Yeah, a sub should be able to deliver insights like "Those PMs are from an old game I played in with packmates X and Y". No question. After the subed-out player has delivered his info dump, he needs to stop doing anything, though.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The problem was that this transpired after the info dump should have occurred. SoL was evidently still monitoring the game and providing information to al-Aziz that Tornadoli should not have had to defend against.
If SoL had been in the game, and accused Tornadoli of having been the recipient of the PMs, Torn could have laughed it off and said of course, that is what a wolf would say. But with al-Aziz as SoL's middle-man, Torn couldn't possibly have a debate with her -- because she is merely parroting what SoL is telling her. She could not synthesize responses. And SoL's meta-rage about the source of the PMs, which made its way into al-Aziz's posts, was wholly unbecoming of a sub.
While I agree that a substitution ought to be seamless, it also ought to be a one-time event -- not a lingering period wherein both the sub and the outgoing player continue to participate. Tornadoli and Delta21 both had a reasonable expectation that they were dealing with al-Aziz only. Had they known that SoL was still allowed to participate in the game (which you people seem to be arguing) then I think it is safe to assume they would have hedged their actions accordingly.
SoL participation in the game in responce to those PMs, really should have been limited to, due to how soon Al-Aziz had replaced him, to tell her that he never sent those PMs and they were from a prior game that was sent to these players.
After that, whatever Al-Aziz wants to do with it in the thread is up to her.
After the transission period (I think 2 days due to timezones), everything really needs to go though the GM if Al-Aziz has any more questions for the player she reaplced or SoL wants to tell her anything more. When a person is subbed out, they need to have time to give infomation to the player replacing them. Otherwise it not fair to the player that is taking over, to not know who that role was in contact with and what they had done so far.
So, should this have come up a few days into the game, Al-Aziz would notice that SoL said nothing to her about those PMs, she ask the GM to pass on a question to SoL if they were sent in this game, and he would reply back with No, they were sent in a prior game to such and such.
Anything more then that is outside of the scope of her question, and it should pass though the GM after 2 days to ensure that it only to fill in missing parts for the player that subbed in. Not because she want to know what SoL thinks about player X or Y.
1) You are exaggerating how long they were both involved (at least in the issues of info transfers), see Wagon's post on the last page for details.
2) The only reason Torn was placed in the position of being unable to defend himself is because he chose to pick on a sub in the first place. So tough stuff.
3) Aziz was placed into a far worst position than Torn was ever in. Nothing she did was "unbecoming."
There are legitimate reasons for subbing out. And you are allowed to pass on information to your sub in, because otherwise it could wreck the game. Say you are the seer and sub out; if you aren't allowed to pass on information your sub in essentially starts from scratch far into the game.
Or you are the JL spokesman; if you don't pass on information a near certain village win can turn into a baddie walkover.
The information passing was finished less than 20 hours after Aziz subbed in. And it was finished before the Delta PM took off.
Why is it reasonable for Torn to pick on a sub out and not allow the sub in the information needed to defend herself?
If I was seer and I subbed out, then I would send all relevant information to my sub through the GM, not independently.
You always take advantage of the player least likely to know you're lying.
On my 3rd Lit (I believe) I got royally ripped off by AOK.11 who was a wolf, played a blinder in PMs and got me to help him hang the rest of the village. I didn't cry foul that as a newbie I didn't know what was happening.
I have always understood the rules to be that when you sub out your influence in the game is over. Sure, let your replacement know what you did *up to the point of subbing out* but any further involvement with the game is off-limits. I do feel that SoL was riding the line telling Aziz that those PMs came from another game but that is dwarfed by his posting in the thread that they were and threatening Delta with reporting if he didn't admit the truth.
Anything the sub wants to relay to the living player should go through the GM to pass on or not at his discretion, exactly to prevent this situation happening.
I don't know (but would love to :V ) what his previous ghost rule breaches were but if he has a history of it then he should be looking at a lengthy ban.
I am however happy that this thread is 69 pages long. Nobody break that.
SoL requesting Delta admit that the PMs were fake and trying to make a public defense AFTER subbing out were far beyond breaking the ghost rules as it was. I'd grant that Aziz was not in an easy position, but at least it was fair according to the rules. The GM would have been right to have autolynched the player, as he indicated he was going to had the vote not have settled the issue.
Suppose that the set up arrived a little later in the game. Would SoL have been allowed to come back 5 days to explain what the deal was with the PMs?
Too bad the "Agree" button was removed. :/
SoL's most recent ghost rule violation was, IIRC, in I5's Big wherein he lied in the thread (as a ghost) about his reasons for brutalising another player.
Yep. Since sub = new incarnation of same role all info what happened before (any PM exchange and whatnot) could and should be told to the sub. I would consider confirming/denying some things acceptable even after days of subbing out. Say, I sub out on third day, Jonti subs me and then on seventh day Jonti receives PMs from Ironhead where he claims he had spoken with me earlier thus trying to win Jonti over. Since Jonti is in effect me I would consider it fair that I could either deny or affirm such PM exchange took place (as the role would naturally know if such contact had been established or not). I couldn't under any circumstances say anything else, like "that false PM thingy shows clearly that I5 is baddie", but just telling whether or not PM exchange took place should be ok. And naturally such things could only be answered when sub asks them in private (or through GM), never in public thread. Safest bet would be of course to go through GM but that's some extra hassle. Though without the PM cap it wouldn't be as annoying as in the older forums.
But no theories or thoughts *after* subbing out has happened and time has passed. And certainly the subbed out must keep silent in the thread (apart from usual ghost taunts) and not influence the game in any way.
*insert Jonti's favourite
I feel like I'm getting credit for something I didn't do, so I need to set this straight. All of this was fully delta's idea and execution, including picking son of liberty and forging the PMs. He only asked me to supply some PMs from son of liberty to make the forgeries look good (it turned out that he essentially just copied them).
This, fully agree. A subbed out player can give an update on everything that happened up to the moment he subbed out, but not comment any further on the game's development after he subbed out.
Disagree, disagree a lot.
A subbed out player can and should give an update after he subbed out, that's it. If he didn't mention he had a conversation with Ironhead, and Ironhead contacts you, you can assume it didn't happen. If the subbed out player forgot to mention it, tough. Any sort of "asking questions to the subbed out player" is wrong, ghost rule breaking and open to abuse.
Though SoL seems to insinuate that this extends as far as permitting the sub to remain in contact in the event that the previous player wants to inform the sub of any previous events from playing history that might conceivably have a bearing on the current game.
It wouldn't be a problem with the new conversation thingy but earlier there was the potential problem of either in or out subbing player having full PM box that prevented information exchange immediately. Also, not everybody subbing out will have the time/interest/courtesy of telling their subs what they have and have not been up to so it's a bit unfair for the subbed role if such metaish thing as having sub is used against them.
Keep in mind the difference between "role" and "player". Role would know that he's not talked with Ironhead no matter who the player playing the role is. On the other hand what Cliges says is more "player info" than "role info" so that's different - role history is different from player history, of course. And speaking of this specific instance I strongly condemn how SoL went public as a ghost with all kinds of rule-breaking posts.
Disagree. The information is not going to pass role boundaries, it moving from the person being replaced to the person he replacing. SoL saying someone is a wolf would be out of bounds, SoL saying that PM is forged and from a prior game to Aziz and Aziz alone should be fine.
I would even go a step more and say that SoL could have said what game and to who they were sent. But I can see some people disagree on that point, and would not mind conceding that point.
I do agree that sending that information to other players both in the thread in and PMs are out of bounds.
Woah woah, take it easy there partner. I already concluded and agreed that the information passing was ok judging by the content of the info passing (it had nothing to do with what SoL found out from the conversation with me at that point).
However the timing was wrong imo, as he still relayed information after starting his sockpuppetry conversation with me. It's a matter of technicality, but that doesn't absolve SoL of guilt. He knew what he was doing and when he was writing.
That still doesn't change the other accusation against SoL: the fact that he tried to influence the game as a ghost by threatening me and then posting in the main thread. Again, a ghost should not be part of his sub's defense, and that's exactly what SoL did in the main thread.
Last edited:
Again, it would be nice if people read what I wrote. As I said before, SoL PMing Delta and posting the thread are different actions than PMing info to his sub.
Fair enough. I was just responding to I5's post about you being in a bad position because of SoL.
Again which no one is disrupting, but that distracts from what has now become a general debate about what and when a subbed player can pass to a sub.
And the more I think about it, I think the answer to that question is any communication between the two should be conducted through the GM.