A Proposed Code of Ethics for Gameroom Mafia Players

Gameroom Mafia Player’s Code of Ethics

I will endeavor to adhere to the basic rules for good posting/participation expected of all members of the .org community.

I will not use screenshots relating to a mafia game during that mafia game. This includes my posts within the thread, my private messages, my individual e-mails or any other means of communication.

I will not use an alternate .org identity for any aspect of a mafia game and will restrict myself to the identity used in signing up for the game for all communication relating to that game. Note: multiple identities is against org policy and may draw unfavorable attention from moderators and administrators.

If I have additional abilities as a moderator or administrator on the forum, I will endeavor not to use those abilities as part of my participation in a mafia game, save where asked to do so by the game’s host in response to a valid moderator-related question or function.

I will not quote from a private message or from a chat log in the main thread of a mafia game and will not do so in private messages, e-mails, or other communications with anyone who was not originally a party to that message or chat unless permitted to do so by the game host.

I will endeavor to abide by the rules and conditions laid out by a host for her or his own game at all times.

If I believe that I have accidentally contravened this code, broken one of the rules laid out by the host, or believe myself to be on the receiving end of another who has done so, I will report my behavior to the host, attaching any relevant support information, and await the decision of that game host before continuing play.

Looks good to me.

Quote:

---

In particular, I strongly encourage feedback from our site moderator and the gameroom mafia "founder" General Hankerchief.

---

Very well. :bow:

Quote:

---

I will endeavor to adhere to the basic rules for good posting/participation expected of all members of the .org community.

---

Well, I hope all players do this normally, but this is of course a good rule to have as a back-up.

Quote:

---

I will not use screenshots relating to a mafia game during that mafia game. This includes my posts within the thread, my private messages, my individual e-mails or any other means of communication.

---

This is really up to the moderator of that game. I think Graffiti Mafia has proven that some screenshots can be doctored in certain circumstances. As for privately, this is definitely a no-no since the goal should be to convince people of your role without actually proving it. But if the game moderator allows screenshots, then that's their prerogative.

Quote:

---

I will not use an alternate .org identity for any aspect of a mafia game and will restrict myself to the identity used in signing up for the game for all communication relating to that game.

---

Agreed. The only two games where this has been used (Black Hand 1 and Capo) have proven that it does little, and in BH1 the town was blown up prematurely for this instance.

Quote:

---

If I have additional abilities as a moderator or administrator on the forum, I will not use those abilities while participating in a mafia game, save where asked to do so by the game’s host in response to a valid moderator-related question or function.

---

From what I've gotten out of Sasaki's posts in Capo, it seems like he doesn't have an option on this. However, I could be wrong, and if I am then I agree.

Quote:

---

I will not quote from a private message or from a chat log in the main thread of a mafia game and will not do so in private messages, e-mails, or other communications with anyone who was not originally a party to that message or chat.

---

Don't agree with this one. If you get a mafioso to admit he's a mafioso privately, then you earn the right to bust him. Basically, people should be more careful.

Quote:

---

I will endeavor to abide by the rules and conditions laid out by a host for her or his own game at all times.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

If I believe that I have accidentally contravened this code, broken one of the rules laid out by the host, or believe myself to be on the receiving end of another who has done so, I will report my behavior to the host, attaching any relevant support information, and await the decision of that game host before continuing play.

---

Mafia is a nasty game, but cheating is just wrong. This rarely, if ever happens, but yes, it is a good rule to encourage FAIR dirty playing.

Very good code you have here. Most of it is just common courtesy but I think judging by Capo that more rules need to be set in stone. :bow:

Good idea. Some points:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I will not use an alternate .org identity for any aspect of a mafia game and will restrict myself to the identity used in signing up for the game for all communication relating to that game.

---

Isn't using multiple accounts against the Guild rules anyway?
And does this, in your opinion, forbid the "Andres tactic" I used in your game?

Quote:

---

If I have additional abilities as a moderator or administrator on the forum, I will not use those abilities while participating in a mafia game, save where asked to do so by the game’s host in response to a valid moderator-related question or function.

---

Mods can see through people's invisibility when they're logged in, as far as I know this can't be turned off. To compensate maybe mods should either turn off invisibility themselves or only be logged in when they're actually posting. The latter seems unpractical, though.

There's a hack for vBulletin which turns off who's online for those using invisibility. I've asked tosa about it.

I'm against screenshots of public things. Sure they can be faked, but it shouldn't be about someones skill with photoshop. Screenshots of someones post in the thread or of the chatroom (if there are enough witnesses) I think are ok because they are essentially public anyway.

Pm quotes: I think this should be against the rules because it's unfair to some of the members who don't have english as a first language and couldn't possible fake a role pm, or another persons pm. Paraphrasing should be allowed. Basically, you can't quote a pm conversation but you can say "I pm'd so and so and pretended to be a wise guy and he invited me to join his mafia family".

I like them

PM quote: well see it like this. Sasaki and I are in the pub chatting to eachother about the current murders and what we were doing when they happened. How on earth would I be able to quote him in a conversation with Ichigo I might have after that. All I can say is: "I heard that...", "I think that...", "He told me that...", but why would you believe me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

I like them

PM quote: well see it like this. Sasaki and I are in the pub chatting to eachother about the current murders and what we were doing when they happened. How on earth would I be able to quote him in a conversation with Ichigo I might have after that. All I can say is: "I heard that...", "I think that...", "He told me that...", but why would you believe me?

---

exactly. It would be more realistic and beleivable if quotes were allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Motep of Kendermore

exactly. It would be more realistic and beleivable if quotes were allowed.

---

no quotes shouldn't be allowed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Motep of Kendermore

exactly. It would be more realistic and beleivable if quotes were allowed.

---

Quote:

---

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, old boy.

---

What Stig's trying to say (and I agree somewhat) is that it's better to paraphrase rather than quote fully. Full quoting in CTDC a) Nailed Kralizec, b) convinced me that Sasaki's innocent, c) Allowed me to do a couple of things that otherwise I couldn't have done.

It does add a little extra strategy, but also detracts from the real gameplaying, so I think this should be up to the host.

Good set of points Seamus, I particularly like the no dual accounts one, I think it's sort of taken the risk out of being a Mafioso recruiter.

Very good post Seamus. Everything looks good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

There's a hack for vBulletin which turns off who's online for those using invisibility. I've asked tosa about it.

I'm against screenshots of public things. Sure they can be faked, but it shouldn't be about someones skill with photoshop. Screenshots of someones post in the thread or of the chatroom (if there are enough witnesses) I think are ok because they are essentially public anyway.

Pm quotes: I think this should be against the rules because it's unfair to some of the members who don't have english as a first language and couldn't possible fake a role pm, or another persons pm. Paraphrasing should be allowed. Basically, you can't quote a pm conversation but you can say "I pm'd so and so and pretended to be a wise guy and he invited me to join his mafia family".

---

I agree, PM quotes should not be used. One should paraphrase the information or state that so and so - stated this as fact. That way everyone can determine if the individual is telling the truth.

One should be able to quote anything that is posted in the thread. This will be helpful in proving that someone is attempting to mislead others via what was stated in the PM. That way the Thread could be considered the record - and PM information is used as hearsay.

Good comments.

At our General. Yes, I would agree to listing all of these code items with the proviso "unless specifically allowed by the host in question." I would never want to restrict a host from establishing the style of game for which they were aiming.

I personally am not against the quoting of PM's or of Chatlog. Others have suggested the reason for their opposition above. I actually have enjoyed some of the fake "reveals" that such PM's evoke. I'm less happy with quoted chatlog as it is bulky but....

At Kralizec, RE: PMing by proxy. I will have you know that I am not the one publicly acknowledging the existence of this tactic.:smartass: Since you mention it, I thought it was inspired and VERY MUCH in keeping with the flavor of my game. As you learned, this tactic is not without its own risks. Some of our folks are razor sharp text analysts -- at least after Sasaki and the General's near legendary fake reveals.

Skeptical? Read up on Hanky's "we're both secret detectives" reveal. He scragged me but good with that one.

So I say a big yes, at least for my style of game. A host running a more classic mafia may feel otherwise, but this can be handled in the game rules quickly.

Good idea! I like these! :2thumbsup:

The dead should not spam the game.

That was the original rule. It got dropped eventually because conversation tended to die off real quick and the mafia would kill certain people (the active players) right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That was the original rule. It got dropped eventually because conversation tended to die off real quick and the mafia would kill certain people (the active players) right away.

---

Well active and constructive comments from the dead was not what I was refering to. But some of the calls for bandwagoning from the dead are just a pain in the rear-end to read. To me that is just Spamming the thread,

Comments like Major Robert Dump did about a message found on his body are great in my opinion. Clues so that others can develop possible scenerios should be highly encouraged. Clues that mislead the town or even the mafia planted in the thread by the dead are also great. To stir up the conservation.

Instead of the dead calling for the death of the lurker, why can't they plant incriminating evidence in the thread as a post mortuem on their activities and alledged associations. The planting of such "evidence" should draw the lurker out to the discussion, and if the evidence is make to be incriminating the lurker will either have to defend himself against the town and the dead's accusation and/or be lynched.

A little better dynamtic then the calling for the lurker's death I would think.

Some individuals in the game spam - some actually provide information, the spam though just distracts in a negative way. The providing of information however can be used to the benefit of the game. Even if it is nothing more then misdirection and revenge.

I do somewhat agree. Perhaps a rule like "only 2 posts per day once you're dead".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I do somewhat agree. Perhaps a rule like "only 2 posts per day once you're dead".

---

That sounds good - that will force the dead to think about what they post.

Redleg:

I agree with you that quality comments should be preferenced over Spam. I don't know of any forum here -- or on another site -- that is immune to it. I think a Moderator should step in on this one, and all players should have the right to request a mod to look things over (or PM the Host to do the same).

However,

Some of the newly dead are just having a bit of fun -- akin to the quick joke posts that intersperse the more serious ones in the Backroom for example. I am rarely bothered by these.

I'd rather leave the choice on this to the Host of a game. Yes, the way the final ethics code will be written, this will be a norm, but anything on our ethics code is going to have influence as a baseline, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Redleg:

I agree with you that quality comments should be preferenced over Spam. I don't know of any forum here -- or on another site -- that is immune to it. I think a Moderator should step in on this one, and all players should have the right to request a mod to look things over (or PM the Host to do the same).

However,

Some of the newly dead are just having a bit of fun -- akin to the quick joke posts that intersperse the more serious ones in the Backroom for example. I am rarely bothered by these.

I'd rather leave the choice on this to the Host of a game. Yes, the way the final ethics code will be written, this will be a norm, but anything on our ethics code is going to have influence as a baseline, so...

---

Your probably right - just thinking of better ways for the dead to influence the game then multiple posts that really don't have any meaning other then its spam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I do somewhat agree. Perhaps a rule like "only 2 posts per day once you're dead".

---

Why limit it to the dead?

Maybe this would be better: 5 posts per day for the living - 2 posts per day for the dead.

Just my :2cents:

EDIT: a code of ethics is a very good idea, the only problem is, it's only ethics = it cannot be enforced. Why don't make it rules for every mafia game with the possibility for the host to permit exceptions? Every mafia host begins or ends his opening post with a link to the "general rules for every mafia game" and points out the exceptions on the general rules: for example: "in this game, it's allowed to quote pm's". If you make it "rules" like in "forum rules", the moderators have the possibility to send warnings to those who violate them, making it more likely that people will obey these rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

Why limit it to the dead?

Maybe this would be better: 5 posts per day for the living - 2 posts per day for the dead.

Just my :2cents:

EDIT: a code of ethics is a very good idea, the only problem is, it's only ethics = it cannot be enforced. Why don't make it rules for every mafia game with the possibility for the host to permit exceptions? Every mafia host begins or ends his opening post with a link to the "general rules for every mafia game" and points out the exceptions on the general rules: for example: "in this game, it's allowed to quote pm's". If you make it "rules" like in "forum rules", the moderators have the possibility to send warnings to those who violate them, making it more likely that people will obey these rules.

---

5 posts a day for the living would remove the ability to debate. I don't think the dead should be able to debate, just state an opinion once in a while.

As for your edit:

In general I think it's better to enforce the game rules within the structure of the game itself. Violation of rules = WoG, banned from future games, etc.

Andres:

As I see it, this code is the step needed to provide that framework.

Step One = Host's own rules, enforced by WoG (and "you can't play with me again for egregious stuff)

Step Two = Host notifies Mod that so-and-so is out of line, breaching the ethics code, and not responsive to correction. THEN Mod steps in.

We want this to be a gaming forum not a policing forum after all.

I agree with everything but the ban on PM quotes, like GeneralH, I'm of the opinion that people should be / or could be held accountable for everything they post - in the thread, or through PM. Not knowing who to trust adds to the flavour, the problem with paraphrasing is that denying it would be pretty simple. A mere ''I didn't do it'' would probably work, especially coming from a somewhat influential player.

Also, almost forgot about this, I don't think we should enforce a ban on the speaking from the dead. The spamming from the dead, however, should be punished like all other spam. I see, and I know the initial poster agrees, no problem with constructive debate from the grave, and the non-spammers should not be punished for a few select spammers who make such a rule necessary.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

Also, almost forgot about this, I don't think we should enforce a ban on the speaking from the dead. The spamming from the dead, however, should be punished like all other spam. I see, and I know the initial poster agrees, no problem with constructive debate from the grave, and the non-spammers should not be punished for a few select spammers who make such a rule necessary.

:balloon2:

---

I rather like the suggestion of deleting The_Stranger's account and forcing him to use The_Don, starting with a postcount of 1, with whatever warnings the TS account had racked up. Read the Hello Y'All thread in the Entrance room for more details.

I agree... only this onme thing...

Quote:

---

I will not quote from a private message or from a chat log in the main thread of a mafia game and will not do so in private messages, e-mails, or other communications with anyone who was not originally a party to that message or chat.

---

does that mean you can't use PM's as evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Andres:

As I see it, this code is the step needed to provide that framework.

Step One = Host's own rules, enforced by WoG (and "you can't play with me again for egregious stuff)

Step Two = Host notifies Mod that so-and-so is out of line, breaching the ethics code, and not responsive to correction. THEN Mod steps in.

We want this to be a gaming forum not a policing forum after all.

---

You speak wise Seamus :bow:

That's indeed a better idea, one which fits the spirit of the gameroom better then mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I agree... only this onme thing...



does that mean you can't use PM's as evidence?

---

That's the point

A game of deception, not of writing style analysis :beam: .

hmm alright... but still... I mean deceiving people to give you info you could later use against you is also deception... using the PM's will only empower your story...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I rather like the suggestion of deleting The_Stranger's account and forcing him to use The_Don, starting with a postcount of 1, with whatever warnings the TS account had racked up. Read the Hello Y'All thread in the Entrance room for more details.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I agree...

---

:thumbsup:

hey...!!! NOWAY MAN!!!

I could always use my Craterus2, Noobmaster, Leoninkhan/ArnoldLol account...

I think dead speak restrictions are pretty tough to enforce as a general rule- but I would like the idea of some specific games with "when you're dead you shut the hell up" as part of its premise. :yes:

Unfortunately, even if they can't post in thread, they could still PM or otherwise talk to other players...

Re: "Dead can't talk"

I am against this idea very much. If this became a rule and was strictly enforced, then most of the experienced players would be targeted most, if not all of the time. It should be the goal of the mafia to discredit or fool potential foils, not silence them.

However, I do agree with restrictions on the spamming when dead. Capo in particular, I believe, has fallen victim to a few annoying people who just won't shut up. You guys don't realize it, but this seriously detracts from the enjoyment of the rest of the posters playing. Perhaps in future games we could ask Sasaki to comb through and delete useless posts from the dead.

While I believe it is perfectly acceptable for a host to prohibit the interaction of the dead, or to limit it is by post frequency or subject, I would be reluctant to add that as an ethical rule.

As General Hanky says, where the games were played in that fashion, Ichigo/Csar, Hanky, Siggy, and Sasaki became high priority kills for the mafia -- just to quiet them and force them to PM only to influence the game. These same high-profile players, in a game of this style, would be lynched in the 4th or 5th round, even if innocent, with the town reasoning being: if they are still alive in a game where the mafia can shut them up by killing them, they must BE mafia, so let's kill them. Rather discouraging of participation, no? Low participation almost always leads to mafia wins, and usually wins on the cheap.

How about for an ethical rule:

"I will endeavor to keep my in-game posts current and topical, avoiding repetition whenever possible. I recognize that if my participation becomes disruptive and hurts the game, the Host and/or moderator may be forced to edit my posts or limit my participation."

Specifics could then be left to each host.

I thinkt that it would be a good rule, that game makers can deviate from if they wish.

1) I think it's lame if dead people can publicly accuse and expose living people. How many times do you hear or read about murder victims resurrecting and confronting their killers in real life?

In addition:

2) conversation by PM with living "teammates" is ok IMO. However it would be against the spirit of the game if a dead person where to start giving information to people he wasn't working together with originally.

That means, effectively, that if you were working alone, or if you and all your companions were killed on the same night, your secret knowledge dies with you. This encourages people to work together.

I agree I find it distasteful for the rapid fire confessions of the dead which will insure the victory of the other side. Cryptic messages that give hints is one thing, but confessions after death ruin the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I thinkt that it would be a good rule, that game makers can deviate from if they wish.

1) I think it's lame if dead people can publicly accuse and expose living people. How many times do you hear or read about murder victims resurrecting and confronting their killers in real life?

In addition:

2) conversation by PM with living "teammates" is ok IMO. However it would be against the spirit of the game if a dead person where to start giving information to people he wasn't working together with originally.

That means, effectively, that if you were working alone, or if you and all your companions were killed on the same night, your secret knowledge dies with you. This encourages people to work together.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I agree I find it distasteful for the rapid fire confessions of the dead which will insure the victory of the other side. Cryptic messages that give hints is one thing, but confessions after death ruin the game.

---

Read Seamus's post. If the dead couldn't talk then the Mafia would win every game cause the active posters would be killed off immediately leaving just lurkers or people who don't even look at the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

Read Seamus's post. If the dead couldn't talk then the Mafia would win every game cause the active posters would be killed off immediately leaving just lurkers or people who don't even look at the thread.

---

Read my post. Players can learn to adapt: staying in contact with others and share what they know.

I guess that this issue is best left to the game masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Read my post. Players can learn to adapt: staying in contact with others and share what they know.

I guess that this issue is best left to the game masters.

---

I did read your post. There's somethings you can do in the thread that you can't do in a PM same goes if you switch it around.

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

Read Seamus's post. If the dead couldn't talk then the Mafia would win every game cause the active posters would be killed off immediately leaving just lurkers or people who don't even look at the thread.

---

I didn't say do not talk - just don't provide hard information if they were mafia players.

Sure the town is at a disadvantage for a win, but that is what makes for a great challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I didn't say do not talk - just don't provide hard information if they were mafia players.

Sure the town is at a disadvantage for a win, but that is what makes for a great challenge.

---

Well that's just in Seamus's game. If it were GH type of game or Sasaki's then they wouldn't want to reveal any information except to try to trick the townies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I thinkt that it would be a good rule, that game makers can deviate from if they wish.

1) I think it's lame if dead people can publicly accuse and expose living people. How many times do you hear or read about murder victims resurrecting and confronting their killers in real life?

---

Which is exactly the reason I support the no quoting from outside the thread (and possibly previous Mafia game threads) policy.

If the dead can't quote PMs, they can't reveal.

Updated to reflect the flow of discussion above. Thoughts?



Gameroom Mafia Player’s Code of Ethics

I will endeavor to adhere to the basic rules for good posting/participation expected of all members of the .org community.

I will not use screenshots relating to a mafia game during that mafia game, unless doing so is specifically permitted by the rules for that game laid down by the Host. This includes my posts within the thread, my private messages, my individual e-mails or any other means of communication.

I will not use an alternate .org identity for any aspect of a mafia game and will restrict myself to the identity used in signing up for the game for all communication relating to that game.

If I have additional abilities as a moderator or administrator on the forum, I will not use those abilities while participating in a mafia game, save where asked to do so by the game’s host in response to a valid moderator-related question or function.

If my character in a game has been killed, I will not reveal any information provided to me by the game Host (Role, Investigation Results, etc.) while my character was alive in the game and will avoid references to that information in any posts/PMs/other communication made after my death. This restriction may be voided by a game Host in their game's rules at that host's discretion.

I will endeavor to keep my in-game posts current and topical, avoiding repetition whenever possible. I recognize that if my participation becomes disruptive and hurts the game, the Host and/or moderator may be forced to edit my posts or limit my participation.

I will endeavor to abide by the rules and conditions laid out by a host for her or his own game at all times.

If I believe that I have accidentally contravened this code, broken one of the rules laid out by the host, or believe myself to be on the receiving end of another who has done so, I will report that behavior to the host, attaching any relevant support information, and await the decision of that game host before continuing play.

On my honor I so pledge.

Given the high number of WoG'ed players in the Capo game, this can be added?

" By signing up, I engage myself to a minimum of participation in (on?) the
" game. I recognize the host spends alot of effort in making his game
" possible. If I cannot participate anymore I will inform the host as soon as
" possible and I will a) suicide in-game or b) try to find a replacement.

Don't want the code going too long, but I think your point is a good one to try to remind players about.

The "I'll sign up but won't really bother unless I've got an active role" crowd is shooting themselves in the foot. It's not like the regulars aren't going to notice that "Oh, so-and-so is actually playing this time...hmmmm."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orb

Which is exactly the reason I support the no quoting from outside the thread (and possibly previous Mafia game threads) policy.

If the dead can't quote PMs, they can't reveal.

---

If you mean that to apply only to the dead, then I agree. I say once dead, you can no longer reveal yourself or others, quote PMs, ect. Let the dead weigh in with their opinions, but not introduce new evidence.

:yes: I would pledge my honour on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I will not quote from a private message or from a chat log in the main thread of a mafia game and will not do so in private messages, e-mails, or other communications with anyone who was not originally a party to that message or chat.

---

Maybe this should be a special ability for the FBI and Luca players?

Wire tapping.

I agree that chat logs and other communication should not be shown in the game.But forging pm´s is an important part of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I agree that chat logs and other communication should not be shown in the game.But forging pm´s is an important part of the game.

---

No real pms, and no forged ones.

Seems reasonable enough to me, if you want to bluff, you don't need to post something in a manner which is probably very unrealistic.

EG

Quote:

---

Townie: I'm a townie
Townie 2: Don't believe you
Townie 3: Maybe he is
Mafioso: Prove it

Townie: OK, here is the first section of the townie PM, each townie can post another section *posts townie PM part 1*
Townie 2: *posts townie PM part 2*
Townie 3: *posts townie PM part 3*
Mafioso: :furious3:

---

How about this:
A killed person is allowed one last post, for example his last words. In this he can say what he wants, but no quotes or such what so ever, just posting your last words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

How about this:
A killed person is allowed one last post, for example his last words. In this he can say what he wants, but no quotes or such what so ever, just posting your last words

---

Or a dead person can no longer communicate by PM, but can post in the public thread. Also, a dead person cannot quote, but will have to paraphrase.

So previously secret information will have to be communicated in public as best they can, and there will be no quoted PMs, or anything of the sort. There won't even be any quoted posts, which will mean confusion if the deceased does not address a mainstream issue. The dead can still contribute to the discussion, but their death will give them less authority than is currently the case, since paraphrasing without a good argument to back it up will not be convincing. Killing active posters won't necessarily silence them, but their freedom from further threats won't give them an easy opportunity to blab.

Well you all are making the game too complicated and taking away from the fun. What if you get killed the first round and you want to keep playing? What then you deprive someone of the fun of the game because they were killed in the first round well I don't think that's right.

Well if you post as a corpse you might be spoiling the game for the others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Well if you post as a corpse you might be spoiling the game for the others

---

The rule should be "don't spoil the game for others"

Hey folks:

There are some good ideas here. However, a code of ethics should be short and sweet -- if I want to read a long picky document specifying what I can and cannot do about virtually anything I'll go re-read my homeowner's association paperwork.

I say keep the code simple and let the host define the game they want -- and some of what you're suggesting would be fine rules to tinker with.

We want an ethical concept, not a straightjacket.

Re: Capo drama.

Please understand that once dead, you have not "lost" per se. You're still rooting for your side and can do most of the usual things to help them out. It gets even more complicated in games like Capo, with multiple factions and roles.

If you look back, the dead have had a huge role in most, if not all games of significance. It would be faster for me to list the exceptions than the examples. They haven't really revealed as much information as before, but there's never been a game as large and complicated as Capo.

If the role of the dead is significantly diminished, then the content of future .Org games will change drastically. One of the biggest difficulties for the mafia is figuring out how to deal with a particularly irksome player, whether it be by fooling them or discrediting them. It's become a thing taken for granted. I think you will find that if the dead can't post, then we will experience a streak of threads that lose an exponential amount of steam as they progress. Most, if not all, of these games will end in mafia victories. In addition, the experienced players will have no motive to continue playing as they will always be targeted first by the mafia, and if they're not, they will be suspicious and immediately lynched.

This problem with the dead revealing has only surfaced, in my opinion, because of the complexity of the Capo game going on currently. In most games, it is only mafia vs. town and the dead will either seek to help out the town by posting insightful comments or try to lead the town astray by posting what would appear to be insightful comments but are actually in the wrong direction.

There's no need to lose any players over this. Just please consider the circumstances and the ramifications if the dead were permanently silenced.

A lighter & more postive note, it is worth reflecting upon the good spirit that the one game I have participated in, CdiT, has been played in, esp. when you consider that a Mafia games almost entirely revolves around debate, accusation & recrimination. In other forums, you can barely express an opinion without being flamed repeatedly & unpleasantly.

As a novice in these games, & a new member of this forum, I can only offer an objective PoV & say that the backbone of good behaviour is already there & well-established. Any code of ethics should be short & sweet, & merely utilised to clear up any flashpoints that have occurred in previous games.

If I want rules & regulations, then I'll go pay my dominatrix good money:whip: .

Aye all true, but is it not so when a dead person posts much he spoils game.
Take Sasaki, I don't know how many "revealing" posts he has made as a corpse this night (and he spoiled the game a bit for Redleg I think), but I'm about 90% sure that he wouldn't have made them as a player. Now Sasaki might be the example, I don't know, but I think you can always find some players that want to revenge themselves and start revealing all sorts of things, things they otherwise wouldn't have said, so I think the rules should state:

Dead players:
-are allowed to post
-shouldn't spoil the game for others
-should stay in character, should act the same as they were doing before they were dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Aye all true, but is it not so when a dead person posts much he spoils game.
Take Sasaki, I don't know how many "revealing" posts he has made as a corpse this night (and he spoiled the game a bit for Redleg I think), but I'm about 90% sure that he wouldn't have made them as a player. Now Sasaki might be the example, I don't know, but I think you can always find some players that want to revenge themselves and start revealing all sorts of things, things they otherwise wouldn't have said, so I think the rules should state:

Dead players:
-are allowed to post
-shouldn't spoil the game for others
-should stay in character, should act the same as they were doing before they were dead

---

A lot of those problems have been caused by people forwarding on whole PMs to each other as proof of their authenticity. Sasaki, as a well known player, recieved more than most. Redleg revealed his to me. It is the people in the game who turn them into a currency, and therefore run the risk of devaluing it in such a fashion. There are other ways of proving trust whilst minimising risk, as I found when I was recruiting people.

My point, I suppose, is this - a game is only ever for its players. If the players decide to do something, then the game should bear the consequences. For example, the use of Andres as a recruiter by Kralizec was inspired & ethical (if only he'd had a less distinct style), because Andres is well-known on the forum & acted as a NPC. Use of dual accounts like The_Don by TS, & later on in the game, The Messenger by ????, are clearly unethical, but were motivated by the Andres Gambit.

So as we make our beds, we must lie on them.

The multiple "I told you so" posts by TS, OTOH, were just plain boring and added nothing. Perhaps one of the overriding principles should be, "I shall try to contribute to the discussion with every post I make."

A cut and past from the game thread it was posted in

(speaking of childish stupidity as exhibited by Sasaki in the game)

I detest that type of interference because it cheapens the effort of the players who are still alive and attempting to actually solve the puzzle. So excuse me if childish stupidity piss me off to the point of extreme anger, but it will every time - that is my nature to the core.

In the game if your alive - cheat, lie, steal, borrow, beg, convince, tell the truth, make up fake PM's and roles to save your rear-end.

If your dead contribute to lynching who you believe is responsible for getting you lynched or murdered. Make cryptic posts about suspects concerning little stories like the one that Major Dump posted after his death. But when you have been lynched or murdered - you should not conduct yourself in a manner to ruin the game for those still playing because your a child behaving like a spoiled little brat because you lost. That type of crap ruins the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The multiple "I told you so" posts by TS, OTOH, were just plain boring and added nothing. Perhaps one of the overriding principles should be, "I shall try to contribute to the discussion with every post I make."

---

I agree its another examble of childish behavior that can and does ruin the game.

Quote:

---

But when you have been lynched or murdered - you should not conduct yourself in a manner to ruin the game for those still playing because your a child behaving like a spoiled little brat because you lost.

---

I agree
I had contact with 2 persons in the Capo game. Stranger and someone who is still in (thus I will not give his name). When I got killed I just started contact with TS and he wanted me to do certain things. So I suspected him of killing me, but he was plain innocent ... however irritating he may be. So mostlikely I was killed by:
-that other person I had contact with, but who I trusted
-someone who just thought: eena meena mina moo

Now some say that certain person is bad and has killed. Even tho there's a 50% change he killed me, why would I go all out on him, I trusted him ingame, why would I not trust him anymore, I can only spoil the game for him if I start posting like some did, and that imo is not fair to him.

From past experience, dead players lying etc doesn't ruin the game in the slightest. For example I really enjoyed Reenk's deceptions after he was lynched in Mafia V, and TGFII wouldn't have been half as dramatic if the dead players couldn't debate. I suspect your one of the few who feels this way. After death, you work for your teams victory, full stop.

An honest question, if you are so concerned about being left in peace to solve the puzzle, why aren't you complaining about the detectives? By their very nature they solve the puzzle for the town.



I suspect most of the things discussed here only came about because of the complications and unbalancing rules of Capo. Normal games and a revised capo would go much smoother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

From past experience, dead players lying etc doesn't ruin the game in the slightest. For example I really enjoyed Reenk's deceptions after he was lynched in Mafia V, and TGFII wouldn't have been half as dramatic if the dead players couldn't debate. I suspect your one of the few who feels this way. After death, you work for your teams victory, full stop.

An honest question, if you are so concerned about being left in peace to solve the puzzle, why aren't you complaining about the detectives? By their very nature they solve the puzzle for the town.



I suspect most of the things discussed here only came about because of the complications and unbalancing rules of Capo. Normal games and a revised capo would go much smoother.

---

Full stop - yea right. Childish behavior is childish behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Full stop - yea right. Childish behavior is childish behavior.

---

No it's not. Different rules bring about different styles of play. You'll never see the Capo shenanigans in GH-hosted games because detectives are only allowed to reveal in public, and IIRC they're not allowed to quote GH. Mafia aren't allowed to reveal themselves at all, and there are no autopsies so no-one knows for certain who the mafia really are until the game is over. And there is only one mafia family so there isn't any incentive in backstabbing.

The mafia need to use every tactic they can think of in Capo because the rules are skewed in favour of the town. Tighten up the rules a bit, and there will be less spamtastic posts like those we've seen in Capo, because there will be less incentive for it. Mafia isn't supposed to be an orderly strategy game, it's supposed to be a chaotic free for all where no-one is certain of anything until the narrator says game over. For something really childish, try Lemur's tactic of spamming GH's inbox so the detective can't get his investigation PM through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

No it's not. Different rules bring about different styles of play. You'll never see the Capo shenanigans in GH-hosted games because detectives are only allowed to reveal in public, and IIRC they're not allowed to quote GH. Mafia aren't allowed to reveal themselves at all, and there are no autopsies so no-one knows for certain who the mafia really are until the game is over. And there is only one mafia family so there isn't any incentive in backstabbing.

The mafia need to use every tactic they can think of in Capo because the rules are skewed in favour of the town. Tighten up the rules a bit, and there will be less spamtastic posts like those we've seen in Capo, because there will be less incentive for it. Mafia isn't supposed to be an orderly strategy game, it's supposed to be a chaotic free for all where no-one is certain of anything until the narrator says game over. For something really childish, try Lemur's tactic of spamming GH's inbox so the detective can't get his investigation PM through.

---

Well, however childish that may have been it's still one of the most original mafia tactics I've seen up to date. It shouldn't be encouraged by any means, but it does win hands down for most original mafia stratagem, in my opinion that is.

Capo is somewhat unusual Mafia game since at least half if not more of the action takes place behind the scenes. That, added with the three families, makes it practically impossible to actually trust anyone at all. And this doesn't get easier when the game progresses and mafia/criminals and townies get killed. It makes the game a very, very different experience than a normal GH hosted game, and both have their own merits. It is by no means an easy game to serve as an introduction to the mafia games in general....

PS: I believe quoting PM's from the General in his games is allowed, believing it (which grows more and more unlikely with every fake Sasaki reveal...) is an entirely different story.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

For something really childish, try Lemur's tactic of spamming GH's inbox so the detective can't get his investigation PM through.

---

Noted :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

For something really childish, try Lemur's tactic of spamming GH's inbox so the detective can't get his investigation PM through.

---

My opinion of Lemur just dropped a couple of notches. That's by far the lamest mafia tactic I've ever read about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

A cut and past from the game thread it was posted in

(speaking of childish stupidity as exhibited by Sasaki in the game)

I detest that type of interference because it cheapens the effort of the players who are still alive and attempting to actually solve the puzzle. So excuse me if childish stupidity piss me off to the point of extreme anger, but it will every time - that is my nature to the core.

In the game if your alive - cheat, lie, steal, borrow, beg, convince, tell the truth, make up fake PM's and roles to save your rear-end.

If your dead contribute to lynching who you believe is responsible for getting you lynched or murdered. Make cryptic posts about suspects concerning little stories like the one that Major Dump posted after his death. But when you have been lynched or murdered - you should not conduct yourself in a manner to ruin the game for those still playing because your a child behaving like a spoiled little brat because you lost. That type of crap ruins the game.

---

*sheds a tear*

Anyways, my thoughts-
One should agree to abide by the rules of the host, and double check in the case of doubt.

My thoughts on rules-
The dead can post, but reveal no new information - roles, conversations, etc.

Posts should be topical.

Other rules (screenshots, multiple accounts) are left at the discretion of the host.

Crazed Rabbit

My rules for the Monks and Mason mini-mafia seem appropriate.

The Normal PM's are made avaliable, so everyone knows what they look like.
Special roles are handed out in secret, but you cant quote me (the hoster) or post SS proving to be who you are.

No death reveals either.

Speaking of Monks and Masons, i need more people :laugh4: If people like it, i may keep it going, or start a newbie version of mafia as well.

Yes, it is a good code, however there is one I don't understand:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I will not quote from a private message or from a chat log in the main thread of a mafia game and will not do so in private messages, e-mails, or other communications with anyone who was not originally a party to that message or chat.

---

The problem is that if a mafia member contacts you and says "I want you to join me in killing the town" then you couldn't post it in the thread as evidence to get an individual lynched. Would it not spoil gameplay a little?

That would only happen in a CDTC type game. And they are a bit different from normal mafia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Yes, it is a good code, however there is one I don't understand:

The problem is that if a mafia member contacts you and says "I want you to join me in killing the town" then you couldn't post it in the thread as evidence to get an individual lynched. Would it not spoil gameplay a little?

---

You would say "so-and-so tried to get me to help him kill the town via pm". The important thing is it's in your words.


About the dead, I'm thinking the should not be allowed to reveal information that they had not posted in the thread prior to death. So, say in Capo II a mafia member pm'd a townie, said he was the detective with a guilty result on Ichigo and got the townie to vote for him, and then before Ichigo's role was revealed to be "doctor" killed that townie, he wouldn't be allowed to expose him. Vote him for some other reason maybe.

I think that perhaps this would be a good blanket rule for the dead from now on:

You cannot disclose any information, conversations, or anything else related to the game outside of the main thread once you are dead.

Deception is a part of these games. We are having fun here, and I really don't understand why people actually get upset when deceived (I only feigned anger and sadness so people would listen to me and feel sympathy).

Personally, I think the only general rule should be have fun and don't get upset.

If a host wants to explicitly ban a type of behavior, then it should be banned.

When I was think of hosting a game, I was actually going to allow screenshots, but one thing I was not going to allow was any dead to speak. For a dead person to speak in my game, they had to PM me with what they wanted to say, and I would include their statement in the story through a piece of writing (augurs talking to the dead). Each player would only have one shot at saying something posthumously to the town, so they had to make the best of it.

Let's just listen to the rules the host lays down and infer anything not explicitly prohibited to be allowed...

Let's have fun in these games guys. ~:grouphug:

They should at most be able to make a comment about 1 person, and that should be published as a suicide note, scrawled in blood, a telephone list... by the person running the game.

Untouchables and Sean Connery's death scene... it should add to the game not detract from it.

OH

And for a night murder there should be a chance that the murderers get to decide what the note is... so we can never be sure if the clue is from the victim or those who murdered them.

Good discussion -- I'll be considering these all for my return to Fatlington.

However....


Do we wish to include a statement on the dead in the code of ethics?


I'd like to set that up soon as its own thread for people to sign/pledge their support.