First there was the substitution of Omega. That went smoothly enough, as Omega wanted to drop and Top Secret wanted to sub. Simple.
Second was Tak going inactive. This was unfortunate, and I felt bad about subbing someone into a gamestate like this, but Csargo had recently made himself available and it would be irresponsible of me as a host to allow a prolongation of the game through a painful policy mislynch of an absent player. I could also have WoGed Tak on the spot, revealing his role and alignment, but I would also have felt bad about removing him so unceremoniously when he probably just couldn't make himself available for recreation at the moment. Either way I knew I would have to take action by the middle of D4. I hope Csargo wasn't overly disturbed in responding to my request.
Third was the Johanna's modkill. I am a pretty easygoing host, and this was the first time I've ever disciplined a player or patron under my authority. It was a very unpleasant experience and a heavy decision, but I remain confident it was the right thing to do.
So what happened? First, I'd like to note that during the previous round I learned Rask (following his N2 death) posted an oblique accusation against Tak in an OT thread. I inferred this was related to the game because the post was made after Rask died and in a thread in which Tak had never posted. The phrase "I know it's you" doesn't have much meaning without the context of the game. This technical rulebreak against outside communication about the game warranted no moderator action in my opinion because: (1) he was already dead; (2) it was most easily interpreted as uninformed commentary on the game, since Rask was VT and there was nothing about spoiling in the rules and a spoiled player could be expected to keep quiet; (3) it was subtle and delivered far from the game thread; (4) it was kind of funny.
What happened in Johanna's case was more dangerous for the game. In his account, as a friend of Seon's he was chatting with him normally in a separate venue when he joked that Seon should tell him who North Korea was. Johanna did not expect a response but Seon fingered Takhisis. Thus Johanna was correct to feel that his position in the game was compromised.
Now, this was a rulebreak. Johanna should never have mentioned the game to Seon. Had Johanna come straight to me in PMs and asked to be replaced, I'm not sure what I would have done. Seon would have been more at fault than Johanna, but Seon was dead anyway. I wouldn't have wanted the trouble of having to trawl among unconfirmed reserves on short notice (when one was needed for Bart anyway), and as noted above I preferred not to sub players into this game state. On the other hand, I would not have felt that Johanna would be deserving of summary modkill for a slip in an unrelated private chat. I would have gone to Arakhor in this case (as I did in the actual event) and asked him for his advice on a sensitive approach. I would have allowed Johanna to post their night result, but otherwise asked that he stay out of the thread while the event was resolved.
Johanna did not come to me privately. He outed the rule break and some of its contents (a dead scum naming a living player as their partner) and thereby ensured that it would taint the other players. It must be understood that revealing illegitimately-obtained private knowledge publicly, or even mentioning its existence, is itself a violation, and a more egregious one than the original. Again, this is because other players are exposed. None of this needed to be publicly aired, but because it was it constituted a very clear rulebreak among active players and created an emergency for me to deal with. In the past, harsh modkill or WoG policies have dramatically shifted the balance in one or the other team's favor. In our case it did not have a mechanical or balance impact because Johanna had already revealed his actions, and the number of remaining lynches was unchanged by his death. Players have been modkilled for less, and at this stage a modkill was the most appropriate option for addressing an acute, potentially game-damaging situation.
Johanna, this doesn't make you a bad player. It just had to be done to maintain game integrity. You really wanting to talk to Seon about him being Korean and you being South Korea in the game was not a reason to break the rules in two distinct ways. The same rules restricting discussion of the game are used in every or nearly-every contemporary CFC game, as well as most other venues. This isn't a secret and it isn't an unreasonable imposition.
I also want to discuss the "arbitrary" moratorium on nightposting during N3. There are reasonable arguments to be made against it. From a gameplay perspective it interfered with the natural momentum of the thread at the time and therefore the fun and experience of at least some players (though others may have appreciated the respite). From a hosting perspective I had never specified in the finalized game rules and setup that night chat could be suspended at any time. An unannounced suspension would arguably fall under host discretion - and I've played in games where respected hosts went as far as to give one faction extra powers when they were doing markedly poorly - but it's fair to say that in general interventions by the host not rooted in visible documentation are dispreferred. I can't honestly say it was to give sub topsecret a chance to catch up, since he had already read most of the thread. Personally, I did it because I wanted (less charitably, imposed) a break from the game for myself and the players. Partly it was out of respect for Mary and Zelda, who had to endure a faction-breaking CFD. Partly it was to afford more time for Tak to reappear, allowing me to defer a decision on his inactivity. Ultimately it was a capricious use of host discretion, but I do not believe it overtly harmed the game as there was always going to be plenty of time to discuss what was left to discuss during the day. I mean, people were begging for the game to end before half of D4 had passed. In my estimation the moratorium was justifiable according to the purposes I set out.
The Day 4 majority vote option I introduced I would say was unremarkable, as Zelda privately told me he accepted his fate but didn't want to formally concede. This way I put it in the hands of the players.
this much as mafia just bored or w/e.'
