What's that all about by the way?

Well I'm glad I didn't give you #1 in that game because then I wouldn't have been scum.

I just liked picking what I think is a lucky seat.

Well it was lucky for me!

Can I be #4? :P

I'd love to play again, but I should sit the next one out if it's starting soon as I'm going camping and will be short on opportunities to charge my phone (and also playing mafia via phone browser is a horrible horrible experience).

I'm busy for the next two weeks, but after an appropriate break I'd like to get a chance to play.

Yay mafia!

Someone do another game, quickly!

I have at least 6 set-ups ready to go. I probably will just do one of them.

I'll make a sign-up board over the next few days if no-one else wants to stake a claim.

Noo!

I fear I will be unavailable to play, which makes me sad because your games are always funny. Well I guess if you have 6 ready to go I can probably catch the next one. Save the best one for me will you?

Oh, yeah regarding this. I didn't want to post while the game was in progress.

My personal opinion is against such restrictions. Especially the second one. I played Resistance a lot with various people, from close friends to complete strangers, and to me the meta aspect and the referencing to previous games and out-of-game knowledge was always part of it. All the talk never made any strangers feel excluded (but then maybe because we usually played it while drinking...).
I was probably the most newest player in this last mafia game, and all the references to past games didn't make me feel excluded. Sure, I didn't get most of them, but they could still be a source of useful meta-read to see who thinks what about whom. Worst case I just ignored them.

Regardless, universal rules should only be against game-breaking practices. Cryptoclaiming and side betting can completely spoil the game. The above two, while I can see how they might be annoying to some people, don't really give anyone an unfair advantage. If a mod wants to include them in his/her games, they can do so.

Ah yes. I too had opinions on these that I didn't express because I was in the game.

I sort of agree with A in that I think it should be discouraged, but ultimately it's unenforceable as, unlike posts, there's no mark to show something has been edited. I agree that it's a good rule to have, but we mostly have to rely on peoples' honour since there's no simple way to catch someone doing it. But yes, a rule against it would prevent people from looking for meaning there, which seems sensible to me.

B on the other hand I disagree with as an actual rule. I see where it's coming from, and there were certainly lots of references to games I wasn't around for and thus didn't get. I just don't think it would be fair to make it a rule.

I'm kinda backing away from B. I've no personal fondness for excessive metagaming, but I don't see myself being able to enforce a restriction against it.

I'm sticking to my guns on A though. I found the back and forth between you and ZFR really funny, but it added an unmoderateable side chat into the game, especially when those titles were referenced in the body of in-game posts. Those messages weren't in full view for everyone to see, as in some cases they changed before everyone would have seen them. Regardless of whether they actually had any bearing on the game, their ability to affect it made it unfair on others. Additionally, as mentioned in the #53 thread flub's avatar stuff had a substantial impact on the game in play. I don't know if flub intended it from the start, but his avatar rapidly turned into a scum falseclaim which generated a very large amount of discussion. That tied my hands in acting, because I couldn't take back an element that was already inserted into the game. When he later changed his avatar to a Cylon toaster during the night phase, when communication was prohibited, it resulted in Joe vigging him. The overall impact of that was in my view unacceptable. Regardless of whether it's made a global rule, I would prohibit breadcrumbing/softclaims and any type of game communication using avatars and forum titles in future.

I actually agree with A), unless the stipulation is that players change their avatar before PMs go out. If we did a "flapper" game, for example, it might be amusing to have everyone choose their avatar.


For me, the B) question comes down to "what do we want these games to be"?

We are, myself included, not the most technically proficient crowd. If we enforce B) it would be in the interest of trying to make these games more serious, and more skillful. Instead we're kinda like a bunch of drunk friends who gather up to play sloppily and yell at each other. And if that's the case, enforcing B) kinda takes a lot of that element and draw away.

So I think it would have to be in pursuit of trying to just have very different games than we've tended to have. Maybe that would attract new players and grow the scene, or maybe it would just drive off players.

As someone who's not going to be a regular player either way, and could see the appeal of either style, I don't have a strong opinion, I just think we'd have to be clear that that's what collectively people wanted to pursue. And my sense is that's not the case, and people who want that (yogs, cristi) have tended to drift off to play on other sites where that is more the scene.

This is what I like about GOG mafia. I wouldn't want to play somewhere like MU because I have no desire to take it that seriously. Also I'm just terrible at the game.

Most important question: who mods the next game?