Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:56 am
whyd u do thatIn post 48, kuribo wrote:it was just me telling the town HEY BRIAN SKIES IS THE VIG AND THE SCUMTEAM KNOWS IT
whyd u do thatIn post 48, kuribo wrote:it was just me telling the town HEY BRIAN SKIES IS THE VIG AND THE SCUMTEAM KNOWS IT
In post 50, Psyche wrote:whyd u do that
They don't, actually. Anyone can communicate in the thread, and anyone can interpret something differently than others. What crumbs do is they give signals that the mafia or masons could have decided to give a meaning to, and then would use that in thread where everything is public, as you said. Then the other partner would read that signal and interpret that with the knowledge they have already gleaned from the private, legal chat qt. It's not a private exchange since the exchange is public between everyone, it's just that not everyone has the knowledge from the private thread they cannot access.In post 35, MichelSableheart wrote: 1. They allow players todaytalkwho should not have that ability, and are therefore banned in my games.
Softclaiming seems ok because that is subjective. Language is subjective. What Date to me (09/27/2016) may be Date (mating interview) for you. What Bark to me (Woof!) may be Bark (Tree Skin) to you. What Bill to me (Money Owed) may be Bill (Pokemon Researcher) to you. What your townread to me (townread) may be a townread (cop scan) to you. It's still a townread to me and others and it means something entirely different to you and there is no rule against feeling a certain way about a read and being influenced by information from a role that you are playing.In post 43, Gamma Emerald wrote:Well is softclaiming okay? You know, saying you townread or scumread someone heavily when you're cop?
The thing for me is that there's nothing at all 'unrealistic' about this exchange of information. It's the sort of thing anyone could set up in real life and then use in real life. According to legend, actual mafiosi introduce new people as either "a friend of ours" or "a friend of mine" depending on whether they're in the loop or not. When they are arrested and charged, the prosecutor doesn't add "And furthermore he used a secret code, which isIn post 56, MichelSableheart wrote:As an example: In a game I played a couple of years ago, I was a mafia role cop, and had claimed role cop publicly. I knew I was going to claim a fake guilty on a player, and I knew there was a significant risk of that play backfiring. So I decided a simple rule with my mafia partners: If my investigation that night was vanilla, I would start my first post that day with a vote. If my investigation showed powerrole, I would end my first post with a vote instead. There is simply no way for town to spot that difference. "Vote [player], I have a guilty" and "I have a guilty, therefore Vote [player]" are both completely logical ways to write such a post. Yet my scumpartners would get to know the most crucial part of my investigation. That is the equivalent of a private exchange of information.
I still disagree that it is a private exchange. The exchange of private information has already happened, in a private thread. The other players weren't present, and therefore would not know of what has been discussed, and won't understand the meaning behind the scums/masons posts, which makes sense. Example, if I naked voted a player, no player would understand the meaning of it. They can't deduce much from it unless I explain it later. Let's apply your example to mine. If I had a PR result, I'd use a naked vote. If I had vanilla result, I'd use a reason. I don't think that is against any rules.In post 56, MichelSableheart wrote:They allow the exchange of private information without the other players even knowing that information is being exchanged. That's functionally equivalent to daytalk.
As an example: In a game I played a couple of years ago, I was a mafia role cop, and had claimed role cop publicly. I knew I was going to claim a fake guilty on a player, and I knew there was a significant risk of that play backfiring. So I decided a simple rule with my mafia partners: If my investigation that night was vanilla, I would start my first post that day with a vote. If my investigation showed powerrole, I would end my first post with a vote instead. There is simply no way for town to spot that difference. "Vote [player], I have a guilty" and "I have a guilty, therefore Vote [player]" are both completely logical ways to write such a post. Yet my scumpartners would get to know the most crucial part of my investigation. That is the equivalent of a private exchange of information.
Similarly, it is simply unfeasible to check every single post in a 50 page day 1 for possible breadcrumbs with multiple possible ways of signaling. Yet when a player points out a breadcrumb, it is relatively simple to check that it's there, and it's impossible for that to be accidental. Sure, breadcrumbs might be found from time to time, but that doesn't happen often. And when they don't get found, they have the exact same effect as cryptography: It's provable that you posted the information now, but the information only becomes public at a later time.
I feel that the information in the public thread should be deducible for other players. With signalling and breadcrumbing, that simply isn't the case.
It's not a big deal. At least, for me it isn't, since I rarely crumb.In post 57, House wrote:I'm grateful to have learned this before accidentally signing up for or replacing into one of your games.
The highest level is not crumbing anything and convincing town a post you made earlier that wasn't a crumb was a crumbIn post 49, kuribo wrote:In post 47, mastin2 wrote:(Not as a mason, but as other roles, like ascetic. For someone who's done it before as scum, see kuribo.)
for next-level scumplay, breadcrumb several roles in the event you need to re-evaluate your claim later down the line
Such shenanigans are generally easy to spot for what they are.In post 61, Accountant wrote:The highest level is not crumbing anything and convincing town a post you made earlier that wasn't a crumb was a crumbIn post 49, kuribo wrote:In post 47, mastin2 wrote:(Not as a mason, but as other roles, like ascetic. For someone who's done it before as scum, see kuribo.)
for next-level scumplay, breadcrumb several roles in the event you need to re-evaluate your claim later down the line
The difference between your naked vote and the example I give, is that your naked vote is clearly visible to everyone. The other players may not be aware WHY you're making that vote, but they do know THAT you're making that vote. By contrast, in the case of breadcrumbing, it's not just that they don't know the meaning, but also that they don't know the information is there in the first place.In post 59, Ranmaru wrote:I still disagree that it is a private exchange. The exchange of private information has already happened, in a private thread. The other players weren't present, and therefore would not know of what has been discussed, and won't understand the meaning behind the scums/masons posts, which makes sense. Example, if I naked voted a player, no player would understand the meaning of it. They can't deduce much from it unless I explain it later. Let's apply your example to mine. If I had a PR result, I'd use a naked vote. If I had vanilla result, I'd use a reason. I don't think that is against any rules.In post 56, MichelSableheart wrote:[...]
The ruleset I used in previous games included the following rule:I wonder, how do you apply this as a rule? When and where do you enforce it? Is it possible to go around your ruling?
My basic assumption regarding enforcement is that players will follow the rules I set out, and not cheat. In the below, I assume that the rulebreaking was unintentional. If I feel it was intentional despite knowing it was against the rules, that player will be dealt with by force replace/modkill (depending on the impact on the integrity of the game), be blacklisted, and reported to the listmod for further review.It is also not allowed to use coding, small or invisible text to hide information in your messages inside the thread. (note that coding includes simple codes such as hiding a word in the first letters of each paragraph of a post)
No that's poor planning.In post 61, Accountant wrote:The highest level is not crumbing anything and convincing town a post you made earlier that wasn't a crumb was a crumbIn post 49, kuribo wrote:In post 47, mastin2 wrote:(Not as a mason, but as other roles, like ascetic. For someone who's done it before as scum, see kuribo.)
for next-level scumplay, breadcrumb several roles in the event you need to re-evaluate your claim later down the line
There's really not an issue of integrity. There's no out of game state communication like in the case of encryption or font fuckery. It's something that exists solely within the bounds of the game and the game state.In post 64, MichelSableheart wrote:The difference between your naked vote and the example I give, is that your naked vote is clearly visible to everyone. The other players may not be aware WHY you're making that vote, but they do know THAT you're making that vote. By contrast, in the case of breadcrumbing, it's not just that they don't know the meaning, but also that they don't know the information is there in the first place.In post 59, Ranmaru wrote:I still disagree that it is a private exchange. The exchange of private information has already happened, in a private thread. The other players weren't present, and therefore would not know of what has been discussed, and won't understand the meaning behind the scums/masons posts, which makes sense. Example, if I naked voted a player, no player would understand the meaning of it. They can't deduce much from it unless I explain it later. Let's apply your example to mine. If I had a PR result, I'd use a naked vote. If I had vanilla result, I'd use a reason. I don't think that is against any rules.In post 56, MichelSableheart wrote:[...]
The ruleset I used in previous games included the following rule:I wonder, how do you apply this as a rule? When and where do you enforce it? Is it possible to go around your ruling?My basic assumption regarding enforcement is that players will follow the rules I set out, and not cheat. In the below, I assume that the rulebreaking was unintentional. If I feel it was intentional despite knowing it was against the rules, that player will be dealt with by force replace/modkill (depending on the impact on the integrity of the game), be blacklisted, and reported to the listmod for further review.It is also not allowed to use coding, small or invisible text to hide information in your messages inside the thread. (note that coding includes simple codes such as hiding a word in the first letters of each paragraph of a post)
If a player makes a breadcrumb but nobody ever references it, I won't notice, and therefore won't enforce. That's fine, as that breadcrumb did not affect the game in any way.
If a scum, mason or neighbour team discusses breadcrumbing in their private topic, I will point out the existence of the rule, and my interpretation of it. This should again prevent the breadcrumb from affecting the game, and therefore needs no stronger reinforcement then that.
If a player makes a breadcrumb, and that breadcrumb becomes public info and gets discussed, there is a potential problem regarding game integrity. In that situation, it's possible that players have received information they should not have received. In that case, I will estimate the impact this particular crumb has had on the game. Depending on my estimation, I may give a (public or private) warning not to do that again if I feel it didn't have much impact, or I may modkill the player who broke the rules if his actions gave his team a significant advantage.
In post 67, Gamma Emerald wrote:Unless you're scum.
Sheeping the guilty.
dependsIn post 69, kuribo wrote:In post 67, Gamma Emerald wrote:Unless you're scum.
Winging it as scum is no substitute for having an idea of what you want to accomplish.