But hosts are allowed to blacklist people they don’t like?
If I make a rule that says no one should claim their flavour and then someone bypasses that by saying flavors they are not in order to reveal their flavour to others then I have the right to modkill them because its obvious that I do not want the game to be based on flavour or to be flavour solved. That is the spirit of the game
1 Like
Right. So why are they able to punish people in-game because a global rule can be abused?
You are trying to say that people won’t try to get revenge > retribution.
That is still ‘claiming your flavour’, even if it’s false and not due to ‘angleshooting’.
It should be punished due to the flavor rule. Not angleshooting.
1 Like
Everyone can have oversight when designing complex setups and therefore, playing within the spirit of the game keeps it fair for everyone.
1 Like
But they’re not breaking the rule, they’re not claiming their flavour, they’re just saying flavours they are not
Yes its a host oversight but it is still angleshooting.
Using a loophole in a rule is 100% angleshooting and ruins fun for everyone else.
The host did not mean for you to be able to say ‘attack your fellow mafia members’ because there was no rule but you can’t do it because its angleshooting. Yes you could say it is gamethrowing, but you could argue it was a strategy
1 Like
I’m not a fan of this definition, because it protects the host, not the players. The host has already all power.
Spirit of the game is how the host intended the game to be played.
Therefore, a bastard game has its own spirit
But you can’t know as player how the host intends his game to be played… you cant read his thoughts.
I really don’t understand the arguement Kyo and Priest are making like how hard is it to understand that using loopholes and playing unfairly should be punished?
3 Likes
It’s about having clear rules, you can explain even to a newbie.
“Don’t use loopholes or play unfairly” would be not pretty well defined, but it’s still better than Angleshooting.
“Angleshooting” is an ugly concept for this.
You’re acting like the host’s intentions are completely invisible and you, the player, can’t possibly understand that the host wants everyone to have an equal chance of winning and did not intend for a loophole that gives you an unfair advantage to exist
7 Likes
Like, I don’t know what to call it but I’ll say my intuition tells me that if a loophole around the rule about flavour claiming exists, the host wouldn’t want me to use it
1 Like
A perfectly balanced game of mafia should have 50/50 town to mafia wins. Obviously this is impossible and but the aim is that
I’m not playing mafia… I guess that’s why I never came to this idea… for real, “equal chances of winning” is a new concept for me.