PlayDip Mafia Etiquette Rules

[condude1]

Hi guys,

I was thinking about it, and why does every game need to have the exact same section of "Things I expect everyone to know, but need to be said anyways"? Instead, I propose that we have a default (see below) that is the status quo, and then GMs can state in their rules if they want different regulations. As with any rules, specific beats general, so if any GM has contradictory rules, their rules take precedence for their game. These are taken mostly from my rules (tried and true, so far these have gotten very few complaints), with modifications to be more generally suitable and to incorporate community recommendations.

1: Play to your victory condition. This means no throwing in the towel and no emotional outbreaks that hurt your team. The GM is expected to contact the player before taking action on this rule, as what matters is your intention, not necessarily if it works out (See Condude's brilliant play in Fable 6 for an example of thinking you're playing to your victory condition but actually committing suicide).

2: Don't edit or delete your posts. This is punishable by modkill, replacement, or reprimand, at the GM's discretion.

3: GM Correspondence No copying anything the GM has sent you, especially your role PM. This includes creating a fake GM message and peddling it as real. Paraphrasing is ok, but please ask the GM if a paraphrase is too close.

4.1: Private Messaging. No private communication unless expressly permitted by your role.

4.2 Discussion Outside Thread: Do not discuss ongoing games outside the game thread, or other GM approved channels of communication.

4.3 Dead-Man Walking: You may not post after you are eliminated from the game, unless expressly permitted by the GM.

5: Activity. STAY ACTIVE! I ask for a minimum of 30-45 minutes per day of posting, excluding reading time. This will likely sum up to 1-2 hours dedicated to this game every day, at minimum. Everyone falls behind a few pages from time to time, but if you find that you’re posting everything in a vacuum, or are posting very little each day, please sub out for the integrity of the game. The GM will replace you if they find that you are seriously detracting from the flow of the game for an extended period of time.

6: ASK. Ask if you have any questions on the legality of an action. A GM will never complain about receiving too many questions on whether an activity is legal.

7: Substitutions. Please do not discuss substitutions. Substitutions are already not pleasant situations, and using substitutions to determine alignment is metagaming, and compromising the game’s integrity more than it already has been compromised. If you want or need a substitute, PM the GM and you will be subbed out as soon as possible. A substitute may be requested for any personal reason - you are more important than the game, but don't use substitutions tactically (I'm in trouble, better sub out to get rid of the heat).

8.1: Don't be discriminatory. No homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, misogynistic comments, or other forms of group-targeted hate speech. AT ABSOLUTE MINIMUM you will be harshly reprimanded by GM and mods alike for breaking these rules, and if we deem it anything other than a sloppy choice of words, or it is a repeat offense, or it is met by anything other than a complete, unequivocal apology, you can expect to be modkilled (or replaced) and blacklisted by the majority of the GMs in the mafia forums. Please also respect people's pronouns - Intentionally mislabeling someone else's gender is, at best, extremely rude, and, at worst, discriminatory. Don't do it.

8.2: Don't be a dick. Tensions can get high in a mafia game, and the occasional insult or outburst is normal. No out-of-game insults, and please try to keep anger to a minimum. Swearing is acceptable (C'mon, we're (mostly) adults. People swear.), although please, try to keep it to a minimum.

8.3 Reporting People: If someone is being hostile to an extent that it is ruining the game for other players, or violates Rule 8.1, report it to the GM immediately. The GM is expected to bring severe offenses to the mods.

9.1: The GM is God. The GM can do whatever he or she likes, for any reason they like. It is assumed that GMs are all acting to their utmost to ensure that game integrity is as intact as possible and games run smoothly. If you actually suspect a GM (for some strange reason) is not working towards this end, please contact a moderator, but be warned that we will, in the vast majority of situations, side with the GM. Also, please do not take umbrage with GM decisions in-thread, take it up with the GM in private.

9.2: AAR. Constructive criticism and discussion of frustration is welcomed in the AAR, though remember we're all human and nobody wants to feel like crap for mistakes or having had to make a tough call. Try to respect everyone and be mature, even when you're upset.

9.3 Angleshooting. Don't angleshoot. Angleshooting is playing against the spirit of the game's rules, but technically within the rules as written. Don't try to bend rules as far as you can before they break, instead, use them as guidelines as well as hard stops.

Rules on End Day, Unvote, No Lynch, Vote tallies, and Tiebreaks should be clarified in each ruleset independently.

Please let me know if there is a rule that should be added or clarified, or whether this is just a flat out terrible idea.

Condude

[mhsmith0]

Things I'd be inclined to edit or remove:

1) I actually think it's generally acceptable to take umbrage with what the mod is doing, when the mod has made some kind of error, when it's clear a setup is busted, etc. I think there's probably some amount of tweaking that's worth discussing here, since "let's all bitch about the mod" is obviously an unhealthy game state, but "demand silence when weird shit is going on" is also not really something that makes that much sense (IMO anyway). In particular, I think it's reasonable for people to discuss setup issues (especially balance), and fairly unreasonable to demand silence on that front in a game.


Things I'd be inclined to add:

1) A rule saying not to discuss ongoing games
2) A rule discussing what to do when people are violating rules, particularly wrt toxicity and obnoxiousness. Who should be reported to? Is it ok or nor to ok to discuss this sort of behavior in thread? This in particular strikes me as something that shouldn't be up to the preferences of the particular game host.
3) A rule noting that deadposting is not allowed (except at game host discretion)
4) Rules discussing angleshooting, using out of game information, exploiting loopholes (other than mechanical breaking strategies designed around a game's structure), etc.

PS I've found https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/th ... orum-Rules to be a pretty decent set of rules, though obviously the structure there and the structure here aren't the same and don't need to be the same. But it's still imo helpful for listing out a lot of things that should at least be thought on before we decide as a community whether we want to be stricter or looser on various issues.

[Nanook]

9.2: The GM is always right. Do NOT take umbrage with a GM decision in thread. In AARs, please present your opinion on GM rulings, rules, etc. with grace and respect. The GM worked hard to run the game as smoothly as possible. Respect his or her work.

I disagree with part of this. Not the part about accepting it in thread, that's fine. The AAR part. Why should GMs get special treatment once the game is over? They should be as open to (constructive) criticism as players are, I think. Obviously I'm not saying that someone should take a giant dump over the GM after a game is over--but you shouldn't do that to other players either, so why emphasize it with regard to GMs? Sometimes you're going to get into a disagreement with a GM about how something was handled, I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other disagreement.

To be clear, I'm not at all saying "treat GMs like shit!", I'm just saying to treat them the same as you'd treat anyone else in the AAR. If GMs aren't open to constructive criticism, how can we expect a GM to ever improve, or make more balanced and/or more fun games? Like, yes, absolutely treat them with respect...but you should be treating everyone like they're a person, not just the GM, and I think singling them out like that as pertains to an AAR just serves to make people less likely to share their thoughts on flaws they might've seen in the game, which isn't really healthy for anyone.

[condude1]

9.2: The GM is always right. Do NOT take umbrage with a GM decision in thread. In AARs, please present your opinion on GM rulings, rules, etc. with grace and respect. The GM worked hard to run the game as smoothly as possible. Respect his or her work.

I disagree with part of this. Not the part about accepting it in thread, that's fine. The AAR part. Why should GMs get special treatment once the game is over? They should be as open to (constructive) criticism as players are, I think. Obviously I'm not saying that someone should take a giant dump over the GM after a game is over--but you shouldn't do that to other players either, so why emphasize it with regard to GMs? Sometimes you're going to get into a disagreement with a GM about how something was handled, I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other disagreement.

To be clear, I'm not at all saying "treat GMs like shit!", I'm just saying to treat them the same as you'd treat anyone else in the AAR. If GMs aren't open to constructive criticism, how can we expect a GM to ever improve, or make more balanced and/or more fun games? Like, yes, absolutely treat them with respect...but you should be treating everyone like they're a person, not just the GM, and I think singling them out like that as pertains to an AAR just serves to make people less likely to share their thoughts on flaws they might've seen in the game, which isn't really healthy for anyone.

I have never seen a game GMed with anything except the explicit purpose of making it run as smoothly and fairly as possible. If someone can point me to at least one exception, I'd love to see it.

So, considering that GMs are working with this goal, what's wrong with asking people to present their opinions respectfully? I never said not to discuss the rulings, just to do so with respect.

Things I'd be inclined to edit or remove:

1) I actually think it's generally acceptable to take umbrage with what the mod is doing, when the mod has made some kind of error, when it's clear a setup is busted, etc. I think there's probably some amount of tweaking that's worth discussing here, since "let's all bitch about the mod" is obviously an unhealthy game state, but "demand silence when weird shit is going on" is also not really something that makes that much sense (IMO anyway). In particular, I think it's reasonable for people to discuss setup issues (especially balance), and fairly unreasonable to demand silence on that front in a game.


Things I'd be inclined to add:

1) A rule saying not to discuss ongoing games
2) A rule discussing what to do when people are violating rules, particularly wrt toxicity and obnoxiousness. Who should be reported to? Is it ok or nor to ok to discuss this sort of behavior in thread? This in particular strikes me as something that shouldn't be up to the preferences of the particular game host.
3) A rule noting that deadposting is not allowed (except at game host discretion)
4) Rules discussing angleshooting, using out of game information, exploiting loopholes (other than mechanical breaking strategies designed around a game's structure), etc.

PS I've found https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/th ... orum-Rules to be a pretty decent set of rules, though obviously the structure there and the structure here aren't the same and don't need to be the same. But it's still imo helpful for listing out a lot of things that should at least be thought on before we decide as a community whether we want to be stricter or looser on various issues.

You say that this demands silence when weird stuff is going on. I'm not demanding that at all. Instead, I'm demanding that people don't dispute GM decisions in-thread, creating an unacceptable thread environment. I can see discussing balance as fine, but I don't think I barred that with this ruleset, did I?

Those are good rules to add, I'll do so.

[Nanook]

I have never seen a game GMed with anything except the explicit purpose of making it run as smoothly and fairly as possible. If someone can point me to at least one exception, I'd love to see it.

So, considering that GMs are working with this goal, what's wrong with asking people to present their opinions respectfully? I never said not to discuss the rulings, just to do so with respect.

My point isn't that GMs approach a game with ill-intent...it's that by elevating them even in the AAR like this, you remove some room to constructively criticize them for either how they handled a situation or game design. You're essentially saying that the GM is God both in thread and after the game is over. In thread, sure, fine, a game that becomes "everyone shit on the GM" isn't fun for anyone. In the AAR, they should be treated with respect, obviously...but I don't see the need to elevate them above anyone else once the game is over. Like, why is it any more important to be respectful in the AAR to a GM than to a player?

[condude1]

I have never seen a game GMed with anything except the explicit purpose of making it run as smoothly and fairly as possible. If someone can point me to at least one exception, I'd love to see it.

So, considering that GMs are working with this goal, what's wrong with asking people to present their opinions respectfully? I never said not to discuss the rulings, just to do so with respect.

My point isn't that GMs approach a game with ill-intent...it's that by elevating them even in the AAR like this, you remove some room to constructively criticize them for either how they handled a situation or game design. You're essentially saying that the GM is God both in thread and after the game is over. In thread, sure, fine, a game that becomes "everyone shit on the GM" isn't fun for anyone. In the AAR, they should be treated with respect, obviously...but I don't see the need to elevate them above anyone else once the game is over. Like, why is it any more important to be respectful in the AAR to a GM than to a player?

The main difference in my mind is that players don't always act in the best interests of everyone, or even their faction. Emotions often cause them to make poor decisions, and those can be faulted more than poor decisions made with the goal of improving everyone's time and effort. For example, a player trolling the thread happens fairly frequently, whereas I have never once seen a GM do so, unless it was specifically intended to improve the game (such as my Improvised ruleset, which could be considered trolly, but at the same time, was intended as a puzzle for everyone to solve, and done with the intent of game integrity/fun).

I also never said not to criticize the GM in the AAR. I said be respectful. Escalating tensions happen in-game, and can leak over into the AAR, which is fine, but the only times I've seen actual disrespect towards GMs is in certain context where players disagreed with a ruling. That should not be grounds for disrespect.

[Nanook]

I dunno. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I don't really see the need to elevate the GM in the AAR too. Has this been an issue? If it hasn't...I don't see any need to codify something that could very possibly lead to reduced discussion around what is a fair ruling or not, or whether a game was balanced or not, if we're not having issues with the way GMs are treated in AARs.

It also opens up the can of worms of what constitutes disrespect. For example, take a relatively recent game, Galaxy Quest...in that AAR both myself and Keir took strong exception to the way that Telleo ended it, and there was what could be considered an argument in that AAR thread about it. Now, I don't think it was disrespectful, I don't think Keir thought he was being disrespectful either...I don't want to speak for Telleo, but I'm guessing she didn't find it disrespectful either, since she doesn't seem to hate me now and I'm not banned from her games! But...from a different perspective, that could've been taken as disrespectful. So who decides if it is or not? The GM? That hardly seems fair, the game is over! Plus, different people will have different ideas of what is disrespectful and what is respectful disagreement. The Mods? Ok...that brings us back to why the GM is afforded a different level of respect after the game is over than anyone else?

I dunno, I just lean more towards treating the GM as people after the game is over. We're all smart enough to know that no GM here is going to intentionally screw someone's game over, and that they're doing their level best. So why do we need to regulate something that isn't an issue and potentially turn it into one?

I'm also very much not a fan of the GM being in charge of policing the AAR either, which is what this seems to imply, since it's lumped in with the rest of the rules concerning gameplay.

[shadowface]

My two cents on the GM issue is that it isn't really black and white. Personally I think transparency and honesty between GMs and players solves most problems - because both parties are virtually always well intentioned. So getting into an argument with a GM it anyone else I think is fine, so long as both parties are actually trying to understand each other and resolve differences and hopefully learn something. I think as long as you state your grievances from that perspective, it's fine to disagree with the GM or anyone else.

Good idea to create a consensus on some things here, though, condude.

[condude1]

I dunno. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I don't really see the need to elevate the GM in the AAR too. Has this been an issue? If it hasn't...I don't see any need to codify something that could very possibly lead to reduced discussion around what is a fair ruling or not, or whether a game was balanced or not, if we're not having issues with the way GMs are treated in AARs.

It also opens up the can of worms of what constitutes disrespect. For example, take a relatively recent game, Galaxy Quest...in that AAR both myself and Keir took strong exception to the way that Telleo ended it, and there was what could be considered an argument in that AAR thread about it. Now, I don't think it was disrespectful, I don't think Keir thought he was being disrespectful either...I don't want to speak for Telleo, but I'm guessing she didn't find it disrespectful either, since she doesn't seem to hate me now and I'm not banned from her games! But...from a different perspective, that could've been taken as disrespectful. So who decides if it is or not? The GM? That hardly seems fair, the game is over! Plus, different people will have different ideas of what is disrespectful and what is respectful disagreement. The Mods? Ok...that brings us back to why the GM is afforded a different level of respect after the game is over than anyone else?

I dunno, I just lean more towards treating the GM as people after the game is over. We're all smart enough to know that no GM here is going to intentionally screw someone's game over, and that they're doing their level best. So why do we need to regulate something that isn't an issue and potentially turn it into one?

I'm also very much not a fan of the GM being in charge of policing the AAR either, which is what this seems to imply, since it's lumped in with the rest of the rules concerning gameplay.

Hmmm, you bring up a good point. I'll consider it, and probably end up changing this.

[kimpossible]

I like the idea of a general default ruleset we can link to. I'll confess that part of why I fucked a couple things up in my first game here was that I have some neuro-atypical issues with maintaining focus and reading comprehension throughout large posts with a lot of different formatting, and I lost track of things while trying to absorb it all. Separating it out and having it cleanly formatted would certainly help me with that.

A few small suggestions:

1: Play to your victory condition. This means no throwing in the towel and no emotional outbreaks that hurt your team. The GM is expected to contact the player before taking action on this rule.

I got into a tiff with Starwatcher in Galaxy Quest over interpretation of this regarding the Kool-Aid Plan, and consequently my own phrasing of it specifies that players may pursue strategies they believe in good faith will help them win the game, and does not mean they are compelled to pursue the most mathematically sound strategy. If people wanna get pedantic, let's just cut that off at the trailhead.

5: Activity. STAY ACTIVE! I ask for a minimum of 30-45 minutes per day of posting, excluding reading time. Everyone falls behind a few pages from time to time, but if you find that you’re posting everything in a vacuum, and are posting very little each day, please sub out, for the integrity of the game. I will replace you if I find that you are seriously detracting from the flow of the game for an extended period of time.

I have started using phrasing that I expect players to put in enough time to respect the time their fellow players invest in the game, and that it usually means about 1 - 2 hours per day, even if that isn't the absolute minimum enforceable level. I think it does everyone a disservice if we underestimate how much time people really need to put in to keep up.

7: Substitutions. Please do not discuss substitutions. Substitutions are already not pleasant situations, and using substitutions to determine alignment is metagaming, and compromising the game’s integrity more than it already has been compromised. If you want or need a substitute, PM the GM and you will be subbed out as soon as possible.

I include language here from the open-door policy used in my East Coast roleplaying scene: "Players may request a sub for any reason; you are ultimately more important than a game." Personally, I've powered through some major moments of "I'm not sure I can handle this" levels of stress, and while I think most of us are capable of regrouping and coming back to the game in that kind of situation, if someone is seriously affected I want them to know I won't be angry at them for bringing that to me.

8.1: Don't be discriminatory. No homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist etc. comments. AT ABSOLUTE MINIMUM you will be harshly reprimanded by GM and mods alike, and if we deem it anything other than a sloppy choice of words, or it is a repeat offense, or it is met by anything other than a complete, unequivocal apology, you can expect to be modkilled (or replaced) and blacklisted by the majority of the GMs in the mafia forums.

Please put in here to use players' preferred pronouns if requested. I also like including misogynistic in the list, which I realize is kind of a subset of sexist but also overlaps with a lot of homophobic language.

My suggestion for phrasing the GM stuff at the end:

9.1 During the game, the GM is always right. GM rulings may be discussed in the game when relevant to play, but save disputes for the AAR. It is assumed that GMs are all acting to their utmost to ensure that game integrity is as intact as possible and games run smoothly, and sometimes GMs have to make calls that may be unpopular in order to preserve overall balance. If you actually suspect a GM (for some strange reason) is not working towards this end, please contact a moderator, but be warned that we will, in the vast majority of situations, side with the GM.

9.2 Constructive criticism and discussion of frustration is welcomed in the AAR, though remember we're all human and nobody wants to feel like shit for mistakes or having had to make a tough call. Try to respect everyone and be mature, even when you're upset.

I'm a fan in general of encouraging people to remember "We're all humans" and reinforcing the general spirit of "Don't be a dick."

This also definitely needs a rule for "Do not discuss the game outside of official communication channels. These may differ from game to game, but any external communication between players is always prohibited. This includes discussing the game on other threads within the forum, and applies to dead players as well."