The issue of liking posts

[ranmaru]

is it really? if you pop in the forums and everyone from your mafia team has 20 seemingly random likes from the same dude it’s kinda obvious they’re the traitor lmao

and they can remove the votes afterwards

I think if they made it obvious, then that's still public information and valid. Yet I would think what goes too far is removing a like. It's the same as editing a post, and that is not allowed either. If you like a post, no taking that back in my opinion.

I'd say that directly violates communicating in code.

Then what does bread crumbing fall in, and how is it different than what you propose? I'm going to say that it's easier we just leave likes for non-game content in mafia games as some hosts had it. I was going to say just consider that like strategy as 'code' but does liking a post that you agree with fall in that category?

 

[Ben Holt]

Aww man, I thought this was a forum game about liking posts at first.

Plot twist: This IS a game. We just haven't deciphered the clues yet.

 

[Xivii]

I feel naked.

 

[ranmaru]

Plot twist: This IS a game. We just haven't deciphered the clues yet.

He gets it.

 

[ranmaru]

Actually, let's just consider it a gentlemen's rule that we don't use likes as strategy and then make rules if that gets out of control. How about that?

 

[Xivii]

I think I agree with your previous stance that it's fine for traitor to attempt to crumb that way; however, unliking posts should be forbidden in all cases.

 

[ranmaru]

Agreed with that. You said what I said better.

 

[Xivii]

Then what does bread crumbing fall in, and how is it different than what you propose? I'm going to say that it's easier we just leave likes for non-game content in mafia games as some hosts had it. I was going to say just consider that like strategy as 'code' but does liking a post that you agree with fall in that category?

The difference between crumbing and code is that code is

1) intended to communicate information to an individual or select few, and
2) does so through some sort of key or cypher

So the reason why ExLight's strategy would be considered using code is that it was intended for him alone to receive the information, and it utilized a key whereby he would gain specific knowledge based on the type of like he received.

Traitor liking mafia member's posts (without unliking) would be considered crumbing because the information is accessible to everyone and it does not utilize a key. For all the mafia members know, it could just be a player coincidentally liking their posts. Again though, this presumes that likes aren't revoked and a specific communication method isn't established privately / before the game, which would also be a rule violation.

 

[ExLight]

Yet I would think what goes too far is removing a like. It's the same as editing a post, and that is not allowed either. If you like a post, no taking that back in my opinion

easier said than done tho
it’s prolly pretty hard to check whether or not a person removed a like since it leaves pretty much no traces tho, and even harder to verify whether or not it had bad intentions behind it :v

 

[#HBC | Kary]

easier said than done tho
it’s prolly pretty hard to check whether or not a person removed a like since it leaves pretty much no traces tho, and even harder to verify whether or not it had bad intentions behind it :v

forum mafia relies on trust and the players acting in good faith

 

[ranmaru]

Hence gentlemen's rule; Otherwise mod could probably verify if the like was removed. Need confirmation on this though.

 

[osieorb18]

The difference between crumbing and code is that code is

1) intended to communicate information to an individual or select few, and
2) does so through some sort of key or cypher

So the reason why ExLight's strategy would be considered using code is that it was intended for him alone to receive the information, and it utilized a key whereby he would gain specific knowledge based on the type of like he received.

Traitor liking mafia member's posts (without unliking) would be considered crumbing because the information is accessible to everyone and it does not utilize a key. For all the mafia members know, it could just be a player coincidentally liking their posts. Again though, this presumes that likes aren't revoked and a specific communication method isn't established privately / before the game, which would also be a rule violation.

But do the non-mafia members know that a traitor exists in this hypothetical? Because otherwise, this is intended to communicate information to an individual or select few, and it is in a code of sorts. It may be simple, but it is concerning. I think if the traitor doesn't know exactly who the mafia is, then there's a little bit less of an issue, or if the existence of a traitor is publicly known.... All that said, I think the likes having any game significance in terms of strategy is questionable. I've only had one game in which I used likes for strategical purposes, on another site, and I felt really questionable about it.

 

[osieorb18]

Hence gentlemen's rule; Otherwise mod could probably verify if the like was removed. Need confirmation on this though.

I don't believe that there is a log.

 

[Xivii]

But do the non-mafia members know that a traitor exists in this hypothetical? Because otherwise, this is intended to communicate information to an individual or select few, and it is in a code of sorts. It may be simple, but it is concerning. I think if the traitor doesn't know exactly who the mafia is, then there's a little bit less of an issue, or if the existence of a traitor is publicly known.... All that said, I think the likes having any game significance in terms of strategy is questionable. I've only had one game in which I used likes for strategical purposes, on another site, and I felt really questionable about it.

In the scenario I was imagining, the traitor is public knowledge; however, I would still consider it fair even if it were not (perhaps even more so since mafia themselves wouldn't be aware of traitor's existence, so the intent behind the likes would be even more obfuscated).

To be clear, I'd argue that both conditions would need to be met for something to be considered beyond the scope of crumbing; but that the application of just one or the other is fair. So, for example, publically writing "Can Overswarm bake Pancakes" is crumbing because while the second condition is met -- the message utilizes a cypher -- it is not known to (just) a subset of the potential players. It can be spotted by anyone and it can be overlooked by everyone. However, if the player were to specifically give the instructions to another player privately (e.g. before the game player A told player B to look out for the capital letters in their 3rd post), then the first condition would also be met and so it would be a violation.

On the other end, with the traitor example, the first condition would be met but the second would not. The traitor would be attempting to communicate with a subset of players (the mafia), but that subset of players would not have a private key that they could use to decode the traitor's communication (again, unless this was established privately by some other means). Any action that the traitor makes to communicate with the mafia can be publically spotted and scrutinized. The mafia would have an advantage in identifying the traitor based on the fact that they would be aware of their own role as mafia, but this is not the same as having a private key (they couldn't say for sure whether the traitor liking their post is a message or coincidence, in the same way that they couldn't say for sure whether the traitor town reading all of them or grouping them all in the same position on their read list is coincidence).

 

[UtopianPoyzin]

Yet I would think what goes too far is removing a like. It's the same as editing a post, and that is not allowed either. If you like a post, no taking that back in my opinion.

This ^

Anybody can see likes on posts, and can make their own interpretations of these reactions. To this point, likes are kinda like pseudo-posts — basic reactions that don’t need a full message to communicate. With this analogy in hand, I agree that removing likes is removing content, and should not be allowed.

 

[osieorb18]

In the scenario I was imagining, the traitor is public knowledge; however, I would still consider it fair even if it were not (perhaps even more so since mafia themselves wouldn't be aware of traitor's existence, so the intent behind the likes would be even more obfuscated).

To be clear, I'd argue that both conditions would need to be met for something to be considered beyond the scope of crumbing; but that the application of just one or the other is fair. So, for example, publically writing "Can Overswarm bake Pancakes" is crumbing because while the second condition is met -- the message utilizes a cypher -- it is not known to (just) a subset of the potential players. It can be spotted by anyone and it can be overlooked by everyone. However, if the player were to specifically give the instructions to another player privately (e.g. before the game player A told player B to look out for the capital letters in their 3rd post), then the first condition would also be met and so it would be a violation.

On the other end, with the traitor example, the first condition would be met but the second would not. The traitor would be attempting to communicate with a subset of players (the mafia), but that subset of players would not have a private key that they could use to decode the traitor's communication (again, unless this was established privately by some other means). Any action that the traitor makes to communicate with the mafia can be publically spotted and scrutinized. The mafia would have an advantage in identifying the traitor based on the fact that they would be aware of their own role as mafia, but this is not the same as having a private key (they couldn't say for sure whether the traitor liking their post is a message or coincidence, in the same way that they couldn't say for sure whether the traitor town reading all of them or grouping them all in the same position on their read list is coincidence).

Oh. I was imagining the mafia knowing of the traitor but not the town.