The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pm I'm spending the rest of my time with my family.

thanks for discussing it

Hally wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:10 pm most of tutuu’s proposal has nothing to do with the word angleshooting

what about the other things?

what’s the issue with banning those things?

i don’t really understand

I have been speaking as Epignosis, and not as the admin team. I hoped that was understood, but if it was not, that is the capacity in which I have been speaking- as an individual. I thought that as a veteran host (and poker player!) I could give some thoughts into game design and angle shooting. Reacting to everything tutuu has said said now is not what I'm prepared to do.

if the answer is just that you want hosts to have the freedom to define the rules for themselves on what they’ll allow and won’t allow, i disagree but it’s fine and i respect that host autonomy is something the syndicate values a lot

but if you’re going to leave it up to the hosts to define, they actually have to be required to define it

at the beginning of the game they need to explicitly outline what they will and won’t allow because otherwise they cannot enforce a rule that doesn’t exist or wasn’t communicated

and if hosts aren’t required to do that then we have a logistical problem on our hands where you’re leaving something up to the hosts that they are not then actually doing and therefore saying “leave it up to hosts” becomes meaningless

so if hosts are willing and able to outline such rules in the OP of every game they run, fine

if not, it doesn’t really work and you end up with games where the rules weren’t communicated clearly or at all and that’s not good

@JaggedJimmyJay pls

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:07 pm It sounds to me like the hosts gave rules and issued warnings or modkills based on those rules. I don't understand your grievance.

Not to intrude on the conversation too much, but what I think @tutuu is saying is this (though please correct me if I am misrepresenting):

If we had site-wide rules or conventions that X behavior or word refers to X thing, then unintended rule breaking would happen less often.

As it stands, or what tutuu is trying to point out, is that she believes there is evidence from multiple games showing that players have did something they thought was legal or (as per your poker definition) angleshooting and therefore was okay to do when in actuality it was not okay or legal for them to do that. Or, as a separate issue, there are instances of games where the host presumes a game has a rule but in fact doesn't and yet attempts to or does enforce those rules as if those rules had actually existed.

Given that rules are constructed and given a framework on a per-host and per-game basis, trying to remember or be aware of these game rules can be often be confusing or conflicting. This is amplified when players come from different communities, which have their own expectations of games, rules, and/or definitions of certain behaviors (Ex: The disparity in the definition of "Angleshooting" in the mafia community, as demonstrated by her definition of it and yours).

Presuming the definition of game integrity, with regards to a game having game integrity, means "A game that runs to its completion without violation/incident regarding its rules", then a number of games here have had their game integrity harmed because of the ambiguity resulting from the policy of handing rule frameworks and responsibilities to hosts to a very significant degree. Or, on the other side of the coin, the hosts enforces or attempts to enforce rules that they believe had existed when those rules didn't and the game integrity is then harmed by the host.

That said, if we have certain behaviors that are quite commonly seen as something that is disallowed or should be disallowed, then if The Syndicate were to apply site-wide definitions or example of said behavior (or rules that are almost always exist), there should be less ambiguity to such behaviors or issues since these would be consistent across all games. This in turn should reduce the number of unintentional rule-breaks that would affect (using the above definition) game integrity, and may reduce the likelyhood of a host enforcing (or attempting to enforce) a rule that doesn't exist.

Hopefully the wording here isn't too confusing.

that ^

Angle shooting is legal by definition. If you don't want a specific behavior, outlaw it in your game.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:42 pm Angle shooting is legal by definition. If you don't want a specific behavior, outlaw it in your game.

Well, wouldn't it be best to have a site rule or post here saying that (Other than here of course)?

Clearly some people are having issues with the definition of angle-shooting, wouldn't it be better if we established that definition?

Or will we have hosts like me who believe angle shooting is something different on this site?

I mean, I almost quite literally punished a player for the word usage of "Angleshot", which by your definition means it (the word usage) was legal in all cases and therefore it wasn't illegal to do. Otherwise it wouldn't be called angle shooting, since angle shooting is, in your view, inherently legal.

Also, for the record, it is impossible to have a consistent understanding of the definition of "Word A" ("Word A" of course referring to some behavior that is disallowed) within the rule-sets of games across all hosts without applying some site-wide rule or convention because the rules are being made by the hosts themselves. Unless you seriously expect the majority of hosts on The Syndicate to coordinate and work together on a single understanding of what constitutes "Word A", or what "Word A" refers to?

They (the hosts) don't know any better; that includes myself when I made the rules for my hosted game. The ambiguity that was generated by the policy around very large/significant host discretion in rules has almost certainly contributed in some manner or degree to these things:

1) My belief that the "typical rules" stated in the setup could unequivocally ban what others may consider to be "Angle shooting" (regardless if that definition of "Angle Shooting" is correct or not), in addition to my rule regarding the speculation of host action.

2) A player believing his actions did not constitute any infringement of my rules, while other players agreed and others disagreed.

These controversies lead to what I believe may have been avoidable circumstances if we presume my host error was unavoidable. Obviously, I could have done better as a host, but as games in general on The Syndicate as of late I suspect show, it is often shown that these hosts cannot be expected to generate the most concise or accurate rule-sets without inherent risk of miscommunication that is then amplified because what "Word A" means in "Host A's" game could mean something significantly different in "Host B's" game even if they use the same "Word A" since there is no site-wide understanding or rule to regulate the definition or meanings of "Word A". Or, "Host C" happens to believe "Word A" was already addressed by convention or rules and so they try to enforce against it when the facts for "Host C's" game say that rule regarding "Word A" never existed.

The risk of miscommunication, which is inherently a factor in unintentional rule violations and when hosts enforce rules that don't exist, can harm game integrity ("Game integrity" here is referring to a game where ideally a game is run without rule violations or host errors). Therefore, if we were to establish site-wide conventions, understandings, or rules, then there would be less risk of miscommunication.

Of course, one may be concerned about these "site-wide" rules constricting host creativity. If that is the case, then we can just specify that those rules may be overridden by a host; all they have to do is say that X rule regarding "Word A" doesn't apply for that game.

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:17 pm what if i decided to talk about an ongoing game? who could have stopped me, its not written in jay's rules, it's not really written in the syndicate standard rules (since those dont exist) - so technically would it be allowed? technically i could have also talked stuff like "this person is actively typing in the syndicate discord but he's not being ITT, so they're clearly avoiding it" - nothin would have stopped me, is that rly okay?

I personally think that stuff like this should be a site wide rule as it is on MU, yeah. Like MU is very strict about not mentioning ongoing games anywhere other than within the game and it's for good reason. I've adopted that compartmentalization myself and as we have recently had a fair amount of concurrent games here with overlapping playerlists it's a potential issue that I think should be explicitly addressed.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm I'd like to offer some long-term perspective from someone who has been here from the beginning.

The vast majority of games here do not involve broken rules, angle shooting, or hosting errors. I understand that the most recent game has perhaps contributed to the notion that a massive overhaul should be considered, but I encourage everyone to take a deep breath and a broad view of The Syndicate's evolution. I also want to remind everyone that Martin's game had a lynch mistake AND two people violate a host rule. That is not normal. Some of the games listed above are by new or newer hosts. There's a learning curve to hosting.

I have hosted on this site for seven years and I have never had a problem with angle shooting that I can recall, nor do I remember anybody else having that problem prior to recently.

There shouldn't be a rule that mentions "angle shooting" because the very definition of angle shooting is doing something that is legal but generally viewed as underhanded. There is no list for that. There never will be. As technology changes, the ability to angle shoot will change. Poker encountered crazy new angle shooting tactics when online poker became a thing. The most notorious was ripping your Internet connection out of the wall to take advantage of Internet disconnection allowances sites had, so that you could bounce out of bad hands to move on to new ones. There was no rule against that, so people did it until there was one. Against the rules? No! Shitty? Underhanded? Yes! That's what angle shooting is.

I believe hosts should make the rules for their games beyond the universal Syndicate rules. And if hosts don't make the rules themselves, then what gives you any confidence they will enforce the rules we write?

Related to my previous post, I just want to say that I do think from my own perspective now looking back, I think we have in fact had angleshooting in the past that I wouldn't think is okay, particularly regarding players making reads based on a different concurrent game.

And I should use the term OGI rather than angleshooting because you are being pedantic about the meaning

i.e. OGI (out of game information), such as play in a concurrent game or discord activity or whatever else, should be explicitly against the rules imo.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:59 pm

I think you don't get what I'm trying to tell you angle shooting is, and I think most mafia players don't understand the concept.

then you're not participating meaningfully in this discussion, because this discussion is specifically about the term as it is used in this community and what it refers to in this context, and you're just having a completely different conversation that isn't helpful sorry

i think it is clear enough what is being considered to fall under the umbrella of "angleshooting" (or ogi) and that is what is being discussed, not the prescriptivist definition of "hurr durr it's something that's not explicitly against the rules" and you're just muddying an otherwise productive discussion with that shit

hosts have put the phrase "no angleshooting" in the rules of games before i'm pretty sure and i've never seen you get all up in arms about that being oxymoronic or whatever, accept what it means in this context and move on please

you can't say "i don't think you understand the concept" to someone who is using the term in the way the relevant linguistic community uses the term.

I guess OGI doesn't fully encompass all of it, like the host communication stuff since that's in-game, but it's a decent term

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:05 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:01 pm

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:55 pm

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:48 pm the definition of poker angleshooting is not the same as the mafia definition of angleshooting, the way most people use it. most people believe that angleshooting is against the rules, they use the phrase in that way (in mafia)

The way mafia players use "angle shooting" is however they want without regard to what it actually means. It's a specific thing, and if you want to call me a Prescriptivist, I don't care. Angle shooting is a very specific thing that the Mafia community didn't make up. If you can't define it, then you can't solve it. If you want to call whatever you want angle shooting and disrespect the poker community, then I'll accuse you of cultural appropriation.

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:48 pm i do not believe martin's game is the only game that had integrity issues

off top of my memory:

radiohead by sloonei - a person violated the "no infodumping rule" and the host gave compensation to the mafia team
simpsons by sloonei - a person violated the "dont claim your identity" rule and the host had to warn that he would start modkilling for it
escape from russia by g-man - a person violated the "no infodumping rule" and the host had to warn them and was considering modkilling them
philosophers mafia by tony - he had to modkill two people, one for violating an infodumping rule, another for going over the post count out of frustration
lion king by dunya - she had to modkill a person who contacted another person by discord and talked to them about the game

Pretend you were the host in each of these. What would you have done differently?

im listing these games that have had integrity issues in response to your claim that the syndicate has no problem with integrity in its games

I don't know what you want me to do with that information. I have been more or less retired as a player during this time. I swapped in in The Simpsons. You're not explaining what the integrity issues were in the games. Were they not resolved fairly or correctly?

i am arguing that those issues wouldn't have popped up in the first place if there was a standard set of rules that clearly defines what's ok and what's not ok

I hear you and am currently reading every post in this thread as I prepare my own response to things, but I want to make this point RE: The Simpsons:

The violation that occurred in that game was caused by a player neglecting to read an unambiguous rule.

I accept my share of the blame for the Radiohead incident. I worded a role in such a way that would have made sense only to a seasoned Syndicate veteran, and then gave it to a player who is relatively new here without offering a more clear explanation of its restrictions.

This time I am speaking as Sloonei the Administrator. I am not the whole admin team, but I am one voice in that group.

First and foremost I appreciate all of you for caring about the Syndicate and trying to help preserve the fun and integrity of our games. Thank you for this conversation.

There are a couple of areas of discussion I want to touch on. Let's begin with the Syndicate itself. Epi touched a bit on the historical context of this community: we have not traditionally had a lot of problems with in-game rules violations. But it's likely that some of that can be attributed to the fact that those games were usually made up of an insular group of players who'd all been playing together for years, always with the same familiar set of guidelines and a generally consistent community ethos. Rules like "No infodumping" never needed to be elaborated on because everyone understood what that meant.

But games on the Syndicate are not so insular anymore. We've gone from being a bit of an obscure Mafia backwater to an open port, and a relatively popular one at that. The result of this has been an influx of players from different backgrounds. That's a boon for the community, but it also necessitates some adjustment. Things that never needed to be defined suddenly need to be. Questions that have never been asked are going to be asked. This should not register as an attack on our customs, but just an adjustment as new members arrive and settle in. I think this is part of the reason why we have had an increase in violations, ambiguities, and gray areas in recent games. This very conflict was what inspired me to design Radiohead Mafia the way that I did; I wanted a game that would preserve some of the traditional Syndicate flourishes while also incorporating newer elements brought in from elsewhere that would be more familiar to a more diverse roster. But even that game was not without its bumps in the road. So I am in favor of setting out to define our terms more clearly.

Where I hesitate, however, is in calling these newly defined terms "rules". This is the point I was trying to make in my initial post, but looking back over it I feel it was not worded well enough, though I think tutuu understood the crux of what I was saying here:

tutuu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:28 pm Like, (from my understaning of what sloonei said), he is not opposed to some guidelines being written in a hosting thread that ppl need to look up themselves

I would be happy to write these guidelines myself (with help from all of you guys, and the rest of the admins), and my intent in doing this would be to offer future players and hosts alike some more solid ground when designing, running, and playing games to avoid situations where players cross a line they didn't know existed, or hosts find that a player has broken their game and they are powerless to fix it. I just don't want to call these things site-wide rules, if that makes sense. Because, like I said before, something that I value both personally and in my capacity as an admin is that the Syndicate encourages hosts to be free and to experiment with game design. I do not want there to be a standardized way to play mafia on The Syndicate, and in general I am averse to trying to define things too uniformly. If we begin to dictate what is or is not allowed to be included in any and every game, then we may end up with a law code on our hands that is overbearing and convoluted, and that could stifle us.

But I am absolutely in favor of providing clearer guidelines for hosts: recommendations, clearer explanations of terminology, and general expectations of hosting and running a mafia game. So, for instance, taking Epi's Hosting Guidelines post as our basis, we could just add sections that identify and define certain issues that can arise when hosting.
Let's continue using "angleshooting" as our example. We can offer a definition of what that term means in the context of mafia, and we can provide a recommendation for how it might be handled by the host in games as well as an explanation for why it can be damaging to the integrity of the game. I'd even be willing to go so far as to offer a "recommended set of rules" for standard mafia games, and hosts would be free to either plug that set of rules into their own games or tweak it as they see fit, or ignore it completely if they want to get real wild. But I would want to continue to make clear the point that these would not be absolute rules that everyone must follow when they are hosting games here.

In the meantime, I'll make a simple request to anyone who might play or host a game in the near future: be careful and direct. If we are worried about accidental rules violations or ambiguities in legality, then the safest course of action is to reach out and make sure we are all on the same page. As a host, that means trying to have your game's rules defined to your satisfaction. As a player, that means checking with the host if you are unclear on anything or fear that you might be inadvertently wandering into murky territory. I do not think the onus is squarely on the host to prevent players from violating rules.

On that note, I am here to listen. I have my own personal opinions about what rules I prefer to have included in my own games, but I'm currently speaking as an administrator so I'll continue to hold off on that for now.

Well said boss, I fully endorse all of that there eloquently stated business

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:19 am I would be happy to write these guidelines myself (with help from all of you guys, and the rest of the admins), and my intent in doing this would be to offer future players and hosts alike some more solid ground when designing, running, and playing games to avoid situations where players cross a line they didn't know existed, or hosts find that a player has broken their game and they are powerless to fix it. I just don't want to call these things site-wide rules, if that makes sense. Because, like I said before, something that I value both personally and in my capacity as an admin is that the Syndicate encourages hosts to be free and to experiment with game design. I do not want there to be a standardized way to play mafia on The Syndicate, and in general I am averse to trying to define things too uniformly. If we begin to dictate what is or is not allowed to be included in any and every game, then we may end up with a law code on our hands that is overbearing and convoluted, and that could stifle us.

But I am absolutely in favor of providing clearer guidelines for hosts: recommendations, clearer explanations of terminology, and general expectations of hosting and running a mafia game. So, for instance, taking Epi's Hosting Guidelines post as our basis, we could just add sections that identify and define certain issues that can arise when hosting.
Let's continue using "angleshooting" as our example. We can offer a definition of what that term means in the context of mafia, and we can provide a recommendation for how it might be handled by the host in games as well as an explanation for why it can be damaging to the integrity of the game. I'd even be willing to go so far as to offer a "recommended set of rules" for standard mafia games, and hosts would be free to either plug that set of rules into their own games or tweak it as they see fit, or ignore it completely if they want to get real wild. But I would want to continue to make clear the point that these would not be absolute rules that everyone must follow when they are hosting games here.

I personally have no issue with it being site-wide "rules" or not. I simply used that word in conjunction with "convention" or something like that to express this, of which you have worded much better than I could have. I have no qualms about there being no site-wide "rules" (other than the pre-existing rules/principles); a guideline is perfectly acceptable by me.

In both times that I've hosted (either on this site or my homesite), when I've made an error the number one thing I've wished for was guidelines/guides. I always wondered why there's guides to hostings games and what-not while guides on what to do if you acutally mess up, or how to avoid messing up, are exceedingly rare from what I could find and if they did exist then sometimes those details were vague.

I have always agreed with and been a fan the idea of significant host discretion when it comes to setups, but I always hated the faults that brought with it when they could be mitigated in some way. I appreciate that the entirety of the Syndicate has come to discuss something to make (what I believe to be) an overall correct step in the right direction*, and perhaps a positive legacy for the game that originally caused this discussion.

*This by no means implies that I think further steps should be taken. I am completely satisfied with this outcome, and don't think we will need to make any further changes in the future, foreseeable or not.

thanks sloonei, i think that’s pretty fair/a good middle ground

one thing i would suggest if it’s going to be up to the host what rules/guidelines/etc they’ll implement for their game is to have all the rules the host will be using for their game be announced in the signup thread (whether that be quoting the recommended rules or writing their own thing)

this way players will know when they sign up what will or won’t be allowed in that game and if they have an issue with that set of rules or lack thereof they can choose not to sign up

it also would give players time to ask the host clarification on rules before the game starts so that the host can clarify them before any problems can potentially arise and potentially make announcements at the start of the game with those clarifications

Hally wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:30 am one thing i would suggest if it’s going to be up to the host what rules/guidelines/etc they’ll implement for their game is to have all the rules the host will be using for their game be announced in the signup thread (whether that be quoting the recommended rules or writing their own thing)

this way players will know when they sign up what will or won’t be allowed in that game and if they have an issue with that set of rules or lack thereof they can choose not to sign up

it also would give players time to ask the host clarification on rules before the game starts so that the host can clarify them before any problems can potentially arise and potentially make announcements at the start of the game with those clarifications

I think this is a good courtesy to extend to players.

Would there be any benefit to send game rules to players with their role cards? Or perhaps even send the game rules first and require a response before following up with their role card?

Also, a question about this OGI stuff. We’ve had a general habit of not crossing the beams with live games already. Is an authoritative OGI prohibition applicable to all live games in full, regardless of which players might be dead already? Or does an OGI prohibition only apply to players who are still alive in other games?

Furthermore, how far do you want to take OGI prohibition? Once a game is over, what would have been called ‘OGI’ now becomes ‘player meta.’ If you really want to prevent other game information from influencing live games, how far of a leap is it to say that meta reads constitute something that is out of bounds of the context of the current game?

If you want live, concurrent games to exist in a vacuum from each other, why shouldn’t they also exist in a vacuum from all the games that have come before?

I just want to say from an admin point of view I totally agree with what Sloonei outlined regarding producing guidelines.

As another oldish player I agree with Sloonie.

I think guidelines work, alot of this is already being enforced in games and always has been like talking about current games, infodumping ect. But, I don't like the idea of one set of rules that hosts have to follow.

I don't agree with the whole don't ask the host questions and don't say they said something. Let the hosts decide that one it just seems like an over the top rule too me. Even not allowing people to say angelshooting is a bit overbearing. But, again I think it should be left up to the host and if you don't like the rules don't play the game.

G-Man wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:27 am Would there be any benefit to send game rules to players with their role cards? Or perhaps even send the game rules first and require a response before following up with their role card?

Also, a question about this OGI stuff. We’ve had a general habit of not crossing the beams with live games already. Is an authoritative OGI prohibition applicable to all live games in full, regardless of which players might be dead already? Or does an OGI prohibition only apply to players who are still alive in other games?

Furthermore, how far do you want to take OGI prohibition? Once a game is over, what would have been called ‘OGI’ now becomes ‘player meta.’ If you really want to prevent other game information from influencing live games, how far of a leap is it to say that meta reads constitute something that is out of bounds of the context of the current game?

If you want live, concurrent games to exist in a vacuum from each other, why shouldn’t they also exist in a vacuum from all the games that have come before?

Could you give an example of why or when Oh Gee Eye would be applicable toward a dead player in a game?

I think your questions raise a good point about some of the gray areas (and this is part of the reason why I'm wary about trying to have a strict law code), so it's probably good to talk more specifically about what is meant.

I think typically the stigma against "OGI" if we must use the acronym disappears once a game is finished. For example, if Players A & B are in two concurrent games with each other, Games 1 & 2, it is underhanded for Player A to make comments in Game 1 about the differences between Player B's behavior in Games 1 & 2. Both games are still ongoing, so raising such an issue in one game can (and often will) bring influences into each game from outside the sphere of what is usually considered acceptable. Player A's opinion of Player B spills from Game 2 into Game 1 and infects everyone else's reads in that game, and possibly Game 2 as well if there is any more crossover. Neither game should have anything to do with the other. As the game is still ongoing, alignments and information are still not public knowledge, so even if Player A is dead in Game 1 and Player B is not, it is unethical for Player B to comment on it in Game 2 because we don't know Player B's alignment in either game yet, and this crosses streams. It becomes trickier if both players are dead in Game 1 and alive in Game 2. My personal rule when I'm playing in concurrent games is to leave each game out of the other until one is finished, even if I have been dead in Game 1 for weeks.

However, once a game is finished it becomes part of each player's record. Results of a game are logged (in the Hall of Fame here) and everyone can see how Players A and B acted and what their alignments were. It is not seen as underhanded to access that information to inform a read in Game 2. Likewise, it's impossible and absurd to ask people to try to discount familiarity and personal awareness of one another. If a game started tomorrow and everyone in this thread was playing, I wouldn't treat G-man and tutuu exactly the same. I have different expectations of what each of them will bring to the game. There is no realistic way for me not to play with informed opinions of their personalities unless we require players to undergo severe memory loss upon signing up for games. Jay tries to propose this idea in the admin board about twice a month but we always have to tell him it's unethical.

But then if we get into things that aren't in the realm of mafia, it becomes another gray area. A lot of us here know things about each other personally, and sometimes that naturally informs our reads on each other. If G-man or Epi or Jack says "my kid is sick" and then disappears for a while, we're all like "Yeah, that checks out. Feel better kiddo." If I were to say that, you'd all eye me skeptically. No one objects to things like that. In the Champs Finale we'd have people say things like "My husband is looking at me, I should probably go make dinner" and it was groovy. But once we're in that realm, it becomes possible for people to manipulate information about their life to sell a point about their alignment, or for people to seek out information about a person that can inform their read in a game, intentionally or not. I never know where to draw the line, but I think it's obvious when certain things cross it. Other things are more ambiguous. If a player, let's call them Ike, tells us that they have a close personal relationship with the player Coppercoyote and that Coppercoyote SWEARS ON THEIR LIFE that they are town, that is clearly yucky and drags the game down.

When it comes to things like this, I've adopted nanook's policy of prohibiting "excessive appeals to emotion." That phrasing doesn't explicitly outlaw and and all excessive out of game influences on reads, so perhaps it can be updated and clarified. It is not concrete, but I would rather have that rule in place without a clear, firm line so that issues can be discussed and judged individually if and when they pop up, rather than swinging an axe around without prejudice and making the players fear a modkill without a moment's notice. I think this fosters a healthier thread environment and opens a line of communication between player(s) and host. Rather than tiptoeing nervously around the banhammer, players can police themselves and each other, and if they have any questions then they can reach out to the host in private to ask if X behavior is acceptable to talk about. They know to be cautious, but can also anticipate (hopefully) that the host will be reasonable and fair if an issue arises. This is a good example of where I think it pays not to have a strict rule code.

if you're not all thrilled by the idea of an entire set of guidelines written in that style then i can't help you.

G-Man wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:51 pm I post a variation of the following in every game that I host. Given this thread’s focus, I’d like some feedback on it after all these years. What’s good about it? What’s bad about it? What’s unnecessary? What content does this mafia dinosaur need to change or update?

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 8:46 pm RULES AND WHATNOT

This partially-open setup game is for 15 players. As a Heist, there are only three power roles in the game. I will be using the following standard G-Man Game matrix:

	1	2	3
A	LOL	OMG	WTF
B	FFS	Free Space	JFC
C	GTFO	YCBS	STFU

Gameplay
1) Days are 48 hours long. I will do everything in my power to keep poll deadlines consistent.
2) Nights are 24 hours long.
3) Only those players who have BTSC may communicate with each other outside of the game thread but ONLY in designated BTSC threads or chat rooms. For everyone else, no game-related discussion is permitted outside the game thread.
4) Votes in the poll are the only votes that count. It's helpful but not mandatory that you declare your vote in the thread in a way that stands out to your peers and the host.
5) All votes are changeable all the way up to the deadline.
6) A tied lynch will result in no lynch. Votes matter. (This is a politics game for goodness' sake!) There will be no coin flips to determine lynch results.
7) Standard alignment wincons are in effect unless otherwise stated.
8) Dead is dead; you don't get to come back from that. Dead players are stripped of their BTSC rights.
9) Roles will be revealed upon death.
10) Additional gameplay elements will be added/revealed on an as-needed basis.
11) A tied night poll will result in no doors being unlocked and no letters being revealed.


Rules
1) Respect your fellow players, your host, and your Facilitator/MOD.
1a) Don't be an asshat.
1b) Don't get butthurt.
2) If you feel like another player is out of line or making/taking things personal/ly, contact the Facilitator/MOD, Dunya.
3) No BTSC regarding the game outside of the game thread(s). Players are told in their rolecard if they have BTSC. If you don't have it, don't engage in it. Violating this rule will result in a modkill.
4) No editing or deleting posts.
5) Self-voting is prohibited.
6) Double-targeting is prohibited.
7) Info-dumping is allowed, but do so at your own risk. Sharing is caring, but it can also get you killed.
8) Off-topic posts should be in OT Green.
9) Dead players are to post in Dead Red.
10) Non-Players should post in Non-Player Blue.
11) This is the host's color. Do not post in this color.
12) Participation is polite to everyone involved. If I feel you may not be paying attention to the game, I will reach out to you. Replacements and modkills may be employed if necessary. If you sign up, please play. If you can't play, request replacement.
13) Additional rules will be added/revealed on an as-needed basis.

I believe I copy & pasted a version of your rules into the first game I hosted here. I think Rule #13 is a good way to cover unforeseen events and I've added something like it to games in the past as well. You can't foresee everything that will happen during a game, so being able to adjust on the fly is useful.

This thread is a Rule #13 for the entire site.

Regardless of whether a player is dead, an ongoing game should not be referred to imo. Completed games are fair game. Meta can still be used. It's not so much a "vacuum" as ensuring nothing can influence concurrent games with potential knowledge imbalance or assumptions about activity elsewhere.

Hey guys, I just wanted to weigh in here because I’ve now mostly caught myself up on what happened.

Sloonei’s explanation of why he would avoid sitewide rules regarding these things is the best that could be written, so I won’t try to do better. He is very right in that it is a value of the site that we give our hosts complete freedom in their game design and implementation. The no info dumping rule is something that kind of carried over from when we were a small group of players who didn’t even know about the outside mafia world. Once we began to grow we learned that some game set ups do actually benefit from situations where they can post what they know or have learned through game mechanics. So it has not been a rule we enforce sitewide even. A host decides what rules their game may need or what might restrict their game in detrimental ways.

As a side note, I would encourage you all to remember that a host is not an impartial person in a game. They have created the game, they are invested in it. Game facilitators (or game mods as they are still called sometimes) are there for both player disputes and player/host disputes. If you believe a rule in place breaks the game, or a lack of a rules in place breaks a game, Or that a host action is breaking the game, talk to the facilitator. They absolutely are an impartial person. It is easier for them to look at the whole situation and diplomatically discuss it with a host if they think there might be a problem. If a player takes this on, there are emotions involved on both sides. The facilitators are an excellent tool for resolving all kinds of problems and they have no stake in the game so they will be fair and do everything they can to make the game a success and ensure everyone has a fun experience.

I think that conversations like this are good. Mafia theory is a pretty interesting topic if we are open to different viewpoints. A guide to understanding the balance of rules is a good idea and I thoroughly endorse it with the understanding that the host is the final decision maker regarding how their game is setup.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:37 pm If a player, let's call them Ike, tells us that they have a close personal relationship with the player Coppercoyote and that Coppercoyote SWEARS ON THEIR LIFE that they are town, that is clearly yucky and drags the game down.

Lmao

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:44 pm As a side note, I would encourage you all to remember that a host is not an impartial person in a game. They have created the game, they are invested in it. Game facilitators (or game mods as they are still called sometimes) are there for both player disputes and player/host disputes. If you believe a rule in place breaks the game, or a lack of a rules in place breaks a game, Or that a host action is breaking the game, talk to the facilitator. They absolutely are an impartial person. It is easier for them to look at the whole situation and diplomatically discuss it with a host if they think there might be a problem. If a player takes this on, there are emotions involved on both sides. The facilitators are an excellent tool for resolving all kinds of problems and they have no stake in the game so they will be fair and do everything they can to make the game a success and ensure everyone has a fun experience.

This is a moderator task that doesn't get touched on much. Usually when we introduce ourselves as the mod for a game, we highlight emotional conflicts.

I can remember many times as a host I had to have the facilitator play go between for me with a player that was upset about something about the game setup. And honestly there have been times the facilitator helped me see I needed to give a bit. It’s an underutilized tool. It’s frustrating as a host when you carefully crafted something and you feel like someone is just complaining about it. But sometimes they are right and you just can’t see it because you are wrapped up in the vision you had for the game.

this is why sloonei is king. i just wanna support everything he said which i think is a very fair middleground and something that suits the syndicate.

and x10000 what spacedaisy said regarding mods. i always mention players can come to me when they have issues with the game or host, because we are unspoiled third parties who can help solve problems before the escalate to gamebreaking levels.

if anything, this discussion has proven how much players CARE about TS and that's a really heartwarming thing. i really appreciate you all and the civil discussion that we were able to have here!

i want to add as an example myself, i have had to go to the mod to ask if a host error is gamebreaking or if we can solve it (this happened in lion king). hosts should always remember the mod is there to help them too not just for the players!

We among the admin team intend to devise a sort of "Core Mafia Game" guideline, featuring basic information such as rules, possible roles, and factional alignments. Hosts will be able to use this as an aid in their own development of games. Nobody will be obligated to implement the rules therein, but it will help players to have some kind of baseline for rules that a host doesn't explicitly state -- that way, if there are questions, the player can simply as the host "do the rules of your game differ from the core game?" and the host can respond however they deem appropriate.

We encourage diversity in our setups and always will. This is meant to streamline the game design process and prevent unnecessary confusion. Our users come from all over the Mafia landscape, and we're all accustomed to different norms. So this will help to alleviate that culture clash.

We welcome your suggestions, and we ask that you post them here. Be aware however that the final design will be in the hands of the site Administrators. We will consider what you suggest and are grateful for your perspectives, but we may not implement everything we see here. There will be much to consider. Thanks gang, and if you have concerns don't hesitate to send me a PM.

Here's a resource that may be helpful
https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/th ... -Resources - posts 5-6 most relevant. Also on MU there's an automated standard post at the beginning of games like this -- the spoiled "FAQ" section including the same stuff (order of operations/how roles typically work)

great stuff

I think it would be great if games were not open night by default, cause I would be able to play lol

I know I can't expect that the whole site changes its ways to adjust to mine, but wishing and dreaming is free!

Guillotine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:53 pm I think it would be great if games were not open night by default, cause I would be able to play lol

I know I can't expect that the whole site changes its ways to adjust to mine, but wishing and dreaming is free!

that's another one that varies, we just had a game that had closed nights

I'll do Spider-verse with closed nights... but I want to have a night poll, so it might be on the honour system that you can't post.

Edit: Or maybe a 1-post-cap limit for the night!

Problem with 1-post cap is that players can write a big wall which is essentially the same. Closed Nights are great for players like me who work long shifts and use this phase to catch up.

Guillotine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:49 am Problem with 1-post cap is that players can write a big wall which is essentially the same. Closed Nights are great for players like me who work long shifts and use this phase to catch up.

Is it essentially the same though? Even if a few players write a wall, it still doesn't compare to catching up on 5, 6, 10 pages of back-and-forth, game-developing chatter.

We've been throwing together some rules/design guidelines for what is typical or "standard" around the Mafia landscape (mileage will always vary). I will share a very rough draft here just to give folks view of where my own head is at. Feel free to comment, critique, and question -- but let's try to avoid outright argument. JJJ already has a headache.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jay, how did you format this nonsense?
It's just a draft, so any final product will look prettier than this. Essentially the underlined bits and top row details per item indicate a standard based upon what is typical of Mafia across the Internet, not just on The Syndicate. This is a nice baseline, because the multitude of game cultures colliding here will rarely agree on the specifics. So let's start with those standards. The bullet points then describe further guidelines and advisement for hosts who wish to deviate from any underlined standard.

To emphasize this one more time in case anyone gets worried: None of this is mandatory for hosts. It's just a resource.

Number of factions: 2+
- The most standard number of factions is just 2 (civilians and mafia).
- If you incorporate more than 2 factions, it is generally a good practice to inform players even in a closed setup, or at least ensure it's readily plausible for them to figure it out (especially if multiple factions are hostile to the civilians).
- If you incorporate significantly non-standard factions (e.g. no mafia team, multiple mafia teams, cults, any kind of faction change/recruitment, numerous independents) it is prudent to warn players in the sign-up thread.

Day/Night phase cycles: 48 hour days and 24 hour nights
- 24/24 for faster games
- More than 72-hour cycles is uncommon and should be carefully considered
- Cycles not based around multiples of 24 (e.g. 36/12, 60/12, 12/12) are plausible but require more direct host interaction with the poll function.

Thread during night phase: Closed and locked
- Open nights are relatively common, but less standard across other Mafia communities.

Mafia-aligned behind the scenes chat: Open at all times | Dead mafia do not participate
- Some communities more often close this during day phases.
- Sometimes dead mafia can remain for off-topic chat only; this is a nice compromise
- Classical Syndicate games have some precedent for dead mafia game-relevant participation. If this is incorporated it should be made known to players.

Voting: Not obligatory | Freely changeable | Poll-based | Public | Voting for oneself is illegal
- If you view voting as a necessary component of your participation standard, ensure players are informed.
- If you wish to limit vote changes, ensure players are informed.
- If you wish to count votes in an official capacity in some way other than the poll feature, ensure players are given clear instructions for proper voting procedures.
- If a game will feature non-standard voting such a private voting, it's prudent to inform players in the sign-up thread.
- If you wish to make self-voting legal, that ought to be featured in the game rules.

Tie-breaking: Randomization
- Anything else is generally non-standard and players should be made aware (e.g. no elimination, double elimination, mafia decides ties).
- Tiebreaker roles are generally innocuous and can be included without necessarily needing to inform players at the onset of play.

Day phase elimination: Plurality and/or majority hammer | Single eliminations only | No elimination option available
- Most communities likely view the "majority" or "hammer" vote as the first one to exceed 50% of living players. If you desire a different percentage (e.g. two-thirds), ensure players are informed.
- If you don't want a hammer vote and prefer plurality decisions at deadlines, ensure players are informed.
- If you wish to allow non-standard eliminations such as double-eliminations, ensure players are informed.
- If you don't want to include a "no elimination" option, it's good to ensure this would not put civilians in an unfair position near the end of a game.

Survival win conditions: Independent roles only
- Survival win conditions for civilians and/or mafia are extremely rare in other Mafia communities. If you intend for your game to operate this way, it's important players are informed in the sign-up thread.

Civilian-to-mafia ratio: From 3-1 to 4-1 (e.g. 3 vs. 9 with a powerful town faction or 3 vs. 12 with a predominantly vanilla town faction)
- This can vary significantly depending upon game design
- Games are considerably more difficult to balance at ratios less than 3-to-1 or greater than 4-to-1.
- The larger the game in terms of player roster, the more this ratio can skew slightly away from civilians without ruining balance.
- Whatever your ratio, it's important to try to design a power role system that will work appropriately within that ratio.

Balance: Click here to see recommendations and guidelines from JaggedJimmyJay and here for classical Syndicate hosting guidelines from Epignosis. Feel free to message either one of them for advice if you wish it; their games have proven to result in frequent wins for both civilians and mafia at large sample sizes.

Role reveals when players die: Full reveals of both role and alignment for day phase eliminations and night kills
- A classically Syndicate style is to fully janitor (hide) night killed roles and alignments. It's good to warn players of this in the sign-up thread if you intend for it.
- No-flip games (no reveals at all) are somewhat common in some circles, particularly with mountainous (no power role) games. This is still non-standard and players should be made aware.

Night action targeting: Self-targeting illegal | Double-targeting legal except for protective roles
- These rules vary widely along the Mafia landscape outside The Syndicate. Whatever you decide, it's important to make these details clear in your rules.

Participation standards and replacement: Tangible, visible participation in the game thread and via night actions (if applicable) | Replacements only from outside the original game roster
- Players who do not participate interfere with both a host's thematic and design vision and a game's balance.
- Players who are inactive for more than a full cycle should at least be issued a prod or warning to get involved or face a forced replacement or host kill.
- Inactive slots should generally not be left unattended by hosts for multiple consecutive cycles. If a replacement absolutely cannot be found, a willingness to kill players as a host is important even if frustrating. Host kills are usually fairer to everyone, especially civilians, than leaving inactive players alive.
- If you cannot locate a replacement from outside the original game roster and are considering bringing back a dead civilian, do so at great caution. Ensure there are no threats to the integrity of your game even if small ones. Also, it's often prudent to check with your mafia team, as they already got this player killed once (at night or by day) -- it's inherently unfair to make them do it again.

I'm available to help balance role madness games as well if desired, i have quite a bit of experience making high role power games fun to play.

Great stuff!

I recommend (if u have the time) to clarify on version of jailkeeper (roleblock + doctor vs. prevents all actions targetting that player as well) (maybe)

and on giving night result feedback (i think a VT getting roleblocked wouldnt get informed but some people like it to be informed). So basically "does a role that normally doesnt get feedback - what happens when they get roleblocked". And also maybe parity cop getting roleblocked on n1 - what message do they get, is it any different than normal, altho thats maybe too specific and unnecessary\

Maybe X-shot roles getting roleblocked do they get refunded? altho also ptobbaly needlessly specific

Also mafia NK mandatory or not (just in case the host doesnt clarify). And does double targetting apply to mafia NK (i think this was an old syndicate rule)

Also for double targetting legal for default except for protectives - i would add disruptives too. Jailkeepers and roleblockers by default shouldnt get to double target imo

And nvm on the mafia NK double targetting - its already encompassed in "double targetting default legal"