wD Mafia Master Post

[Chaqa]

My main point of temporal reading being different is still unaddressed and crucial. Two people can read the same thread and find different information because someone else +1 in between.

I don't understand what you mean, but neither of us is an English speaker.

[BunnyGo]

My main point of temporal reading being different is still unaddressed and crucial. Two people can read the same thread and find different information because someone else +1 in between.

I don't understand what you mean, but neither of us is an English speaker.

If someone pluses posts after I read them, I’ll see different information than someone who reads the thread later.

The reason we lock the thread and make all posts appear in order is so this issue cannot occur.

[Chaqa]

My main point of temporal reading being different is still unaddressed and crucial. Two people can read the same thread and find different information because someone else +1 in between.

I don't understand what you mean, but neither of us is an English speaker.

If someone pluses posts after I read them, I’ll see different information than someone who reads the thread later.

The reason we lock the thread and make all posts appear in order is so this issue cannot occur.

Oh, I suppose that sorta makes sense, but +1 shouldn't be viewed as "information". I generally use them for posts I find funny, but I can see both sides of it.

[celaph]

I can think of a few times that +1 can be seen as information.

• D1 last game I +1'd ghug's joke about the scum QT which let people know that I had learned what a QT was between Bunny's earlier comment and then.
• People used them to determine that Bona was online and reading the thread despite him not posting often.
• The general case where if someone +1s an argument then it is reasonable to assume that they agree with the argument.

[celaph]

*D1 M62 for the first point

[worcej]

Yes, you will. I don't see a good reason to prevent that. Taking up Ghug's suggestion and not listing the discard pile means there's less danger of the game being broken by people mass-claiming their discards (remember there are also 22 cards that will never have been in circulation).

I think because there will be 20+ cards not in distribution, you could list the discarded cards and not break the game. A Mass claim on discards will always be subject to WIFOM because of the cards not actually used.

I suppose the question is:

Is there a good reason, from a game balance perspective, why the discard pile *should* be revealed? Does concealing the contents of the discard pile cause any faction an unfair disadvantage?

If the answer is "no" then I'm inclined not to list the discarded cards.

To be complicated, I'd say it depends on what people discard.

Seeing a mafia role in the discard would cause some interesting analysis, but it could be mute because maybe someone got two mafia roles? Or maybe it was someone who likes town more?

You cannot be sure of anything, and most likely it would be a distraction instead of a benefit, but you never know.

[worcej]

We had several games with +1 allowed with no drama.

I know any game I GM will have +1ing.

It's fun.

Likewise for my setups, until a universal ruleset mandates they cannot be done.

[worcej]

It is worth noting that for scum to coordinate +1 communication, they'd either have to plan it in their QT, which the GM could put a stop to, or they'd have to communicate illegally to begin with, at which point, they could just... communicate illegally.

This right here - if I was a GM and saw some +1 signaling moves being discussed, I'd squash it.

More often, mafia code discussions have been through using keywords in their posts and I find that acceptable since it's always available and un-editable.

[worcej]

My main point of temporal reading being different is still unaddressed and crucial. Two people can read the same thread and find different information because someone else +1 in between.

I've never seen a +1 as much of signaling, moreso as a sign of agreement of what someone may have said or not.

And if you're only using +1's to show agreement, then you're communicating it in a bad manner...

[ghug]

I think because there will be 20+ cards not in distribution, you could list the discarded cards and not break the game. A Mass claim on discards will always be subject to WIFOM because of the cards not actually used.

I suppose the question is:

Is there a good reason, from a game balance perspective, why the discard pile *should* be revealed? Does concealing the contents of the discard pile cause any faction an unfair disadvantage?

If the answer is "no" then I'm inclined not to list the discarded cards.

To be complicated, I'd say it depends on what people discard.

Seeing a mafia role in the discard would cause some interesting analysis, but it could be mute because maybe someone got two mafia roles? Or maybe it was someone who likes town more?

You cannot be sure of anything, and most likely it would be a distraction instead of a benefit, but you never know.

My issue with it mostly comes down to the fact that we are very likely going to be massclaiming them, and then it comes down to how good/lucky the scum and PRs are at concocting their lies instead of just playing the game.

I worry about that even without revealing the discards, but at least there's more wiggle room that way.

[worcej]

I suppose the question is:

Is there a good reason, from a game balance perspective, why the discard pile *should* be revealed? Does concealing the contents of the discard pile cause any faction an unfair disadvantage?

If the answer is "no" then I'm inclined not to list the discarded cards.

To be complicated, I'd say it depends on what people discard.

Seeing a mafia role in the discard would cause some interesting analysis, but it could be mute because maybe someone got two mafia roles? Or maybe it was someone who likes town more?

You cannot be sure of anything, and most likely it would be a distraction instead of a benefit, but you never know.

My issue with it mostly comes down to the fact that we are very likely going to be massclaiming them, and then it comes down to how good/lucky the scum and PRs are at concocting their lies instead of just playing the game.

I worry about that even without revealing the discards, but at least there's more wiggle room that way.

If bozo is playing, almost certainly the discussion of a mass claim is going to happen regardless

This is what I liked about my last game - the PR's were not alignment related and you could never confirm easily what anyone was, other than rdr being a boring vanilla lol

[Jamiet99uk]

It is worth noting that for scum to coordinate +1 communication, they'd either have to plan it in their QT, which the GM could put a stop to, or they'd have to communicate illegally to begin with, at which point, they could just... communicate illegally.

This right here - if I was a GM and saw some +1 signaling moves being discussed, I'd squash it.

More often, mafia code discussions have been through using keywords in their posts and I find that acceptable since it's always available and un-editable.

If you allowed +1s in your game in the first place, why would you "squash" this particular use of a thing which you have decided should be allowed?

[President Eden]

Seems +1 rules should just be left to the individual GM.

Jamie may or may not allow them. I prefer them but I'll live.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't want to have to police a rule that says "you're allowed to +1 posts, as long as you don't do it in a way that might help you win the game".

[Chaqa]

I don't want to have to police a rule that says "you're allowed to +1 posts, as long as you don't do it in a way that might help you win the game".

Like EMC and I did by +1ing every post and claiming it had to do with our roles?

[worcej]

I don't want to have to police a rule that says "you're allowed to +1 posts, as long as you don't do it in a way that might help you win the game".

Making a code to +1 certain players posts at certain times to reveal something would be a sketch.

It would be trying to break the game honestly.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't want to have to police a rule that says "you're allowed to +1 posts, as long as you don't do it in a way that might help you win the game".

Making a code to +1 certain players posts at certain times to reveal something would be a sketch.

It would be trying to break the game honestly.

I agree that it would, so the best solution for me as a GM is to not allow +1's, rather than to have to be alert for every possible use or mis-use of the +1 facility.

[Chaqa]

I don't want to have to police a rule that says "you're allowed to +1 posts, as long as you don't do it in a way that might help you win the game".

Making a code to +1 certain players posts at certain times to reveal something would be a sketch.

It would be trying to break the game honestly.

I agree that it would, so the best solution for me as a GM is to not allow +1's, rather than to have to be alert for every possible use or mis-use of the +1 facility.

Well then I will not +1 any GM posts, as I could be signalling something with the order/when I +1 you.

[Fluminator]

I had a correct strong town read on EMC from him instantly +1ing a GM post reveal. Because I was also instantly refreshing because I wanted to know who would flip!
If he was mafia he wouldn't be refreshing as frantically.

[ghug]

I had a correct strong town read on EMC from him instantly +1ing a GM post reveal. Because I was also instantly refreshing because I wanted to know who would flip!
If he was mafia he wouldn't be refreshing as frantically.

I think I used that logic to fake a townread on a scum teammate once.