Manipulation, Bleed, Player-Characters, and the Purpose of Mafia

[Ythan]

Can anyone point me to an instigating incident or incidents for the addition of this rule?

[JacksonVirgo]

If we are over-moderating here and the word has truly drifted so significantly it is a general use term, the worst result is users need to utilize a different word to describe mafia game manipulation and there are a few awkward phrasings until we settle on a word. If we were to under-moderate here and allow the term to apply to normal mafia play and the term remains significantly tied to abusive to enough people, the worst result is people are subject to accusations they are engaging in a manipulative and abusive act to which they have no retort or counter until, at best, after the game and even then to only have an academic discussion of whether gaslighting appropriately describes mafia play.

Saying it’s under-moderating to consider it a descriptive term is literally insane to me I’m going to be honest. I don’t personally see the link except for the fact that it’s more commonly used to refer to an abusive relationship just because they’re more common which is hardly reason to outright warn or ban for using the word

[DragonEater70]

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

Obviously, the first definition is a form of abuse that is obviously not acceptable and completely outside the scope of the game.

Hot take: That's a legitimate strategy that should be allowed as long as everyone playing agrees to it beforehand (i.e. it should be allowable on the ruleset level) since it introduces the additional skill ceiling of gaslighting, resisting gaslighting, and helping other townies resist gaslighting/helping your scumteam gaslight townies

I have two things to say to this:

First, from a personal viewpoint, I play mafia because I want to have fun with other people, and I happen to enjoy deduction, especially of the social kind. Obviously it can be stressful but at the end of the day I do it for fun. Now, being manipulated into thinking that I am insane, or incompetent or stupid, and having others question my sanity is so far removed from my idea of fun that I'd rather not play at all. It's just a violation of the purpose for which I am playing. It's also just not something I'd ever do to somebody else. If this ever becomes a thing, I sincerely hope it is opt-in and limited to a small number of games.

I do, however, get the appeal for people who really like to play scum to try for something like that, in a twisted sort of way. And I guess there's technically not much harm done if all parties consent before the game starts. But I don't think what you presumably want (being able to influence the player's IRL mindset and toy with their esteem and cause them to trust you over themselves) could work very well unless you play it with secret alts, just because things happening in other ongoing games or even casual interactions will very probably undermine this, unless you actually decide to manipulate the person out of the game thread which I think you see why that would be problematic.

[Radical Rat]

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

Obviously, the first definition is a form of abuse that is obviously not acceptable and completely outside the scope of the game.

Hot take: That's a legitimate strategy that should be allowed as long as everyone playing agrees to it beforehand (i.e. it should be allowable on the ruleset level) since it introduces the additional skill ceiling of gaslighting, resisting gaslighting, and helping other townies resist gaslighting/helping your scumteam gaslight townies

I have two things to say to this:

First, from a personal viewpoint, I play mafia because I want to have fun with other people, and I happen to enjoy deduction, especially of the social kind. Obviously it can be stressful but at the end of the day I do it for fun. Now, being manipulated into thinking that I am insane, or incompetent or stupid, and having others question my sanity is so far removed from my idea of fun that I'd rather not play at all. It's just a violation of the purpose for which I am playing. It's also just not something I'd ever do to somebody else. If this ever becomes a thing, I sincerely hope it is opt-in and limited to a small number of games.

I do, however, get the appeal for people who really like to play scum to try for something like that, in a twisted sort of way. And I guess there's technically not much harm done if all parties consent before the game starts. But I don't think what you presumably want (being able to influence the player's IRL mindset and toy with their esteem and cause them to trust you over themselves) could work very well unless you play it with secret alts, just because things happening in other ongoing games or even casual interactions will very probably undermine this, unless you actually decide to manipulate the person out of the game thread which I think you see why that would be problematic.

Say, you correctly accuse someone of being scum? What do you expect them to do in turn? Convincing you that you're "insane" may be pushing it, but convincing you that you didn't see what you think you saw and that even if you did it didn't mean what you think it meant, well... that's kind of what they have to do isn't it? If you're particularly good at catching scum, then scum have to attempt to convince you that you're incompetent. Perhaps even over an extended period of time, as a game can last quite a while.

The alternative is ignoring you completely while trying to convince everyone else you're incompetent instead, which is incredibly conspicuous and personally I find even more frustrating, or to just go "Damn, you got me!" which is... obviously not advisable.

There are of course limits here, like. After a game is over, continuing to try to hammer home the bullshit is taking it too far, and if you can see that you're adversely impacting another player's IRL mental health, it's time to back off regardless of wincon. But the general concept of manipulating others into doubting themselves and distorting their "reality" (within the context of the game) is just how the game has to be played as scum, especially with strong Town players or PRs. To me, signing up to a game of Mafia IS consenting to that.

[AniX]

If we are over-moderating here and the word has truly drifted so significantly it is a general use term, the worst result is users need to utilize a different word to describe mafia game manipulation and there are a few awkward phrasings until we settle on a word. If we were to under-moderate here and allow the term to apply to normal mafia play and the term remains significantly tied to abusive to enough people, the worst result is people are subject to accusations they are engaging in a manipulative and abusive act to which they have no retort or counter until, at best, after the game and even then to only have an academic discussion of whether gaslighting appropriately describes mafia play.

Saying it’s under-moderating to consider it a descriptive term is literally insane to me I’m going to be honest. I don’t personally see the link except for the fact that it’s more commonly used to refer to an abusive relationship just because they’re more common which is hardly reason to outright warn or ban for using the word

Regardless of whether you believe the word has now drifted to be more general and simply descriptive, there is little question the word is linked to abuse in origin. The word directly draws from the film Gaslight, which directly depicts someone engaging in domestic abuse towards their spouse and the word was created to specifically describe similar abusive behavior occurring in real life.

[JacksonVirgo]

I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing it’s simple a descriptive term for the type of manipulation that its referring to even if that’s just in the context of mafia, which from my experience it is not

[Dannflor]

i think you'll find that historically people use the word to mean people are being abusive, and i refer to incidents on this website

you can want the word to mean something else but that's not how it's generally used. if someone tells calls someone a gaslighter i think it's very reasonable to assume that they are calling that person an abuser

and personally i don't really think we *need* the term gaslighting to be more general and descriptive. like, i lean towards descriptivism, but words also mean things, and there is value in keeping/honoring the definitions of some words as referring to Very Bad Things like abuse

[Cook]

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

Obviously, the first definition is a form of abuse that is obviously not acceptable and completely outside the scope of the game.

Hot take: That's a legitimate strategy that should be allowed as long as everyone playing agrees to it beforehand (i.e. it should be allowable on the ruleset level) since it introduces the additional skill ceiling of gaslighting, resisting gaslighting, and helping other townies resist gaslighting/helping your scumteam gaslight townies

I have two things to say to this:

First, from a personal viewpoint, I play mafia because I want to have fun with other people, and I happen to enjoy deduction, especially of the social kind. Obviously it can be stressful but at the end of the day I do it for fun. Now, being manipulated into thinking that I am insane, or incompetent or stupid, and having others question my sanity is so far removed from my idea of fun that I'd rather not play at all. It's just a violation of the purpose for which I am playing. It's also just not something I'd ever do to somebody else. If this ever becomes a thing, I sincerely hope it is opt-in and limited to a small number of games.

I do, however, get the appeal for people who really like to play scum to try for something like that, in a twisted sort of way. And I guess there's technically not much harm done if all parties consent before the game starts. But I don't think what you presumably want (being able to influence the player's IRL mindset and toy with their esteem and cause them to trust you over themselves) could work very well unless you play it with secret alts, just because things happening in other ongoing games or even casual interactions will very probably undermine this, unless you actually decide to manipulate the person out of the game thread which I think you see why that would be problematic.

Say, you correctly accuse someone of being scum? What do you expect them to do in turn? Convincing you that you're "insane" may be pushing it, but convincing you that you didn't see what you think you saw and that even if you did it didn't mean what you think it meant, well... that's kind of what they have to do isn't it? If you're particularly good at catching scum, then scum have to attempt to convince you that you're incompetent. Perhaps even over an extended period of time, as a game can last quite a while.

The alternative is ignoring you completely while trying to convince everyone else you're incompetent instead, which is incredibly conspicuous and personally I find even more frustrating, or to just go "Damn, you got me!" which is... obviously not advisable.

There are of course limits here, like. After a game is over, continuing to try to hammer home the bullshit is taking it too far, and if you can see that you're adversely impacting another player's IRL mental health, it's time to back off regardless of wincon. But the general concept of manipulating others into doubting themselves and distorting their "reality" (within the context of the game) is just how the game has to be played as scum, especially with strong Town players or PRs. To me, signing up to a game of Mafia IS consenting to that.

this is where, again, player-character separation may be a good thing

if you're attacking another player directly (ad hominem, etc. against the rules already) as opposed to attacking the character they're playing (there's no separation because mafia isn't as distinctly a roleplay as, say, pathfinder is), those are two different things

i think manipulation extends in a similar way. it'd be bad to manipulate someone out of a mafia game, but the contract is that within the game you're allowed to lie towards the goal of achieving your win condition. so you shouldn't gaslight users onsite. but you can 'gaslight' (a subset of manipulation and deception, which

are

licit things to do inside the confines of a mafia game) characters in a game.

so if we're friends playing a mafia game and we act as somewhat trusting friends within the game, and i then talk to you outside the game and manipulate you outside the game to try to get you to act differently in the game, that is bad and not allowed. but if we're friends outside the game and then you manipulate me inside the game to try to get me to act differently in the game, that's fine and allowed.

this is why i argue for that separation of player and character. without them, we have a contradictory reality where it's sometimes allowable to lie and manipulate a person and sometimes isn't. if we're players who are friends and our characters are lying bastards towards each other, we are still friends and have always been friends. this is something we're agreeing to act out.

[AniX]

Can anyone point me to an instigating incident or incidents for the addition of this rule?

There was no SPECIFIC instigating incident, but rather we received a number of reports on posts where individuals were accusing one another of gaslighting, with the reporting users expressing frustration and upset at being accused of what they view as an abusive act, which we felt was something where enough grey area and genuine points of view on both sides existed it fell to the moderation team to try to sort out the tension, with the policy as a result.

I will say that since that period the number of reports on the subject dropping to literally zero until this most recent one. I don't know if it is a result of the policy or whether there was a particular meta or condition that was making people more likely to accuse others of gaslighting.

I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing it’s simple a descriptive term for the type of manipulation that its referring to even if that’s just in the context of mafia, which from my experience it is not

Sure, but "I no longer believe it is a term for abuse" and "It has no links to abuse" are, to me, very different sentiments. You are not alone in thinking it is now a simple descriptive term, just like others are not alone in seeing it as primarily a term of abuse. But that tension needs to be resolved and it seems to me people who do not want to be accused of what they view as a term of abuse are more likely to be harmed, so to speak, than individuals who do not want to use a different word to describe manipulation (this isn't meant to be dismissive, by the way, absent anything else, avoiding removing a word from a vocabulary is a perfectly valid argument. But if there is a claim of harm in defense of using the word that goes farther than "I don't think it is necessary to do", I am not really grasping it).

[Cook]

this also raises the question about whether or not it is the site's prerogative to enforce cultural linguistics.

if a term that has touchy connotations enters into the popular lexicon and it is a term that members of the site find objectionable, is it administration/moderation's place to bar the use of that term?

furthermore, does restricting the language one can use onsite necessarily impede the enjoyment of the site as a service?

[Radical Rat]

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

Obviously, the first definition is a form of abuse that is obviously not acceptable and completely outside the scope of the game.

Hot take: That's a legitimate strategy that should be allowed as long as everyone playing agrees to it beforehand (i.e. it should be allowable on the ruleset level) since it introduces the additional skill ceiling of gaslighting, resisting gaslighting, and helping other townies resist gaslighting/helping your scumteam gaslight townies

I have two things to say to this:

First, from a personal viewpoint, I play mafia because I want to have fun with other people, and I happen to enjoy deduction, especially of the social kind. Obviously it can be stressful but at the end of the day I do it for fun. Now, being manipulated into thinking that I am insane, or incompetent or stupid, and having others question my sanity is so far removed from my idea of fun that I'd rather not play at all. It's just a violation of the purpose for which I am playing. It's also just not something I'd ever do to somebody else. If this ever becomes a thing, I sincerely hope it is opt-in and limited to a small number of games.

I do, however, get the appeal for people who really like to play scum to try for something like that, in a twisted sort of way. And I guess there's technically not much harm done if all parties consent before the game starts. But I don't think what you presumably want (being able to influence the player's IRL mindset and toy with their esteem and cause them to trust you over themselves) could work very well unless you play it with secret alts, just because things happening in other ongoing games or even casual interactions will very probably undermine this, unless you actually decide to manipulate the person out of the game thread which I think you see why that would be problematic.

Say, you correctly accuse someone of being scum? What do you expect them to do in turn? Convincing you that you're "insane" may be pushing it, but convincing you that you didn't see what you think you saw and that even if you did it didn't mean what you think it meant, well... that's kind of what they have to do isn't it? If you're particularly good at catching scum, then scum have to attempt to convince you that you're incompetent. Perhaps even over an extended period of time, as a game can last quite a while.

The alternative is ignoring you completely while trying to convince everyone else you're incompetent instead, which is incredibly conspicuous and personally I find even more frustrating, or to just go "Damn, you got me!" which is... obviously not advisable.

There are of course limits here, like. After a game is over, continuing to try to hammer home the bullshit is taking it too far, and if you can see that you're adversely impacting another player's IRL mental health, it's time to back off regardless of wincon. But the general concept of manipulating others into doubting themselves and distorting their "reality" (within the context of the game) is just how the game has to be played as scum, especially with strong Town players or PRs. To me, signing up to a game of Mafia IS consenting to that.

this is where, again, player-character separation may be a good thing

if you're attacking another player directly (ad hominem, etc. against the rules already) as opposed to attacking the character they're playing (there's no separation because mafia isn't as distinctly a roleplay as, say, pathfinder is), those are two different things

i think manipulation extends in a similar way. it'd be bad to manipulate someone out of a mafia game, but the contract is that within the game you're allowed to lie towards the goal of achieving your win condition. so you shouldn't gaslight users onsite. but you can 'gaslight' (a subset of manipulation and deception, which

are

licit things to do inside the confines of a mafia game) characters in a game.

so if we're friends playing a mafia game and we act as somewhat trusting friends within the game, and i then talk to you outside the game and manipulate you outside the game to try to get you to act differently in the game, that is bad and not allowed. but if we're friends outside the game and then you manipulate me inside the game to try to get me to act differently in the game, that's fine and allowed.

this is why i argue for that separation of player and character. without them, we have a contradictory reality where it's sometimes allowable to lie and manipulate a person and sometimes isn't. if we're players who are friends and our characters are lying bastards towards each other, we are still friends and have always been friends. this is something we're agreeing to act out.

The problem there is that while, obviously, attack the play not the player applies here, but beyond that scumhunting is a task reliant on a player's actual real life abilities. To defend oneself as scum, you must convince the opponent that their scumhunting is bad, falsely leading them to believe they have made logical or observational errors.

If the manipulation is successful, the Town player will believe that they personally made these errors, because there is no difference between their "character's" performance and their own. If this happens frequently enough before the catharsis of the flips is reached, they may even begin to believe they're just bad at the game generally, or even unintelligent generally.

This is an undesirable outcome, but one that can't really be meaningfully avoided once the game begins. The Scum player, if they mean to win, MUST perform manipulations in a similar fashion. The Town player MUST therefore be subject to it, or at least the possibility of it.

The character/player separation IS important for out of game interactions and relationships. That kind of compartmentalization is the only way these kinds of games can work at all. But it doesn't do much in the moment of the game itself, only once you leave the game thread behind.

[biancospino]

So here's the thing. Like many other English language words (and words in other languages, I'm sure), the word gaslighting has several definitions. Here are both definitions I found on Merriam-Webster:

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

2. the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage.

Obviously, the first definition is a form of abuse that is obviously not acceptable and completely outside the scope of the game. The second really has nothing to do with abuse and is just about misleading. However I'm not sure if it gives an accurate representation of how it's used here. I think here it's used to mean "

the action of stating untrue facts as true in an attempt to convince someone who

knows

they aren't true that they are true anyway

". It's different from simply lying. Lying would be, for instance, claiming a cop guilty when you are not a cop. Gaslighting is used for instance to describe the following sequence: A mafioso softclaims a guilty, gets their target eliminated, and then insists that they weren't softing a guilty at all and were misrepresented and that they thought somebody else was actually softing a guilty, and then even though you KNOW they did soft a guilty, you let yourself be convinced and eliminate the other person instead. Or another example is if mech doesn't clear someone, but they insisit that it does clear them, and they continue arguing to the point where you're questioning yourself and decide that you know what, maybe the mech does clear them. Both of these would probably be referred to as gaslighting by players who use the term colloquially (IMO). If someone else sees it differently or has something to add, go ahead.

Thanks. If the word is indeed used to refer generically to 2 and specifically the

blue

, then yeah, obviously is a thing in games.
If indeed people do use the word as such, and it is generally understood as such, then maybe there isn't much of a problem.
I still kind of doubt that using the word that broadly isn't ever going to cause gross musunderstandings, but may just be me idk.

After a game is over, continuing to try to hammer home the bullshit is taking it too far, and if you can see that you're adversely impacting another player's IRL mental health, it's time to back off regardless of wincon.

Before reading this thread, I was under the assumption that if X was accusing Y of gasligthing, they would 100% be accusing Y of greviously impacting X's mental health oog, and voluntarily.
Like, if I was the accused one and believed that the accusation was in good faith, I would immediately cease during what I was doing in the game toward X because I would understand that whatever it was, it was explicitly harming X as a person and not only as a slot. Which, obviously isn't good for game integrity.

I understand now that it's not what people mean but it still seem an unwise choice of words. Unless it gets rooted in site culture enough to the point of being the plainly understood meaning (which, again, maybe it's already the case and it's just a me problem).

Say, you correctly accuse someone of being scum? What do you expect them to do in turn? Convincing you that you're "insane" may be pushing it, but convincing you that you didn't see what you think you saw and that even if you did it didn't mean what you think it meant, well... that's kind of what they have to do isn't it? If you're particularly good at catching scum, then scum have to attempt to convince you that you're incompetent. Perhaps even over an extended period of time, as a game can last quite a while.

I don't think DE is saying not to do that. In fact that sounds pretty much something that scum should do, or attempt to, to comply with the play to win rule. That's pretty normal game behaviour.

To be abusive something needs to directly interfere with someone's personhood, which such a mundane in-game action clearly does not intend to do (and it can't intend to, because otherwise it would be ogi; and wheter it does in fact produce adverse effects irl is actually accidental, absent the specific intention to cause them).

PE: if we're saying that "make X believe that they made errors while scumhunting" is gaslighting, then any defense ever from a caught scum is an attempt at gaslighting. Clearly it can't be the case, otherwise the word becomes so generic as to lose meaning.
Like, if I have stolen the cookies from the jar, and you have done your investigations and conclude that it was me, and when accused I try to talk you into believing that no, it was in fact Timmy that stole the cookies and I don't ever like chocolate, and that your conclusion is wrong for [reasons]; I'm doing exactly the same thing, including trying to make you believe that you suck at investigating, and clearly I'm not gasligthing you, just vanilla misleading and lying

[DragonEater70]

Say, you correctly accuse someone of being scum? What do you expect them to do in turn? Convincing you that you're "insane" may be pushing it, but convincing you that you didn't see what you think you saw and that even if you did it didn't mean what you think it meant, well... that's kind of what they have to do isn't it? If you're particularly good at catching scum, then scum have to attempt to convince you that you're incompetent. Perhaps even over an extended period of time, as a game can last quite a while.

The alternative is ignoring you completely while trying to convince everyone else you're incompetent instead, which is incredibly conspicuous and personally I find even more frustrating, or to just go "Damn, you got me!" which is... obviously not advisable.

There are of course limits here, like. After a game is over, continuing to try to hammer home the bullshit is taking it too far, and if you can see that you're adversely impacting another player's IRL mental health, it's time to back off regardless of wincon. But the general concept of manipulating others into doubting themselves and distorting their "reality" (within the context of the game) is just how the game has to be played as scum, especially with strong Town players or PRs. To me, signing up to a game of Mafia IS consenting to that.

I don't think you understand my point at all. I already said that I think that manipulation and trying to convince people that they are wrong or that they didn't see what they saw is IMO a legitimate part of the game. I specifically mentioned that I think distorting

ingame

perception of reality is fine. I don't think that emotional abuse is, though. Surely you can see that these are different things?

[DragonEater70]

this is where, again, player-character separation may be a good thing

if you're attacking another player directly (ad hominem, etc. against the rules already) as opposed to attacking the character they're playing (there's no separation because mafia isn't as distinctly a roleplay as, say, pathfinder is), those are two different things

i think manipulation extends in a similar way. it'd be bad to manipulate someone out of a mafia game, but the contract is that within the game you're allowed to lie towards the goal of achieving your win condition. so you shouldn't gaslight users onsite. but you can 'gaslight' (a subset of manipulation and deception, which are
licit things to do inside the confines of a mafia game) characters in a game.

so if we're friends playing a mafia game and we act as somewhat trusting friends within the game, and i then talk to you outside the game and manipulate you outside the game to try to get you to act differently in the game, that is bad and not allowed. but if we're friends outside the game and then you manipulate me inside the game to try to get me to act differently in the game, that's fine and allowed.

this is why i argue for that separation of player and character. without them, we have a contradictory reality where it's sometimes allowable to lie and manipulate a person and sometimes isn't. if we're players who are friends and our characters are lying bastards towards each other, we are still friends and have always been friends. this is something we're agreeing to act out.

I agree with the whole of this.

[TemporalLich]

I should probably point out that warping is intended to make players doubt their thought process behind their reads, while actual gaslighting is intended to make people doubt their perception of reality itself (making them think they are insane or confused)

both warping and actual gaslighting are psychological manipulation, but actual gaslighting would have an out of game effect on players



player-character separation is a very good thing and would drastically reduce the negative impact that Mafia has on mental health

[the worst]

what i am saying is that to say someone is gaslighting is to say someone is being abusive given its connotations

and i don't think people should be able to call people abusive if the only thing that is happening is playing the game, that just breaks into the realm of out of game influence and is horrible for game integrity

obviously if there is actually abuse happening in a mafia game it's a different story but i think that's pretty rare and far between at least in current site culture

It should be obvious that it shouldn’t be construed as abusive when it’s in the context of mafia, I fail to see why players have to be restricted in the words they can use because people are unable to realise the word has its seperate meaning in the context of the game.

By all means make and use a softer term for it, but it shouldn’t be warned against, let alone enforced.

Personally, I think it's hard to divorce its meaning from psychological abuse. Gaslighting is usually a holistic long-term psychological manipulation used to undermine someone's sense of reality and replace it with a dependence on the abuser. That's very hard to do in a mafia context, and (while possible) is exceptionally rare compared to cases of misrepresentation or just plain old lying.

I think letting the term become commonplace, and decoupling it from its meaning, actually kind of becomes a kind of situation no win. If we agree collectively on its decoupling from psychological abuse, I worry that we're actually devaluing the act of gaslighting itself. It's pretty important fmpov that it's something that's named and that we can talk about and that people who experience gaslighting have the resources and support to move past it because it's fuuucked.

The flipside, if we allow it to drift into common parlance as a reduced sin (basically, using gaslighting tactics as a form of social manipulation), but we haven't universally agreed on its decoupling from psychological abuse, it gets awkward. We need to make sure gaslighting is taken seriously and that abuse victims have resources. We also have people calling other people gaslighters in the middle of a mafia game, and the target isn't meant to feel like they're being accused of abuse.

I'm not a monolith, each report will be different & we have a wide team, so really just philosophising. But I'd love to see this become a site culture shift, rather than a consistently punitive situation. I think the ideal here is that we remind people of the austerity of the accusation, check in to determine whether there is something going on, and then (hopefully usually) move past it.

[Gamma Emerald]

I don't think it's possible to abuse someone by misrepresenting facts in a mafia game.

I don’t want to get into details, but this is wrong in my personal experience.

[Radical Rat]

Actually removing this because I realized I'm being pedantic here and it really isn't the point being made.

Sorry, I do actually think you're right overall.

[DragonEater70]

Personally, I think it's hard to divorce its meaning from psychological abuse. Gaslighting is usually a holistic long-term psychological manipulation used to undermine someone's sense of reality and replace it with a dependence on the abuser. That's very hard to do in a mafia context, and (while possible) is exceptionally rare compared to cases of misrepresentation or just plain old lying.

I think letting the term become commonplace, and decoupling it from its meaning, actually kind of becomes a kind of situation no win. If we agree collectively on its decoupling from psychological abuse, I worry that we're actually devaluing the act of gaslighting itself. It's pretty important fmpov that it's something that's named and that we can talk about and that people who experience gaslighting have the resources and support to move past it because it's fuuucked.

The flipside, if we allow it to drift into common parlance as a reduced sin (basically, using gaslighting tactics as a form of social manipulation), but we haven't universally agreed on its decoupling from psychological abuse, it gets awkward. We need to make sure gaslighting is taken seriously and that abuse victims have resources. We also have people calling other people gaslighters in the middle of a mafia game, and the target isn't meant to feel like they're being accused of abuse.

I'm not a monolith, each report will be different & we have a wide team, so really just philosophising. But I'd love to see this become a site culture shift, rather than a consistently punitive situation. I think the ideal here is that we remind people of the austerity of the accusation, check in to determine whether there is something going on, and then (hopefully usually) move past it.

This perspective does make a lot of sense to me. I will refrain from using gaslighting colloquially.

[yessiree]

i.e. read the OPs -- you are also welcome to keep talking about this. i don't know. this is an MD thread. this is about mafia.

I've actually been doing this in games to moderate success, albeit unintentionally. I think it's an interesting idea since it's basically proactively weaponizing a coping mechanism to deal with undesired emotions. Fabricating an ingame character/persona that was completely separate, or psychologically decoupled from the player behind the keyboard, so that any toxicity/negativity directed towards this fake character did not "bleed" into the player because the player already pre-emptively rationalized them as separate entities. Or at least that was the ideal case.

A caveat is that other players are more likely to scumread this fake persona since they may find it disingenuous, which is not wrong, so it definitely takes some time getting used to, but it should become less of an issue after some time establishing this new in-game character as the "de-facto" driver of the account.

Another factor that can help with this is reducing the usage of personalized language; e.g. "I don't like {player A}". You know it's implying about alignment, but the object of the sentence is referring to the player entity itself rather than some observable qualities derived from it, and that might make it more difficult to dissociate the two. But that's a topic for another time.