Board 8 > Simple Mafia Topic 3: Simple captions for standard games

(+) Yeah! (+)

masterplum posted...

So I want to make a post about the no kill situation

No killing at 4 is fairly standard, and the backlash to it was somewhat surprising. I was late to No lynch so being the only person not no lynching I was in a bind.

* IGCD would never kill there. All it would do is make it easier to die
* Sbell and Kirby can't be scum. If they were scum they would have just joined me on IGCD

So the only thing I could do was no kill and argue that IGCD was playing for the tie. It was the only real option. Killing anyone at that point would completely dismantle the argument and make me look like scum.

And it ended up convincing Kirby, so there you go

That's why you should never have INITIALLY no killed. None of your talking points existed until after you no killed the first time. You had an easy win the final day without the no kill and just 3 left.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

What is the standard procedure for handling nighttime posts? Did I handle that correctly?

In reference to that one dude with a new account? I thought you handled that well tbh

BlueCrystalTear posted...

We are scrapping the MYLO/LYLO locked vote thing. It does not work here. Agree?

Tbf the day should have ended as soon as I cast my vote for IGCD. But also, this MyLo/LyLo situation was strange because of the No Kill making us inclined to go for No Lynch. I'd say it's way too early to tell after just one game.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

How the hell do we navigate these tie phases? Like... do we not need to force people to play to win at some point? I hated hosting this the last few days. Just hated it.

I don't blame you, but there's nothing to be done about it. You can't obligate Town to vote every time, nor can you obligate Mafia to kill every night. Obligating either faction to commit to an action is a disadvantage for one group or the other. Perhaps shorten the period to two consecutive days of NK NL instead of three.

masterplum posted...

So I want to make a post about the no kill situation

No killing at 4 is fairly standard, and the backlash to it was somewhat surprising. I was late to No lynch so being the only person not no lynching I was in a bind.

* IGCD would never kill there. All it would do is make it easier to die
* Sbell and Kirby can't be scum. If they were scum they would have just joined me on IGCD

So the only thing I could do was no kill and argue that IGCD was playing for the tie. It was the only real option. Killing anyone at that point would completely dismantle the argument and make me look like scum.

And it ended up convincing Kirby, so there you go

Uh, the only time I ever consider a no kill is if we've janitored the doctor and can claim we saved one of our own. I absolutely kill you or sbell there and argue that Kirby must be scum because him being the only "confirmed" town and not dying gives me a much better chance than being against you and sbell in a final 3.

PunishedBen posted...

Simple mafia ended up being a defining game and I think there should be two rules.

1. Self voting not allowed. This has always been the standard in my games at least.

2. Stalemate results in scum win. If there's no power or threatening player alive at end game, scum simply has no inventive to night kill and is playing to win by doing so. Town is not playing to win by refusing to come to a decision that will win the game.

Absolutely fucking not to number 2. That's ludicrous.

Self voting is usually petulant and unnecessary.

Vote locking is fine.

We've dealt with standstills in endgame before. Usually players give up and just go. I would argue that if Scum choose to no kill, then the next day is the last day and Town has to lynch someone or lose.

PunishedBen posted...

2. Stalemate results in scum win. If there's no power or threatening player alive at end game, scum simply has no inventive to night kill and is playing to win by doing so. Town is not playing to win by refusing to come to a decision that will win the game.

Fuck that shit. Scum should not be given an extra advantage for cowardice.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Uh, the only time I ever consider a no kill is if we've janitored the doctor and can claim we saved one of our own. I absolutely kill you or sbell there and argue that Kirby must be scum because him being the only "confirmed" town and not dying gives me a much better chance than being against you and sbell in a final 3.

Yes, it was a lie. I was lying

As for why I settled for the 1 for 1 and claimed doctor: I don't make that move lightly. However Corrik was on fire. Not just in the sense that he was cop but because he was solving the entire game through play alone. He was single handedly winning the game and I determined I would not escape him by the end of the day if I did not claim doctor. He was controlling the lynch and had his eyes set on me and I really don't think I could have beaten him. Thus 1 for 1 to kill Ulti was the best option as Ulti would have looked super town had I died before him since I was only trying to lynch him all day

Stalemates are stalemates. Not "one side wins in the event of a tie". That's horribly imbalanced.

PunishedBen posted...

As for why I settled for the 1 for 1 and claimed doctor: I don't make that move lightly. However Corrik was on fire. Not just in the sense that he was cop but because he was solving the entire game through play alone. He was single handedly winning the game and I determined I would not escape him by the end of the day if I did not claim doctor. He was controlling the lynch and had his eyes set on me and I really don't think I could have beaten him. Thus 1 for 1 to kill Ulti was the best option as Ulti would have looked super town had I died before him since I was only trying to lynch him all day

This was a planned out move by the way. We figured we were either dead if there was a doctor, or there was no doc and we could gambit and get a mislynch and score me some town points insta voting him the next day.

It was very successful

Corrik7 posted...

You said... scum wouldn't have made the Corrik kill and sacrificed Ben unless they were confident the remaining member could win... then didn't even try after that point.

Honestly, I doubted myself because I know I have a tendency to overthink. No one else really commented on it, so I dismissed it in favor of the simpler theories.

Perhaps I need to believe in my convictions more.

Here's a non-broken link to the Discord (I combined them and used roles and such):
https://discord.gg/YDM5aTdc

Corrik7 posted...

Also the rule for stalemate is supposed to be 3 consecutive turns, not cycles. A no kill - no lynch - no kill should have been a stalemate. It puts the pressure on the initiator because they can try it but if the other side refuses to play ball on it then they have to put up or accept the tie.

Yeah I must've misread what was the norm, and that was my bad.

Forgive me, I am yet inexperienced. I will outline the rules if I am to host again. Including that, and I may ban self-voting entirely after this disaster. Or, that if there's a tie, it's randomized between the tied parties, with the one exception being that anything that makes the game result in a stalemate will NOT get inputted into a tie. So, if it had stayed 2-2 between No Lynch and IGCD, No Lynch is excluded and Plum wins. I wasn't going to make it random whether there was a winner or no winner, and it was my bad for not articulating things properly (or not realizing that there were rules that could contradict one another).

I don't agree that the day should've ended at a 2-2 tie because I axed the locked vote rule. But... yeah. I made a lot of goofs, and I've learned from them. I hope to play more before hosting again.

Part of hosting is that you see weird shit and amend the rules as you do to ensure it doesn't happen again. A lot of weird shit happened here and I don't want it to repeat.

Stalemates need to be firmly established at 3 turns. Whoever initiates CHOSEN No Kill / No Lynch. The other party can choose to act or return the favor. If you choose to again No Kill / No Lynch knowing the other side has made it known they won't take party to your ploy... then its a stalemate. Right then and there.

You shouldn't be able to force the other side to act by initiating, and you shouldn't have to go 3 days to do what is obvious after the first return.

Kirby321 posted...

Stalemates are stalemates. Not "one side wins in the event of a tie". That's horribly imbalanced.

The goal here is to eliminate ties because we cant introduce the concept of ties into a mafia game as something either side can decide is worth more than losing. To some people its a win for everyone and for some people its a loss. Way too messy and undefined. So one side would need to win. I think its scum who deserves the win if they are in a situation where they dont feel the need to kill anyone in final 4. It is also playing towards their goal of hiding information from town. Town has to actually make the descion that ends the game and actually FIND the scum. It is against their win goal to refuse to find the scum

Obellisk posted...

it was plum wasn't it?

Yes yes it was

PunishedBen posted...

The goal here is to eliminate ties because we cant introduce the concept of ties into a mafia game as something either side can decide is worth more than losing. To some people its a win for everyone and for some people its a loss. Way too messy and undefined. So one side would need to win. I think its scum who deserves the win if they are in a situation where they dont feel the need to kill anyone in final 4. It is also playing towards their goal of hiding information from town. Town has to actually make the descion that ends the game and actually FIND the scum. It is against their win goal to refuse to find the scum

Its also against scum wincon not to obtain majority and they have the advantage of information. You're just awarding the team with the advantage the win because you don't want to hurt feelings which would inevitably hurt more feelings.

he actually modkilled me...

this is BCTs last hosting gig until he's got atleast 10 games in this community under his belt.

And this should be a prerequisite for the community going forward along with a ban of all self voting unless it's a Chris made mafia madness game

TheSultanOfSlam posted...

Yes yes it was

hey, I apologized and explained my read. let's agree that it was both our faults you got lynched.

Self-hammering does have a niche value in certain situations. For scum, it can be to cut a day short. For town, it can be to really sell a point.

Corrik7 posted...

Also the rule for stalemate is supposed to be 3 consecutive turns, not cycles. A no kill - no lynch - no kill should have been a stalemate. It puts the pressure on the initiator because they can try it but if the other side refuses to play ball on it then they have to put up or accept the tie.

That makes sense too and is probably what we should do

Look, either Town loses if they can't lynch in a stalemate situation, or make Scum killing compulsory. Those are the options. Ties are dumb

Obellisk posted...

this is BCTs last hosting gig until he's got atleast 10 games in this community under his belt.

Wrong.

You don't post after a stop. You just don't.

PunishedBen posted...

The goal here is to eliminate ties because we cant introduce the concept of ties into a mafia game as something either side can decide is worth more than losing. To some people its a win for everyone and for some people its a loss. Way too messy and undefined. So one side would need to win. I think its scum who deserves the win if they are in a situation where they dont feel the need to kill anyone in final 4. It is also playing towards their goal of hiding information from town. Town has to actually make the descion that ends the game and actually FIND the scum. It is against their win goal to refuse to find the scum

Why not? Chess games can end in stalemates. A stalemate is literally where neither side wants to or cannot push against the other without compromising themselves.

If stalemates result in scum victory, then the scum will never have a reason to take things to LyLo when the only alive townies are Vanilla. That is a horrible precedent to set and makes town disadvantaged without any drawbacks for scum.

Obellisk posted...

hey, I apologized and explained my read. let's agree that it was both our faults you got lynched.

Absolutely I was to lazy during the first day and it hurt me alot

All things considered, there were some rough spots here and there, but I thought BCT otherwise did a fine job of hosting for a first time. At the very least, I hope the hosting experience was enjoyable

BlueCrystalTear posted...

Wrong.

You don't post after a stop. You just don't.

Oh the mod kill is laughable.

you losing hosting abilities for a set amount of time is unrelated to the modkill.

BCT did fine. He made mistakes. Not as many as my first hosted game. He'll do better next time.

And he doesn't have to play 10 more games. That's churlish.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

lol 10/10

This was a game.

Honestly I did not post my thoughts in the sign up topic which would have been me saying that posting the actual setup of the game beforehand in terms of roles would lead to obviously metable stuff. And it did. And then removing 'a role' without saying which role led to even more bad stuff. I won't get into the tie/self vote stuff yet, or ever, because I think this game speaks for itself.

With that said whoever posted that after day post about Ulti is a complete coward for posting on a new account. If I had any idea who it was I think it's justified for a lifetime ban on this board.

Isn't Suprak good at investigating those sorts of things

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Agreed entirely. At first i thought scum fucked up killing me n1, because i didn't suspect Ben at all and was easing up on isquen.
But then i realized that corrik and i were the only ones truly interested in playing to win for town and it made sense.

This game was full of players who were only trying not to lose.

Can someone link me to this post?

Peace___Frog posted...

Agreed entirely. At first i thought scum fucked up killing me n1, because i didn't suspect Ben at all and was easing up on isquen.
But then i realized that corrik and i were the only ones truly interested in playing to win for town and it made sense.

This game was full of players who were only trying not to lose.

So basically the same crap I just went through on other sites for the last 3 months where most of the players were totally fucking useless.

Lit.

(One of these games was a 13 player game in which you can argue maybe 4 town were actually playing to win. I called scum's victory in that game on day 1.)

Crescent-Moon posted...

Isn't Suprak good at investigating those sorts of things

I think his specialty is finding who deleted posts or had posts deleted.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Can someone link me to this post?

It was deleted. Username was a bunch of numbers or something. I almost responded but then I would be guilty of exactly what I was accusing him of.

Tbh BCT handled it very well.

Username was BOOBS but spelt 80085

Honestly, kudos to Plum for controlling the game so effectively once Corrik was out of the picture. I thought his scumhunting this game was so out of character for scum Plum that I easily banded behind him, especially when he was really able to capitalize on the low-hanging fruit that I unfortunately fell for.

I fully admit I made newbie mistakes. We can let those go. You can't expect someone to be an all-star their first time doing something. I came in expecting to do a good enough job, but I knew I'd make a mistake or two since it's my first time.

Let me summarize what I'm seeing...

Do we allow self-voting, ever? Do we ban it as a community or let each host decide?
It's looking like many people support self-votes equating to modkills, followed by a suspension for a game or three afterward.

What is the standard procedure for handling nighttime posts? Did I handle that correctly?
Glad you guys think I handled that well. SHOCKED that the troll got banned for that. Must have been a mod who loves playing Mafia. Perhaps we can ask the mods who "80085" was, because that person should indeed be banned from Mafia for life.

We are scrapping the MYLO/LYLO locked vote thing. It does not work here. Agree?
Yes, this is toast.

How the hell do we navigate these tie phases? Like... do we not need to force people to play to win at some point? I hated hosting this the last few days. Just hated it.
So... do we set a community standard of three phases in a row ending the game in a stalemate?

Did you like me combining the servers with roles and such, or do you like having separate ones?
Looks like this can continue if a host wants it to. Depends on the host. Roles weren't too hard to manage, so if you guys wanna do a shared server, you go ahead and do it.

And yeah, I struggled with whether I should tell people what the full final setup was. People here don't seem to like fully open setups so I would've made the wrong decision regardless. Next time I will 100% articulate EVERYTHING ahead of time.

I WILL host again. I've learned from my mistakes and I fully admit them. I can and will do better next time.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Username was BOOBS but spelt 80085

yeah, how did that username even get approved?

I personally think self-voting is situational and there are points at which you can self-hammer to the benefit of your team. There is an actual in game value to it.

Votes locking in M/LYLO has always been a godawful rule.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

It's looking like many people support self-votes equating to modkills, followed by a suspension for a game or three afterward.

Whoa, modkills are extreme.

Just ignore the vote and don't count it. Let's keep it simple here.

Bct did fine but I would suggest atleast cohosting a game or 2 before hosting again or ask alot of questions about what worked and didnt. Think It being an opening set up was not great but that is just personally something I don't like. I suck at role meta but it adds another fun aspect to the game. Aslo any flavor over no real flavor even if I dont know the flavor Is more fun

Kirby321 posted...

Honestly, kudos to Plum for controlling the game so effectively once Corrik was out of the picture. I thought his scumhunting this game was so out of character for scum Plum that I easily banded behind him, especially when he was really able to capitalize on the low-hanging fruit that I unfortunately fell for.

Thanks! You did really well too. By playing well you put me in a bind where I had to admit you were off the table.

I did have a thought before Corrik died that the cop and doctor would be scum and/or the gf was town to essentially turn the game into an 8v2 vanilla fest because the roles would have been useless, which is why I was really disliking the setup meta from corrik because I knew there wasn't three scum but he was just so adamant about fear mongering 3 scum it was really throwing me off.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That would explain why since I have Gravy blocked for insulting me for asking if someone other than FFD could host a game when FFD was busy. If that WAS Gravy, it would make a lot of sense.

TheSultanOfSlam posted...

Bct did fine but I would suggest atleast cohosting a game or 2 before hosting again or ask alot of questions about what worked and didnt. Think It being an opening set up was not great but that is just personally something I don't like. I suck at role meta but it adds another fun aspect to the game. Aslo any flavor over no real flavor even if I dont know the flavor Is more fun

Hey, I'm trying to ask questions about those things. Like I know these things didn't work:
-My ruling about stalemates
-The locked vote rule (also removing it mid-game)
-Some miscommunications, such as about me not articulating that I wouldn't be randomizing whether the game ends in a stalemate or a victory
-Me quoting people to respond to general questions
-The idea of an open set-up... or the idea of tinkering with it and not telling people... or... well, anything. Next time you guys won't know anything at all about what crazy roles I've invented.

What DID work was:
-My response to the troll (thanks)
-Actually keeping up to date with votals
-The combined Discord
-Me rearticulating the removal of the rule, which somebody missed (even though removing that rule didn't work)

Does this summarize it?

P.S. I'll be AFK for an hour or so jsyk

Honestly BCT your biggest problem was communication. You spoke too much in chat and made rulings before consulting with experienced hosts.

I don't think you did anything terrible, but I would focus less on specifics such as locked votes and more on did you request guidance about changing the vote rule and how it would be announced?

I agree with Plum there.

Unpopular opinion, i liked the semi-open setup. Obviously i wish the statement about 25-33% scum hadn't been made because it derailed the entire d1 conversation, but having explicit basic roles in the "possible role pool" is a good palette cleanser from games like Chris crazy. In past games i was bummed when i got vanilla, but in this game i was excited for it because i knew that the balance in general was under powered, and it was unlikely that the game would be decided by night actions alone. Maybe that's a growing older thing there, but i think semi-open setups with smaller player counts absolutely have a place here.

Open setups are fine.
Locking votes at LYLO is fine.

People just need to start treating this more as a game and embrace trying to have fun.

Also lock votes at LYLO not MYLO

I dont think scum should reap the benefits of no killing at MyLo