The Syndicate

I try to refrain from giving PMs to players who do not need one too. Instead of telling a player he was blocked, I just say his power failed without going into why. However, I would tell a person whose target was switched the player he successfully targeted, because I always counted that person as the real target for purposes of double targeting. I'm of a mind to not do that anymore and just count the original target for purposes of double targeting.

S~V~S wrote:OK, but you said up there ^^ that:

But that's not an info dump- that's outing oneself.

You're a baddie. *Votes Epi*

All right, true. Although for the purpose of discussion I was differentiating because I don't have another thing to call an info-dump that doesn't include outs.

S~V~S wrote:Self outing is a form of an info dump. You are dumping the info of your own role into the thread.

Yes...

All outs are info-dumps but not all info-dumps are outs.

Russtifinko wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I think an important thing to take into account is the concept of prevention vs. punishment. Its all fine and good to have punitive measures in place, but I think a more successful approach would be if hosts developed their games to make it as difficult as possible for infodumping to happen, and as difficult as possible for role outing to occur.

Whether that means writing more secrets into the game to create paranoia and doubt regarding claims, or in-game mechanics that spread misinformation, or whatever the case. I don't think it needs to be a question of "What bad things can we do to infodumpers", but rather find ways to encourage actual effort, and make infodumping and role outing useless or too difficult to warrant.

I know it was recommended to me to do this as a host. It was something I hadn't thought of, but it really helped in avoiding those "host-outs" Epi referred to. Making two (or more) possibilities for everything that could reveal role info to the thread is an important part of balance imo.

Epi, I agree with S~V~S that the phrasing of the two examples you gave before that make it clear a person changed their opinion because of info are out of line. However, I don't think that playing a more or less aggressive style in and of itself is equivalent to info-dumping. It doesn't reveal any information that's not in thread, and a lot of times people are just as likely to be lynched themselves for playing unusual styles as they are to have people listen. It's also impossible to enforce punishment for someone playing a different style. Too subjective to possibly do well.

That's why I try my best to depend on game mechanics: Subjectivity. If someone edits a post, that's easy to verify and handle, for example. But having to figure out whether or not a person crossed a "line" is something I don't like to do.

Furthermore (a reason I detest modkills in general), punishments for info-dumping punish a whole team (civilians or Mafia) rather than just the player. Again, another reason I will be vigilant during the game-making phase regarding how game mechanics can punish info-dumpers.

Russtifinko wrote:Finally, I think it needs to be noted that situation is incredibly important to an info dump. For example, when I hosted the Hobbit, there were multiple info dumps that I felt crossed the line of what was acceptable mafia play. For the most part, I let them slide (partly thanks to S~V~S's excellent guidance). In each case I didn't punish, I decided that the info dropped would not materially affect the game and/or that the player dumping put themselves in considerable danger by dumping.

There was one exception. Toward the end of the game (maybe 5 players left), BWT essentially revealed that he was Bard. Bard was a civvie role with a secret power that if he were targeted for NK by Smaug, the LMS, Smaug would die. Smaug knew Bard was dangerous but not that attempting to kill him would mean her (juliets') death. So BWT essentially made himself unlynchable, and juliets that Night wanted to target him for a kill to try to eliminate a dangerous civvie role. This was an info dump that ONLY increased BWT's chances to win and came with no danger to him. No one would lynch him, Smaug might target him, and no baddie team will waste a kill on a civ they clearly know is dangerous to the LMS and less so to them. His dump would have literally broken the game. So I had to punish him harshly. (I took all his Gold, and if the civs had won I would still wonder to this day whether I should have modkilled him.) juliets tried to target him that Night, and I PMed her back asking "Are you absolutely suuuuure you want to do that?". The way I saw it, that was the least invasive way I could restore balance to the game, and it worked.

Tl;dr- Stupid long story (sorry) to make the points: I'm all for prevention where possible, but every player in a game has some info, even if it's just their role. Hosts can't control what they do entirely, so info dumps WILL happen. When they do, let the punishment fit the crime, and let the crime be judged by the magnitude of its effect on the game and cost to the dumper.

But that's not an info dump- that's outing oneself. I view these things as separate issues and on separate no-no levels. I realize others disagree. A modkill for a self-out or role-claim would have been appropriate if that's what you had wanted to do (no offense bwt!)

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:I also agree that tweaked randomization can work for the best. Not giving new people info roles and not giving non-players important roles are two examples of this. The new participation rules after a time will likely take care of the worry that a non-player will get one of the important roles but I agree that not giving new people info roles is also something we could do.

My first game here, I was given assigned as a role checker, and spotted 3 baddies in the first 4 nights. I get your point though. I wasn't new to mafia, but where I come from, info-dropping is very much an integral part of the game, and by association, so is fake info-dropping. I had a tough time transitioning for sure.

And see, I think info-dropping should be an integral part of the game, but not self-outing, because I think the former opens up avenues of gambits, and I think game mechanics should strongly discourage civilians from dumping info, whereas the latter just breaks the game.

bea wrote:I'm reading this thread with interest. I don't feel like I have anything to contribute to it so I'm just commenting that I'm reading it and fwiw - the champ game as well as Who is the major reason MP's game is being played though I'm long over due in the rotation. My schedule has cleared up - but in light of these two games, I feel like I want to retool a lot of things.

Also - I never did understand why meta is a bad thing? Though that's prolly a discussion for another thread.

It isn't. It's an unavoidable, beautiful thing, because it adds another layer of bluff/tell that makes Mafia interesting.

S~V~S wrote:Whats funny is that I am the suck at case making. I don't do it, becasue I am better at intuitive playing. But when i have info, I HAVE to make cases. So I do, and no one ever votes for the person I am pushing; they say, "Meh, that's a crappy case". If I played in my normal, "He's bad, I just KNOW it", though, I would get them lynched much easier. But I would FEEL like I was dumping, even though that is how I normally play.

Irony, eh?

But for future reference, when i am making crappy cases, I have info, wink wink nudge nudge

meta

S~V~S wrote:You so creative and stuffz

Thanks. Just trying to learn from my mistakes this time though.

S~V~S wrote:I like to suspend reality to some extent, the logic points are there, but they are harder to find. I like making it hard to pin down peoples roles.

As a host, I hated info before it was cool

I don't hate info- on the contrary. I just think the ways in which a host introduces it into a game can potentially be game breaking, and I think there are more creative ways to incorporate it, which I shall be exploring.

But I like logic.

One of my favorite things to do is give players "small" info. Just a taste of something that is nearly useless in the present, but has the potential to become useful later.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:For my part, I am largely done with "valuable" info roles. Gone is the regular civilian role check. I used to like the idea, but now I don't. I have come up with several mechanics you'll see in future games of mine, and these will make dropping info even more ill-advised and in some cases impossible.

Easy fix. Include a group of 4 civvies that have the four roles listed in this mafia game, but don't tell any of them which type they are.

Not my thing because http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... y/Analysis

For my part, I am largely done with "valuable" info roles. Gone is the regular civilian role check. I used to like the idea, but now I don't. I have come up with several mechanics you'll see in future games of mine, and these will make dropping info even more ill-advised and in some cases impossible.

juliets wrote:I still see those two statements as infodumping. The first one because it is so specific about after the night, and today - it could easily be re-written to say I saw him as civ but did some re-reading and found this and that (examples). Please reread him I would like to know what others think. That doesn't refer to last night or "today I think".

The second example, "something happened" is fine if something happened in the thread and this person was the only one who caught it. But it's not ok if the something that happened is they received info the night before. The host is in the position to know if that is the case.

It just seems to me that anything that would make me suddenly believe the person has info on the other person crosses the line.

And this is just my opinion. Everyone else may disagree.

Hmm.

You see, some people genuinely think they are being subtle but aren't. I would say both of my examples are decidedly not subtle, but that's only an opinion.

One problem is that this very conversation is adding to the "meta," if you will. People here may well start reading into those coyer statements as "I have info, so listen to me."

Also, imagine if you receive info that a very low poster is bad. How would you convince the thread to vote for a low poster (in my experience, even raising the idea gets you put forth as suspect #1)?

Odd thoughts to be having, but they came to mind, so I thought I'd post them.

A more realistic one (one I have seen) is when a quiet civilian knows someone is bad and just comes flying out of the gate gunning for the player they know is bad. Is that infodumping? It sure sends an obvious message.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I think an important thing to take into account is the concept of prevention vs. punishment. Its all fine and good to have punitive measures in place, but I think a more successful approach would be if hosts developed their games to make it as difficult as possible for infodumping to happen, and as difficult as possible for role outing to occur.

Whether that means writing more secrets into the game to create paranoia and doubt regarding claims, or in-game mechanics that spread misinformation, or whatever the case. I don't think it needs to be a question of "What bad things can we do to infodumpers", but rather find ways to encourage actual effort, and make infodumping and role outing useless or too difficult to warrant.

This is precisely the subject I want to explore.

Even if veteran players refrain from dropping info or outing someone, there will always be newcomers who will, whether out of zeal or inexperience. New people aren't trying to ruin the experience for anyone, and modkilling or punishing the player is going to mar Mafia for them. That is why I think it's important that game designers be cognizant of the role information plays in a game and seek ways to keep it under the players' hats.

While this is true, I think there can be an effort made to better educate newcomers through discussion and example. It appears this has already been happening in the Donner Party game, but I won't say anything else regarding that since it is an ongoing game.

I also think that, while modkilling or punishing is harsh, that if everything is explained to newcomers in a logical and forthcoming fashion, and they have a better understanding right off the bat in games that -- hey, there are a few cardinal rules that are SO important (no BTSC, no role outing, no being a buttface) -- then punishing for newbie offenses can still be warranted and not necessarily mar Mafia for them, IMO, anyway.

But having mechanics in place to discourage outing or dropping info that indirectly cause the player to lose will be a more memorable lesson, would it not?

Plus, such mechanics keep the host from having to pass judgment on a player, and this is something that can get difficult and uncomfortable fast. For example, I often phrase things as straightforward statements, refraining from waffling or softening language. "MP is bad news," I say instead of "Well, I think MP is bad, but I could be wrong about him." In one game (I forget which) when I was right, this led to someone accusing me of info-dumping. I had no info, so I didn't think anything of it at the time (it was, as you might imagine, flattering). However, what if I had had info? Would my style of phrasing make me guilty of an info dump?

Think about it before you answer! The solution isn't as simple as, "Well, you should say 'I think' rather than state things directly." It isn't that simple at all.

How many times have you seen posts like this:

"Guys, I REALLY think DH deserves a second look today. He seemed civ before, but on thinking it over during the last night phase, he's just reading bad to me. I mean, seriously reread him. I'm voting now."

or

"Something happened that makes me think Dom is good. I don't know for sure, but I'm definitely not voting for him."

What do you make of these examples? While they don't explicitly drop info in the thread, the message is still pretty clear, is it not?

DharmaHelper wrote:I think an important thing to take into account is the concept of prevention vs. punishment. Its all fine and good to have punitive measures in place, but I think a more successful approach would be if hosts developed their games to make it as difficult as possible for infodumping to happen, and as difficult as possible for role outing to occur.

Whether that means writing more secrets into the game to create paranoia and doubt regarding claims, or in-game mechanics that spread misinformation, or whatever the case. I don't think it needs to be a question of "What bad things can we do to infodumpers", but rather find ways to encourage actual effort, and make infodumping and role outing useless or too difficult to warrant.

This is precisely the subject I want to explore.

Even if veteran players refrain from dropping info or outing someone, there will always be newcomers who will, whether out of zeal or inexperience. New people aren't trying to ruin the experience for anyone, and modkilling or punishing the player is going to mar Mafia for them. That is why I think it's important that game designers be cognizant of the role information plays in a game and seek ways to keep it under the players' hats.

Disclaimer: This is not a thread to express grievances, demand apologies, or engage other participants in heated exchanges. Rather, this is a thread to discuss the mechanics or role outing and info-dropping, what should and should not be permissible, and how we can maintain the integrity of our games moving forward.

If you need to reference a specific example from a previous game for illustrative purposes, that is fine, but please cite it respectfully and don't get defensive if someone references something you did. We're just learning here.


Role Outing

First, I've role hinted twice in my time, but I did so more to amuse myself than for anybody to get (and no one got either). For example, in Lost: The Island, I wrote a paragraph in which I used as many synonyms for "pregnant" as possible (I was Clare). Like I said, nobody got it.

If subtle hints are okay (and clearly they have been), when does someone cross the line into a not-subtle hint? I spent some time thinking about this, because there is no objective measure of subtlety, but I concluded that, if anyone else in the thread could immediately deduce your role from your hint (or a combination of hints), then you outed yourself. Some examples:

I'm not going to out myself, but my role rhymes with 'halitosis.'

I targeted Epignosis on Night 7 and he didn't die.

You shouldn't be voting for me. Didn't you get a message on Night 3?

These are not hints. These are outs. Players should not do this, even if they are about to get lynched. It's better to lose tactfully than win in an unsportsmanlike way.

You could force everyone to claim a role and then lynch one of the double claims. Some forums play that way. I think that's boring.


Info-Dropping

From my experience, info-droppers almost always end up punishing themselves. Before The Game of Champions, I never had a player do it and win.

A role checker might nab one Mafia, but you can bet that role checker will be dead soon. For that reason, I don't have much of a problem with someone outing someone else. Yeah, you got one Mafia, but you're dead meat. It's another reason why I think civilians should only win if alive at the end, but Mafia can win as a team. Vouching could be a legitimate Mafia tactic in the right circumstances, but when used by civilians, it too is an info-drop. It's all target-painting, and Mafia need to be able to fire at it.

My advice to hosts: If you have an info role, do not give that role any measure of protections against kills or lynches. In fact, protections in general need to be limited. Rare, even. Giving a role twelve lynch saves / night kill protects just because you like the character or the role or the character is the protagonist in your theme is going to throw the balance of your game off the scales.

As a host, you should also be cognizant of "hosting info-drops," which do exist. Consider the following scenario: You have a civilian role that cannot be Night killed. The Mafia try and fail. Now everyone knows who the would-be victim of the kill is and no one is going to try to lynch that player. That's an instance of a host outing a player.

My advice to hosts: If you must have protections in place, consider not announcing the would-be victim in your Night post. A simple "No one has been killed" could do the trick.

So claiming info I don't mind. Some of my favorite Mafia moments have been because of fake or even false information. DH lying about info to get me lynched in Lost: The Island was great stuff and I still joke with him about it. Those moments can't happen if info-dumping is verboten.

++++

I am a firm believer that Mafia games should be a Deist experience. You are the creator of your world and once it is set in motion, you keep your hands off as much as possible. For that reason, I believe that keeping people from outing themselves or others should be corrected through game mechanics.

How can hosts preemptively punish role-outers?

What should not be permissible?

What is your take on all of this?