ESPIONAGE: A brand new simple forum game! (Central Rules & Information Topic)

[Kleene Onigiri]

I had a random thought.

Would putting the spy and detective in every list maybe solve/help the problem with people posting lists?
The problem that arises with that is, that people not on the list are certainly civilians. But if the lists are big enough, maybe that won't be much of a problem?

Like with 11 players, making the list 8 units big?

We could also have a small lists of trusted civilians. So they know for sure everyone on the list is a civilian.

True. Guess that's the same just the other way round XD
I''m not sure if that would be enough info in order to find the spy tho :V

[Jd-]

A couple of things I want to gather opinions on here:

---

Is it too hard to find the Informants, is it too easy, or is it just right?

Someone mentioned that there should be a way of locating the Informants. I proposed this several pages back, but after playing as them, I think it feels just about right where it is right now. This is a role where you're already putting yourself out there if you intend to have a direct impact on the flow of the game, so... I think being able to locate them (as someone pointed out when I originally mentioned this) hampers their ability to create the cover that the Spy/Spies need.

On a related note, I think the Informant role is really a fun and challenging one at its core. It was the most fun (and most trying) I've had in a community game in a long, long time, and really put me through my paces trying to manage that web of madness KL & I had crafted.

---

I'm proposing that the Informants be given a one-time-use kill ability.

This ability comes in the form of a "cover-up", where it's obvious to the civilians that the targeted player "died in a suspicious way that appeared to be an accident." This ability can only be used by ONE Informant per game. So if there's one Informant, if there's two, if there's three, it doesn't matter--only one of them can ever use it. If both send in different accident arrangements, whichever was sent last on a given phase is what takes place. If the targeted player is arrested, it's considered un-used and can be used later instead (barring any changes to the order of operations; discussed below).

I think this ability would create a really interesting situation, because the civilians will always have to wonder when the Informants will use the ability. Will they use it immediately, or will they wait until the end? There are pros and cons to using it at both ends.

Personally, I feel that the Spy/Informant team needs just a bit more juice, and I think this may be the answer.

---

Should the Spy's kills take place before the vote to hamper voting initiatives?

I imagine this one will be the most controversial. However, it would add an interesting wrinkle to the mix: Civilians would now have reason to fear arranging votes, because the Spy's kill ability would be moved up to happen before the arrest tally is made and thus the dead player's vote would not count in the end. This has both pros and cons. It creates a really, really hectic voting situation, which could be exciting if not really confusing. It may give too much power to the Spy in the end-game, or it may not. I'd like to hear a range of thoughts, pros and cons, on this subject because I think it could be something that really gives the Spy side an advantage that they kind of need. I'm not sure if I'd like this or not, but I do want to hear thoughts on it (Fujiwara & Togop specifically, since they were involved in the first voting initiative from last round). The major downside, of course, is that it gives the civilians less to do, and I don't like that, of course.

I'd especially like to hear from Kamite/breva and The Eternal Spy Raiden on this subject if they have a few minutes!

---

My #1 goal for overhauling the rules is to change the lists. Lists need to be shareable, but there needs to be a real risk to it: a reason to not share your list, in other words.

There are a couple of options here. The problem is that, as soon as the Detectives are dead, there's really no reason for everyone to not post their lists in full and quickly find the Spy.

---

It seems that the rule changes made prior to last round worked out well. Anyone feel otherwise?

The self-voting penalty and everything seems to be a fair addition, so that will return in future rounds.

[Jd-]

Also:

The next team round will definitely be with Secret Teams.

We've had a good run with paired-team units in the last one, but we're ready to go big now, I think. In the Secret Teams arrangement, everyone will be assigned a partner at the onset. However, unlike the last round, only you will know who your partner is for the entire game. Even if both of you die, no one will know if that was your partner or not. You will be able to PM your partner at any time. Civilian teams will share the same list, but are able to vote separately. Detectives and Spies will share an action (such as Detectives using only one Investigate per phase, with only one kill per phase for the Spies).

There will exist two Spies and two Detectives, who are partners and allowed to PM each other at any time. HOWEVER: Unlike the previous round, these two teams will not live and die together. It is undecided exactly how the end-game/win conditions will work, but I have some ideas on how to handle it. We'll wait until it's time for such a round to decide. We may even do it next if people want to do so.

[shinichi'sapprentice]

nooooooooooooo!!!!!! i thought the secret team variant will be at round 5 or 6??! this espionage edition is interesting/confusing/and complicated!! aahhhhhHHH!! and not to mention, new!! what a self punishment i inflicted to myself. don't you think we should take a break and go back to individual playing first? and . . . . . . *sigh* whatever that was just selfish of me. it's a punishment. so i have no right to complain.

*back to posting*

[Jd-]

nooooooooooooo!!!!!! i thought the secret team variant will be at round 5 or 6??! this espionage edition is interesting/confusing/and complicated!! aahhhhhHHH!! and not to mention, new!! what a self punishment i inflicted to myself. don't you think we should take a break and go back to individual playing first? and . . . . . . *sigh* whatever that was just selfish of me. it's a punishment. so i have no right to complain.

*back to posting*

I think we can go back to the normal version, sure! Nothing's decided yet, never fear.

[Togop]

As I said earlier,A couple of things I want to gather opinions on here:

---

Is it too hard to find the Informants, is it too easy, or is it just right?

I think it's just right. I also find it a very interesting role (though I haven't played it myself). As I said earlier, I think finding others' roles through abilities worsens the game, as the point is to figure them out through deductions. So I'm against abilities to find the detective.

I'm proposing that the Informants be given a one-time-use kill ability.

I don't mind that, but it's not something to actually complement the informant role.
Twice per game, each informant gets to silence one vote (i.e. the vote doesn't count, and is reported as illegible (you could use two in one round). However, in the end game (after the detective's out), no more than one vote can be silenced per informant (as it would be boring if all silences are saved for the end game).
Another thing I feel the informants lack is a way to contact the spy. I'd limit it to once per game, but there should be a way.

Should the Spy's kills take place before the vote to hamper voting initiatives?

It seems more fitting if the informants had such a power, not the spies. Additionally, this feels too powerful, which is why I suggested a limited version instead.

It seems that the rule changes made prior to last round worked out well. Anyone feel otherwise?

The self-voting penalty and everything seems to be a fair addition, so that will return in future rounds.

I agree.

[Kleene Onigiri]

- Is it too hard to find the Informants, is it too easy, or is it just right?
I also think it's just right. Tho there were just 2 games with informants so far. One was more passive and the other one was more active.

- I'm proposing that the Informants be given a one-time-use kill ability.
I don't think that's so good. Because killing is the trademark for the spy. You also try to deduct who the spy is according on who got killed too. So if informant can do that once too, maybe it'll be too hard then.
But that also depends whether you do the other changes too. Like if the kill eliminates a vote, then I wouldn't give the informant a kill ability.

- Should the Spy's kills take place before the vote to hamper voting initiatives?
This could really change the game at the end, when there are just a few people left. Like there are 2 nominations and the votes would be a tie, the spy has an advantage here with his kill.
On the other hand, the spy could dig his own grave with killing a team that would have made a tie in favor for the spy XD but because of killing them, the spy ends up getting arrested ^^"
But that could also be interesting. That way the spy would need to know who he can kill or who he shouldn't kill so he doesn't get arrested because of that. And with that, the town can also read more into the kills too. Like someone who voted Fuji was killed could make fuji suspicious etc.
I think it's worth to try it out at least \o/

- My #1 goal for overhauling the rules is to change the lists. Lists need to be shareable, but there needs to be a real risk to it: a reason to not share your list, in other words.
"There are a couple of options here. The problem is that, as soon as the Detectives are dead, there's really no reason for everyone to not post their lists in full and quickly find the Spy."
Well, if it's easier to figure out the spy when everyone posts their list, you could change the time the town has to find the spy from 2 phases to 1 phase?
That way, everyone has to figure out the spy faster and post their list soon enough. Which makes it more challenging?

[Fujiwara]

All right, let’s talk rules and regulations.

Is it too hard to find the Informants, is it too easy, or is it just right?

I think it’s just right as well. Making themselves suspicious is basically in their job description and it’s up to the civilians and detective to deduce their informant status from their posts instead of relying on any actions. This is what makes informants such an interesting part of the game.

On a related note, I think the Informant role is really a fun and challenging one at its core. It was the most fun (and most trying) I've had in a community game in a long, long time, and really put me through my paces trying to manage that web of madness KL & I had crafted.

Indeed, it seems like a fun role and I’m looking forward to playing it myself sometime in the future. ^_^

I'm proposing that the Informants be given a one-time-use kill ability.

[...]

Personally, I feel that the Spy/Informant team needs just a bit more juice, and I think this may be the answer.

I agree that the spy/informant side is at a disadvantage with the current setup, so I think this is a good idea. Togop’s alternative idea of giving the informants the ability to silence a vote once or twice per round would also work very well, I believe.

Should the Spy's kills take place before the vote to hamper voting initiatives?

Like Togop, I believe this might to too powerful and, as you said yourself, giving the civilians less to do is pretty much against the spirit of the game. Trying to get civilian initiatives and alliances together is where the fun begins, I’d say.
I do think giving the informant(s) the power to cancel votes in a limited way is a pretty good middle ground. Of course, if others are in favor of this I wouldn’t mind trying it out.

It seems that the rule changes made prior to last round worked out well. Anyone feel otherwise?

No, I quite agree, the self-voting is a big improvement, imo.

And last but not least ...

My #1 goal for overhauling the rules is to change the lists. Lists need to be shareable, but there needs to be a real risk to it: a reason to not share your list, in other words.

There are a couple of options here. The problem is that, as soon as the Detectives are dead, there's really no reason for everyone to not post their lists in full and quickly find the Spy.

Yep, that is a pretty big problem. I’ve been thinking about this for the past two days, but I haven’t been able to come up with a satisfactory solution.

First let me respond to some ideas that were brought up.

I had a random thought.
Would putting the spy and detective in every list maybe solve/help the problem with people posting lists?
The problem that arises with that is, that people not on the list are certainly civilians. But if the lists are big enough, maybe that won't be much of a problem?

Like with 11 players, making the list 8 units big?

I don’t think this solves the problem. It still means that once the detective is taken out, you just have to look for the one name that appears on (at least) all but X lists, with X = 1 + number of informants still in the game. This makes it almost certain that the spy will be arrested. Ironically, it makes it easier to identify the spy the sooner the detective gets taken out of the game (more civilian lists), when the exact opposite should happen.

It’s a problem with the current system as well, imo. Even if people were able to keep their lists secret, there’s the fact that once the spy side has made their winninng move (getting the detective out of the game), the civilians suddenly get a very powerful tool to identify the spy, when in fact the chances of the civilians winning should drop at this point.

We could also have a small lists of trusted civilians. So they know for sure everyone on the list is a civilian.

Er, no, that doesn’t work at all. This will allow us to identify all civilians and rob the spy of any chance of winning. Why? It’s quite simple. Let’s say it’s a super small list, just one person, but I know this person is a civilian. My list says Togop is a civilian so, I say I trust Togop. Togop’s list says Jd is a civilian, so Togop says he trusts Jd. Jd’s list says Stopwatch is a civ, so Jd announces that he trusts Stopwatch. What happens? I know Togop is a civ, so he has no reason to lie about Jd, etc, meaning that I now know not only that Togop is a civilian, but that Jd and Stopwatch are civilians as well. Just like that. This chain won’t go on forever (if the names are randomized), but there’ll be a lot of these chains of trust and the spy and informant will never be a part of them ...
It works better if you include the informants in the pool of 'trustworthy civilians,' as you should, since they’re supposed to be indistinguishable from normal civilians. However, the informants would then be absolutely forced to name the spy as 'their' trustworthy civilian, which means you would know who the spy is as soon as you’ve uncovered the informant, whereas it should be possible for the informant to lay a false trail.

But, as I said, I haven’t actually been able to find a solution to the list problem myself.
I’ll think some more on the matter ...

[Jd-]

Plenty of really, really excellent discussion here! Many thanks to everyone taking the time to think over how to sort everything out in a way that's appeasing for everyone.

I do think giving the informant(s) the power to cancel votes in a limited way is a pretty good middle ground. Of course, if others are in favor of this I wouldn’t mind trying it out.

Indeed, I like this idea too. I'll think more about it today. Actually, one interesting caveat that could come with this is allowing them to not just cancel a vote, but instead change it. Either we could make it so they could have someone's vote cancelled and that team auto-votes for themselves, or we could make it so that the Informant team could not only cancel someone's original vote but designate their new target.

It opens up a couple of fun avenues for future rounds, but also may not work as intended. Sometimes, people would have trouble defending their vote, but other times, probably not. Something to think about, at least.

It’s a problem with the current system as well, imo. Even if people were able to keep their lists secret, there’s the fact that once the spy side has made their winninng move (getting the detective out of the game), the civilians suddenly get a very powerful tool to identify the spy, when in fact the chances of the civilians winning should drop at this point.

Yep, as soon as this happened and shinichi'sapprentice began telling people to look at their lists because if it didn't contain Jellitto/Kain, it had to contain the Spies, I realized that was something we didn't really anticipate. However: On that same token, this game is probably a little bit of an anomaly, as the lists were quite small compared to the usual size they would normally come in. In Rounds 1 & 2, some people had only one or two, if no, names eliminated from their list. So, maybe this problem isn't as egregious as it first seems? Of course, this doesn't solve the sharing problem, so back to the drawin' board.

[shinichi'sapprentice]

i repeatedly kept pleading for people to speak up in hope that someone will creatively nominate who they think was the spy based on their detective-less list. i agree that no one really intended to break any rules. and also, wasn't team 10, also in team8: miyano's list. i'd like to hear why she nominated team 7 instead then.

if only she was able to go online on the last phase of the game.
if only she had the time to think thoroughly of how she can better share what she has.

i actually just thought of an idea on how she can share her very valuable info without doing what she did.

i'm still on my phone right now, so it's troublesome to look back exactly on when things happened. if i remember correctly, it was day4 when she had the time to finally be able to post? maybe she could have said this:

"i don't think team 5 are the spies. i'll have to agree with shinichi'sapprentice that team 7 actually look more suspicious." blah.blah.blah

maybe she should have supported one of my reasons back then on why i think Team 7 are the spies. but then, she already said that she doesn't have the time to look back on the pages that contains the battle of wall of posts.

i am glad someone has answered my calling. but the unintentional way she chose to do things have caused fear among the other team that don't have the detectives in their list as well! namely, Meme . . ? i was also thankful that my partner was helping me plead to the remaining civilians by saying they shouldn't be afraid of possibly violating rules!! be creative!!!

i have one last thing that i want to post in the round 3 topic before i finally say goodbye to it. i hope i can keep my calm, so i can say all the last things i have for that round.

Later.

--Edit: additional: a more calmer explanation of the last part of my post in that very long post i posted in the round3 topic. i have been waiting patiently for someone to agree with me that Team 7 are the spies. i was greatly affected by the detective's death on day 3. they were on our list. i was the one who sent the vote and initially suggested to my partner that we should vote them. when they were arrested, i started doubting my own self in making decisions. nobody else was backing me up! even my partner has opposing thoughts. we weren't really actually able to elaborately discuss opinions. hope was within reach when miyano first posted. but her follow up posts caused disarray. i stayed as late as i can, waiting if anybody noticed my final post. attacking and defending had occurred. and in the last ray of hope, Togop was too late already. a post is coming. . .

[Jd-]

I think limited-use/one-time-use abilities are definitely the key to striking a new balance that gives the Spies/Informants a bigger edge than they once had.

On the topic of Investigate, I think I want to increase doubts for it a little. Thus far, the Detectives haven't found the Spies directly yet, but they are bound to do so soon enough. At that point, they only have to say something that amounts to: "Arrest me, and then arrest ________" or "If I die, arrest ___________". After they die/are arrested, we'll know what to do. After the Detectives die, after all, we are keen to examine everything they've said, everyone they've voted for, and everyone they've suspected.

I also had the idea of a concept "Spy vs. Spy" round later on, where it would be a triple-threat game where the civilians are facing a Spy who is facing another Spy and vice versa. In that game, each Spy would have his or her own Informants, so there would be three solid camps duking it out to win. Once one Spy is dead, the others have to still escape in a set amount of phases, etc. It's not especially fair to the civilians, but I'm sure we can work out something to make it exciting. I'll file that away in the concepts folder and come back to it if you guys want to check it out sometime.

Also had the idea for a Prosecutor role, but let's work out the lists situation first as I don't want to give any more advantages to the civilian side as it is. I hope to have an idea settled by tomorrow evening... Let us see!

[Fujiwara]

I also had the idea of a concept "Spy vs. Spy" round later on, where it would be a triple-threat game where the civilians are facing a Spy who is facing another Spy and vice versa. In that game, each Spy would have his or her own Informants, so there would be three solid camps duking it out to win. Once one Spy is dead, the others have to still escape in a set amount of phases, etc. It's not especially fair to the civilians, but I'm sure we can work out something to make it exciting. I'll file that away in the concepts folder and come back to it if you guys want to check it out sometime.

Whoa! That sounds like a lot of fun! I definitely want to try that out sometime. ^_^

[Jd-]

New General Rulings for All Rounds

Once you have been killed OR been arrested, you are considered out of the game.
If you are killed in the course of a round or are arrested by the votes from your fellow players, you are no longer allowed to post in the game topic from the moment it is announced that you are out. At this point, you can consider yourself dead for game purposes. You may still PM the GM with any questions you have, but please refrain from any further posts in the topic, including posts wishing good luck, smileys, etc. This is to ensure that everything is fair for all sides. Once you have died, you are also still not allowed to correspond with any other players about the game, in order to ensure everything is even for all sides. If the round in question is a team round, you may no longer advise or contact your teammate in ANY FORM if they are still alive and in the game. However, you may do so if you are both dead or arrested, but please respect the above provisions.

You are NOT allowed to in any way showcase any correspondence from the GM during a round to confirm your role or any information acquired as a result.
This means you are not allowed to present screenshots, no copying and pasting of role assignments or results, no hinting at anything other players wouldn't have access to based on information from the GM, and no replicating of anything the GM has said to confirm your role. If it seems unfair and outside of how the game is intended to play out, it probably is, and as such should not be utilized in the course of a round. Additionally, you are not allowed to encrypt any such content and present codes that need to be decrypted to confirm your role or someone else's. Anything outside of the intended scope of the game in regard to presenting any such information is considered out of bounds and illegal. Should you have any questions, please message the GM prior to posting in order to preserve the balance of the game and ensure fairness for all players.

Informant responses should take place in the form of posts in the designated game topic.
In other words, and should not involve anything outside of it, including posts in other topics or changing your signature or altering any other profile information as confirmation of your role. Additionally, such confirmation posts should not be edited later to remove identifying information.

Keep in mind that once you have posted information in the topic, it cannot be taken back, so please ensure no rules are broken.
From the second something is posted, it's possible another player has seen it. Once that player has seen it, it's not only unfair to other players to withhold that information by deleting it, but its sheer removal validates the information that the players saw in the first place. All players are asked to be extremely diligent and careful with information you post in the topic regarding information that is not meant to be posted publicly. If you are in any way hesitant about posting something, confer with the GM. The GM is there to ensure the game is played fairly on all sides.

The GM will not share the identities of special role players while the game is ongoing, even with dead players or non-players.
This is to ensure the integrity of each round and ensure no one is put at a disadvantage inadvertently.

[Jd-]

New List Proposal: Weighted Totals

One idea for solving the list problem: It is no longer 100% guaranteed your list contains the Spy or Detective. Each list would have, say, 7 names on it, but it would no longer be guaranteed that the Spy/Detective are on it. What may well solve this entire thing is to weight the roles. Let's say that there's only a 35% chance that your list contains the Spy, but there's a 65% chance it contains the Detective. This prevents people from just posting their lists outright at the start of the game, because the Detective will definitely be in serious danger if all those lists were made public. And yet, even at the end, if everyone did post their list, it's no longer guaranteed the Spy would appear on the lists that may or may not have contained the Detective. Since their inclusions will be independent of one another, it's impossible to know if one, both, or either would be on there from the start.

Now, the problem is that a statistical anomaly may present itself in that the Spy may not appear in as many lists as the average player and could be identified this way. Does anyone want to crunch the numbers on this and run some tests?

If so, let's use this experimental list of 20 players (the players from Espionage Round 1, for ease of convenience):

---

Jd-
PhoenixTears
dumytru
Yuri Iwamoto
Kleene Onigiri (Detective)
Commi-Ninja
Meme
Stopwatch
Kamite
Monsi
Raiden (Spy)
shinichi'sapprentice
googleearth
Nix
Conan-chandesune
miyano_shiho
Raifuujin
kkslider5552000
KainTheVampire
aly_angelflight

---

What we want to know is how often the Spy/Detective show up and if the Spy would be in real danger should all the lists be revealed for all 18 civilians at the end of the game. Each list should be of 7 names. Would it be possible to reliably calculate the Spy's identity based on the weighted totals? I'm not a math guy, so I want to be sure that everyone that would possibly take advantage of this runs the numbers and can confirm one way or the other whether this kind of option will work, and if so, if the weighted totals need changing.

[Kleene Onigiri]

If you weight it with 35% chance that your list contains the Spy, but there's a 65% chance it contains the Detective, and you have a list with 7 names in a game of 20 civilians.

And if you're allowed to post your list, you would post your 7 names, which have a 35% chance to have the spy on it and a 65% chance to have the detective. Then the 12 people (without you in it, you know your own role) that aren't on your list actually have a 65% chance to be the spy and just a 35% chance to have the detective on it. (if I'm not mistaken)
So you would actually use the reverse of your list to figure out the spy. Even tho there are 5 people more on your reverse list, the chance that you get the detective is smaller and getting the spy is greater.

I would suggest to make it 50/50% weighting. Then the list of 7 people have a 50/50 chance for each special role to be in. Since the list is smaller than the rest of the people (the 12 people not on the list) your chances are better to find the spy using the list and not the reverse list.