Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[Nancy Drew 39]

It shouldn’t be considered a trust tell unless you specifically say, “I’ve only done ___ as alignment X”. Since I have never faked a gulity on a player as ANY alignment, it shouldn’t be considered to be a trust tell.

Trust tells differ from meta tells in important ways: Meta tell: I’ve only done ___ as X allignment. Trust tell: I only WOULD do ___ as X alignment.

As long as you never claim a specific meta tell to be non-negotiable in future games, I don’t think you’re exhibiting trust tells, is how I’ve been understanding this according to site ruies.

I would love it for anyone on the modteam to clarify this, because there’s very clearly a lot of confusion wrt this.

I want a mod to address my post because I still don’t see how saying you’ve never done something in a game before constitutes a trust tell. So if someone hypothetically had a prior no bussing meta as scum and truthfully states that they’ve never bussed, sure we know that they can break that meta at any poing including the hypothetical game they’re currently in if scum but how is that a trust tell?

I recall an incident in tm 2020 where a user was modkilled for self-voting and then saying that they only did that as town but that one’s obvious. Or if a player were to say something along the lines that “if I were scum, I’d have already conceded”. Isn’t it up to town to decide whether or not they believe these things?

So sure if I say truthfully I’ve never ever faked a gulity, X game could hypothetically be the game I break that meta but since it’s based off of meta and not future games, as in I “never would/will do X”, I still don’t see how that’s a problem?

*moving this from mod transparency thread*

[Nancy Drew 39]

The best option is probably not to mention the read in game unless you have non-ongoing-related reasons that you can use to support it

So I had an expectation of a player being able to correctly read me in part but never implicitly or explicitly stated/referenced anywhere in that game I was currently in, at least partially based off of a game that was ongoing att that we were both dead in. They asked me to back this up and I decided not to do that for obvious reasons. Is there a way I could have responded to the questions without violating game rules?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Subject: Out-of-Game Influence

OUT OF GAME INFLUENCE

There have been a number of cases recently that have related to out-of-game influence (OGI). We want to clarify a handful of situations related to different kinds of OGI, and exactly why certain actions are unacceptable.

1. Invoking trust tells.
   
   
   Trust tells have long been a point of confusion, and for good reason - they are one of the most subtle rules we have, and if you don't understand them it's not even clear why they'd be a problem. They act as a form of OGI typically by allowing a player to assert themself as town more strongly than would normally be possible. The subtlety around trust tells comes mostly from their distinction from acceptable self-meta. Self-meta turns into a trust tell when there is an explicit or implicit statement that it would never be broken, or that it would only be broken extremely rarely. Important here, and a distinction from how we've handled things in the past, is that we are extending this to include cases where the person is not intentionally building up a trust tell, but is instead simply pointing out a pattern in their meta that they never intend to break. For example, the following may all constitute trust tells depending on context:
   
   • "I will never lie using red text."
     
     "I have never faked a guilty as scum."
     
     "I will always claim my real role."
     "I never bus as scum."
   Context is very important here. If a relatively new player says that they've never fakeclaimed before, this is not a problem - however, if a player with many dozens of completed games points out the same thing and says that they never fakeclaim
   as a policy
   , then every game where they don't lie about this policy increases the credence of their claim. After a certain point, this becomes an unfair advantage because statistically, the more times in a row someone has told the truth about something, the more likely it is that they will always tell the truth about it.
   
   There are a variety of factors that each push something toward being an unfair trust tell: history of having followed the tell, specifically stating that the tell will never be broken in the future rather than merely stating that it's been followed up until now, an explicit advantage (such as being more plausibly town) being gained by people believing the tell, the tell being about very specific behavior, and so on. However, none of these individually are necessary for something to be a trust tell.
   
   If you wish to refer to your own meta, as a rule of thumb, do not speak in absolutes. We obviously cannot (and do not want to) punish someone for
   having
   some of these policies (e.g., if you believe that it is never correct to bus as scum, or don't want to fake a guilty, we can't make you). In these cases, you simply cannot discuss behaviors like this in discussion of your own meta. If someone else brings up something that may qualify as a trust tell for you, you can say that you've never done the behavior in question, but you cannot say that you have a
   policy
   of never doing it. This is not a perfect solution, but we don't believe that a perfect solution exists.
   

   ---

   
   
2. Exploiting or attempting to gain an in-game advantage using game/site rules.
   
   
   It may not be obvious why this is problematic, or why it is a form of OGI. One way to see why it is OGI is that enforcement of rules is a separate function from gameplay, and arguing about rule enforcement in a forum that is meant for gameplay (a game thread) can have a weight or authority behind it that can easily be entangled with regular gameplay arguments. This kind of OGI can come in different forms, including:
   
   1. Pretending to break a rule.
      
      
      When someone pretends to break a rule in a game and there is no action taken subsequently because they did not actually break a rule, other players may speculate in-game whether the lack of action was game-relevant - and indeed, the original user is often intending for the lack of action to appear game-relevant. Players might believe that a game moderator is less likely to take action on particular rule violations when the offender is one alignment versus another. In some cases, the user pretending to break a rule may impact game integrity by doing so. For example, a player who pretends to take an action that would get them modkilled, who is then not modkilled, could argue that the game moderator did not want to modkill their slot because of their alignment or role.
      
      This is why we treat pretending to break a rule as if the rule had been broken.
      
      
      
   2. Using or attempting to find loopholes in game/site rules that are technically within the rules but break the spirit of the rules.
      
      
      The rules that are in place are there to preserve game integrity as much as possible and provide an even playing field for all players. If someone finds a loophole in one of the rules that is still technically allowed but breaks the spirit of the rule, that can impact game integrity and provide an unfair advantage. Breaking the spirit of the rules is still breaking the rules, and will be treated as if the rule was broken even if it wasn't "technically" broken.
      
      
      
   3. Using or threatening to use a site/game rule to prove something is true (or false).
      
      
      This includes taking or threatening to take any action that would get your slot modkilled or force replaced; or any other rule-breaking action taken or threatened with the aim of "confirming" yourself or your in-game statements. For example: threatening to post your role PM unless other players do what you say; posting your role PM so that you will get modkilled, removing your alignment-related motivations and therefore compelling other players to trust what you say before the modkill occurs; and threatening to post your role PM to create similar conditions in which other players would be compelled to trust you because you are willing to take an action that would lead to being modkilled.
      
      
      
   4. Publicly accusing other players of breaking rules.
      
      
      Whenever someone publicly says that another player has broken a rule, there can be implications on that player's alignment based on which alignment would benefit from the rule being enforced. This is especially true in borderline cases, where for example if someone pushes for a modkill on a slot that borderline broke a rule, and that slot later flips scum, it can lead to a reason to read the accuser as town for an out-of-game reason (because rule enforcement is separate from gameplay). Other examples include accusing other players of not playing to win condition and accusing other players of exploiting rules themselves.
      
      If you believe another player in a game you're playing has broken a rule, you should contact the game moderator (if the rule broken is a game rule) and/or report the post (if the rule being broken is a site rule).

   ---

   
   
3. Exploiting or attempting to gain an in-game advantage by exploiting forum software.
   
   
   Similar to exploiting game/site rules, forum software is not meant to be used as an in-game tactic. Using any aspect of the forum software to attempt to prove or confirm yourself or your statements can also hold more weight than regular gameplay arguments and harm game integrity. This includes tactics such as: setting your online status to show your most recent login and not logging in for the entirety of the night phase to "prove" that you did not submit any night actions; registering with a username with non-alphanumeric characters and using this to "prove" that you could not be mafia because you would not be able to be added to a mafia PT; etc. You are allowed to make statements about when you or other players were or were not online, as long as you do not attempt to use the forum software to prove it.
   

   ---

   
   
4. Having information that not all players have access to.
   
   
   If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available, you must tell the moderator and request replacement. It doesn't matter if you don't think the information is important or useful - any degree of asymmetric information about a game that comes from outside the game can give an advantage. If you notice something that was posted publicly about a setup in a place such as the signup thread, a thread about the setup, or even a thread in general discussion, that's fine. However, you must divulge information relating to the setup of a game that you're playing that comes from private conversations with the moderator or setup designers or reviewers or anyone else with inside information, posts in public places that have since been edited or removed, places that all players might not have access to (such as the Discord server or the Speakeasy), private topics not related to the game in question, or any other source that would not be equally accessible to all players in the game.
   
   This applies equally to moderators: you may not talk about your setup in a place where some but not all players can see (except when doing so is a part of the setup or a game mechanic). If you do talk about your setup with players, you must ensure that any information you divulge is made public.
   

   ---

   
   
5. Discussion within a game about future behavior on the site.
   
   
   There is a wide range of behavior that might be classified as OGI in this area around threats, bets, bribes, and promises, and as such, ultimately many cases will be judgment calls because we can't possibly anticipate every case. The line that we have decided to draw for when this behavior is unacceptable is one that we use in many other cases: whether or not it breaks game integrity. When we say that game integrity is broken, we typically mean that an advantage has been gained or information has been provided with veracity beyond what the rules of the game should generally allow. Here are a few examples:
   
   • "Please don't play with me again after this game is over."
     "I feel like we're working well together, we should hydra at some point."
   These messages are acceptable, because they do not tangibly break game integrity, even though they discuss future events. We still recommend against making statements such as these inside games, because it is very easy to accidentally stray over the line.
   
   • "If you don't accept Z, then I don't think I'm willing to play with you again."
     "If you're on board with me about Z, then I feel like we're really working well together. Maybe we could hydra at some point."
   These messages are not acceptable. Some examples of things that Z could be are "me being town", or "my read that player X is scum" - anything that has an implication about in-game behavior, particularly as a threat or promise. There are two ways in which these behaviors can break game integrity. First, they can create an unfair pressure on the player being talked to to agree with Z, because there are implied out-of-game consequences to agreeing or disagreeing with Z. Second, they can create unfair veracity for the claim being made, particularly in the case where Z is something like "me being town". If a player is willing to imply that their out-of-game behavior would change in response to another player's read on them or someone else, it can make it unfairly hard to doubt that that player is telling the truth. This is because there is a tangible difference between lying about in-game behavior, and lying about out-of-game behavior.
   
   This also includes bets, bribes, and promises that involve out-of-game consequences or rewards. For example:
   • "I'll delete my account if I'm wrong."
     "If I'm wrong about X, you can pick my avatar for the next month."
     "If you vote with me, I'll buy you pizza."
   Again, these kinds of out-of-game consequences/rewards can create an unfair element of veracity to the in-game statements being made, making it unfairly hard to doubt that the player is telling the truth because they are promising tangible outcomes.
   
   Because it bears repeating, even the first examples that we will not moderate in isolation can easily stray into game-impacting territory. If, for instance, it is clear from context that those statements are tied to another player's current or future behavior in the game, rather than something like play styles that clash or mesh well together, they could still threaten game integrity. These statements are best left for after the game.

This post specifically states that saying you’ve never faked a guilty as scum (but it could also be town) are oog but nowhere does it say it’s unnaceptable to say that so long as you don’t mention alignment.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Alright, what if someone were to hypothetically claim, “if I were scum here, I’d already have given up”. Acceptable or not?

My obvious concerns with these rule chsnges if if the cure that’s meant to fix the problem, actually winds up doing more harm than good.

Also wrt to the bussing, fakeclaiming or not faking a guilty thing, if it okay then so long as the actual playee doesn’t say it and id there an acceptable way a player can utilize self meta in any of these ways that wouldn’t be against the rules?

I agree with RC that not mention the ogi alignment read isn’t really ideal. I can understand “not allowed to explain” to be valid but why not just say, can’t explain, I don’t know how to explain it or perhaps even gut?

I would argue that if in your mind - whatever the reason is - for having a strong opinion on a player’s alignment, you should absolutely give that read. That said, you just don’t need to make it obvious that it’s an ogi read.

If I say gut, meta or whatever, I could be telling the actual truth about that or hiding an ogi read. While obviously not ideal, I would argue it’s still better to give the read and perhaps be less than honest about how you arrived at it, maybe?

[Nancy Drew 39]

If there’s a case where a read that’s claimed to be gut or some other vague reason *seems* to be an ongoing game read, will mod action ever be taken? This is my biggest concern here, is that site-wide meta shifts will punish players playing legitimately because of players going through a gray area.

I can either truthfully give the real reason for my read or I can give any possible reason that doesn’t scream ogi read, I’m assuming?

So if I’m in two games with player X and player X is playing completely different in both games, it reasonable to infer that player X isn’t the same alignment in both and that’s a valid albeit obviously not foolproof basis for making that read but you can’t publicly say that but the mod solution of not making that read at all, would be tantamount to gamethrowing.

So reasons like gut, meta etc. - pretty much anything not in game can cover that but it could only be actionable if the player giving that read only does it when it’s an ogi reaad. As long as they also do it when it’s also truthfully the reason for that read, I don’t see how it’s a problem?

Iow, saying “I’m not allowed to explain” can only mean that the read is probably ogi, especially if it’s determined that you’re currently playing 2 or more ongoing games with that player.

I still think that the updated rules may be too heavy handed. So in my experience, most players don’t tend to fake guilties for example anyway. Because unless it’s elo, they will get limmed for doing so and if they get a rep of doing that as town, they kill their future credibility by doing that, so most town players who claim guilties probably do have one or they’re possibly mistaken. As scum, you probably get elimmed for dong that outside of elo.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Alright, what if someone were to hypothetically claim, “if I were scum here, I’d already have given up”. Acceptable or not?

Again, it’s extremely dependent on context. If the evidence you’re using to support this statement only comes from the current game, then there’s no issue. If, however, you’re using a pattern of your behavior as scum in previous games to try to prove that you would have given up already in this game, then that becomes a trust tell. There is no “hard and fast” rule for whether a statement is a trust tell on its own because it depends on the context and history.

My obvious concerns with these rule chsnges if if the cure that’s meant to fix the problem, actually winds up doing more harm than good.

Can you explain what harm you think is being done?

Also wrt to the bussing, fakeclaiming or not faking a guilty thing, if it okay then so long as the actual playee doesn’t say it and id there an acceptable way a player can utilize self meta in any of these ways that wouldn’t be against the rules?

Well, it’s not okay to deliberately cultivate a trust tell even if you never refer to it yourself, so someone deciding “I will always make my first post about cookies if I’m town” and someone else picking up on it would still be a trust tell, even if the original poster never explicitly references it.

Our main goal with all of the OGI rules is to maintain game integrity. We think game integrity is negatively impacted if someone is able to “confirm” themselves or something that they’re saying as absolutely true beyond the realm of what should be possible within a game. Think to the level of being mod-confirmed IC. (And you can see this theme in all of the other sections of the OGI announcement, because this principle holds true for the exploiting site rules, discussion of future behavior, etc.)

So from that principle, it follows that a trust tell has to break game integrity by confirming something or someone beyond what they should have been able to do within the game. If you’re attempting to do that, then you’re in trust tell territory, or at the very least in game-impacting OGI territory. If what you’re doing/saying is confined to the current game alone, or is not attempting to confirm something you said (or you) in a way that breaks game integrity, then it isn’t OGI. So it’s okay to reference self-meta, but you need to be really careful in how you talk about it to make sure it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to confirm yourself in an out-of-game sense.

I agree with RC that not mention the ogi alignment read isn’t really ideal. I can understand “not allowed to explain” to be valid but why not just say, can’t explain, I don’t know how to explain it or perhaps even gut?

I would argue that if in your mind - whatever the reason is - for having a strong opinion on a player’s alignment, you should absolutely give that read. That said, you just don’t need to make it obvious that it’s an ogi read.

If I say gut, meta or whatever, I could be telling the actual truth about that or hiding an ogi read. While obviously not ideal, I would argue it’s still better to give the read and perhaps be less than honest about how you arrived at it, maybe?

If you can believably provide other reasons for the read, I don’t think there’s an issue. However, as I said in response to Gamma, what we don’t want is for all of a sudden “gut” or vague reasons for reads being universally assumed to mean “actually this is a read related to an ongoing game.” Once that is implicitly understood to mean “it’s an ongoing game read,” then using any of those reasons becomes potentially game-impacting. That’s why my suggestion is to use only non-ongoing-game reasons to support your reads.

I don’t see how it could be considered a “code” unless the same user only did that wrt ongoing games but if I really think a player is scum based on ogi, how can I not give that read without game throwing?

This is exactly the kind of thing that worries me here. There needs to be a mod approved way of handling this besides not giving a read,

[Nancy Drew 39]

This is exactly the kind of thing that worries me here. There needs to be a mod approved way of handling this besides not giving a read,

Why does there need to be a work around?
Why is it ok to reference one ongoing game in another in this specific way, but not any other way?

If I have ogi reasons to sr someone and perhaps vote them, It would be gamethrowing not to. I already said I would say anything that I usually do. Anytime I have a read that I don’t have an answer for and sometimes it is just gut, sometimes it’s just a feeling but I think ignoring a read just because it may or may not be ogi, makes no sense. I’m not going to not vote someone if I think they’re scum for whatever reasons.

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

[Nancy Drew 39]

So, I’m asking the modteam how - other than NOT give a read - how to handle it? Naked vote? The point is I need to say something that covers anything not specifically happening in the game. That can include past meta, gut, tone whatever. I don’t see why any of this ought to be a problem? I’ve even heard dreams given as a reason.

My understanding is that saying one of these things is okay for ongoing game reads PROVIDED THAT you don't solely use these reasons for ongoing game reads. In other words, as long as it is ambiguous whether the read is really a gut read or actually based on an ongoing game, it's okay to lie a little and say that the read is based on gut etc.

+1

Thank you, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Ongoing game rules are good. Strongly disagree that there "needs" to be a way to express a read based on an ongoing game, because while sure you could argue that not expressing such a read is "gamethrowing," it's understood that playing to your win condition has limits where game integrity is involved.

As an extreme example, if I were to stumble across a mod's laptop, it would be gamethrowing NOT to open up MafiaScum and read all the role PMs, because that would help me win, right? Except it's obviously understood that that isn't how the game is played.

Same goes for ongoing games. If you can't find a reason to scumread them in the game that is actually being played... Too bad, guess they're getting away with it.

You just compared actual cheating with an ogi game read. One is passive and happens naturally. the other is active and demonstrates clear intent to cheat. What you’re referencing in this post borders on RAS territory. RAS was a player who would sign up for a game and ask the mod to - unbeknownst to them - unknowingly agree to allow RAS’ alt to get spoiled in the dead thread.

If the mod mistakenly sends me my role pm and another player’s that I wouldn’t otherwise know, the correct response is to alert the mod and have your slot replaced.

[Nancy Drew 39]

It’s not meant to be an exception, so thank you for bringing this up. Players can’t mention activity in ongoing games if it relates to a read, but they would be allowed to do so if it’s not related to a read. That seems confusing though, so it might be more straightforward to remove this clause altogether.

OKAY:

"Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."

This is from the OP of the Ongoing Games rules post. I struggle to think of a case where this post would be made but would *not* relate to a read of some sort. So yes, agree that this is confusing.

The only contexts I can think of are “Has this person siteflaked? Nah, they’re posting in their other games” or “This person’s on V/LA, but they’re posting in another game so they should be able to post soon.”

I’m going to assume that ellitell reads are still not considered ogi.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Well, strictly speaking, everything outside the game is OGI, including meta.

Is claims of ellitelling ot not ellitelling now considered to be OGI?

And it’s stilo extremely confusing how the modteam differentiates meta tells from OGI or does this issue only specifically pertain to self meta?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Spoiler:

Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:

1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
   green
   ):

   5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired

   and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup

   , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.

   4.

   Having information that not all players have access to

   and is not required to be provided to you by the setup

   .

   
   
   If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available

   and was not required to be provided to you by the setup

   , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

   
   
2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
   removed
   :

   Discussions about Activity

   
   Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.
   
   

   OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
   

   OKAY:

   "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>

   The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.

These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Spoiler:

Based on feedback we've received, we are making the following changes:

1. Language around having information that not all players have access to has been updated for clarity (added text is in
   green
   ):

   5. Players have a duty to report to game moderators and/or list moderators when they have acquired information that other players could not reasonably have acquired

   and that was not required to be provided to them by the setup

   , even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.

   4.

   Having information that not all players have access to

   and is not required to be provided to you by the setup

   .

   
   
   If you have information related to the game you're playing that is not publicly available

   and was not required to be provided to you by the setup

   , you must tell the moderator and request replacement.

   
   
2. The following exception in the discussion of ongoing games rule has been
   removed
   :

   Discussions about Activity

   
   Players may discuss activity in other games in a general sense, including counting how many games a player is alive in. However, this may not mention ANYTHING of substance.
   
   

   OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games and is posting in those games, but he hasn't posted here in 3 days."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "Zoraster is alive in 4 games where he's posting lengthy posts. <The violation here is mentioning that the posts are LONG. This is a substantive statement.>
   

   OKAY:

   "I'm alive in 3 games, and I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them."
   

   NOT OKAY:

   "I'm in the final day in a game, so that's taking a lot of my time." <The violation here is mentioning that you're in final day. This is a substantive statement.>

   The updated guideline, "Players are not allowed to reference ongoing games as a reason for a read," continues to be the principal guideline for this rule.

These changes have been reflected in the appropriate rules/threads and noted in the moderation update post, but we wanted to disclose these changes in this thread as well (also noted in the OP).

Are you allowed or to reference ellitelling as a reason for a read, so long as you do not specifically reference any other games, such as “X is posting/not posting elsewhere onsite (if not explicitly other games)?

I've definitely called out and scumread players for specifically avoiding the game while posting content in others. It was definitely ok when I was playing but I'm not sure what the rule on it is now.

+1

I don’t want to find myself banned again for misunderstanding what this site does/doesn’t constitute OGI. And this should also include replace out reads. They’re verboten on MU for very good reason.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I'm not just arguing this to be pedantic. I've played in games where players have not posted well beyond the period of time that they should be replaced because the mod knows they're actually still playing the game but just not interacting with it. If you have no tools to point out that a scum player is deliberately doing this because they are tactically not posting outside of games on the site they can basically get away with murder because by the letter of your rules no one can point that out.

Like Lilith said, it's fine to point out that a player hasn't posted in a very long time specifically within this game, and to call them scum because of this. It's also fine to do this even if you've noticed they're being active in other games, or even if your actual reason is because they're being active in other games. After all, thought crime isn't crime, and we can't police the actual reason for you doing something, just the action itself. The problem just comes from referencing activity in other ongoing games, because there's always some risk of leaking info.

Also, if a mod is doing this (not replacing a player because they know the player is "still playing but not interacting"), that is very bad modding practice. If a mod does not search for a replacement for a slot in a timely manner after they fail to respond to a prod, or not prodding in a timely manner, and especially if you think that they're doing it because they know that player is lurking scum, that's an issue that you should let us know about because they may be leaking alignment info. And even if they aren't, it's still bad practice.

Mods being ridiculously lax wrt to prods, happens far too often and adversely impacts games. Few thing hurt agale more than long time inactive slots.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Agree with RC and Tweetie. I don’t want uPicks, GIM etc. and different ways of designing a game to be lumped in the same category as multiball, cults, mid-game alignment changes and even moderator lies.