Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread

[lilith2013]

We have recently made several updates to the mafia rules to reflect our current standards of conduct, which will be effective as of

March 1st, 2022.

We understand that players and game moderators may have questions on some of these changes. To that end, we welcome any questions or comments in this thread, or you can reach out to any Listmod privately if you do not feel comfortable asking your questions publicly. We will do our best to answer any questions as clearly and thoroughly as we can, so that everyone understands the changes we have made and how the new rules will be enforced. We will likely compile a list of FAQ here as well.

[lilith2013]

Here is an overview of the changes that have been made.

This is the previous version of the mafia rules:

Spoiler:

Breaking rules, not posting, or certain other behavior may result in a modkill or replacement in affected games; rules regarding this should be (and generally are) included up front by the Game Moderator. Some rules apply to most games, and should be assumed to hold unless the Game Moderator explicitly says otherwise. These are:

1. Do not attempt to play the same game under more than one name.
   
2. 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, even if this information came from a game moderator or other player's mistake.
   
3. Do not bring outside influences into the game - this includes threats, bribes, wagers, promises, "trust tells", alliances, etc. Using
   knowledge
   from previous games is perfectly acceptable, but try not to carry grudges from one game to another.
   
4. Replacements, while sometimes necessary, also serve as an outside influence. As such, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly threaten to replace out of a game. If you do need to replace out, do not publicly discuss your reasons or anything else, as you are no longer a player in the game. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced out.
   
5. Once a replace-out request has been made public by the moderator, the player replacing out is to stop posting in the game. The player is not allowed to replace back into the game or rescind their request. If a moderator wants to allow any deviation from these rules, it must be stated explicitly in their rule set.
   
6. Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where explicitly allowed to do so by your role/moderator. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread. For more information on this, please see this post.
   
7. Do not edit/delete posts.
   
8. Do not quote communications with the moderator (in particular, your role PM). Paraphrasing is usually ok.
   
9. Do not post in the game after you are dead or replaced. Some moderators do allow contentless "Bah!" posts, but you should never reveal information once you are dead.
   
10. Play to win the game.
    
11. Since Mafia is based largely on conflict and psychological manipulation, we are somewhat more tolerant of aggressive and heated posts in-game than in the rest of the forums. However, game mods will often take action for excessively abusive behavior or slurs, up to and including a force-replacement or modkill. In certain cases, posters with multiple or severe offenses may receive site-wide punishments from the list moderators, such as temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing games. Please refer to the most recent pages of the Ban/Restrictions Announcements thread for an idea of what behavior crosses the line.
    
12. Use of scripts or other devices to functionally ignore the presence and posts of another player in a game is not allowed.
    
13. For many years, the word “lynch” was used to describe the person who was voted out by town in a mafia game. We no longer allow this word to be used by game moderators, and we discourage its use by players.
    
14. Off-site games that are organized in an official manner (e.g. Large Social Games hosted on zetaboards) are subject to on-site rules.

All disputes regarding an ongoing game should be taken to the moderator of the game by PM.

Game Moderators should never modkill or replace over personal issues; instead, they should follow the rules set at the beginning of the game. If you feel the Game Moderator is being unreasonable, you may contact the appropriate List Mod or a site administrator.

In some cases, actions taken with the intent of ruining a game may result in further action against the user, such as a limitation on the number of games that user can play, or a temporary or permanent ban. Any player that is force-replaced for breaking site rules may not "replace back in" to those games after the ban is over.

This is the new version of the mafia rules for players:

Spoiler:

The following list defines our standards of conduct for players of mafia games on this site. Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as force replacement, warnings, and temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing mafia games. Infractions related to game integrity may result in a modkill when the list moderators determine that the slot has been compromised. Mafia games on this site typically include a section with rules specific to each game, but these sitewide mafia rules always apply. A game moderator may supersede some of these rules, but only after obtaining list moderator approval.

1. Play to win the game. If you feel you cannot do this for any reason, you should replace out.
   
2. Do not attempt to play the same game under more than one account.
   
3. Do not play a game without reading your role PM.
   
4. Do not bring out-of-game influences into the game - this includes trust tells, threats, bribes, wagers, promises, alliances, etc. This also includes exploiting the site or game rules to gain an in-game advantage. See this thread for more information.
   
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. This is included in this thread.
   
6. Replacements are an unavoidable out-of-game influence. To minimize the impact of replacements on game integrity, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly consider or publicly announce a choice to replace out. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced. Once you have requested to replace out, you are no longer a player in that game. More information on this rule can be found here.
   
7. Do not post in a game if you are not currently a living player in the game. Game moderators may provide exceptions to this rule without list moderator approval.
   
8. Do not talk about ongoing games except in the game thread and private topics that are associated with the game as provided by your game moderator. More information on this rule can be found here.
   
9. Do not take any action that attempts to prove the existence of private game communications. You are allowed to claim that these communications exist as long as you do not attempt to provide evidence. See here for more information on this rule.
   
10. Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create an in-game private communication channel in plain sight using out-of-game information or agreements to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game. You are allowed to provide "breadcrumbs" or crumb, as long as anyone could reasonably understand and interpret the meaning. You are allowed to create in-game communications if you are using information or agreements produced within the same game - for example, if you agree on a code in a game-related PT. Using references to information or agreements produced outside of the game that you know only specific people will be able to understand is not allowed.
    
11. Do not take any action that attempts to prove the use of randomization in your game-related actions. This includes pictures, screenshots, and using or quoting dice tags. You are allowed to claim to have generated a random value as long as you do not attempt to provide evidence.
    
12. Do not edit or delete posts if you have the ability to do so.
    
13. Since Mafia is based largely on conflict and psychological manipulation, we are somewhat more tolerant of aggressive and heated posts in-game than in the rest of the forums. However, game mods will often take action for excessively abusive behavior or slurs, up to and including being force replaced. In certain cases, posters with multiple or severe offenses may receive sitewide punishments from the list moderators, such as temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing games.
    
14. For many years, the word “lynch” was used to describe the person who was voted out by town in a mafia game. We no longer allow this word to be used.
    
15. Pretending to break a rule will be treated as if the rule was broken.

Any concerns regarding rule-breaking in ongoing games should be privately brought to the game moderator or a list moderator. Any public discussion of rule-breaking in ongoing games, even within the game itself, will be considered the use of an out-of-game influence and treated accordingly.

What's changed:

• New rules:
  • Do not play a game without reading your role PM.
    
  • Do not post in a game if you are not currently a living player in the game.
    
  • Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create a private communication channel in plain sight using out-of-game information or agreements to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game. (Language was updated for clarity on February 25th, 2022.)
    
  • Do not use scripts or software to hide the contents of other players' posts.
    
  • Do not take any action that attempts to prove the use of randomization in your game-related actions.
    
  • Pretending to break a rule will be treated as if the rule was broken.
• Also new:
  • Any concerns regarding rule-breaking in ongoing games should be privately brought to the game moderator or a list moderator. Any public discussion of rule-breaking in ongoing games, even within the game itself, will be considered the use of an out-of-game influence and treated accordingly.
• Updated rules:
  • The rule regarding out-of-game influence has been clarified in a new announcement thread.
    
  • The rule prohibiting quoting of mod communications has been changed to prohibiting the proving of private game communications, and expanded upon in a new announcement thread.
    
  • The announcement thread on discussion of ongoing games has been updated. ("Discussion of activity" exception was removed on February 21st, 2022.)
    
  • Language around the "having information that other players do not have access to" rule was updated for clarity on February 21st, 2022.
• Also updated:
  • Description of consequences has changed: Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as force replacement, warnings, and temporary or permanent bans from joining or playing mafia games. Infractions related to game integrity may result in a modkill when the list moderators determine that the slot has been compromised. (Modkill is no longer an option unless game integrity has been affected.)

The other major change is the new section of rules for game moderators:

Spoiler:

The following list defines our standards of conduct for moderators of mafia games on this site. Violations of any of these standards will result in action from the moderation team, such as revoking moderation experience for the purpose of queue requirements, requiring co-moderators, and being banned from moderating mafia games. A game moderator may supersede some of these rules, but only after obtaining list moderator approval.

1. Game moderators are responsible for ensuring each game they run will be run to completion, preferably by the game moderator, but by someone else if that is not possible. Game moderators are expected to provide all necessary information to continue running the game to a backup moderator or list moderator in the event they cannot finish moderating the game.
   
2. Game moderators have a responsibility to use flavor and describe their mechanics in a way that creates a safe environment and respects everyone. Due to mafia's unfortunate legacy, the most common way this responsibility is failed is by moderating a game in which players are "lynched." We no longer allow this word to be used by game moderators.
   
3. Game moderators are expected to prioritize the integrity of their game and the general site rules, and take action as needed to uphold both. This includes force replacing players who discuss ongoing games, warning or force replacing players who violate our general site rules, consulting list moderators for modkills when a player slot is compromised, etc. Game moderators are also expected to notify a list moderator or report relevant posts when an infraction occurs, so that list moderators can determine if additional action is appropriate.
   
4. Game moderators are expected to consult with a list moderator if they need to make a major decision that impacts the game, such as resolving a moderation error or ending the game prematurely.
   
5. Game moderators may not modkill a player without obtaining list moderator approval. List moderator approval is typically granted when a player slot has been compromised. See more information on this rule here.
   
6. Game moderators generally have discretion over their playerlists within reason, with the exception of the Newbie Queue.
   
7. Game moderators may force replace at their discretion, using their judgment regarding site and game-specific rules.
   
8. Game moderators have discretion over selecting replacements, including reaching out to specific players and deciding which players to accept or reject as replacements. When seeking replacements, game moderators may not inform a potential replacement of the slot's role before they replace in or select a specific person to replace based on the role of the vacant slot.
   
9. Game moderators may not use individual users of the site as flavor in the game without obtaining list moderator approval and review of the text.
   
10. Game moderators must ensure that players have read their role PMs before participating in the game. Best practice for this typically requires players to confirm their role and alignment via PM.
    
11. Game moderators are expected to provide votecounts at least as frequently as the prod timer for their game and provide timely updates as needed (e.g. flips, phases, replacement announcements, etc.), or ensure that a backup moderator or co-moderator can fulfill this expectation.
    
12. Game moderators are expected to exercise due care and diligence when performing moderation-related tasks such as votecounts, action resolution, etc. and keep errors to a minimum.
    
13. Game moderators are expected to keep their game thread OP up to date, including a list of currently alive players and records of replacements for all slots.
    
14. When the setup is required to be reviewed to fulfill queue requirements, the reviewer must approve of the final setup and role PMs.
    
15. Game moderators may not unduly influence the game - this includes, but is not limited to:
    1. Giving game advice to players in private threads
       
    2. Excessively bantering with players
       
    3. Providing information about the setup that players should not have, or refusing to provide information about the setup that players should have
       
    4. Providing setup information only to some players and not others when this is not directly necessitated by the game setup/mechanics/roles (more information about this specific clause is included here)
       
    5. Addressing misunderstandings of the setup without being directly asked
    In general, it is recommended that game moderators refrain from posting in their game threads unless it is directly related to a game moderator task (votecounts, flips, replacement posts, and other game-related announcements) or unless directly asked about the game by a player. In particular, responding to posts unprompted can influence the game if players speculate on why some posts were responded to but not others.
    
    The exception to this rule is if a game is declared bastard when queueing the game. The setup reviewer must be aware of and approve of any ways in which the game moderator will influence the game.
    
16. Game moderators may not use nonrandom methods of role and alignment assignment at the start of the game. The use of nonrandom methods must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game and must be included in the setup review.
    
17. Game moderators may not lie to players unless it can be reasonably anticipated or is necessitated by the game setup, mechanics, or roles. The presence of lies that cannot be reasonably anticipated must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game and must be included in the setup review.
    
18. Game moderators may not supersede any rules for mafia game moderators or players without list moderator approval, unless specified that the rule does not require list moderator approval.

[lilith2013]

Reserved

[lilith2013]

Reserved

[lilith2013]

No, that would not be allowed as it would be understood implicitly that you are referring to an ongoing game:

However, you are not allowed to publicly share that the ongoing game is a reason for a read. This includes statements where it is clear that you're referring to an ongoing game implicitly, such as saying that you aren't allowed to explain a read.

[lilith2013]

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

[lilith2013]

That should be okay as long as you don't try to claim that they were originally from a PT, e.g. by quoting it, linking it, or saying "I wrote this in my notes PT at 9:57 AM EDT on July 1st." The rule change focuses more on the act of proving that the game communication exists rather than the content of the communication - there is some overlap between those two on things like role PMs, for example, because that contains wording/formatting/etc that would be considered aspects of proving that the communication exists, but if you're the originator of the content and are not attempting to claim that it was part of a private game communication, then it wouldn't violate the rule. I hope that makes sense but can try to clarify if you still have questions.

[lilith2013]

Generally yes, this. What Dunnstral posted is fine, these examples violate the rule because they're trying to convey something to another player in a way that no one else could possibly figure out what is being said.

I sometimes refer to incidents, night actions or roles from previous games that I share with some of the players in the game I'm playing now as a way to convey something about my role or about my thoughts on a player in the game, etc. The references are obscure-ish, but are in public threads. And often enough players I might not have thought would get the references do get them.

Would references like this be considered ciphers, codes, etc. under the new rules?

As long as the references could be understood and found by anyone in the game, it's okay. For example, this would be fine because it's clear what you're referencing and could be found by someone even if they didn't know the specific event previously:

Do you remember how I felt about Lilith in FGO when I was scumreading her for claiming JK in an already townsided setup?

Even if someone hasn't read the game, I think it's a reasonable amount of effort to look up a specifically named game, a specific player, and a specific event that they could go do that if they wanted. So this doesn't seem like it's attempting to communicate something privately to some players.

But something like this would be against the rules:

Let's do the same strategy from my least favorite Open setup that I played right before I graduated college

because only people who know what my least favorite Open setup is and when I graduated would know where to look - that wouldn't really be reasonable for someone to do offhand, so I would consider this an attempt to communicate privately to some players.

or.. say I'm going to crumb my role to you by using timestamp references to the songs in my spotify playlist that I sent you last week and the lyrics at each timestamp correspond to posts from different games, but only you understand that that's what I'm doing because you're the only one in the game who knows about my spotify playlist. That's definitely an attempt to communicate privately to certain players.

sorry if these examples are lackluster, it's very difficult to come up with imaginative examples! I think generally, as long as you are not deliberately attempting to only communicate with specific players via a public post, you would be fine. if you want to talk through any specific examples or feel like you still have questions on this rule, let me know.

[lilith2013]

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.

To clarify, is using the Online status of other players as proof that you aren't scum with them, unacceptable?
(In my opinion, it should be.)

Not certain what's being asked here - how would online status be used as proof of this?

Like saying that you could have quickhammered when this other player was online. And because a quickhammer did not occur, you two aren't scum together.

(This is purely hypothetical.)

I'd consider "proving it" to be something like sending screenshots of the list of people who are online, but I can see why you're thinking this. I also want to point out that the online list doesn't actually constitute proof of alignment because users can hide their online status and wouldn't show up on the list, but attempting to prove it would still be against the rules. Ultimately we'd probably decide on a case by case basis whether we believe game integrity was impacted, which is our primary metric for taking action on OGI.

---

also note: the new rules state that replacements in and of itself are OGI

Replacements are an unavoidable out-of-game influence.

To minimize the impact of replacements on game integrity, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly consider or publicly announce a choice to replace out. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced. Once you have requested to replace out, you are no longer a player in that game. More information on this rule can be found here.

This isn't new, just rephrased differently:

Replacements, while sometimes necessary, also serve as an outside influence. As such, do not tell other players to replace out. Do not publicly threaten to replace out of a game. If you do need to replace out, do not publicly discuss your reasons or anything else, as you are no longer a player in the game. PM your game moderator if you are considering replacing out or have concerns and believe another player should be replaced out.

---

Is replacing back into a slot still permitted if the ruleset says so?

Yes, except the approach has changed slightly. Instead of this particular rule being specifically noted as supsersedeable by game mods, now all (or at least, most) of the player rules can be superseded by game mods if they have listmod approval. The replacement rule would fall under that umbrella.

[lilith2013]

Exceptions for both the users as flavor rule and the replacing back in are at the discretion of the listmod for whatever queue you’re in - they can decide whether they want you to resubmit for approval each time (consider this the default) or whether they’re comfortable giving approval for all future games in their queue. They might also decide, for example, that if you provide samples of flavor that approximate the flavor you would write in future games that they don’t need to review your flavor post by post in the future game(s).

I’m likely going to add a “site rule exceptions” question to the mod form in my queue where you’d be able to list the exceptions you want to request.

[lilith2013]

@zefiend, if you’ve read post 2 then you should be up to date. Generally unless it’s clear you’re intentionally cheating, we would send a warning to let you know you’ve broken a rule the first time it happens. If you break the rule again, then we’d consider restrictions from playing/modding games.

[lilith2013]

The out of game info rules are definitely not in an acceptable state right now. At the moment the rule 4 also applies to normal role pm's that are not faulty, which cannot be the intent of this clause.

Feel free to provide suggestions for how you think it can be clarified.

[lilith2013]

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.

The reason that I said that the best option is to not mention the read at all unless you have non-ongoing reasons to support it is for exactly this reason. What we don’t want is for everyone to start assuming that saying “gut” or giving vague reasons means that it’s an ongoing-game-related read, because once it’s universally understood as the code for “this is an ongoing game related read,” then any mention of gut or vague reasons is potentially game-impacting. If it’s obvious that an ongoing game is the reason for a vague read, then we might take action. So ideally we would just never even put ourselves in a situation where that could happen - therefore it’s safer to just not mention the read unless you have other reasons to support it.

[lilith2013]

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.

[lilith2013]

For some concrete scum posts of mine as examples, these two posts in the recently finished Divide & Conquer are likely barred.

In contrast, under the current interpretation of the ruleset, the post where I present my argument, [merely implicitly, and falsely] claiming that an angle is something I would never take as scum, is likely allowable. I am not sold that it will remain this way with the rule as written. This is perhaps not the best example, as I actually flag the exception that makes the case false, but hopefully you get the idea.

Again, perhaps it is a necessary evil and I will simply have to relegate this dimension of play to oblivion, but it is unfortunate, given how much added depth I feel it brought to the table.

I just want to address these examples specifically, even though I think I've generally addressed your point with the contents of my last post.

From a glance at your linked posts, I'm not seeing anything that is trying to confirm yourself outside of the game. You've self-referenced meta as part of an argument, but it doesn't seem to be in a way that says "because I have a history of only doing X as a certain alignment, that's proof of Y in this game"; and your focus appears to be events in the current game.

[lilith2013]

Okay, I just want to be clear that using OGI, out-of-game influence, in your reads is against the rules. That’s number 4 in the OGI announcement thread, having information that you’re not supposed to have, like a mod slip-up about another player while PMing you about your result. I don’t think this is what you’ve been talking about, but you’ve been using the abbreviation OGI so I want to be extremely clear that we are using OGI to mean out-of-game influence and OGI is not allowed.

As for reads based on ongoing games, I’ve already addressed this.

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.

Andante also had a good post about this.

I feel like there should probably be something codified along the lines of “you may not mention any read on a player for which you only have ongoing-game related reasons”

Like, my way of interpreting it is like, if I SR someone cause of an ongoing game, I just find what they're doing that's scummy in the current game and just going like "I SR you for this!" but leaving off the "I SR you for this cause you're scum in the game going on, and doing the same thing here"
Cause like in general if you're SRing someone from something they did in another game, it shouldn't be that hard to find a legit reason to SR someone for the current game.

(idk if any of that makes sense, it makes sense in my mind, like the rule seems fine as written to me?)

If everyone who has a read based on an ongoing game starts saying that their reads are based on “gut” or “feelings” or other vague reasons, then it becomes generally understood that saying any of these means that it’s based on an ongoing game, and once that happens, then there’s the potential for any of these reasons to compromise games. The same goes for everyone using votes without any explanation. If I put down a vote with no explanation, and everyone thinks that means it’s referring to an ongoing game, then all of a sudden people can compare play between ongoing games. I have effectively told everyone that they should look for similarities or differences in an ongoing game with the person, and if I’m also in those games, to compare how I’m treating that person in each game. That can compromise both my slot and theirs in the ongoing game. That’s why I think we need to be extremely cautious about using “gut,” votes without explanations, or other vague reasons to refer to an ongoing game and the best option is we don’t do it at all.

I disagree that it would be gamethrowing to not be able to express a read if the only reason for your read is based on an ongoing game, because you wouldn’t be able to explain the read anyway, under the new rule or the old rule. Even if this rule had not changed, you would still need to find other reasons to explain why the person is scum in order to be able to eliminate them. If you can’t provide any other reasons, then even under the old rule your read wouldn’t have a valid explanation behind it to persuade others to eliminate that person. And as Andante said, if you are scumreading someone, you should be able to find something about their play in the current game that is scum-indicative, otherwise you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be scumreading them.

Yes, there may be a very slight disadvantage to not being allowed to reference ongoing games, but we think that game integrity is more important than any slight advantage gained by being allowed to reference ongoing games and that the tradeoff is worth it to maintain game integrity. There have been many incidents where we felt that game integrity was or could easily have been compromised by people only vaguely referring to ongoing games, even when they followed the old rule.

editing to add a TLDR: there is no “mod-approved” option because any mod-approved option puts us in exactly the same situation we were in before this rule change, when even “I think Lilith is town because [redacted]” could be game-compromising even if the exact allowed sentence was used.

[lilith2013]

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.

Why does this exception not compromise game integrity? Or if it does, why is it allowed as an exception?

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.

[lilith2013]

I think what's problematic isn't necissarily that someone's reads might be OGI centric and the player might be excusing their reads as gut or feelings... but rather that a player that has a legitimate game based gut or feeling read will end up having their read pegged by a list mod as an OGI based read and I think if you start doing that you're headed into a very bad place. (And no it's not acceptable to

assume

that a gut read is OGI.)

I agree with you. That’s why there cannot be a “mod-approved option” or a universally understood reason for reads related to ongoing games, because then using that reason would effectively be saying “this is a read based on an ongoing game” and we’d have to take action if it compromised a game. (I also want to add that games can be compromised even if you aren’t actually talking about an ongoing game. It only matters if people think you are. So yes, there’s a chance that even if you aren’t talking about an ongoing game, you might compromise another game. That’s why it’s bad for there to be a “universally understood” reason that means “related to ongoing games,” because even if you’re not using it that way and have a legitimate read, you can still accidentally compromise a game.) No one wants to get to the point where games are being compromised, and we don’t want to take action on people who aren’t doing anything wrong. If players can provide believable reasons for their reads, that’s fine. I still believe the safest option is to avoid mentioning the reads entirely unless a non-ongoing-game reason can be provided, because I would rather people have to come up with reasons that are not related to ongoing games than for players to start being punished for something they didn’t do because of how other people are talking about their reads related to ongoing games.

[lilith2013]

Also again, we are using OGI to mean “out-of-game influence” and OGI is explicitly against the rules in any form. If this isn’t what you’re talking about, I’m finding it really confusing to see the abbreviation OGI used but people talking about it being allowed, because OGI is not allowed. I would really appreciate if we could use a different abbreviation for “reads related to ongoing games” (which is what I’m assuming this conversation is about but I certainly don’t want to be telling people that OGI is allowed when it isn’t).

[lilith2013]

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.

I think this needs a response. That example is an old one that was already present before the rules were updated, but it does make it clear that this update is an actual change in the

intent

of the rule. It seems like the mod responses to questions here are trying to suggest that this is just the rule as it was always intended to be, just "rewritten" to close up some loopholes, when that is evidently not the case. Saying "so-and-so has posted in other games but not here," to support a read, was not previously regarded as a loophole to be closed up, it was something explicitly and intentionally permitted.

I’m not trying to imply that this is not a change, because we know this is a change. What I’m saying is that the new update supersedes any older versions - there are not meant to be any exceptions to the updated rule.

[lilith2013]

I would like to avoid a situation where we say that something is allowed and people think we’re saying that OGI is allowed because it’s not clear what’s being talked about (or we say something isn’t allowed because we think OGI is what’s being talked about). OGI is not allowed, but yes, replacements are an out-of-game influence and the best we can do is to minimize it by restricting public discussion of replacing out or telling others to replace out. I do want to be as clear as possible, so apologies for miswording in my earlier post. If you have suggestions for how you think the rule can be clarified or if you prefer that someone else answer questions in this thread, feel free to say so.

[lilith2013]

The rule on replacements (and discussion of replacing out) is still the same - you're allowed to discuss a replacement after it has happened. You are not allowed to publicly discuss replacing out, eg by announcing that you intend to replace out or telling someone else to replace out.

[lilith2013]

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).

[lilith2013]

Using codewords based on an in-game agreement would be okay - like deciding on a signal with your scum partner in your scum PT to tell the others when you're available to hammer if you don't have daytalk is fine. It's specifically using outside references that is against the rule. We're working on updating the language to make this clearer, so definitely appreciate the feedback here.

[lilith2013]

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)?

You're not allowed to discuss ongoing games. Referencing other activity, like in GD, is fine.

[lilith2013]

I think it depends on the reasoning you're using to explain the claim. Saying or implying "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she's posting elsewhere," when "elsewhere" is only in ongoing games, would be considered discussing ongoing games. It would be okay if you only talked about whether they are posting in your game, like "Lilith is avoiding the thread because she hasn't posted in this game in 2 days" would be fine.

[lilith2013]

Language of the following rule is being updated based on the feedback we've received (new text is in

green

):

Do not use cryptography, invisible text, or otherwise take any action that attempts to create an in-game private communication channel in plain sight

using out-of-game information or agreements

to communicate with some but not all players in a mafia game. You are allowed to provide "breadcrumbs" or crumb, as long as anyone could reasonably understand and interpret the meaning.

You are allowed to create in-game communications if you are using information or agreements produced within the same game - for example, if you agree on a code in a game-related PT. Using references to information or agreements produced outside of the game

that you know only specific people will be able to understand is not allowed.

[lilith2013]

Modkills required listmod approval starting in 2019. I wasn't around at that time so I don't know if there was a specific incident that caused the change, but I do know that game mods were using modkills as punishment for players but would end up causing harm to the game, which we don't want. I think it's good to have a standardized approach to modkills across the site, and the rule also puts the onus (and any consequences) for the decision on the listmods rather than any individual game mod - even fairly recently there have been people debating whether a modkill was justified, and the listmods having approved the decision meant that people couldn't (or shouldn't) criticize the game mod for it.

[lilith2013]

yep - you can request an exception, but you'd have to explain why.

[lilith2013]

Just as a heads up, all of the updated rules are effective today.

[lilith2013]

I don’t know what CYS means, but yes, UPicks are inherently bastard and technically should have been announced as such for a while now.

[lilith2013]

Those would count too then.

Functionally this doesn’t change mods’ ability to run games, just requires these mechanics to be explicitly announced ahead of time and makes it clear that you’re not allowed to use nonrandom assignment unless it’s a game mechanic. It’s already required in most of the queues’ rules anyway.

[lilith2013]

Using the GM/GIM concept in itself isn’t nonrandom, because someone could run a game where they randomize each person’s role from a GIM thread, right? So it just depends on how the mod is assigning roles to players.

[lilith2013]

I think there was a similar discussion in discord a couple months ago, which I was open to then and I’m still open to having, and might be better served in its own thread though.