Outing and Info Dropping

[Epignosis]

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?

[thellama73]

I would add that one thing to keep in mind for hosts is that, if you plan to take action to punish an infodump or an outing, the action itself can contribute to the problem. If player X outs player Y and is modkilled for it, and then Player A outs Player B with no punishment, everyone can conclude that Player A was lying, because a true outing would not have gone unpunished. Player X is confirmed to be telling the truth as well.

I played one game once (I forget which one) where the host announced that fake infodumps would be punished just as severely as real ones for exactly this reason. Just one thing to keep in mind when considering whether to punish or not.

[Marmot]

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.

[juliets]

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

[Dom]

Here's my take:

Info-Dumping that doesn't make things 1000% certain is a-ok. If you didn't out yourself in the process, and it allows a certain degree of uncertainty, then you're okay. The reason this uncertainty is important to me is that if someone says, "Look, I know <Name> is bad!" and you are... it's often at a point in the game where you can't say anything to save yourself, where with that information, it's now painfully obvious that you are bad. This absolutely ruins the game. In addition, if that player has played a spotless game previously, they wonder why they bother to play in the first place if that's how it's gonna go.

If you can role check and you find someone bad. Find a reason to lynch them. Get at them. Don't hesitate. Don't reference your role check. I don't know about you guys, but back in the good ole days of Mafia (raises Mafia cane) this was just accepted. You didn't out people like that, and if you did, there was a stigma attached to it. This seems to have disappeared over the years.

I'm not okay with someone with a role-checking role, right after the Night Post going "Okay, we should lynch <<Name>> because they are bad." I have seen this lately. I also don't think people with civ BTSC should be painfully obvious about their BTSC. You can be cute in the chatroom.

In terms of referencing messages sent between players, I remember in the Hobbit, Llama and I communicated with a message, and very subtlety confirmed it in thread. I used a word/phrase he had sent me (or vice versa) to confirm.

[timmer]

A good example of how to use role info without revealing said info; I knew that whoever had the ring was a civ, and that if they voted for the Necromancer they would die instantly. I knew this because of my role as Col. Mustard. So when I saw Roxy die after voting Snowy I knew exactly what had happened. And though my initial "Snowy, you're dead meat!" or whatever it was lacked subtlety and wasn't quite in tune with my point here, the case I then built around Snowy was based primarily on his voting records. His voting pointed to him being a Suit, not a Sorcerer, but instead of worrying about that, I tried to build a solid case around him being a Suit, because I legally could, knowing he would flip Sorcerer and I'd have to be "wuh wuh?" I was arguably a little too insistent on Snowy, which may have suggested that I had other info, but I built a legal case around in-thread events.

A good example of how NOT to use role info: I knew Zeek's role had changed, resulting in him becoming Marla Singer, me discovering I was the Narrator, and we now had permanent BTSC. I knew SVS was Snape, and I could see in the thread that she had somehow caused our changes, but she was frustrated because she wasn't getting the feedback she felt she would have if Zeek was a civ. At first I did the right thing and stated that i trusted Zeek was civ due to his gameplay and voting records and case building up to that point. but after SVS kept questioning things, I completely abandoned the rules and essentially blurted out that zeek and I were tied together thanks to her. It didn't out my ROLE, I never did that in the game, but it outed BTSC which was just as bad. I should have stuck to my point about Zeek and just let SVS stew about it, and if people started voting Zeek, I should have just fought hard to show how he was a civ. Instead I let frustration get the better of me and blurted out our link.

Example A = pretty good
Example B = atrocious

[juliets]

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.

[zeek]

With the beginning of this new participation rating system, it could be a good idea to turn it into a reputation rating.

Info-dumping could lose points as well as inactivity, with a standard amount of points being deducted for various crimes. It may be easier to track as well, as the mods wouldn't have to calculate overall game participation of each player, just allow a host (with their mod's backing) make a judgement on any incident. Just a thought anyway.

[thellama73]

With the beginning of this new participation rating system, it could be a good idea to turn it into a reputation rating.

Info-dumping could lose points as well as inactivity, with a standard amount of points being deducted for various crimes. It may be easier to track as well, as the mods wouldn't have to calculate overall game participation of each player, just allow a host (with their mod's backing) make a judgement on any incident. Just a thought anyway.

We discussed a score for something like this, and agreed it is too subtle and subjective to be captured by a number. We prefer to emphasize that the hosts are responsible for enforcing the rules of their games and deterring bad behavior.

[Marmot]

A good example of how to use role info without revealing said info; I knew that whoever had the ring was a civ, and that if they voted for the Necromancer they would die instantly. I knew this because of my role as Col. Mustard. So when I saw Roxy die after voting Snowy I knew exactly what had happened. And though my initial "Snowy, you're dead meat!" or whatever it was lacked subtlety and wasn't quite in tune with my point here, the case I then built around Snowy was based primarily on his voting records. His voting pointed to him being a Suit, not a Sorcerer, but instead of worrying about that, I tried to build a solid case around him being a Suit, because I legally could, knowing he would flip Sorcerer and I'd have to be "wuh wuh?" I was arguably a little too insistent on Snowy, which may have suggested that I had other info, but I built a legal case around in-thread events.

A good example of how NOT to use role info: I knew Zeek's role had changed, resulting in him becoming Marla Singer, me discovering I was the Narrator, and we now had permanent BTSC. I knew SVS was Snape, and I could see in the thread that she had somehow caused our changes, but she was frustrated because she wasn't getting the feedback she felt she would have if Zeek was a civ. At first I did the right thing and stated that i trusted Zeek was civ due to his gameplay and voting records and case building up to that point. but after SVS kept questioning things, I completely abandoned the rules and essentially blurted out that zeek and I were tied together thanks to her. It didn't out my ROLE, I never did that in the game, but it outed BTSC which was just as bad. I should have stuck to my point about Zeek and just let SVS stew about it, and if people started voting Zeek, I should have just fought hard to show how he was a civ. Instead I let frustration get the better of me and blurted out our link.

Example A = pretty good
Example B = atrocious

I dunno if you recall Harry Potter, but the way you and I played in that game was, in my opinion, an example of good info-sharing. We knew three of the four baddies in the first four days, so proceeded to try and do everything through case-building. Of course, the baddies still outsmarted us in the end, but I don't think we ever stepped over that line.

[DharmaHelper]

There should *ALWAYS* be a way to get your point across without infodumping. "X Is bad" is the end result. Now that you know "X is bad" you can go back into the thread and frame their behavior in a baddie light, and get them lynched that way. Straight out infodumping is obviously wrong. How I would constitute infodumping is anything that cannot be read by anyone else in the thread (Night results, role PM's etc etc). Most of you guys know what constitutes infodumps.

I will fully admit that I may have infodumped in past games, but for the most part I try very hard to avoid doing it when civvie. I know for a fact I've false-info dumped, because I know the reliance on info dumping is so strong it is easy to mess with that and exploit it as a baddie. I can't say that infodumping is bad and fake dumping is good, I would prefer to win with neither. But if the thread is engaging in infodumping already, misinformation is the mafias best defense, even if that puts mafia at risk. Poisoning the well, so to speak.

Role outing, hinting, claiming, absolutely not acceptable. There are a million ways to get your point across without saying "I am X, So and so is Y" or whatever. The cheeky hinting that was in Champions was so annoying.. When you have 2 or three pairs of civs that are vouching for each other, where do you go in terms of suspects? What can you do as a mafia up against "Hey guys, me and so and so are civ, by the way. We've totally known we were civ since forever, and by the way we are also (whatever that ladys name was with the two heads)." If you're beating the thread across the face with hints like that, two things happen: Legit civs leave you alone, because duh; and mafia leave you alone in order not to draw suspicion for suspecting "The hint hint two headed civ team".

My overall point is that if it ain't already in the thread, shut the heck up about it.

[Bullzeye]

I'm glad there is discussion about this now because I've personally had too many games ruined by being outed or having people infodump. Even when it doesn't happen to me specifically I find it annoying and think it ruins games. As a civ, I'd rather catch baddies through careful reading of their posts (info has its place of course, it can be used very well by those who are capable of subtlety) and seeing a baddie outed takes away the fun of catching them and the suspense leading up to their role being revealed. Of course, if one speaks out about that in a game, it's assumed you're saying it because you're a teammate of the victim. I see it as outright cheating. It's no different to me than getting infinite lives or an OP weapon because you know you can't beat the upcoming boss fairly. I find it very disrespectful to all players.

It's also why I'm not around any more. I could make time to play, I just don't see the point when so many people use unfair tactics to win a game rather than actually play for fun. There's nothing I can really add here that hasn't already been said. I think a good punishment could be to strip offending players of all protections - including the ability to be protected by other roles. It's a fair point to say outers often get killed by their enemies, but if a protector is about they might defend that person so they live to infodump another day. Baddies know this and are often put off killing because of that, or because they don't want to legitimise the person's claims - I don't believe we can counteract that specific issue. I personally would go as far as to remove an info role's ability completely and turn them vanilla if they prove they shouldn't be trusted with such a role. Maybe I'm being harsh there but it would definitely stop them doing it again in that game and if it were common practice people would think twice about how important it was for them to put their info out so obviously.

[Tangrowth]

I agree entirely with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, and apologize for what I have contributed in the past to not only skirting the rule but also flagrantly breaking it.

I think that it is imperative that players abide by the rules, but particularly this one, and hosts need to start being more harsh in enforcing it. I know that I will be. But hopefully that won't need to happen now that this discussion has been much more at the forefront recently.

[DharmaHelper]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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 a very good point; I agree entirely.

That said, I don't think hosts should necessarily be afraid to keep certain unconventional mechanisms in place, or even mechanisms that could produce information. However, they should instead keep in mind countermechanisms that spread sufficient doubt when a role outing situation would otherwise arise, if that makes sense.

[Tangrowth]

For example, if there are information roles, the host could institute a chance of inaccuracy. Or if someone cannot be night killed, have a reciprocal alignment that has the same condition, or a protector, or a combination of these items. Any way to instill more than one possibility or sufficient doubt is a way to counteract role outing mechanisms.

[Epignosis]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[thellama73]

I have become increasingly reluctant to include info roles in my games, personally. I doubt if I will include many from this point on. I do like the "get info, but it might be wrong" mechanic, and I can see using that a lot. I also really like the Mr. Boddy blackmail mechanic, where he can reveal only selected info about a player that doesn't out him entirely.

I agree that conscientious game design might be the best solution.

[juliets]

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.

[Marmot]

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.

Ideally, the punishment should put off role-outing and make undesirable enough to do it.

But I see your point. Other preventive measures are certainly good to have.

[Epignosis]

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?

[juliets]

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.

[DharmaHelper]

If you can't use in-thread evidence to back up these "sudden feelings" or "revelations", then you should get lynched instead of the person you are having "second thoughts" about.

[Epignosis]

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.

[juliets]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

[Marmot]

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.

[S~V~S]

I got rid of role checkers, lie detectors etc a long time ago. Only baddies have info like dead checks, and they have public info, so dumping is just going to get you lynched.

[Epignosis]

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

[Marmot]

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

I meant include that group in a much larger game, not that basic setup. If they can't infodrop, have BTSC, self-check, or check dead players, the ability to use logic is greatly hindered.

OR

Make logic the name of the game, and counter this with other civvie and baddie roles that do not grant infocheckers the information they'd expect. ie, seemers, untargetables, etc.

[S~V~S]

If they can't infodrop, have BTSC, self-check, or check dead players, the ability to use logic is greatly hindered.

I like that in a game. I strive to achieve this in all of my games.

[Epignosis]

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.

[S~V~S]

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

[Epignosis]

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.

[S~V~S]

You so creative and stuffz

[Mongoose]

I think it takes a great deal of finesse and mastery to find out someone is bad and then still make a case on him/her without revealing that you are in the know. When a mafia player crafts a post like a true artisan without an info dump, it's a truly beautiful thing. It takes skill, whereas stating "I know Kim Jong Il is bad, just trust me guys k" is lazy and easy.

We need to reward and encourage the first - that higher level of playstyle while discouraging the latter.

[Epignosis]

You so creative and stuffz

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

[S~V~S]

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

[thellama73]

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

And when I make cases, everybody listens to me and lynches that person, even though I am always wrong!

[Epignosis]

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]

But true

[bea]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

[thellama73]

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.

As I routinely tell people after crushing them at Parcheesi (at which I am all but invincible) "neglect the meta game at your own peril."

[Canucklehead]

I think it takes a great deal of finesse and mastery to find out someone is bad and then still make a case on him/her without revealing that you are in the know. When a mafia player crafts a post like a true artisan without an info dump, it's a truly beautiful thing. It takes skill, whereas stating "I know Kim Jong Il is bad, just trust me guys k" is lazy and easy.

We need to reward and encourage the first - that higher level of playstyle while discouraging the latter.

I completely agree with this. As someone who has never hosted, and will probably not do so anytime in the foreseeable future (because there is no way in hell I would be able to design a game that is balanced, interesting, or nuanced enough to be enjoyable for the players I respect and would want playing my game), I'm mostly interested in the player side of this equation (though I acknowledge that the host side is equally if not more important), so that's wht I'll comment on.

For me, a player who plays casually and without much skill and probably too little thought, I think I am exactly the type of player who is most prone to info-dumping, and the type of player who is least aware of when I am doing it. To that end, something tht would be incredibly useful and interesting for me would be a formal debrief at the end of a game in which the host and/or mod (I actually think the extra layer of objectivity of a mid would be ideal here, but the host is of course the most knowledgeable about their own game) gives a quick overview of how the game went down from their viewpoint, and (and this is the most important aspect for me) provided quoted examples of GOOD uses of info, and borderline/unacceptable ones. Generalizations and vague hints might save people's feelings, but they aren't really as useful as specific and real examples for educational purposes. People would need to be open to criticism and feedback on their play, but I think that is generally a desirable thing for the site as a whole. It would mean more work for hosts/mods, who are already working their butts off for our enjoyment, but I think a formal debrief would be super useful. It could be in addition to the normal post-game discussion tht happens among players and the post-game info that hosts are already providing, but would be more specifically targeted to keying players in to issues and/or exemplary behaviour a that went on during the game that not everyone may have been aware of. These debriefs could, of course, focus on any and all issues that hosts/mods noticed, and needn't be limited to the issue of info dumping, but since that seems to be a big concern right now, it's a place to start. This practice could of course be supplemental to all the ideas outlined by others above, but I think it is a practice that would be particularly useful to players like me who are especially prone to making boneheaded/thoughtless mistakes. Airing out the laundry, dirty or clean, once the game is done just seems incredibly helpful if one of the goals of the site is to teach players (both new and old) what the qualities of great mafiaing are.

[Long Con]

I'm not opposed to hosts doing a bit of non-randomization with roles. I don't support giving players you like the best roles, or to always making Long Con the Baddie Leader, or anything like that... but if you want to have an info role, maybe tweak your randomization a little to make sure a new player that role, a player who won't yet understand the subtlety that we prefer goes along with a role like that.

Another fun tactic that BR and I have used in the past is The Hunger role. The Hunger has taken a couple of different forms, but its base form is a "forcing" role. Force you to vote someone, force you to make a case against someone, etc. Normally, this kind of thing would fall prey to a cousin of Info-Drop, where someone can make it obvious that they're being forced, so that the rest of the thread innately understands the forcing was happening. With The Hunger, you put the fear into players... they are responsible for making damn sure no one realizes they're forced, or The Hunger kills them. Brutally. Suddenly. No appeals.

The player will sometimes ask questions of the Host, probing to see how far they can toe the line... and our response is always "If you don't know what will anger The Hunger, then your best course of action would be to tread lightly." Fear is a powerful motivator.

[Marmot]

LC, I've been told that games you and BR put together are top-notch. When might I get to experience one?

[juliets]

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.

[Marmot]

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.

EDIT: And I agree with juliets about Canuck's idea. Offering advice, praise, and criticism to players, as well as the hosts might prove beneficial as well. But if we do that, pleasantries should be thrown out the window and honesty would be crucial.