wD Mafia Master Post

[ghug]

the championship? This (or rather last) year, it was ghug and he did a very fine job! As expected from a council member and one of our oldest and most invested, and dare I say, best players.

Bonatogether did also a nice job as a substitute who subbed in for another site that couldn't fill the spot, very nice from our young talent (though he seems to be quite occupied by college right now).

For the coming championship? No one has volunteered so far and it shouldn't be up soon, I think. But people who were playing last time can't this time. So no ghug or bona for us this year.

Maybe a worcej or rdr. One of our really good players

Oh god, we’re boned if I qualify as a good player…

I will say, people here are significantly harder to read, even with the benefit of meta. The champs players were better than the average webDipper at some things, like talking a lot and anime references, but even worcej stands up pretty well in raw mafia ability.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Maybe a worcej or rdr. One of our really good players

Oh god, we’re boned if I qualify as a good player…

I will say, people here are significantly harder to read, even with the benefit of meta. The champs players were better than the average webDipper at some things, like talking a lot and anime references, but even worcej stands up pretty well in raw mafia ability.

Why do you think that is? Coincidence?

[Jamiet99uk]

Maybe a worcej or rdr. One of our really good players

Oh god, we’re boned if I qualify as a good player…

I will say, people here are significantly harder to read, even with the benefit of meta. The champs players were better than the average webDipper at some things, like talking a lot and anime references, but even worcej stands up pretty well in raw mafia ability.

Being hard to read works both ways though.

Some of our people are hard to townread.

[ghug]

Oh god, we’re boned if I qualify as a good player…

I will say, people here are significantly harder to read, even with the benefit of meta. The champs players were better than the average webDipper at some things, like talking a lot and anime references, but even worcej stands up pretty well in raw mafia ability.

Being hard to read works both ways though.

Some of our people are hard to townread.

Ultimately that's because we're too good at scum, I think.

[ghug]

@Kouncil

Following worcej's warning in last game can we formalize what is allowable in game wrt edits/changes.

Fwiw I don't give a fig about avatar or signature changes but editing the poster's name when quoting really bugs me (Jamie). Probably why he does it lol.

Kouncil Ruling

Our position on profile pictures and signatures has been that they pose the potential to become a problem because they're indetectably editable. In particular, someone could signal new information (even after their death), or inadvertantly give the impression that they've done so. In the interest of not being draconian, we've opted to not legislate fun and ask that you please be mindful of this risk when making these changes.

There was a mishap in the last game where people believed Jamie's adding of policeman's garb to his profile pumpkin may have been a hint that he was the cop. Because this was not a widely held belief and because it was the first time, we've opted to not ban changes during games, but please consider that this happened and try to be more careful in the future, because there will be little choice but to ban it if it happens again.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Kouncil

Following worcej's warning in last game can we formalize what is allowable in game wrt edits/changes.

Fwiw I don't give a fig about avatar or signature changes but editing the poster's name when quoting really bugs me (Jamie). Probably why he does it lol.

Kouncil Ruling

Our position on profile pictures and signatures has been that they pose the potential to become a problem because they're indetectably editable. In particular, someone could signal new information (even after their death), or inadvertantly give the impression that they've done so. In the interest of not being draconian, we've opted to not legislate fun and ask that you please be mindful of this risk when making these changes.

There was a mishap in the last game where people believed Jamie's adding of policeman's garb to his profile pumpkin may have been a hint that he was the cop. Because this was not a widely held belief and because it was the first time, we've opted to not ban changes during games, but please consider that this happened and try to be more careful in the future, because there will be little choice but to ban it if it happens again.

First of all to note, it was the Annoying Orange, not any sort of pumpkin.

Second of all, clarification please:

I changed my profile picture on purpose with the intent of softing that I was the Cop (which I was not), in order to draw a NightKill. It wasn't a mishap, I did it deliberately and admitted so in the God Thread as soon as I was killed.

Your ruling says "we've opted not to ban changes during games but we will ban it if it happens again".

Could you clarify this position please?

I do not believe I did anything wrong by altering my avatar in the manner described. If I do it again, will that be considered a violation, or not? Your ruling that it isn't banned, but it will be banned, is confusing.

[ghug]

@Kouncil

Following worcej's warning in last game can we formalize what is allowable in game wrt edits/changes.

Fwiw I don't give a fig about avatar or signature changes but editing the poster's name when quoting really bugs me (Jamie). Probably why he does it lol.

Kouncil Ruling

Our position on profile pictures and signatures has been that they pose the potential to become a problem because they're indetectably editable. In particular, someone could signal new information (even after their death), or inadvertantly give the impression that they've done so. In the interest of not being draconian, we've opted to not legislate fun and ask that you please be mindful of this risk when making these changes.

There was a mishap in the last game where people believed Jamie's adding of policeman's garb to his profile pumpkin may have been a hint that he was the cop. Because this was not a widely held belief and because it was the first time, we've opted to not ban changes during games, but please consider that this happened and try to be more careful in the future, because there will be little choice but to ban it if it happens again.

First of all to note, it was the Annoying Orange, not any sort of pumpkin.

Second of all, clarification please:

I changed my profile picture on purpose with the intent of softing that I was the Cop (which I was not), in order to draw a NightKill. It wasn't a mishap, I did it deliberately and admitted so in the God Thread as soon as I was killed.

Your ruling says "we've opted not to ban changes during games but we will ban it if it happens again".

Could you clarify this position please?

I do not believe I did anything wrong by altering my avatar in the manner described. If I do it again, will that be considered a violation, or not? Your ruling that it isn't banned, but it will be banned, is confusing.

We had not realized you did this intentionally. This behavior is explicitly disallowed. Please do not do something similar again. I thought we were clear about this when it first came up, but if we weren't, I apologize.

There is no record of changes to profile pictures (or signatures) which makes them difficult to police. Sending messages through these means is prohibited for the same reason that out of game communication and post editing are prohibited. For now, the Kouncil ruling (that you are allowed to have fun with these things but not use them for anything game related) stands, but in light of the fact that the tool was used maliciously, we may consider a stricter ruling.

[ghug]

IV.

Also during the game, multiple players changed their avatars and signatures. Some of these changes involved game-relevant (though unimportant) information.

Signatures and avatars are also new additions to webDiplomacy’s forum, and pose a challenge for us because, much like the +1 system on the old forum, there is no log of who used the function, when, and how. Changes to signatures and avatars cannot be tracked unless someone actively sets out to log a user’s signature and avatar over time, which we consider an unreasonable overhead for GMs. We have discussed several solutions, including the following:

• Players may have signatures and avatars but may not convey game-relevant information in them at any time.
• Players may have signatures and avatars but may not change them after their in-game death until the conclusion of the game.
• Players may not have signatures or avatars while playing.

The last solution—an outright ban—is the most sensible from an overhead perspective, but we don’t wish to be fun police, as we know you enjoy these functions. For now, we announce a new rule which bans the conveying of game-relevant information via signatures and avatars, but we will continue monitoring the situation to determine if a better solution exists. As always, we welcome your feedback and suggestions.

This was the original post explaining the rule around avatars.

[Jamiet99uk]

IV.

Also during the game, multiple players changed their avatars and signatures. Some of these changes involved game-relevant (though unimportant) information.

Signatures and avatars are also new additions to webDiplomacy’s forum, and pose a challenge for us because, much like the +1 system on the old forum, there is no log of who used the function, when, and how. Changes to signatures and avatars cannot be tracked unless someone actively sets out to log a user’s signature and avatar over time, which we consider an unreasonable overhead for GMs. We have discussed several solutions, including the following:

• Players may have signatures and avatars but may not convey game-relevant information in them at any time.
• Players may have signatures and avatars but may not change them after their in-game death until the conclusion of the game.
• Players may not have signatures or avatars while playing.

The last solution—an outright ban—is the most sensible from an overhead perspective, but we don’t wish to be fun police, as we know you enjoy these functions. For now, we announce a new rule which bans the conveying of game-relevant information via signatures and avatars, but we will continue monitoring the situation to determine if a better solution exists. As always, we welcome your feedback and suggestions.

This was the original post explaining the rule around avatars.

I missed this at the time. It should be put in the master rules, but I appreciate the clarification.

Thanks.

[damo666]

What about my specific complaint about changing the name of the op when quoting?

[Chaqa]

What about my specific complaint about changing the name of the op when quoting?

I feel like this is only a problem if you change it to another player's name

[ghug]

What about my specific complaint about changing the name of the op when quoting?

I'd like to hear more opinions on this. I personally don't like the behavior but find it pretty easy to police in game. If there's widespread desire to ban it, that could also be fine.

[dargorygel]

I dislike it because it makes me have to work harder to trace back who said what when.

[damo666]

I dislike it because it makes me have to work harder to trace back who said what when.

Yeah, this is what annoys me.

[snowy801]

Haven't been around for a while but I've always believed that sort of post editing should be banned as a matter of course

[Jamiet99uk]

What about my specific complaint about changing the name of the op when quoting?

I feel like this is only a problem if you change it to another player's name

It doesn't bother me.

[ghug]

What about my specific complaint about changing the name of the op when quoting?

I feel like this is only a problem if you change it to another player's name

It doesn't bother me.

I'm shocked.

[Jamiet99uk]

I feel like this is only a problem if you change it to another player's name

It doesn't bother me unless it results in the forum being overwhelmed by a plague of gnats.

I'm shocked.

I honestly feature it's a natural feature of the new webDip system and you should embrace it.

[Jamiet99uk]

Haven't been around for a while but I've always believed strongly in favour of that sort of post editing in spite of the egregious fumes emitted by my buttocks, as a matter of course

I agree with Snowy.

[sweetandcool]

I don't mind the username editing that Jamiet does.

I think if people playing the game don't like it then they should rise up and tell Jamiet to knock it off (or else).

Rather than legislating it.

Unless possibly if it is more or less universally despised.