Back to Epicmafia

Rule clarifications

over 9 years

We do have the rules page, but there are a lot of things that are not mentioned in there and are judged based on the precedents set by the previous moderators.

But the problem is that when a new moderator comes in, he or she is not aware of precedence and rules against it. This causes a lot of problem for the users.

If we can list down the cases then we can help users know the rules in a better way. They may not know all at first but if they break that rule once they will know it the second time.

If we can list that in this thread with help of the moderators, veteran users and some report links to provide support for the claims then we can have a comprehensive list that can be updated when needed.

I will start by listing the cases myself.

Encouraging Rule Breakage

Encouraging other people to suicide, spam, cheat or otherwise break a rule. ERB expires when the rule encouraged to break would have expired.

1- If someone is not able to participate in a game and has to leave then asking that person to suicide is not ERB.

Game Related Suicide

Suiciding or intentionally vegging for any game related reason.

1- Attempting to grs is also grs (when you suicide and the game still stays ranked because all votes were on you)

Insufficient Participation

Not participating sufficiently over the course of a game and/or an undefined period of time when addressed by another player or by a threat of votes. Sufficient participation does not include: Using gimmicks to speak - talking about non-game related things - Pretending to be AFK - vote flashing/using votes to communicate (excludes silencer setups and co.) Violation may also be applied if a user causes a loss due to a lack of game-related effort. This rule is only lightly moderated in red heart games.

1- Faking afk as mafia to vote after kicks or blitz is also ISP.

Outside Game Influence

Using tools or processes outside of a game in a game including, but not limited to: posting on profiles, lobbies, or the forums revealing game-related information, clearly stated meta posted on profile, whether followed or not, reporting a player in a game in progress, using third party functions or sites to make in-game decisions, bribes or threats (such as karma, kudos, and reporting), and pregame pacts.

1- If you see any person visiting another person's profile or a forum page and point that out as evidence to support your read on a person then it is ogi.

2- Posting report links and forum links or asking people to check those links to support your read is also ogi. If you are talking about strategic meta and the person believes you without you pointing him to visit a link then it is fine. (Mod please confirm)

Spamming

Repeatedly sending the same message and/or chat flooding. Includes vote spamming. In extreme cases, if someone has received ample warning, and gameplay is disrupted across several games, a violation may be given in unranked Main Lobby

1- Spamming is moderated in Grave Yard, pregame, and Post game as well. I have precedence for this. If it is not moderated anymore then a moderator should confirm. We do understand that the intensity of the spamming is on the discretion of the moderator, but whether it is applicable in pregame, grave yard and post game or not, that should be pointed out here.

Trolling

Antagonizing other players, disrupting gameplay through actions or communications, or otherwise playing to get negative reactions from other players.

1- If an oracle self orcs as strategy, to make mafia slip and give towny reactions is that still trolling or gamethrowing? It has been given a trolling violation previously, but a moderator should confirm it. In some cases it may be gamethrowing (where orcing another person gives autowin or near autowin) and is some cases it might be ok.

I request others to help me compile a list of precedence that are not available in the rules page. I could only list a few so please help me here.

I am trying to make the decision making process easy for the moderators. Keeping everything at discretion always causes controversies.

over 9 years

ScubaSteve says

So if a new player who doesn't understand mechanics of a setup he's never played 3 times over the course of 6 months, you'd lobby ban him?


Being new is an acceptable reason to cause enough loses? I wasn't aware that despite this game not having a skill cap, there were people below the non-existing skill cap ruining games.

There's no situation you can list where everyone at the table is playing to win and someone deserves a gamethrowing violation. Stop being an apologist.
deletedover 9 years

Dibbun says


helsinki says

pranay, i'm gonna be doing a deep dive on the rules page in an effort to clear up misconceptions within the next few days, bear with me


harassment needs to be clarified imo


"Don't be Dibbun"
over 9 years
"or not playing to win" doesn't supersede "shows intent to lose" which is why the rule needs to be reclarified for how it should be enforced in this meta.

There are a lot of instance where the mods are free to say "bad play" when someone throws a game due to negligence simply because neither "intent to lose" or "not playing to win" are present.
deletedover 9 years

UniversalStudios says

This would be a great time to address the fact that gamethrowing shouldn't be based on "intent to lose" because put simply most of the people that use this site have no clue how the game works and don't realize that most to none of their actions actually serve their win condition.

Gamethrowing should be redefined to showing intent to win through both text and actions because showing one through text shouldn't negate mishaps in voting.


So if a new player who doesn't understand mechanics of a setup he's never played 3 times over the course of 6 months, you'd lobby ban him?
over 9 years

helsinki says

pranay, i'm gonna be doing a deep dive on the rules page in an effort to clear up misconceptions within the next few days, bear with me


harassment needs to be clarified imo
over 9 years
Someone can intend to win but still be bad or make silly mistakes. It is an abusable rule, outright game throwing should be very clear.
over 9 years
Game-throwing is not showing demonstrable intent to win. notice the "or not playing to win" clause.
over 9 years
This would be a great time to address the fact that gamethrowing shouldn't be based on "intent to lose" because put simply most of the people that use this site have no clue how the game works and don't realize that most to none of their actions actually serve their win condition.

Gamethrowing should be redefined to showing intent to win through both text and actions because showing one through text shouldn't negate mishaps in voting.
over 9 years
shimmi is still derfel
deletedover 9 years
poster above me was derfel, seeya idiot
deletedover 9 years
pranay, i'm gonna be doing a deep dive on the rules page in an effort to clear up misconceptions within the next few days, bear with me
deletedover 9 years
deletedover 9 years
Somebody reported me for spamming in comp once. It was wild.
over 9 years
Trolling and intentional game throwing rely on subjective opinions of the moderation team. The key point is intentional. Since it is impossible to determine whether someone is intentionally throwing games, there is a free pass to just ban unlucky players or ones that make mistakes.

Edit;

It actually goes to a jury system wherein multiple moderators make a decision to ban and only one other moderator is required to support the initial moderator to make sure that the original judgement passes.

This means that currently, if you get a violation that your chances of it being successfully appealed are only 25%.

The only other possibility would be that the original moderator goes back on their decision, which is unlikely to happen.
over 9 years
helsinki, i need confirmations on the points above
deletedover 9 years
I need the moderators to confirm these cases. Or tell us if they are wrong so we can know what not to do.