The Syndicate

silly llama

I think Canucks idea is fresh and new and it would be great if we could do something like that. One downside I can see is some people would get their feelings hurt so badly it would make them angry and they might just stop playing. If the feedback givers were in the mode of "here is something you could have done differently (explaining what the different way was) and stay away from "When you said x you infodumped which broke the game". A second downside is what you said Canuck, people would have to be willing to do it like the host or the mod and the players would have to want to hear it. It's exhausting for the hosts and mods to put on a game and doing feedback would prolong that but maybe there are some hosts/mods who wouldn't mind. Bottom line, I think when you tell someone their behavior was wrong it is best to give a replacement behavior so learning occurs (what Canuck said).

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.

Again though, I think that quiet civ can approach the situation by leading into a discussion of the bad player with "I have noticed a couple of things about x that are causing me concern. X said xyz in response to Y's question but two days ago he said qrs, etc. The poster can then finish it out with asking for others opinions or just saying "I'm looking at X for a vote today". Now, that might not lead to a lynch of X that day but hopefully the poster can build on his first observations of X on a subsequent day.

On the subject of non-posters and knowing one is bad that is probably the most difficult one to handle. I was in that situation once and just couldn't pull anything from the thread about the person. Unfortunately, I was never able to get him lynched. That's one of the problems with quiet players (low posters). About all you can say is they are not contributing (which I did) but usually people think you are bad if you point to a low poster. Luckily and hopefully, that will be less of a problem as we go forward with the participation rate.

Bottom line of what I'm saying is that sometimes the person getting the info won't be able to use it right away and I think that is ok. It keeps them safer and it assures that not every piece of info is able to be put into use. When info roles were first designed I believe the idea is that person had info which would help them confidently contribute to a discussion, not just blurt out that he thinks so and so is bad after last night.

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.

One thing about punishing in a way that everyone can see the person was punished, it confirms the info in the infodump. If hosts have the game mechanics balanced in the ways we have been talking about here and then choose to modkill an infodumper it tells the rest of the players that it was a "true" infodump. I like DH's thoughts because better to prevent it than to have to punish it but I think new hosts need some kind of mentor to work with them (maybe the mod for their game) to help make sure the right mechanics are in place to counteract a role claim or info claim. Maybe instead of saying you cannot copy pms into the thread we should say you cannot copy them into the thread nor can you summarize or in any way reveal their contents to anyone but bts partners.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Seriously though, if a player can be modkilled for missing a lynchvote (which isn't exactly against the rules), then breaking rules should carry more serious consequences. But I also understand that there are only rare cases of players being modkilled for missing votes.

The new participation rate mechanic that the mods have added may make it less comfortable to just miss lynch votes. Depends on whether the hosts really use the rule about not allowing people into their games with less than x% rate and whether they make the rules tight enough as to what will affect your participation rate. Anyway, I'm off topic - this is supposed to be about infodumping and outing.

i like the idea of punishing both the infodumper and the fake infodumper.