Gameroom policy discussion thread

[Askthepizzaguy]

The LoZ game on TWC, there was repeated and sustained cheating by a dead townie in the tags, for example. Same difference, using board functions to break the no communication after dead rule. And you can thank posts there and leave comments (rep system)

It's banned on a lot of boards and in El Barto's game I think it was all innocent stuff, but at the same time, I see the issue with thanking posts in a mafia game because I've experienced similar things before, and it's banned on other sites for a reason, and people from other sites push all the boundaries, like if cyphers are allowed, they'll post cyphers and talk to each other in encrypted communications that they worked out prior to the game and it's all legal because it's not illegal. Just as an example.

Happened during the champs series on 2+2 with people who were not natives to that board, since it was legal, it was allowed in the game and disallowed in future games.

Basically the rule exists because people find new and innovative ways to break the spirit of the game, but not the rules which were laid out.

And good for them, they're being creative. But I don't want that tactic used.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I personally have no issue with the thanks system so I'm not going to put a blanket ban on it. If individual hosts want to put the rule in their games for the reasons that Pizza mentioned (or any others) then I'll be happy to enforce them on a game-by-game basis, but at this time I trust our userbase enough where I don't feel I need to go beyond that.

Should the situation arise where I need to do something more drastic in the future, we have the technical ability to disable the thanking system in an entire subforum, but not individual threads, so it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal unfortunately.

[Zack]

I still don't see why living people can't thank posts. Or why people can't talk during night. Or why dead players can't talk. Or why people can't be expected to not cheat. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of clamping down so harshly on anti-cheating measures, as that removes features I enjoy, but I can see why you'd do it.

[Beskar]

Now this is brought up, I did remember thanking a post as a dead townie, because even if the poster had the wrong conclusions, I wanted to encourage their type of contributions as it was a very interesting post. Though, in hindsight now, it could have looked as if I was supported that conclusion or have been some kind of code.

But yes, Mafia-spirit is competition. I remember back in the olden days, used to have a bunch of friends I spoke to a lot, and we were constantly trying to screw eachother over, which was frustrating at times, but amusing too. So even though me and Pizza were close, we never trusted eachother at all when it came to a mafia game.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I still don't see why living people can't thank posts. Or why people can't talk during night. Or why dead players can't talk. Or why people can't be expected to not cheat. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of clamping down so harshly on anti-cheating measures, as that removes features I enjoy, but I can see why you'd do it.

Speaking as an individual Gameroomer, I agree with you and will not implement those rules in games I personally run. But speaking as a mod, I do want to create an atmosphere that's accommodating to hosts. If it's a reasonable enough request, which all of these are, and it comes from a good intention, then obviously I'm not going to deny that request as doing so sets a very bad precedent.

[Winston Hughes]

Or why dead players can't talk.

If you don't have reveals, then dead talking is fine. But host-confirmed town voices are an abomination.

[GeneralHankerchief]

If you don't have reveals, then dead talking is fine. But host-confirmed town voices are an abomination.

Agreed on this point, it definitely has to be one or the other. My personal preference is no reveals + dead talking and I wish more games ran that setup like they used to, but again I'm not going to impose it as a rule on anybody.

[Zack]

You could argue that nightkilled players are close enough to host-confirmed town anyways. I like dead players being able to talk and I like alignment reveals.

[Winston Hughes]

You could argue that nightkilled players are close enough to host-confirmed town anyways.

True, though it depends on the set-up, and even if scum are the only killers they at least have control over who gets confirmed.

[seireikhaan]

The LoZ game on TWC, there was repeated and sustained cheating by a dead townie in the tags, for example. Same difference, using board functions to break the no communication after dead rule. And you can thank posts there and leave comments (rep system)

It's banned on a lot of boards and in El Barto's game I think it was all innocent stuff, but at the same time, I see the issue with thanking posts in a mafia game because I've experienced similar things before, and it's banned on other sites for a reason, and people from other sites push all the boundaries, like if cyphers are allowed, they'll post cyphers and talk to each other in encrypted communications that they worked out prior to the game and it's all legal because it's not illegal. Just as an example.

Happened during the champs series on 2+2 with people who were not natives to that board, since it was legal, it was allowed in the game and disallowed in future games.

Basically the rule exists because people find new and innovative ways to break the spirit of the game, but not the rules which were laid out.

And good for them, they're being creative. But I don't want that tactic used.

Fair enough. For me, I learned a very harsh lesson from two of my early games about people violating the spirit of the rules, and that's probably why I made it a bolded point of emphases in my opening posts to follow the spirit of the rules that I lay out. It's worked pretty well for me since then. But, then again, there's only so much to be done once the damage is inflicted.