I'd like to play, if I can.

Looks like a good bunch this time, I'll play.

Mememememmemememememememe!!

Pick me.

I'd like to play, but I'm nervous to do so.

Ok.

See, I don't have ANY problem with voting for people like that early on as a day 1 or somethign without better evidence. It's been proven quite clearly that some people make the game less fun because they have their little fits. Why NOT remove them early so the game can be fun for everyone

Because it's discriminatory and if it's part of their personality, they probably have been told before that the way they are acting isn't fun/is unacceptable and it isn't our God(s)-given right to discipline them in such a manner?

Call me odd, but I was actually GLAD Celina had gotten Eros in my game. Gave her a chance to be an integral part of the game, and people knew that they shouldn't just vote her off (because she was town).

Also, as much as you may not like them, they do add a great amount of conversation.

While their behaviour may be disagreeable, I feel it's important to try to get along with these people anyway instead of chastising them for who they are.

/endcomment

Okay, let me give you a scenario. Me and you are playing kick ball. I'm a great player when I want to be, but you don't necessarily need me to win. But, every time I come up to kick, I purposefully AIM to smash someone in the face with the ball, non-discriminatory. Now, after doing this a whole game, if I start the behavior up again, don't you think it'd get me booted off the team?

Although Myrkr's position (not treating people like that even if they've had it patiently explained to them in the past, having no right to vote people off for it, etc.) is kind of incoherent, it's not even just that. When people keep playing in a way that sabotages their team, it doesn't make sense to keep letting them ruin it from a practical perspective either. Remember how Arix completely screwed up that one time, then got voted off day 1 the game after, then started behaving?

Exactly, there need to be consequences, or the games will just keep being ruined

That was my first game dude

I'm confused. On day one, if we don't vote on past experience, what do we vote on that is any less metagaming?

I was more pointing out the fact you started playing properly and not having temper tantrums after that. When people do the latter, it A) makes the game hostile, and is impractical for the town to keep them alive.

EDIT@Rika: Sometimes killing a lurker is helpful, and sometimes something useful comes up in the course of discussion, like how bandwagoning Revan produced his dodgy roleclaim. That doesn't make it -wrong- to start doing the other thing though, just situationally suboptimal.

Oh don't worry Arix, you were just an example

If there are any spots left on the list, I would like to join.

I made a mistake in my first game too. Looking into the MafiaScum wiki helped a lot.

I'm sure Arix would have "behaved" if he didn't get killed off on day one. I'm sure he would have "behaved" no matter what, once he learned the game better.


Basically, if people start voting on day one because of past games, then this basically means that anybody who is not popular, just can't be a mafia role.

Basically, the only reason to be voting for someone because of past game behavior is because they exhibit that behavior again, or they exhibit behavior contrary to most other games. But, if day one starts, and someone hasn't even posted yet, then doing a

I'm going to vote for X because last game, I didn't like him, even though he hasn't even spoken yet. Then you aren't playing mafia anymore.

Your example kind of defeats itself, because if that were the case they could just behave differently (instead of throwing temper tantrums) and then people would unvote them.

The example does not defeat itself as Dag specifically says that if you vote for them because of play in a previous game before they post or show that behavior then you are not playing mafia. It is perfectly fine to vote for them if that behavior shows up in that game and you think it is a reason to vote for them.

I don't see the problem then. If you vote them for their consistent previous behaviour and they react maturely instead of having a temper tantrum and lashing out at people, you can change to someone else. It's just that that hasn't happened yet in the case of certain individuals.

EDIT: Or, you know, similar kinds of things. If the principle is that it's ok to do it for this behaviour as long as they don't repeat it, metagaming is logically quite alright as long as you, uh, don't use an outdated metagame.