game is to kill all the scum, not to not get lynched. Endgaming doesn't help if scum are still alive.
As for your claims that my play has sucked this game, they are mostly unfounded. I caught GJ in the first few pages, kpaca too, but changed my mind after the daykill gambit. I wanted to lynch anak in order to see if tom was right or not. Suprise tom was wrong and scum on that front. So you can harp all you want about how I play this game, but saying I do it badly is just false.
I didn't think your play was bad. That said, LW isn't completely wrong. This is a world of difference between looking so townie that the wolves night kill you, and looking townie enough that the rest of the game listens to you. Vaimes was pretty townie all game, and only Kpaca with a crap ton of town reads was able to push that.
Here's the issue: Yes, you "caught us" but what good was it? What did you do with the knowledge that me and Kpaca were wolves? You weren't pushing anything, and you were under heavy suspicioun, so much to the point that people were willing to lynch you even with your claim (and in fact, they did).
Yes, the job to lure night kills is inifintely more important as a vanilla, but just because you roll PR doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be townie.
I didn't think your play was bad. That said, LW isn't completely wrong. This is a world of difference between looking so townie that the wolves night kill you, and looking townie enough that the rest of the game listens to you. Vaimes was pretty townie all game, and only Kpaca with a crap ton of town reads was able to push that.
Here's the issue: Yes, you "caught us" but what good was it? What did you do with the knowledge that me and Kpaca were wolves? You weren't pushing anything, and you were under heavy suspicioun, so much to the point that people were willing to lynch you even with your claim (and in fact, they did).
Yes, the job to lure night kills is inifintely more important as a vanilla, but just because you roll PR doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be townie.
I think everyone needs to re-evaluate what being townie means. Every single player in the game tries to appear townie. Being townie is a lot more contextual based than some big guidelines.
When I'm town, I don't go out of my way to appear townie. I am just town so I just roll with it. When I'm scum, I actually censor myself and try to post well-thought out posts.
I admit that I didn't manage to do as much as I wanted this game, mostly because I'm not able to lead the game at this point in time. I will try that more and more, but unfortunately the meta of MTGS is to make your own reads and disregard everything else and accuse everyone who changes their reads of being scum.
From the spectator thread we were lamenting the fact that half the town thought GJ was town and Rodemy scum and the other half the exact opposite. Since my coming back to MTGS I have not seen a game where people sheeped other cases. Every single wagon was more of a compromise lynch. It's not worth the time of writing cases and discovering why someone is scum when nobody listens to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy. Check out the Shop Thread
I didn't think your play was bad. That said, LW isn't completely wrong. This is a world of difference between looking so townie that the wolves night kill you, and looking townie enough that the rest of the game listens to you. Vaimes was pretty townie all game, and only Kpaca with a crap ton of town reads was able to push that.
Here's the issue: Yes, you "caught us" but what good was it? What did you do with the knowledge that me and Kpaca were wolves? You weren't pushing anything, and you were under heavy suspicioun, so much to the point that people were willing to lynch you even with your claim (and in fact, they did).
Yes, the job to lure night kills is inifintely more important as a vanilla, but just because you roll PR doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be townie.
I think everyone needs to re-evaluate what being townie means. Every single player in the game tries to appear townie. Being townie is a lot more contextual based than some big guidelines.
When I'm town, I don't go out of my way to appear townie. I am just town so I just roll with it. When I'm scum, I actually censor myself and try to post well-thought out posts.
I admit that I didn't manage to do as much as I wanted this game, mostly because I'm not able to lead the game at this point in time. I will try that more and more, but unfortunately the meta of MTGS is to make your own reads and disregard everything else and accuse everyone who changes their reads of being scum.
From the spectator thread we were lamenting the fact that half the town thought GJ was town and Rodemy scum and the other half the exact opposite. Since my coming back to MTGS I have not seen a game where people sheeped other cases. Every single wagon was more of a compromise lynch. It's not worth the time of writing cases and discovering why someone is scum when nobody listens to you.
Without mudslinging, that is exactly the issue Iso had/has when he played town. He could nail all the wolves by day 2, but could not get enough credit to make people follow him, even if he was dead.
I don't disagree with you though. There are many ways to play town. The goal of mafia is to hunt the wolves. The entire premise of hunting comes down to figuring out if players are hunting, or are they pretending to hunt. That is the core argument between every single player. As far as not being listened to, you at least have to try or your just become another blob in the pile of people who didn't care about the game, and let the wolves run the show.
Edit:
When I'm town, I don't go out of my way to appear townie. I am just town so I just roll with it. When I'm scum, I actually censor myself and try to post well-thought out posts.
That's my problem with meta. 99% of people are aware of that, and you can use that knowledge. Unless you are going to tell me you purposefully tank your scum games just to make sure you stay in meta.
Alternatviely, kind of glad I took a break. I was getting shot n1/n2 in most of my games I was town, before my break. The "why are you still alive" question was not a factor for me.
@Vezok
Point 1 is just not right, I dont care if Rhand got a red check as apparent cop on Shadow... to me Rhand didnt look town at all, hence I roleblocked him
Point 2 I get heated just like everyone else in the game, what can I say, and Ive already stated many times that my play was more this game, and this isnt about me, this about you, you got lynched in both my games, because "ohh I am PR, so i need to look less townie, so I dont die", is just bad play...
Point 3 sure its correct most of the time, but does that mean im not gunna try to solve the game because I am scared mafia will kill me? no... even if I had a PR that wouldnt bother me, cause I still think its wrong to believe that you are worth more than others because of the role you have...
[Redacted] is a perfect example, of why mechanical claims, and actions mean nothing in terms of your alignment, most of the time, there are so many variables to mafia
also this was the one ever game I got modkilled in, and I deserved it, you still know very little about me, and nothing you have posted has changed my opinion on your playstyle
I believe that all of my games on MTGS in terms of my gameplay, were horrid, and the only one I think was good, was Osie's Token Mafia... I am more fond of my games on my home site tbh
@Vezok
Point 1 is just not right, I dont care if Rhand got a red check as apparent cop on Shadow... to me Rhand didnt look town at all, hence I roleblocked him
Point 2 I get heated just like everyone else in the game, what can I say, and Ive already stated many times that my play was more this game, and this isnt about me, this about you, you got lynched in both my games, because "ohh I am PR, so i need to look less townie, so I dont die", is just bad play...
Point 3 sure its correct most of the time, but does that mean im not gunna try to solve the game because I am scared mafia will kill me? no... even if I had a PR that wouldnt bother me, cause I still think its wrong to believe that you are worth more than others because of the role you have...
[Redacted] is a perfect example, of why mechanical claims, and actions mean nothing in terms of your alignment, most of the time, there are so many variables to mafia
No, he is correct on that point. It was piss poor play to lynch vezok this game, psuedo cc or not. If kpaca was town, no psuedo cc would have saved him from a wolf claw.
@Vezok
Point 1 is just not right, I dont care if Rhand got a red check as apparent cop on Shadow... to me Rhand didnt look town at all, hence I roleblocked him
Point 2 I get heated just like everyone else in the game, what can I say, and Ive already stated many times that my play was more this game, and this isnt about me, this about you, you got lynched in both my games, because "ohh I am PR, so i need to look less townie, so I dont die", is just bad play...
Point 3 sure its correct most of the time, but does that mean im not gunna try to solve the game because I am scared mafia will kill me? no... even if I had a PR that wouldnt bother me, cause I still think its wrong to believe that you are worth more than others because of the role you have...
[Redacted] is a perfect example, of why mechanical claims, and actions mean nothing in terms of your alignment, most of the time, there are so many variables to mafia
No, he is correct on that point. It was piss poor play to lynch vezok this game, psuedo cc or not. If kpaca was town, no psuedo cc would have saved him from a wolf claw.
Possibly, Idk, I wouldve lynched Vezok regardless of a CC, I even stated that it was a very low reason for my wanting to lynch Vezok
but honestly, I shouldve reevaluted Kpaca sooner than i did, espeically since he was one of my earliest scum reads
also this was the one ever game I got modkilled in, and I deserved it, you still know very little about me, and nothing you have posted has changed my opinion on your playstyle
You both have points that are correct and incorrect. The problem in this game from behavior standpoint is that you ran into 1-2 people who have a similar style, which escalates off of each other.
I believe that all of my games on MTGS in terms of my gameplay, were horrid, and the only one I think was good, was Osie's Token Mafia... I am more fond of my games on my home site tbh
Not to just ***** on you, but I'm not particularly convinced that your play has been drastically different and not just less called out or more comfortable.
I think there's a difference between insults and saying "that choice was incorrect because XXX."
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack?
Depends on context.
When is calling someone's night action suggestion "boneheaded" not an attack?
Two examples: when it's ironically reversed, and when it's used as a term of endearment. I call my friend a douchewaffle all the time; it is clear to anyone observing that interaction that I am using it as a term of endearment.
How can I communicate how viscerally terrible I feel about being the designated vig target without insulting the vig's predicated action (for example)?
"I feel viscerally terrible about being the designated vig target." See how that's about your feelings, and not about someone else being bad/dumb?
If all you're saying is mods need to be more hands-on about enforcing flaming rules, I don't really have a problem with that. My issue is that I feel like you're trying to police emotional content that I find valuable in a game of Mafia even if I don't often use it myself.
More hands-on modding is my main point. Avoiding aggression-inducing play is a secondary point that I am also making.
If we decide as a community that all emotional manipulation is off limits because it's gross, I'm fine with that, but you can't pretend you aren't reducing the game to pure logic and forcing wolf teams into a harder position by taking one of their tools. I say that as someone who has never completed a scum game (other than 1 hour turbos, lol).
I'm not pretending. I don't believe I've denied that anywhere. It is in fact easier for scum to win when everyone is angry. I also think removing one scum tool is fine. Last I checked, scum had a significantly higher than 50% win rate on MTGS.
That said, I'm fine with removing just one category of emotional manipulation - anger-based manipulation. Buddying can be seen as emotional manipulation, evoking "friendship" emotions. Underdog plays (e.g. "everyone's ganging up on me") is emotional manipulation, evoking "pity" emotions. Even careful use of memes evokes "humor" emotions. I don't have a problem with those.
(That last bit was mostly to Osie, you've been quite clear what you're talking about, I think, and I just wanted to make sure we were all talking about the same stuff.)
As far as terms of endearment go, I guess so, but how is a mod supposed to know when it's a term of endearment, especially if they don't know the players involved?
I think that emotional manipulation is not necessarily the problem, but there's some rhetoric that we can change. It's a more complicated discussion than that.
Calling someone a wolf or saying their posts are wolfy, scummy, or have any other kind of quality to them (greasy, slippery, etc.) pretty much has to be okay.
Ascribing negative motives to them ("you're doing XXXX because you're a wolf / trying to get me lynched") similarly *has* to be okay.
You can't really... play Mafia and expect to never be lynched or called wolfy or accused of being things you probably aren't even. Misinterpretation, even when intentional, *has* to be okay. Lying about game related stuff *has* to be okay. Even name-calling *has* to be okay to some extent; I don't really think it's arguable that calling someone "slippery" isn't an insult, even if it is somewhat less derogatory than the similar "greasy," but is *greasy* too derogatory?
I think we should draw *a* line at insulting other people's mental faculties directly. Calling someone stupid, retarded, etc. is pretty much over the line in all situations.
But sometimes when you say someone *did* something stupid, or made a stupid post, or call their theory stupid, they take that as a personal attack even though you aren't attacking them as a person just their night action / plan / post / whatever.
And sometimes someone has a string of bad ideas and telling them all of their ideas are dumb creates a pattern that makes them feel unwelcome or ganged up on.
Soooo. What I'm saying is the line is blurry, fuzzy, and indistinct. I won't really take it as an insult if you aren't directly attacking me. Some people have a thinner skin and take it personally when you criticize their ideas. I think we should make an effort to use "more positive" words like slippery instead of greasy, bad instead of stupid, just don't even use retarded if you can help it.
There are ways to criticize ideas tactfully without insulting the character or mental ability of someone.
Buuuut. When it comes down to it, the game is fundamentally about ascribing motives to and smearing other people or figuring out who is doing those things. You can't really be an intellectually honest wolf if you're really, honestly playing to win. And sometimes winning as a wolf is going to involve spinning narratives where other people have lied when they haven't, did something dumb, etc.
Something I've sort of been struggling with myself is that it's particularly problematic from a *game meta* perspective that some people think these are acceptable for wolves to do but *not* for villagers to do because it creates an unwinnable situation for wolves on the whole. They're "bad people" if they play their wolf meta as town and lose all their wolf games if they're a "good" person as town. If you're town and you think someone is scum, using your wolf tactics to get them lynched should *always* be on the table, and if you're a wolf it should be acceptable to do the same things to get out of a lynch as if you're a villager. I've sort of been grappling with this specific question since I got Vaimes to clear me in BareBones with a kind of, in hindsight, gross appeal to emotion. And he told me he hoped I wouldn't do that if I was a wolf, and I realized he was right, that I *wouldn't* and even probably *couldn't* make that post as a wolf, and the post was sort of even grosser for that. *It was that very fact* that made the post inappropriate.
I guess what I'm really saying is, you can't really draw a line in the sand and say "this is always unacceptable," and you similarly can't say "this is always acceptable" either.
I think there is a question point to address, which is calling people's play/posts garbage.
But it's a really hard line to manage. Letting players tell each other their reads are wrong and talk it through is important. Telling someone that they have worthless ideas and should not share obviously isn't okay. But the point where it goes from okay to unacceptable is past the line where more thin skinned players (like myself) will get upset.
So what are the roles? how did GJ even win?
The hostility killed this game for me. I think we as a forum have room to reel back aggressiveness, like, 90% and still have fun games of mafia. Sure, there's a grey area, but this game wasn't in it. And a lot of what I've seen in other games isn't in it.
I've played a lot of games of Mafia, Werewolf, and variants thereof, both online and in real life. I've played tons of games where no one ever told anyone else "that play is bad." I'm not even talking about "don't insult players" - I'm saying that you can have an excellent game without even insulting actions. You just don't need it! It's not a core part of the game!
The core part of the game is accusations of lying, which is perfectly fine. And you can tell people they're mistaken and it's fine. But I don't agree with the idea that we have to have any amount of attacks aimed at competence and intelligence. At all. At any level.
I get that many people are used to that. I get that a lot of people will think I'm just thin skinned. The thing is, I can handle a game with insults flying around - I never replaced out of this game, for example. I just don't want to. We don't have to accept this. There are other ways to play.
And I get that I'm just one rando in a forum of many, and I'm not demanding that MTGS jumps alllll the way to that point where no one makes any insults. But it's certainly possible to make large steps in the direction of fewer insults, less aggressiveness, less dismissal, long before we get to that point. At minimum stronger enforcement of the actual existing rules - we did get modkills in this game, but only after the line had been crossed egregiously, over and over.
So where is the line, exactly? If I say "action XXX is boneheaded," is that an attack? Which words can we substitute for "incorrect" that aren't offensive to anyone? Should we just always use "incorrect" instead of synonyms like "boneheaded" or "dumb"? It's clearly less *persuasive* to stifle your speech in this way.
And I'm not defending anyone's actions in this game in particular, I'm just saying I don't think you can draw a line in the sand and say "stuff on this side is always okay and stuff on this side is never okay" because you can't really define which side of the line stuff like, say, "boneheaded" is.
The point where I lost my temper was not just about the language, but in it coming from multiple directions. I only lashed out at DV but when I started seeing red was when I had multiple people accuse me of making things up rather than reading the game. Some of the language was more mocking as well but it was the repeated remarks from multiple sources that got under my skin. Which was in fact rather thin.
I don't think that's helpful in trying to create moderation guidelines but it's my experience. Building on your point I think it's when people pile on without adding to the conversation that becomes the issue for thin skinned people like myself. Obviously I'm not saying that makes it okay to insult individuals.
@LW GJ was a rolecop who could also steal abilities. Wuffles was a RB who if he sucessfully RB'd someone unlocked a daykill the next day. Wuffles chose to hold the shot after preventing tom's NK the previous night and the following night GJ stole his abiltiy gaining the Daykill. The ability was worded in such a way that he could only steal the kill if Wuffles had unlocked it and chosen not to fire the shot. If he'd stolen before it was unlocked it was impossible for GJ to unlock the kill.
The problem was that you made statements that made no sense acting like you held the absolute truth.
I don't really have a problem with people not reading the game, but I expect them to own up to it.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
First, How was this approved to be a normal? I have no idea how this was approved at all as a normal, because it definitely is not a normal.
Second, the mod kills were a good thing. I could really go into lengths about this, but overall I was largely forcibly replaced out. I don't agree with that decision, simply because I think there were a lot of other players that should have also been forcibly replaced out.
I'm still directly saying that Kpaca purposefully incited things with me there at the end. With they way he treated that situation I don't for a minute think it was genuine. But ignoring that,
GJ's behavior this game was pretty silly at some points and people seem to have glossed over that. Terry, basically called Last a retard and that should have been an insta mod kill or a replacement out.
I have talked to the council, and Ecophagy's response to me is that treating players equally by mods is not a requirement. Zionite has now stated the exact opposite in his post in the council thread. Eco has agreed with me that I was treated unequally, but has no interest in doing anything about it.
My basic problem with this game, is that I think there were a lot of problems this game. I think Shadow was in a tough spot, however, I think he made the wrong decisions. Him, in my opinion, lying to me about the situation as well doesn't sit well with me. But, really the problem to me is that players were not treated equally this game. Shadow largely said that I hadn't really broken the rules of the game, but that I had broken the "Spirit of the rules". Honestly, I agree. My problem becomes is that there were players breaking the actual rules of the game, and they were not being addressed in the slightest. That isn't fair. You don't replace one player for breaking the rules, and then not replace others because you can't find replacements. You really don't replace a borderline case, and then not replace people that actually cross the line.
I'm also moving that Dota be placed on probation. His lurking has gotten god damn untenable to me. Having him replace me and then have 3 more posts than Fuwa is just god damn insulting.
Designing this game was incredibly fun, and getting to see things play out from a mechanical standpoint was fantastic. I hope people found the roles interesting and those who rolled them I hope enjoyed them.
Some design notes:
-The night skip was the keynote design piece; everything in the game was designed to keep the role in the game, and thanks to my reviewers for helping make that possible. It was also the backbone for the flavor; this game started as a mishmash or different flavors from all over the place, and in an attempt to make it more cohesive and a better game, I streamlined the flavor to be PlayStation themed so that I could keep the role as Amaterasu, because it started off as a top down design in the first place.
-Darth Vader was designed to unlock a kill for almost the exact scenario that happened; being a town roleblocker and blocking the night kill is such a satisfying feeling, and getting to immediately kill the blocked player was intended both to be really cool, and to progress the game forward instead of having a day where the lynch is set and it doesn’t matter. While I disagree with Wuffles decision to holster, I can see his logic and don’t really fault him for it. Additionally, the daykill unlock clause originally said “you unlock a second ability if you successfully block an ability” and this was changed due to seeing the strength of the roleblocker ability in Arkham Mafia; knowing whether you blocked someone or not turns out to be very good.
-The Role thief was intended to be a Vanilla-izor in most scenarios, the theft of the ability was there as an added bonus.
-If anyone has any other design questions ask me, like I said, this game was super fun to make and I learned quite a bit.
With regards to mod action:
My primary take away from this was that I was far too limp wristed early in and gave far too much leeway before stepping in with real consequences. In my attempt to be kind and forgiving, I put you guys in a bad spot; and for that I am sorry.
The biggest example of this was DV. I should have force replaced DV much earlier in the game, but I waited, I talked to him, and in the end I actually asked if he wouldn’t mind replacing, and he agreed. This wasn’t particularly fair to him, as it was pansy modding on my part and didn’t give a clear direction as to what was acceptable and what wasn’t.
That being said, I shouldn’t have to stand by any player and guide them on what is an isn’t allowed from a reasonable behavior standpoint; and his behavior both in game and then privately towards me was unacceptable on so many levels, and downright nasty. I will be moving this conversation specifically to the council thread.
~~~~~
The activity this game took a dive at points, which often happens later in many games. I’m not entirely sure if there is a fix, as because of definitive activity standards, someone can make a post that technically has content, but not meaningfully contribute for far too long. I know I missed a few times where a prod was warranted though, and I do apologize for that (though I also did give out some prods and forgot to publicly note them down).
The actual play in this game:
I think the town lacked true leadership, and ultimately tore itself apart as much if not more than the scum undermined it. There were days when very good stuff happened; the day Tom was lynched was a good start to that, and definitely some players gears really began to turn, but too little, too late. I think town having 3/4 PRs out in the open before the first night phase really damaged their chances, and think that good town play by a few players is really what brought the game back to the brink of winnable.
I think the scum team was a workhorse. Nothing crazy fancy, no real moments that had that shock and awe, but absolutely solid and consistent play through the game. Kpaca faking a daykill on Last is about the closest there was to this moment, and it was definitely a high point, but I think the team kept it together as they needed to, and deserved the win they got here.
I hope you guys enjoyed the flavor, from the Role PMs to the scenes. I definitely got a bit lazy with the scenes as the game went on, a couple reasons went into this (some of those personal), but I hope it was at least some value added.
~~~~~
Overall, I am feel like this game was a net positive, but I will strive for improvement, and very much hope that this is the floor as we move into the future games.
*eye roll*
That is what set me off. I was wrong about almost everything and I did need to be pushed away from my reads. But the way it happened still set me off.
I didn't phrase it well earlier but I wasn't saying this to be accusatory but to share my experience this game. I don't think it's helpful for learning from but I wanted to share it in case it was. I was too arrogant (I almost always am) but I was reading and attempting to contribute.
Was just trying to illustrate some of the gray areas Silver was talking about.
That's not what I said at all.
A clear line can't be drawn, but it's pretty easy to either 1) take a minute and think on whether you really need to call player xyz a moron who should do everyone a favor and quit mafia forever (this never happened, just an example), or 2) say the mean thing you want to say but apologize and stop the first time if you are asked to do so.
I don't mind some name calling or getting creative with insults. I'm no saint and sometimes it feels really good to be a snarky *****. But people have feelings, and everyone wants to enjoy the game, and it is never acceptable to continue behaving in a certain way when it's clearly pissing people off just because the rules don't explicity forbid you from doing so. Social harmony should come first (and it kind of does, rule 0 or 1 is respect other players or something, so).
I strongly disagree. Sure you can. You don't need an exhaustive, perfect list of terms. We have human mods; they're capable of discerning the contextual meaning conveyed by a post. "Don't insult people or actions" is sufficient to cover 90% of cases easily; the harder 10% is fine to have, because you're always going to have some gray area no matter how your rules are shaped.
The core of my point isn't just about where "the line" is. The point is that I'm suggesting a different philosophy. I think the current philosophy is something along the lines of "avoid intervening and limiting player behavior unless absolutely necessary." There's an alternate philosophy that is possible, along the lines of "guide player behavior toward constructive interaction, intervening whenever it is beneficial." Stripping everything else away, it's simply about whether the mod is hands-on or hands-off. I'm saying I would prefer mods to be much more hands-on.
I missed this earlier.
I think that this is fundamentally false as plenty of us play politely and have no issue with being persuasive.
I can understand anger at being told "are you even paying attention" when you are. It is very easy to miss things, especially when people are spamming the thread. Calling someone an angle shooter is completely out of line. You are basically calling me a cheater, or playing in bad form. You don't just throw the word around, it's not like we are 9 years old, and you can just call some kid a cheater because they out played you. I don't angleshoot, or try to manipulate any part of the game I am not supposed to. I feel bad that I got angry, but trust me, the rage was real as shadow can attest to.
I think what ended up happening was a bunch of players who have very aggressive styles (DV, Kpaca, and aparently LW) all ran into each other headfirst, and things escalated from there. If Manasi is still around, it was basically like three Phighters going toe-to-toe
Shadow, thank you for modding. While we did get the cheese with the extra kill, I still think it was balanced, considering the town still got there three mislynches (and would have had a fourth more often than not, in addition to the wolves having no roleblocker, and the town having multiple ways to angel kills).
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I stand by my opinion on what you did, my fault was posting it in thread, rather then going to the mods, and it def doesn't make me a 9 year old...
@Terry
I don't doubt that you could be a great player, but if you make mistakes own up to them...
@kpaca
Hate me for being me, but you don't know enough about me, I can be a very good scum Hunter, and on my Homesite I am, this site just forces me to play a little different... I was really wish washy, and at one point I reread most of the game, including your posts and rage's and I came to a firm conclusion that you were scum because of your hyper aggressive attitude, there really wasn't much of a case I could push, that's why I was so forceful... Do I regret pushing, you, Terry, or even GJs buttons, of course I do
@Vezok
No offense, and I say this as a person that makes tons of mistakes, plz work are your play, cause I've never seen someone do so many scummy things across such a small sample of games, and flip town in every single one of them... I take every game as a learning experience, and I think everyone else should as well
@Grapefruit
Feels bad to be so wrong, how you think I feel?
Anyone here can talk to me personally on discord if you want to discuss my behavior and my gameplay, I encourage it, I am a very open player
That's all I guess?
My opinion was clear, you were out of line. The 9 year old part was when 9 year olds ***** about other kids "cheating" when the game doesn't go your way. Don't call people angleshooters.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Lol what? It's not my job to appear townie. Just to catch scum. It's your problem you can't read me.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
and I agree posting it in the game was out of line, but I stand by what I said...
Words have meanings, some of them have similar denotations and negative connotations. I don't think there's a context where the use of "boneheaded" has a non-negative connotation. Should we just never use negative words?
You can disagree all you want; the problem is that words like "stupid" and "boneheaded" provoke an emotional response in a way that "incorrect" probably does not. I'm not saying they're good argumentation or make your argument more logically persuasive because obviously that's ludicrous.
How can I communicate how viscerally terrible I feel about being the designated vig target without insulting the vig's predicated action (for example)? Either saying "The vig shouldn't shoot me because X" or "The vig shooting me is incorrect because X" is sufficient or insulting actions is necessary.
If all you're saying is mods need to be more hands-on about enforcing flaming rules, I don't really have a problem with that. My issue is that I feel like you're trying to police emotional content that I find valuable in a game of Mafia even if I don't often use it myself.
Either this is a game about manipulation or it isn't, and manipulation either includes emotional manipulation or it does not.
I don't usually use emotional manipulation intentionally, but I don't think I'd enjoy Mafia nearly as much if it was stripped of all emotional manipulation period.
If we decide as a community that all emotional manipulation is off limits because it's gross, I'm fine with that, but you can't pretend you aren't reducing the game to pure logic and forcing wolf teams into a harder position by taking one of their tools. I say that as someone who has never completed a scum game (other than 1 hour turbos, lol).
IMO, mafia was intended to not be played as an emotional game, but it's inevitable that emotions will come out at various points depending on the individuals you have playing a given game. I appreciate that it is a tool that others feel they can take advantage of using, but it's not something I find appealing, personally.
Excuse me while I go cry in the corner. Your advice has been invaluable and I'll try to take it to heart. Sorry, I ever doubted you. /s
I'm bored and feel like explaining to you why posts like these do nothing to help your standing with the community.
Point zero: You can't go around telling people to improve their play when you got modkilled in a game because of your attitude.
Point 1: In the few games I've played with you, your play has been simply atrocious. Highlights: Blocking a cop who caught scum in Arkham, antagonizing half the players in this game after you got derpcleared. You can't come at me and tell me I'm playing badly, when you've done much worse stuff. Side note: Getting lynched is a group effort. Using your actions wrong is not.
Point 2: Telling someone "Hey, your play sucks and you should feel bad." has about the same usefulness as the phrase : "Chicken, chicken, swamp come home." If you want to have someone improve, you need to give them constructive criticism, not empty insults.
Point 3: Basic mafia theory says that the more townier you look, the bigger your chance of getting nightkilled. This is bad, because you can't solve the game after the game. Hanging out in the possible lynch category assures you a longer lifetime. On another note, the purpose of the game is to kill all the scum, not to not get lynched. Endgaming doesn't help if scum are still alive.
As for your claims that my play has sucked this game, they are mostly unfounded. I caught GJ in the first few pages, kpaca too, but changed my mind after the daykill gambit. I wanted to lynch anak in order to see if tom was right or not. Suprise tom was wrong and scum on that front. So you can harp all you want about how I play this game, but saying I do it badly is just false.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
I didn't think your play was bad. That said, LW isn't completely wrong. This is a world of difference between looking so townie that the wolves night kill you, and looking townie enough that the rest of the game listens to you. Vaimes was pretty townie all game, and only Kpaca with a crap ton of town reads was able to push that.
Here's the issue: Yes, you "caught us" but what good was it? What did you do with the knowledge that me and Kpaca were wolves? You weren't pushing anything, and you were under heavy suspicioun, so much to the point that people were willing to lynch you even with your claim (and in fact, they did).
Yes, the job to lure night kills is inifintely more important as a vanilla, but just because you roll PR doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be townie.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I think everyone needs to re-evaluate what being townie means. Every single player in the game tries to appear townie. Being townie is a lot more contextual based than some big guidelines.
When I'm town, I don't go out of my way to appear townie. I am just town so I just roll with it. When I'm scum, I actually censor myself and try to post well-thought out posts.
I admit that I didn't manage to do as much as I wanted this game, mostly because I'm not able to lead the game at this point in time. I will try that more and more, but unfortunately the meta of MTGS is to make your own reads and disregard everything else and accuse everyone who changes their reads of being scum.
From the spectator thread we were lamenting the fact that half the town thought GJ was town and Rodemy scum and the other half the exact opposite. Since my coming back to MTGS I have not seen a game where people sheeped other cases. Every single wagon was more of a compromise lynch. It's not worth the time of writing cases and discovering why someone is scum when nobody listens to you.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
Without mudslinging, that is exactly the issue Iso had/has when he played town. He could nail all the wolves by day 2, but could not get enough credit to make people follow him, even if he was dead.
I don't disagree with you though. There are many ways to play town. The goal of mafia is to hunt the wolves. The entire premise of hunting comes down to figuring out if players are hunting, or are they pretending to hunt. That is the core argument between every single player. As far as not being listened to, you at least have to try or your just become another blob in the pile of people who didn't care about the game, and let the wolves run the show.
Edit:
That's my problem with meta. 99% of people are aware of that, and you can use that knowledge. Unless you are going to tell me you purposefully tank your scum games just to make sure you stay in meta.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Point 1 is just not right, I dont care if Rhand got a red check as apparent cop on Shadow... to me Rhand didnt look town at all, hence I roleblocked him
Point 2 I get heated just like everyone else in the game, what can I say, and Ive already stated many times that my play was more this game, and this isnt about me, this about you, you got lynched in both my games, because "ohh I am PR, so i need to look less townie, so I dont die", is just bad play...
Point 3 sure its correct most of the time, but does that mean im not gunna try to solve the game because I am scared mafia will kill me? no... even if I had a PR that wouldnt bother me, cause I still think its wrong to believe that you are worth more than others because of the role you have...
[Redacted] is a perfect example, of why mechanical claims, and actions mean nothing in terms of your alignment, most of the time, there are so many variables to mafia
No, he is correct on that point. It was piss poor play to lynch vezok this game, psuedo cc or not. If kpaca was town, no psuedo cc would have saved him from a wolf claw.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
but honestly, I shouldve reevaluted Kpaca sooner than i did, espeically since he was one of my earliest scum reads
You both have points that are correct and incorrect. The problem in this game from behavior standpoint is that you ran into 1-2 people who have a similar style, which escalates off of each other.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Not to just ***** on you, but I'm not particularly convinced that your play has been drastically different and not just less called out or more comfortable.
That said, I'm fine with removing just one category of emotional manipulation - anger-based manipulation. Buddying can be seen as emotional manipulation, evoking "friendship" emotions. Underdog plays (e.g. "everyone's ganging up on me") is emotional manipulation, evoking "pity" emotions. Even careful use of memes evokes "humor" emotions. I don't have a problem with those.
As far as terms of endearment go, I guess so, but how is a mod supposed to know when it's a term of endearment, especially if they don't know the players involved?