You have the freedom to be as dull as you want.

You also have the choice not to be.

##CALL GM
This game, combined with extended phases, and minimum posting limits will likely be going deep into the month of April, Day one has the potential based on those posting rules to be as large as 40-50 pages since there will be 22 players. Also I noted in your additional rules about SPAM that there will be consequences for people who are "annoying". Would this include my youtube videos, and conversational style of play I used last game?

I would try to argue the point that technically my youtube videos were a form of obfuscation and fake breadcrumbing. I just want to know if that style of play is being outlawed in tandem with the minimum posting.

"Strongman is only used to break mafia tie votes though...unless I'm missing something in the role?"

No, to my reading, strongman makes a kill certain by negating the doctor's intervention. The Ringleader is the one who breaks a mafia tie vote when his vote counts double. There is still the question if the strongman's ability fails if he loses the ability or he retains the ability.

I enjoy being dull.

@OB: I'm currently on my phone, there's a few questions I'll respond to (including yours) shortly when I get 10 minutes at my desk.

"
Spamming (defined as excessive content-free posting; or, excessive posting regarding subjects irrelevant to the game - “stupid pointless annoying messages”) is not allowed. The GMs will warn a player prior to taking further action but will also not hesitate to take action if deemed necessary. The in-game voting mechanic exists to curb any advantage that spamming as a tactic may confer; please reference the “VOTING” section above for more information. Suffice to say that spamming is not worth anyone’s time in this setup, and will be frowned upon, so while you may not necessarily be lynched or mod-killed for spamming, please refrain from doing so."



I guess I just wanna point out that what one person may deem stupid, annoying, and pointless may just be their own lack of intelligence at figuring out the truth about context. A very long post by ND as a case vs vecna for example may seem like filler but at the very least it may also be a towntell. If he filled every single page of the game with these cases it might be annoying but who is the authority on what is and is not fair or too spammy?

I imagine this was left vague for a reason so I will retire the point and say good luck all! should be very amusing lets give the GM's a break as they have had to deal with alot of unecessary critique and drama so far in regards to their game. Mostly all my fualt and I wont behave this way anymore, I am sorry to everyone for being bitter.

I didn't notice that spamming thing. If it's not breaking the site rules then I can't say I like the idea of having our discussions moderated. Off-topic chat isn't always 100% off-topic and you can still make reads off of it.

How is a case on Vecna spam? It's on-topic, about a player, about the game, and relevant. Was the case wrong? Sure, but it was still on-topic.

Yeah thumbs down on the no-spamming. How else are we supposed to get selfies of drunk HR if not through the mafia thread?

I do think the spam rule as defined here may be over-reaching. Town tells do sometimes come in the form of incoherent and babbling information.

I dont think it should even be called Mafia if at one point in the game, myself, HR, or ghug arent drunkenly trying to still play.

@brainbomb: remember that the rules are a synthesis of two co-GMs. They aren't "my" rules, just because I'm here responding to questions. As with the last game I GMed, my inclination is towards caution, leniency, and common sense: the rules are designed to accommodate a fun game, and the modifications to the rulebook simply reflect areas of concern either from bo/myself or other players.

I'll say that the rules were a point of discussion between me and Bo. We modified the rules to provide clarity, particularly after the problems already encountered in this thread and that (at least) one veteran player has told us they don't wish to play in this game because of the personal ugliness between 2 new players involved in Mafia. Bo can confirm that anonymously as well, if you want to check that. The rules are there to guide players with common sense to focus on the game as it has always generally been played.

In every Mafia game to date this was the verbatim stated policy regarding spamming.

"MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

SPAM
Spamming (defined as excessive content-free posting; or, excessive posting regarding subjects irrelevant to the game) is not mod-killed by rule in this game. The in-game voting mechanic exists to curb any advantage that spamming as a tactic may confer; please reference the “VOTING” section above for more information. Suffice to say that spamming is not worth anyone’s time in this setup, and will be frowned upon, so while you may not be lynched or mod-killed for spamming, please refrain from doing so.
"

I'm just noting that since you omitted the part about it "not" being an offense to be modkilled for.... are you saying that if I overstep my bounds this game you reserve the right to modkill me if enough people voice a concern that i am in fact talking too much?

you added the word "necessarily" lol. just pointing out the obvious threat is very clearly singling me out as a player. Nobody else is really in danger of this rule being applied IMO.

I think it's quite obvious who dropped out & why, hah. I am not singling out any GM; I am just curious why fundamental rule-changes were implemented when users had not expressed any desire for those changes to be made. The upping of the minimum post had been discussed in the past so I'm not especially bothered by it, though I do think it would've been nice if it had been announced in the signup thread. But the spamming rule had never been discussed as a problem in the game before, so I'm really confused why that was changed. Mafia has the perfect way for players to self-moderate spamming or indeed any other form of behaviour which is annoying people and adding nothing to the game: Lynches. They are a fairly important part of the game, after all. I don't really think we need more there.

I'm not trying to be negative; I'd just rather this was discussed before the game than during it!

It feels more like you are both trying to push a referendum on playstyles as GM's. Like in the same stroke you want to curb people talking too little, and too much, which is fine it is your game. I would like for you to admit that is what you are doing however, so people dont get mixed signals. I will not be offended if you simply state for everyone this rule caviot was added specifically to improve the game and keep brainbomb from becoming too annoying. And to keep meme from being too silent, as those really seem to be the two people most affected by the rules.

One thing to keep in mind is that, its fine to do all these things. It would be fine with me to limit my posting and be more polite to the other players. I think its fine to make moves to improve the game as well. I think people just want honesty in this regard.

I didn't make the changes to the wording of this rule specifically.

I did look over the wording and I don't think, however, that the change is a big deal or provides any cause for concern.

I don't plan on modkilling anyone for spamming, simply because the rule no longer states emphatically that spamming is not a mod-killable offence. That deduction is quite a leap.

Spamming has never been encountered in games before, has never been raised by multiple players as a concern before, and has never been a reason that players have not signed up before. If someone breaks Rule 7 of WebDiplomacy and has action taken against them, this will in turn affect their ability to play in Mafia on the forum and GM action would be required. As such, the GM team agreed that the rulebook needed clarifying on this issue.

I think the rulebook has always said that if people break the site rules and are punished, then replacements would be sought for obvious reasons. Did it really need clarifying to anything more than that? It seems to me like this has created more ambiguity; not removed it.

##GM Note:

The discussion surrounding the minor clarifications to the wording of the pre-existing rule on Spamming are unnecessary and you don't need to be alarmed.

Spamming was already discouraged.

Spamming as a concept clearly has a subjective range of definitions.

As with any rule, GMs should act with extreme caution, care and leniency, where possible.

Good GMs don't spend a game looking for rule-breaking, or trying to incite rule-breaking so that they can mete out punishments. Good GMs simply want a game that doesn't encounter rule-breaking in the first place.

Spamming is against site rules. It's that simple. The mafia rulebook was updated accordingly, due to various concerns around this.

##To provide some extra clarity, I don't think the rule on spamming has ever hindered HR posting drunk selfies, etc, and long may that continue. Spamming is probably only going to reach a problem for the GMs if it a player is punished for breaking site spamming rules; or, for example, if a player posts 50 pages worth of adverts for passports and bootleg DVDs. I'm really hoping neither of those situations happen. But as we'd been asked, we'd hoped to free up the rulebook on that issue.

Was there really any need to talk about a player who has dropped out due to ugliness. Is that really fair to that player to bring up? I mean if thats true surely he would have talked to these "new" players right?
Also you are giving a very Donald Trump-esque style of responses to everyone.

"We changed the policies, they are gonna be great, we wont tell you when or if they will be put into any actual implementation, but they are gonna be great."

In other news: 54.5% chance to be a PR or mafia. I think this is one if the first times that is more likely to happen

@Vash are you excited to be scum?

@Vash

Same percentage as last game; if you count the 3rd Party as a PR.

Okay final thing i'm really upset about.

Yoyoyozo appears numerically before y2k in the alphabetical list. Isnt this an error? dont numbers always come before letters in alphanumeric searches?

Im just kidding!

No really I am kidding. I will stop being such a bitch now.

That's weird. I fixed it when I confirmed, but they changed it back.

I believe the X-Files game had a 100% chance of Mafia or PR or 3rd party.

@OB - I think I confused ringleader with strongman. But the point remains, the mafia team is
1 Vanilla Mafia
1 Ringleader (who as far as the town is concerned, is Vanilla mafia, right?)
1 King Boo (Good, powerful role)
1 Jr. Boo (Practically a vanilla mafia, especially once cop is killed)
1 Sniper (with only 1 shot, instead of 2. So, nerfed)
1 Strongman (can only use power once, so first PR claim is dead)

From my standpoint, the mafia is relying on the inventor fucking up. That's it.