Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by piggy pablo on Jan 12, 2018 12:50:24 GMT -5
Pretty sure the rules we were playing with state that the Inspector should not be answered until the whack is in and the whack should not be executed until the Inspector has made a guess (assuming both are in by the end of Night).
If that's the case, I think what Viking is saying makes sense. Start the day with the whack, then give an answer to the Inspector if (and only if) he/she is alive.
Post by piggy pablo on Jan 12, 2018 12:54:39 GMT -5
This should also include a clarification of the rule that the Inspector is not owed an answer if he or she is the target of the whack. I think that should probably changed to a less ambiguous "the Inspector SHALL NOT receive an answer if he or she is the target of the Night's whack".
This should also include a clarification of the rule that the Inspector is not owed an answer if he or she is the target of the whack. I think that should probably changed to a less ambiguous "the Inspector SHALL NOT receive an answer if he or she is the target of the Night's whack".
Yes. That's what I was aiming for. Shall not over will not is fine.
Post by piggy pablo on Jan 12, 2018 13:01:36 GMT -5
I mean "shall not" as opposed to "is not owed" because "is not owed" leaves it up to the ref's discretion and imo if you're dead you don't need an answer.
4) Each day a vote is held for the player to be eliminated. For online play, deliberation and voting is combined; thus, you can vote and explain yourself in the same post. Every player is free to change their vote at any point up until the time of the deadline which the referee has given for the round. At or after given deadline time. the Referee will post the tally, and if applicable grant/deny any requested extensions or announce which player is eliminated.
10) The Like Rule: No person, player or otherwise, may like or dislike any posts by active players.
I'm also floating this one out there for a possible change.
7) The Referee shall neither answer an Inspector's inquiry nor execute a Mafia's chosen victim until after having received both the Inspector's inquiry and the Mafia's chosen victim. If the Inspector is the victim, the Inspector is not owed an answer from the Referee. The Inspector can NOT reveal the referee's confirmation until after the start of the next day. The Referee shall only accept victim names from living Mafia players.
Minor Edits
4) Each day a vote is held for the player to be eliminated. For online play, deliberation and voting is combined; thus, you can vote and explain yourself in the same post. Every player is free to change their vote at any point up until the posted deadlinetime of the deadline which the referee has given for the round. At or after given deadline time, the Referee will post the tally, and if applicable grant/deny any requested extensions, and/or announce which player is eliminated.
10) is perfect
7) I am ok with it, but maybe change the sequencing. How about this instead:
7) The Referee shall neither answer an Inspector's inquiry nor execute a Mafia's chosen victim until after having received both the Inspector's inquiry and the Mafia's chosen victim. Upon receiving both the inquiry and the victim, the Referee will first start the new day and announce the victim. Once the day has started, they will respond to the inquiry of the inspector. If the Inspector is the victim, the Inspector will not receive an answer from the Referee. The Referee shall only accept victim names from living Mafia players.
I think the ref answering guesses from the inspector before the whack is submitted/announced is risky business in general, and was something I was genuinely concerned with as mafia.
What I've always done was waited until starting the next day. I send my answer to the inspector and then post to start next day within a minute of each other. Starting after posting the next day is a good idea too. I heard a game got wrecked once upon a time ago because of answering an inspector who was then whacked and spoke at night about it. I do not know what game or what source the info came from anymore though.
I told Pablo that Maddog was town, who then almost immediately posted it in the game thread. I saw it a minute later and PMed him to delete it. His post probably lasted no more than a few minutes. I was worried for a little while someone (mostly Viking) had seen it though.
I was wrong in telling Pablo any information about his guess. Or at least telling him before it was confirmed he was the whack anyway.
There has been a question as to the role of the commissioner when s/he is a player in an active game. I just wanted to bump this thread in order to give those who might be unaware of its existence and opportunity to voice their thoughts. I will be sharing mine after the game concludes.
All I ask is that until the game is finished, keep all talk to generalities of the discussed topics, and do not discuss anything that is directly germane to the active game or use the current game as an example. Or allude to it, or describe an imaginary situation that's actually referencing the current game. Y'know, honor code and shit.
There has been a question as to the role of the commissioner when s/he is a player in an active game. I just wanted to bump this thread in order to give those who might be unaware of its existence and opportunity to voice their thoughts. I will be sharing mine after the game concludes.
All I ask is that until the game is finished, keep all talk to generalities of the discussed topics, and do not discuss anything that is directly germane to the active game or use the current game as an example. Or allude to it, or describe an imaginary situation that's actually referencing the current game. Y'know, honor code and shit.
I wanted to circle back to this. I didn't think there was a problem with the way this went down last game. I say this as a, at the time, dead townie. Those decisions should be made by the ref, but I have no problem with the commish weighing in if people ask, I know Jaz will be fair about it.
Perhaps we need to enforce or write the rule though that you are only eliminated via voting off or missing votes - you can rage quit all you want, but people still have to vote you off or you have to miss two votes.
Also, a bit more guidance after a first missed vote could probably help the ref. A few games ago we had two players almost miss or miss a vote, and I'm always uncomfortable as ref about putting a second deadline too close to the first deadline, to cause two miss votes. My reffing style tries to keep the game moving (I hate the dead periods) so maybe it's just something I need to address when I ref. But if there was some type of guidance in the rules it might not be bad. Example - a second deadline shall be no less than six hours from the first missed deadline, and no more than 24 hours from that deadline. I'm not sold on that timeline or wording or anything, looking for discussion. Maybe others don't see it as a problem.
I don't think there needs to be an authority which supercedes that of the ref, and if there is that authority should not be participating in the game.
It's nothing against Jaz. It's just basic ethics. Common sense.
I understand where you are coming from, and don't wholeheartedly disagree. The decision should be made by the ref, and could also be made clear in the rules disallowing "rage quits" - at least ones not backed up by votes.
I don't think there needs to be an authority which supercedes that of the ref, and if there is that authority should not be participating in the game.
It's nothing against Jaz. It's just basic ethics. Common sense.
I think it makes sense to have a Commissioner, not so much because they supercede the ref, but because there are times where outside guidance is needed from someone who thoroughly understands the rules of the game, the history of the game, and has a vested interest in the integrity of the game. The rules are more or less easy to get the hang of - which is why someone can ref pretty easily with just a couple games under their belt - but that same newer ref might not understand why certain rules are there in the first place, or know how to proceed when shit hits the fan or rules are broken. Especially when they're unsure IF a rule has been broken. Someone also needs to have a fair and judicial mindset when it comes to suspensions and whatnot.
As far as ethics goes - I completely see and understand your point about the potential for impropriety if I as a player am making Commissioner-level calls as a player. As Commish (and ref) the number one credo is to not influence the outcome of a game. In these situations perhaps the best course of action would be for me to consult with the Commissioner Apprentice (Maizy), and either defer to her and have her make the call, or confer with her privately and then post a screencap of the convo in the thread after the game for transparency's sake. Even though I trust myself to remain neutral and I imagine many here do as well, transparency and checks and balances are only to the benefit of the game overall. I'm totally open to other ideas in this regard.
Last Edit: Feb 15, 2019 11:35:58 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
To continue on what Jaz just said, I feel there are plenty of good options to use for a rule dispute question mid game in case Jaz and/or Zolah are playing in the game.
Post by potentpotables on Mar 16, 2019 14:01:42 GMT -5
New proposed rule:
"The Jake Jortles rule - The referee shall end the game at the time when a town victory is no longer possible. The referee shall not let a game continue if the town does not have a path to victory. For example, if all three mafia are alive and none are in the initial D3 runoff, the ref shall end the game upon the closing of the round."
"The Jake Jortles rule - The referee shall end the game at the time when a town victory is no longer possible. The referee shall not let a game continue if the town does not have a path to victory. For example, if all three mafia are alive and none are in the initial D3 runoff, the ref shall end the game upon the closing of the round."
The only way mafia wouldn't win is if they missed 2 votes on D3 and were the auto lynch. Pretty sure that wouldn't happen.
"The Jake Jortles rule - The referee shall end the game at the time when a town victory is no longer possible. The referee shall not let a game continue if the town does not have a path to victory. For example, if all three mafia are alive and none are in the initial D3 runoff, the ref shall end the game upon the closing of the round."
The only way mafia wouldn't win is if they missed 2 votes on D3 and were the auto lynch. Pretty sure that wouldn't happen.
Also, the ref ends the game after im lynched, but mafia wouldnt outnumber town until they submitted a whack. I think we make an assumption there and are comfortable calling the game. I also dont think anyone wants to win based on missed mafia votes.
This is an interesting thing. Personally as a player I'm comfortable with calling it, however the town still has a path to victory if a Mafia dies due to missed votes. It's nitpicky but I can see a townie being a pissant about this in the future. Maybe we can just codify that Mafia are compelled to claim a technical win in the thread at the time it occurs, but the game doesn't end until all living Mafia do so? Basically I'd just like a way to put it in the rules that Mafia can't be assholes and fuck with the town, but still eliminate the chance of complaints because "Maybe one of the mafia was going to miss their votes".
There was a game back in the 70/80s when Rummy was ref and stopped the game for a mafia win before the end of round based on votes, yes it wasn’t the same exact situation, but it rankled a lot of players that the ref intervened and should have just let it play out.
This is an interesting thing. Personally as a player I'm comfortable with calling it, however the town still has a path to victory if a Mafia dies due to missed votes. It's nitpicky but I can see a townie being a pissant about this in the future. Maybe we can just codify that Mafia are compelled to claim a technical win in the thread at the time it occurs, but the game doesn't end until all living Mafia do so? Basically I'd just like a way to put it in the rules that Mafia can't be assholes and fuck with the town, but still eliminate the chance of complaints because "Maybe one of the mafia was going to miss their votes".
I've been thinking about this because I can see both sides. My personal preference as both a player and a ref, is that I like the idea of playing out the day. Rules are rules and there is the possibility of missing votes. No matter how slim it is.
Not a fan. It's gaming the rules for extra info. Seems to benifit the town and gives them extra information depending on the circumstances.
It should just be encouraged that mafia should indicate if they have clinched it. Which does tend to happen.
Maybe make it a rule after day 3?
If I was reffing and at that point on D3 and mafia all chimed in claiming their win, I would have zero issue with it. I really don't have much of a strong opinion.
If mafia makes it obvious enough and locks, town can lock too... The round ends. Also, more importantly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect the outcome of the game.
Not a fan. It's gaming the rules for extra info. Seems to benifit the town and gives them extra information depending on the circumstances.
It should just be encouraged that mafia should indicate if they have clinched it. Which does tend to happen.
Maybe make it a rule after day 3?
If I was reffing and at that point on D3 and mafia all chimed in claiming their win, I would have zero issue with it. I really don't have much of a strong opinion.
I don't either because it normally wouldn't be an issue. However, I don't want this to become a part of regular discussion in every round 3. It's tedious. Making it the ref's job makes it more so. Let's say that last game people took Jortles argument at face value. That information would pretty much tell you Jortles and LLL weren't mafia. Even if it's not 100% it could very likely influence town thinking for the rest of the game and work against the mafia. I can just see a lot of potential bullshit coming from it. That's were I see the main issue, we're creating a problem where it never existed before.
I'd just prefer it not be a rule and just kinda be encouraged.
If I was reffing and at that point on D3 and mafia all chimed in claiming their win, I would have zero issue with it. I really don't have much of a strong opinion.
I don't either because it normally wouldn't be an issue. However, I don't want this to become a part of regular discussion in every round 3. It's tedious. Making it the ref's job makes it more so. Let's say that last game people took Jortles argument at face value. That information would pretty much tell you Jortles and LLL weren't mafia. Even if it's not 100% it could very likely influence town thinking for the rest of the game and work against the mafia. I can just see a lot of potential bullshit coming from it. That's were I see the main issue, we're creating a problem where it never existed before.
I'd just prefer it not be a rule and just kinda be encouraged.
I agree with this. Inforoo is going on Mafia 118 now... If we go with this on D3, then there will be discussion about a rule for mafia clenching on D4 next...
Not a fan. It's gaming the rules for extra info. Seems to benifit the town and gives them extra information depending on the circumstances.
It should just be encouraged that mafia should indicate if they have clinched it. Which does tend to happen.
Maybe make it a rule after day 3?
It's a way to think about shaping runoffs as a blind Townie that I can use with or without the rule: What is the most likely way for us to still be in contention after the first runoff... the second runoff, etc...
I'm not sure how it gives people any extra info though. The game would end. Once LLL was dropped from the runoff, it would become a fact that at least one of You, Me, Dan and Potent were Mafia. But that shouldn't change the way anyone is thinking moving forward. It just elevates the importance of the final vote between you and I. It also didn't guarantee any information about LLL's role. You could make the assumption that we wouldn't have been able to get 2 mafia into a Day 3 runoff, I suppose.
If we would have lynched you and the game continued, there was still the possibility that either Dan or Potent was Mafia and that you were Town. But that would have been true regardless of this rule. Yeah I'm just not sure how this would benefit the Town other than not wasting our time.
It doesn't matter a ton because I'm going to keep assuming the game isn't over for as long as we are playing. There is no point to play any other way, obviously.
