Another Mafia Game Needlessly Ruined: Please Read.

[Kelly Chen]

Towns might perk up when the scum seem to have claimed. No fun for scum.

I don't understand "proper gambiting options" here. Fake claiming scum partners would get you banned from my games. Even if the game could continue, you put the mod in the pain in the ass position of having to decide whether to end the game (and get criticized by Maz) or say "heh heh guys, uhhh... the game's not really ruined. Metatron (must have) lied at least partly. go go go"

[inHimshallibe]

I don't think the rule is necessary, really, if responsible players are in the game. We don't have to "stifle" innovation with responsible players. So the dilemma is now placing responsible players into games out of the pool of players we have now, and that pool is accelerating as is. At one point I didn't want to, but now I think more and more every day we may have to look into more requirements for new players to meet before playing in other games.

This is becoming a pretty big site, and big sites need organization.

[inHimshallibe]

Oh, and were I in HurriKaty's position, the game would have ended as well.

[Glork]

Also, I'm 100% sure that a game that's no longer going has much less potential fun factor than a game that is after a strange event.

Wrong. There is a relatively high opportunity cost associated with keeping a game running.


1) Continiuing to play a game takes time and effort. That time and effort is wasted once you find out that the game was thrown by the scums, even if it only takes a couple of weeks. Several people (myself included) have already pointed out that it doesn't seem fair to drag the game out when the outcome is already known by all parties. In fact, at the end of CovertOps, when there were like 8 players alive, 4 confirmed innocent, and only one scumbag, and the Doc and one Cop were still alive, the last scumbag conceded because he knew he would lose and didn't want everyone else to waste their time. He did it in a very sportsman-like manner (he PM'd the mod asking if he could concede, as he was being fingered for the next lynch, and the mod agreed that it was an acceptable decision), so there was no harm done and we could all move on to other games more quickly.

2) The "time and effort" commitment also relates to players determining whether to join another game or not. Virtually every player limits themselves to a certain number of games, so that they can keep up with each of the games they

do

play. If I'm in a game, even if it's a done deal, I'm not going to go join another game, because there is still work to be done in my current game.

3) In the case of minis, there is a site-imposed limitation. If even one player involved in the game is at their mini limit, keeping the game alive means that while they're busy not-having-fun, they *ALSO* cannot be having fun elsewhere on the site. This, along with #2, is probably the most elevant associated opportunity cost to keeping the game alive. Binding players to the current game prevents them from getting into other games. Even if you get "greater than zero fun" out of the current game, you could very likely be getting far

more

fun from another game.

4) As AE pointed out, keeping the game alive can make the other players angry or resentful. I would rather put a Bad Thing to rest than to drag it out.

[zu_Faul]

I'm with Maz on this one.

Maz Medias wrote:
Also, I'm 100% sure that a game that's no longer going has much less potential fun factor than a game that is after a strange event.
Strongly disagree. I've been involved in a game that...well, let's just say the fun factor became extremely negative.

I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.

If someone really wants to ruin a game, a rule isn't going to stop them, anyway.

That's so true. You can't have a rule for anything or it won't be fun anymore.

Maz, I'd like an answer to my question: Do you believe that Metatron broke the "let everyone have fun" rule with his behavior?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

There's a really big problem. You can't make your banning of someone dependent on the answer to that question. That's entirely stupid. I hope it's not what you wanted to imply.

Would you get a significant level of enjoyment out of winning a game because somebody said "I am scum and here are my scumbuddies" the way Metatron did?

I'm not Maz, and I'm not just silently answering the question for myself, but:
Yes, I would, if I was scum (if this was a gambit [or not[doesn't really work because you said "winning the game,

because

someone said", but you get the point]]).

[zu_Faul]

I don't understand "proper gambiting options" here. Fake claiming scum partners would get you banned from my games. Even if the game could continue, you put the mod in the pain in the ass position of having to decide whether to end the game (and get criticized by Maz) or say "heh heh guys, uhhh... the game's not really ruined. Metatron (must have) lied at least partly. go go go"

You aren't. If you always let the game go on. Problem solved, go go go.

[Tarhalindur]

For reference, here was my reasoning for throwing the game:

Sadly, I knew that the game was pretty much over after Metatron's stunt and theopor's comments about it - there was still a minute chance of winning (which I thought would require that a) the town thought Meta was linking himself to townies and b) we managed to kill the cop before he checked us out and realized Meta was telling the truth), but not enough to make this game still worth playing as scum. IMO, there's little to no point in continuing to play if you've already lost the game - after all, that's why mods end the game when a scum win is assured (aka "killed in endgame").

When I came in, I decided to bus my godfather in the hopes of all-but-clearing one of us (if I died, Metatron would be largely cleared, esp. with GF immunity; if Metatron died, I would seem pro-town for leading the charge against the mafia GF). Unfortunately, that plan probably wouldn't have worked even if Metatron hadn't ruined the game - I misplayed, and the town realized that I might be bussing.

Also, I second the

Ban: Metatron

.

I might have done better to ask for replacement instead of modkill, but a) I didn't think of that option at the time and b) HurriKaty had already had to get far too many replacements for her game, it wouldn't have seemed fair to ask her to get yet *another* replacement for the game (a triple replacement, to boot).

Continuing to play the game was out of the question for me - there was no chance of me continuing to have fun, and without that there was no incentive for me to continue playing. Selfish, perhaps, but there it is.

[Kelly Chen]

Like I said earlier, it's a huge waste of time, and no fair to the remaining screwed scum, to continue a spoiled game.

I don't see how it's worth it to play out such games in order to save games that just SEEM like they were spoiled but actually weren't.

[CrashTextDummie]

I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.

If the whole roster decided to get replaced in a situation like this (which I'm fairly sure would have happened if the game were allowed to continue), it would result in an abandoned game just as well.

[Kelly Chen]

sarnathed

I'm with Maz on this one.

Maz Medias wrote:
Also, I'm 100% sure that a game that's no longer going has much less potential fun factor than a game that is after a strange event.
Strongly disagree. I've been involved in a game that...well, let's just say the fun factor became extremely negative.

I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.

Scum should and probably would take this approach. "Mod I've been outed, replace please." Tar actually asked to be modkilled, which I thought was funny at the time but makes more sense if you have the idea that the game will continue.

If someone really wants to ruin a game, a rule isn't going to stop them, anyway.

That's so true. You can't have a rule for anything or it won't be fun anymore.

So we shouldn't try to prohibit disruptive behavior?

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway? I don't think they will since I won't be sending them a role pm.

[Adel]

I think the chance in policy should allow more freedom: give mods much more discretion in who plays in their games. Let the mods in the mini queues skip any player for any reason.
If someone ruins a game or uses a tactic that you really disapprove of, don't take them. The down side would be the greedy mods who take the best players, and newbies having trouble getting into some mini games. I think those would be more tolerable changes than making more rules and officially restricting more types of gameplay. Just make it easier to informally blacklist people. Some of the people who make huge mistakes will stick around and reform and work hard to get off of the blacklist, others won't bother and will just go away.

[Adel]

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway? I don't think they will since I won't be sending them a role pm.

I think that is all that is necessary: mods deciding who to let into their games and who not to.

[somestrangeflea]

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway? I don't think they will since I won't be sending them a role pm.

I think that is all that is necessary: mods deciding who to let into their games and who not to.

Keffed. Personal mod blacklists FTW.

[Zindaras]

I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.

A lot of people see Mafia as more than just a game. It is also in many ways a responsibility. You signed up, so you should play the game, and the entire game. I know I view it that way. I feel guilty every time I get replaced and usually do everything I can to make it up to the mod in question.

[CrashTextDummie]

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway? I don't think they will since I won't be sending them a role pm.

I think that is all that is necessary: mods deciding who to let into their games and who not to.

I strongly disagree with this.

The solution is to keep offenders from signing up in the first place, and not in letting mods tailor their rosters to their likings. I know a number of players who would be discriminated against undeservingly.

[zu_Faul]

Like I said earlier, it's a huge waste of time, and no fair to the remaining screwed scum, to continue a spoiled game.

It's npt spoiled if it's not ended.

zu_Faul wrote:
I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.


If the whole roster decided to get replaced in a situation like this (which I'm fairly sure would have happened if the game were allowed to continue), it would result in an abandoned game just as well.

If everyone just out of some reason decides that they suddenly have no fun anymore with a game, it's fine, but why should that happen?

So we shouldn't try to prohibit disruptive behavior?

I wouldn't pay every price for that; I didn't say anything else.

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway?

I don't think that's directed at me, but my answer would be no.

zu_Faul wrote:
I think then you are doing something wrong. If you don't want to play anymore, get replaced or simply decide to have fun.


A lot of people see Mafia as more than just a game. It is also in many ways a responsibility. You signed up, so you should play the game, and the entire game. I know I view it that way. I feel guilty every time I get replaced and usually do everything I can to make it up to the mod in question.

I see it like you. But altruism at the expense of your happiness is nothing for everyone, and certainly nothing for me.

[CrashTextDummie]

If everyone just out of some reason decides that they suddenly have no fun anymore with a game, it's fine, but why should that happen?

Because the game was ruined. Duh. Did you happen to actually read this thread?

[Dr. Doom]

I see Maz points, but I'm with Glork on this one. Its sad that this gambit becomes impossible (as it is an awesome gambit), but in order to make it metagame-proof, you have to let go stuff like this game go on, which is bad for the reasons pointed out by Glork.

[zu_Faul]

If everyone just out of some reason decides that they suddenly have no fun anymore with a game, it's fine, but why should that happen?

Because the game was ruined. Duh. Did you happen to actually read this thread?

I did. Duh. Why was it ruined? Duh.

[Kelly Chen]

Like I said earlier, it's a huge waste of time, and no fair to the remaining screwed scum, to continue a spoiled game.

It's npt spoiled if it's not ended.

If the whole roster decided to get replaced in a situation like this (which I'm fairly sure would have happened if the game were allowed to continue), it would result in an abandoned game just as well.

If everyone just out of some reason decides that they suddenly have no fun anymore with a game, it's fine, but why should that happen?

Wow zuFaul, I wonder if we're talking about the same situation. The town might not bail but why wouldn't the scum? If you had been blatantly outed by a partner, and your death was just a matter of time, why would you keep posting?

How would a game left in such a state not be "spoiled"?

We shouldn't ban disruptive people because they'll carry on outing scum partners anyway?

I don't think that's directed at me, but my answer would be no.

My point here is that it's not true that making rules can't stop people from ruining games who really want to.

[Tamuz]

I think this is just the result of an overactive imagination that watches too much anime.

vote: Japanese Anime Industry

Not even the coke industry causes more evil than that one.

And personally, if I'm in a position where I think a gambit like this would help my team, I would do it. It would actually be more against your rules for me NOT to do it that to do it.

[Kelly Chen]

oh wait. Someone's going to say "well the surviving scum can try not to get lynched lol."

Even so, they're only in that shitty position because somebody on their team screwed them over.


@Tamuz: I don't agree, since causing the game to be aborted wouldn't help your team as far as I can see.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I think this is just the result of an overactive imagination that watches too much anime.

vote: Japanese Anime Industry

QFT

[CrashTextDummie]

If everyone just out of some reason decides that they suddenly have no fun anymore with a game, it's fine, but why should that happen?

Because the game was ruined. Duh. Did you happen to actually read this thread?

I did. Duh. Why was it ruined? Duh.

It just so happens that I was in the game in question.

It was clear to anyone that the game was ruined, arguably even before the second scum reacted. If the mod didn't end the game (which is what you're advocating), no one would have been compelled to continue.

[Mokina]

While this type of behavior isn't particularly ethical, I think the player in question mistook a "pro-scum" move for an "anti-Metatron" one. You can't really establish rules against stupidity.