Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Talking about ongoing games gives you an unfair advantage (eg you get advice from non-players in the game) or ruins the game (eg you leak information, or get to communicate your thoughts "privately" to some other players even though all town communication in the game is meant to be public) in many cases. There is also no compelling reason for you to do it, you can just wait until the end of the game before talking about it.  Therefore it is banned.  End of discussion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You have given examples of how talking out-of-game can be bad. I can give examples of how owning steak knives can be bad. Should we outlaw steak knives, just because someone might go on a murder frenzy with them?

Plus, I'm doubtful of the non-players argument, since you said earlier that it's okay to talk about Mafia games with people out-of-forum. I also doubt the likeliness, effect, and/or prevalence of the kinds of things you claimed would ruin the game.

[Jack A T]

Difference: steak knives have a potential beneficial effect, and are primarily used in positive ways.

[griffinpup]

There's a difference between making people stop at four-way stop signs to protect peoples' lives, and making them stop at all intersections, no matter where they are, when all that's on the line is the possibility of theoretically having your perceptions influenced, which affects only a game.

Of course people don't have to stop at all intersections.  But if you pay close attention, you'll notice that all intersections will have specific rules detailing how you should drive through them.  Every single one.  I'm not even kidding you right now.  Think about this... Even IF it isn't a four way stop intersection, people still have laws to obey about that intersection.  What a novel idea.  So yes, you are being made to stop at certain intersections, or not talk about certain mafia games.  But you are allowed to drive through some intersections, or talk about some mafia games.  For example, feel free to talk about every single mafia game that's ever been completed.  The only request is that you don't talk about the few ones going on right now.  Seems reasonable.

And by the way, please stop using faulty analogies.  There's a reason that's a fallacy.

You have given examples of how talking out-of-game can be bad. I can give examples of how owning steak knives can be bad. Should we outlaw steak knives, just because someone might go on a murder frenzy with them?

For example, you attempt to use an obtuse analogy to justify your position. (as pointed out by Jack A T) It also tends to lead to more fallacious reasoning and faulty analogies as well.  For example, I can give you examples of how giving semi-automatic assault rifles to elementary students is can be good.  Does that mean that we should give every small child an assault rifle just because it might help someone?  Of course not, and the whole premise is a fallacy as well.  Assault rifles, and steak knives, are significantly different then talking about an ongoing mafia game.  So different, in fact, that it removes most validity from any comparison.

[Leafsnail]

Plus, I'm doubtful of the non-players argument, since you said earlier that it's okay to talk about Mafia games with people out-of-forum. I also doubt the likeliness, effect, and/or prevalence of the kinds of things you claimed would ruin the game.

I did not say that.  What I actually did was link to a mafiascum rules post that said very clearly that there are no exceptions to this rule.

Recently we have had a spate of people discussing ongoing games. Though this has led to a record number of ongoing game bans, there may be a perception that there is some wiggle room when it comes to discussing ongoing games. This post is to tell you that there is not.

It does not matter if you are dead.
It does not matter if you don't think it will affect a game.
It does not matter if you aren't in the game.
It does not matter if you are posting about a game taking place on another forum or posting about an MS game on another forum.
It does not matter if you are moderating the game in question.

Discussing ongoing games by quoting or otherwise referring to an ongoing game is forbidden. There is no clever way around this rule. Don't try.

I'm not interested in arguing about the unrelated points or flawed analogies you are trying to push.  I have provided clear examples of cases where it has hurt games.  If you followed that link to mafiascum you could find a myriad of cases where it genuinely has hurt games.  It provides zero benefit to games.  Therefore it is banned, and there is nothing else to discuss.

I don't even think the rules violation you engaged in here is harmless - everything you write about a mafia game can provide evidence that allows others to judge your alignment.  If you post in another thread about the game that means that players who read that other thread will get more information than players who don't.  This is unfair, and effectively amounts to private communication.  You should be able to get all the information you need from the official game thread.

[Tiruin]

I wonder if we can all get this to the banter and OOQ thread.

GWG, Please use relevant and pertinent analogies to explain your thought process, unless those are exactly what you think of it, because they're off rails most of the time 

[GreatWyrmGold]

Difference: steak knives have a potential beneficial effect, and are primarily used in positive ways.

There are also laws against the negative uses of steak knives. That's all I'm recommending; instead of banning steak knives, ban stabbing people with them.
Oh, and did I mention that Mafia is just a game? There's really not much effect even if I somehow accidentally derailed a game.

Of course people don't have to stop at all intersections.  But if you pay close attention, you'll notice that all intersections will have specific rules detailing how you should drive through them.  Every single one.  I'm not even kidding you right now.  Think about this... Even IF it isn't a four way stop intersection, people still have laws to obey about that intersection.  What a novel idea.  So yes, you are being made to stop at certain intersections, or not talk about certain mafia games...

No. I'm not being allowed to talk about any ongoing mafia games, analogous to stopping at every intersection in my analogy. Some kinds of talking are bad. Some are not.

And by the way, please stop using faulty analogies.  There's a reason that's a fallacy.

Start explaining why my analogies are faulty.

For example, you attempt to use an obtuse analogy to justify your position. (as pointed out by Jack A T) It also tends to lead to more fallacious reasoning and faulty analogies as well.  For example, I can give you examples of how giving semi-automatic assault rifles to elementary students is can be good.  Does that mean that we should give every small child an assault rifle just because it might help someone?  Of course not, and the whole premise is a fallacy as well.  Assault rifles, and steak knives, are significantly different then talking about an ongoing mafia game.  So different, in fact, that it removes most validity from any comparison.

Wait. You're telling me to not use faulty analogies, which you hammer in by...comparing my analogies to something completely different. Why?
1. My analogies are not actually all that bad, if you don't try to twist them too far.
2. My analogy is like "Banning all of X because you can do bad things with X is bad because you can do bad things with steak knives". Yours was "Good can sometimes come of X, so let's do X without regard for the consequences".

I wonder if we can all get this to the banter and OOQ thread.

GWG, Please use relevant and pertinent analogies to explain your thought process, unless those are exactly what you think of it, because they're off rails most of the time 

Well excuse me for not wanting to argue with you idiots so much that I spend 15 mintues on the perfect analogy. Why am I bothering? You're all zealots. Whatever mafia always thinks is right. Doesn't matter if it's this, or scumtells, or anything. I'm out.

[Tiruin]

I wonder if we can all get this to the banter and OOQ thread.

GWG, Please use relevant and pertinent analogies to explain your thought process, unless those are exactly what you think of it, because they're off rails most of the time 

Well excuse me for not wanting to argue with you idiots so much that I spend 15 mintues on the perfect analogy. Why am I bothering? You're all zealots. Whatever mafia always thinks is right. Doesn't matter if it's this, or scumtells, or anything. I'm out.

*sigh*
Y'know, everyone else is wrong when you're so short sighted that you are right.
We try to explain with you, you denounce and be an obfuscating and condescending jerk at times.
You don't detail yourself well, but quit and go on the most recent note, disregarding whatever is in the past and which acts as the foundation of what is being argued.
Sometimes, I feel like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and proving yourself right.

In that one situation: You do not approach many things with an open mind, and stick to a closed philosophy that isn't in true regard as logic.
Then you label us all and quit.

Yet you wonder why your arguing is somewhat looked down by others. The problem was in exactness and the lack of space.

Can you speak like a mature person and reach a conclusion, like an adult, or will you keep on being immature and rant and not discuss these things openly? You state many things too objectively, that you yourself lose the point in that manner! [may be exaggerated, and most of this is written to emotional response, but the point is: you seem to be concluding early on that we're all against you. Which is untrue]

Of course people don't have to stop at all intersections.  But if you pay close attention, you'll notice that all intersections will have specific rules detailing how you should drive through them.  Every single one.  I'm not even kidding you right now.  Think about this... Even IF it isn't a four way stop intersection, people still have laws to obey about that intersection.  What a novel idea.  So yes, you are being made to stop at certain intersections, or not talk about certain mafia games...

No. I'm not being allowed to talk about any ongoing mafia games, analogous to stopping at every intersection in my analogy. Some kinds of talking are bad. Some are not.

Like this! Bloody hell GWG. Do you even care to read or remember what we're talking about?
You're not allowed to talk about things pertinent to in-game knowledge in those games that you are dead in.
We did NOT say you aren't allowed to talk about any ongoing mafia games!
It was iterated many times in the past. Hence why I'm saying you seem to be judging only on the most recent note (and...somehow forget what the basis is, exactly. Probably the concept, but not wholly.)

If you paid more attention to detail rather than negatively arguing, then you would understand what we're saying and then argue on that; instead you argue from square one, and stick to square one thereby not achieving any progress.

Dear goodness your viewpoint. It's coming off as selfish, is all. [Of note, the exasperation in my tone and the toxin in my words are not directed against you, but the attitude observed.]


I mean, for posterity, if you are bothering with benevolent intent, then you'd be willing to discuss this in an open-minded and mature way.
But maybe I'm wrong: Y'know what would help? Quotes and links to the post in question, and details on your answer. Possibly including a necessary addendum to the invisible 'why' at the end.

Edit: Tiny tip for you though, GWG.
Watch your Ego and control it. It's becoming destructive...and has been, since recent year.
I mean, none of us here are out to get you. What i meant by Toaster's 'Quotation' back there was that in-game, the player's principles are restricted to how they play their role: we do not carry over any bias from those games to the general everywhereelse in this forum.
What I mean is, we're arguing with you to aid in getting understanding out. If we're wrong, point where we're wrong, and place the context.

What we say, if against you is not against your being, but that one aspect of your attitude that is not found as pleasing. If there's any problems on your side--then say it: we say ours; it's conducive to communication and understanding each other.
I mean it's not like the whole world is all evil and hate.

That's it.



Farewell and have fun with your life. Hope you'll do ok.

[tn5421]

Your little mama drama isn't going to get the rules changed, so don't bother.

[Tawa]

Replace please. I have no time to play Mafia atm.

[Elephant Parade]

Replace please. I have no time to play Mafia atm.

The game ended a while ago.

[Tawa]

Oh.

Goodbye Mafia.

[notquitethere]

May the WIFOM be with with you.

[tn5421]

@Elephant: The thing about you being condescending was bullshit, but everything else was mostly the truth unless it talked about scumreads.

I was wondering about that. What was that meant to accomplish, anyway? It seemed like a random attack, and you didn't follow it up with anything.

It was to make the others suspicious of you without me having to commit myself to actually attacking you.