Outing and Info Dropping

[Epignosis]

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.

[Bass_the_Clever]

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

Yeah they are. I got to play the Lost game they hosted on RM and it was epic.

[Russtifinko]

I'm told I have a pretty hardline stance against info dumps, but this is my philosophy: if it's information you did not get in the thread, it should never show up in the thread, period. So I'm with DH there. Some of the best times I've had in mafia have come from not revealing info, like my showdown with DH in Grimm. I also tried damned hard not to drop info in Zelda. I'm not sure I succeeded entirely, but I definitely enjoyed the game more because I had to put in the extra effort to build cases to convince civs to see it my way.

Any info drop decreases my enjoyment of a game dramatically, no matter which side I am on.

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.

That was the Hobbit. While it didn't completely stop info dumps in that game, I still think the idea I had was solid. Infodumps as well as fake ones were to be punished, AND all punishments involved loss of gold. No one else knew your gold balance at any point, so they could never know if you had or hadn't been punished. Obviously only one of these things (secret punishments or punishing both fake and real dumps) is necessary, but both can be valuable tools.

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.

I don't think I remember this! What was it?

[Russtifinko]

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.

[Russtifinko]

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.

[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.

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.

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!)

[S~V~S]

Self outing is a form of an info dump. You are dumping the info of your own role into the thread.

[Epignosis]

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.

[S~V~S]

OK, but you said up there ^^ that:

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

You're a baddie. *Votes Epi*

[Epignosis]

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.

[Mongoose]

Can I have another example or two of what constitutes host-based info dumps?

... no reason.

[thellama73]

Can I have another example or two of what constitutes host-based info dumps?

... no reason.

I consider any post by the host that lists all the roles or their powers, the people who are playing the game and/or their genders, or the rules of the game, as a host-based infodump.

[juliets]

silly llama

[Long Con]

I did a host-based info-dump in my A World Apart game on LP, and it got my Serial Killer lynched. He had the power to protect himself at night, and there was only one other (Civvie) role in the game that could do that. He was targeted for death on such a night, and I wrote the post in such a way that it looked like he was targeted and protected. I was still learning how to host back then, I guess, and this was a hard lesson. The implication was all too clear, and he was promptly lynched. I should have made it a LOT more vague.

Metalmarsh, BR and I plan to do a reboot of the Buffy game that was our first ever co-hosting project, and I'm also working on a sequel to that LP game, called A World Reborn. This sequel will be similar in structure to the LOST game in that there will be a map to move around on in addition to the regular Mafia thread, and we believe we've identified the major flaws in LOST, so we're confident that this game will be a lot better!

We will host either of these games as soon as possible here on The Syndicate, I don't know how long it will take before we get in to the current rotation.

[Tangrowth]

Some of the best times I've had in mafia have come from not revealing info, like my showdown with DH in Grimm.

This was one of my favorite things ever.

[Mongoose]

I did a host-based info-dump in my A World Apart game on LP, and it got my Serial Killer lynched. He had the power to protect himself at night, and there was only one other (Civvie) role in the game that could do that. He was targeted for death on such a night, and I wrote the post in such a way that it looked like he was targeted and protected. I was still learning how to host back then, I guess, and this was a hard lesson. The implication was all too clear, and he was promptly lynched. I should have made it a LOT more vague.

Metalmarsh, BR and I plan to do a reboot of the Buffy game that was our first ever co-hosting project, and I'm also working on a sequel to that LP game, called A World Reborn. This sequel will be similar in structure to the LOST game in that there will be a map to move around on in addition to the regular Mafia thread, and we believe we've identified the major flaws in LOST, so we're confident that this game will be a lot better!

We will host either of these games as soon as possible here on The Syndicate, I don't know how long it will take before we get in to the current rotation.

Thanks for the thoughts, that's super helpful!

[Marmot]

I'm told I have a pretty hardline stance against info dumps, but this is my philosophy: if it's information you did not get in the thread, it should never show up in the thread, period. So I'm with DH there. Some of the best times I've had in mafia have come from not revealing info, like my showdown with DH in Grimm. I also tried damned hard not to drop info in Zelda. I'm not sure I succeeded entirely, but I definitely enjoyed the game more because I had to put in the extra effort to build cases to convince civs to see it my way.

Actually, the mechanics of the Zelda game surely let you learn some things about other players, and especially that I was civ. And the same mechanics also helped me learn that you were Ganon. No info-dropping required.

[S~V~S]

My main info dropping issue is the recent trend of basically *demanding* that people reveal whether they have been targeted or not; insisting that people reveal just *what* they have seen that leads them to believe someone else is civ; implying that not spelling things out is somehow not a civvie thing to do.

For me, "spelling things out" is the opposite of civvie. It leads to too much info in the thread, as well as some non-info related problems.

I would like to see hosts get back to adding "do not reveal you were targeted under penalty" in all PMs.

Another hosting related thing; when I host, I never give results to people as to whether or not their power went through or not UNLESS they would normally expect results (like they are a power switcher, and would normally get a power to use, but they are blocked. I would in that case reveal the block). That used to be the norm, iirc. I would like to get back to that. This way, someone never knows if they were redirected, or blocked, etc. They just know what goes on in thread like everyone else, and are free to make assumptions, false as well as true. The less players that get PMs the less possible info available.

As for penalties, I only modkill for severely egregious stuff, like active poor sportsmanship. I have taken night powers away, and used cumulative silent votes as well.

[Epignosis]

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.

[Russtifinko]

Epi, you're right that not all info dumps are outs. And that BWT's move was probably an out (although it wasn't quite that clear-cut; others still needed to do some figuring, but there was only 1 possible reasonable conclusion). My point that players are in some cases going to dump info no matter how well-structured a game is remains, I think.

However, I do think your ideas about solutions and host mindfulness in game construction are extremely helpful. I also think S~V~S is somewhat right that dropping info (and asking others to do so) has become more accepted and commonplace lately. Could we have a discussion on ideas for changing the culture?

[Russtifinko]

I promise to only discuss this in terms that will not reveal anything about Donner Party mafia, but I think the explanations experienced players gave the newbies in that game is the first step in the right direction. Of course, that game has been chock-full of info dumps, so it seems clear we still have a long way to go.

[Russtifinko]

I'm told I have a pretty hardline stance against info dumps, but this is my philosophy: if it's information you did not get in the thread, it should never show up in the thread, period. So I'm with DH there. Some of the best times I've had in mafia have come from not revealing info, like my showdown with DH in Grimm. I also tried damned hard not to drop info in Zelda. I'm not sure I succeeded entirely, but I definitely enjoyed the game more because I had to put in the extra effort to build cases to convince civs to see it my way.

Actually, the mechanics of the Zelda game surely let you learn some things about other players, and especially that I was civ. And the same mechanics also helped me learn that you were Ganon. No info-dropping required.

They did, actually. In fact I was able to figure out the entire baddie team, but just a hair too late. Which I think was a sign that the balance of the info in the game was handled extremely well.

Thanks for the reminder, I thought I had tried very hard to reveal myself but wasn't sure if I had let something slip.

[Marmot]

I'm told I have a pretty hardline stance against info dumps, but this is my philosophy: if it's information you did not get in the thread, it should never show up in the thread, period. So I'm with DH there. Some of the best times I've had in mafia have come from not revealing info, like my showdown with DH in Grimm. I also tried damned hard not to drop info in Zelda. I'm not sure I succeeded entirely, but I definitely enjoyed the game more because I had to put in the extra effort to build cases to convince civs to see it my way.

Actually, the mechanics of the Zelda game surely let you learn some things about other players, and especially that I was civ. And the same mechanics also helped me learn that you were Ganon. No info-dropping required.

They did, actually. In fact I was able to figure out the entire baddie team, but just a hair too late. Which I think was a sign that the balance of the info in the game was handled extremely well.

Thanks for the reminder, I thought I had tried very hard to reveal myself but wasn't sure if I had let something slip.

Actually, until I was upgraded, I believe your efforts made me think you were bad.

[bea]

My main info dropping issue is the recent trend of basically *demanding* that people reveal whether they have been targeted or not; insisting that people reveal just *what* they have seen that leads them to believe someone else is civ; implying that not spelling things out is somehow not a civvie thing to do.

For me, "spelling things out" is the opposite of civvie. It leads to too much info in the thread, as well as some non-info related problems.

I would like to see hosts get back to adding "do not reveal you were targeted under penalty" in all PMs.

Another hosting related thing; when I host, I never give results to people as to whether or not their power went through or not UNLESS they would normally expect results (like they are a power switcher, and would normally get a power to use, but they are blocked. I would in that case reveal the block). That used to be the norm, iirc. I would like to get back to that. This way, someone never knows if they were redirected, or blocked, etc. They just know what goes on in thread like everyone else, and are free to make assumptions, false as well as true. The less players that get PMs the less possible info available.

As for penalties, I only modkill for severely egregious stuff, like active poor sportsmanship. I have taken night powers away, and used cumulative silent votes as well.

Per the bolded part - I think that was part of the problem in the champ game. tbh. people kept expecting everyone to explain why svs could possibly be civ - ad nasuim. when really - just reading through the thread that day and maybe the next one made it abundantly clear.

people continually asking her what she saw as far as eloh and I -and her maintaining "something in bea's posts and something in the host posts." was just about right - but still - for a newish player - that probably felt like pressure to try to make it more clear. I wouldn't have made the post that was made, but I can understand why my civ partner who hardly ever -due to my work and time zones - got to talk to me - might have - in those circumstances felt the need to make it.

And I do think it was was from pressure from the thread to explain more. There's this "explain more" as far as targets and stuff goes - then when you explain too much you're punished for info dumping.

At least this is how I drfunkenly see it today.