Sanderson Elimination: Questions & Answers and Game Meta Discussion

[DeTess]

37 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

@The Young Bard

Now, the emperor was not a forger but that soul stamp was crafted specifically for him. If Gaotona or anyone else had tried to use that soul stamp on themselves it would not have worked- at least not for very long. Around a minute tops if Shai's practice stamps are anything to go off of, and that's only if the user is very similar in age/ethnicity/background/etc to the intended subject of the soulstamp. 

Right, yes. The complete answer is that anyone can apply a soul-stamp, but the stamp itself needs to be crafted specifically for the person it's going to be applied to.

[Jondesu]

I've seen a few times the new color scheme affecting the ability to see or choose colors to vote, and I definitely understand.  Can we consider something like a change to putting votes inside of a new quote box, or something similar, to make them stand out more?  Obviously that limits the potential to work them into an RP-only post, but in that case, they could be also placed in a quote box after the RP, without breaking up the flow. Something like this:

Quote

Vote: Aman

 

[Steeldancer]

I'm used to the bright red being automatic, because I'm on mobile all the time. Except sometimes I'm not, and then the red is weird. I can understand it being confusing. 

[Yitzi2]

A metagame discussion question came up in the conclusion-to-LG35 thread, and I'd like to continue it here.

The question at hand is: How do we ensure a forum that is fun for everyone?  In order to discuss that, I would like input from as many people as possible about a question that needs to be answered first:

What are you trying to get out of an SE game, to the point that it's no fun if it's not absent?  Then we can try to find a way to give everybody what they're looking for.

I will answer first:

I am looking primarily for a game in which I can attempt to win, and feel confident that the game gives me a fair chance of achieving this.  When I say a "fair chance", the distribution of extremely skilled players and newbies may or may not be taken into account (i.e. if Aman and Wilson are both elims and the elim team is smaller as a result, or Aman and Wilson are both elims and the elim team is not smaller as a result, either way is ok), since those can be compensated for by helping newbies and trying to improve to match the top players, but players who choose not to try to win need to be accounted for in alignment distribution in order for me to feel that I have a fair chance.

I am also interested in RP, and would be interested in an SE "game" that is so RP-heavy that there's no possibility to try to win, but as long as it's a game where "trying to win" is a meaningful concept, I cannot have fun unless I can make a fair attempt to win.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Yitzi2

[DeTess]

Yeah, as I said before, the issue above is one we probably should discuss at some length ( @OrlokTsubodai, @little wilson, you where among those promoting this discussion in the LG35 thread). I won't be able to participate as much in this discussion as I intended, as I'm leaving on holiday in less than 8 hours, and need to get some sleep before that. 

I tend to agree with Yitzi here, to some degree at least, that winning is not a secondary objective in SE. Having fun is of course the most important, but if winning wasn't something to be considered, it wouldn't be modeled after a competitive social game. At the same time, it shouldn't be winning at any cost either, but what constitutes crossing that line differs per person, and some kind of baseline of what is no longer acceptable in the pursuit of victory should definitely be thought about.

To get to Yitzi's question, the two things I want to get out of SE are the battle of wits and the story. At the end of the day I don't care too much about whether I win or loose, as long as the battle to get to that point has been interesting. The story is both the RP story (which I've been participating in too little these last couple of games), and just the overall story of how the game went (last minute turn-arounds, surprising catches of elims, or villagers that seemed to be elims ending up being villagers after all at unfortunate moments).

To get these two points, a certain amount of competitive spirit is needed. However, there should be a balance here, as another major part of SE is that at the end of the game, everyone still gets along with everyone else. We can congratulate someone on playing well without being angry at getting beaten or fooled, and I don't know of any case (in games that I've played) where someone acted against someone for no other reason than that he/she got beaten in a previous game. Previous encounters might make people more wary, but this is in the way of respect ('I know that he is very good at acting village when he is an elim, so I should be more careful with my reads on him'), not anger or spite, and this atmosphere of mutual respect (and friendship) is something that should definitely be preserved.

Edited July 24, 2017 by randuir

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@Yitzi2, I'll respond to the rest of your point when I have more time, but now would address your question to me in the LG35 conclusion thread, which I think lies at the heart of the issue.

If you feel that RP is not the solution, maybe I misunderstood the problem: What, exactly, are you trying to get out of a game of SE, if it's not RP and not competitive play?

Whilst I, personally, do enjoy SE games being competitive, and am not terribly good at RP, I think the most important thing we should get out of a game is fun for all involved. That means an environment in which we tolerate, encourage and support playstyles that aren't "optimal", and that we should welcome players who are here for a less serious game of mafia than some of us, and help them enjoy themselves.

There's far more to get out of a game than just winning. Having fun in an environment with friends, watching other people enjoy themselves, strange gambits, creating discussion, meeting new people, learning about how they think, and watching them grow. It would be immensely sad to lose all these to a competitive atmosphere and "optimum" play.

[Elbereth]

Quote

If you feel that RP is not the solution, maybe I misunderstood the problem: What, exactly, are you trying to get out of a game of SE, if it's not RP and not competitive play?

I'll address this first, and respond (or respond through Wilson or Orlok, since I suspect one will get there first) to your other points later. 

Everyone gets something different out of SE. You, obviously, have fun playing competitively. Me? My primary goal is to ensure the game is fun for all players. My secondary objective is to win. But those are objectives. What I enjoy about the game is the people. The friendships. The matching wits against others, the parodies, the RP, the meta narrative. Learning about other people. I met my significant other through SE. That happened because he was interesting to talk to, and so I started talking to him outside games. My friendship with Wilson was similar. 

Orlok does play to win. He takes joy in playing the optimal way, in analysis and finding players through it, and in causing discussion as much as he possibly can. (If anything, I'd say that his main objective is creating discussion, actually.) He also, however, prioritises fun for other players over any potential not-enjoyable optimum play, because he highly values fun, tolerance of other playstyles, and player independence. Rather than telling others what to do or attacking those who aren't playing in a way he considers optimal, he just asks them what they think and makes the optimal actions on his part to win for his team without impacting other players’ enjoyment. 

Wilson, on the other hand, plays to have fun. “Fun” depends on the game and her mood. Perhaps fun is analyzing a player who's stolen her attention for all the wrong reasons, or maybe it's writing RP or a parody. Sometimes it's trolling. Other times it's just talking to people or helping newer players. She plays to interact with others, and perhaps learn about herself while she's at it (there's nothing quite like having self-realizations in the middle of an SE game). Winning is a nice bonus, but it's only a secondary motivation. At the end of the day, if the game wasn't fun for her, she feels like she played wrong, even if her team won.

So there you have three different reasons for playing. Ask any other players and you'll get that number of players more reasons. But RP and competitiveness are most certainly not the only reasons for people to play. 

[Elenion]

 I love the strategy aspect of the game, where you're confronted with a problem and then have to solve it. For that I like knowing as much about the game mechanics as possible, so hidden info games aren't usually as much fun as the standard games for me. Like Yitzi, I only enjoy games that are balanced: neither a guaranteed victory nor almost-certain defeat are fun to play out. I also enjoy the manipulation and deceit aspect, regardless of which side of the manipulation I end up on. (I still respect Aman from when he completely pocketed me in LG24)

Here are a couple of things I've recently been thinking of that apply less to players and more to GMs:

Something I haven't seen brought up in any discussion yet is action restrictions: I like games with no action limit, so you don't have to give up good actions just to use necessary actions. If you have a role and two items I think you should be able to use all three, not just one.

Now we're getting into the really small preferences, but I think GMs should experiment more with non-standard role distributions. There are some notable examples of where GMs have broken the role distribution norms, but for the most part elim teams have been very predictable role-wise.

[Ecthelion III]

I play SE not because I optimize it or because I'm good at it (heaven knows I'm not) but because it's a great group of people to play games with on the internet and talk about Brandon with, because it helps me practice writing skills while writing awesome stories with other people, and because it's fun. I understand that this can be annoying to people who want to play optimally and think through things with formal logic; I have a hard time making logical decisions and choosing between different inputs.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Ecthelion III

[Arrae]

Usually, when I join games, it's for the RP. When I actually start playing, though, the RP gradually dies down and analysis increases. If the GM puts a lot of effort into their writeups and gets them up on time, I tend to RP more. It helps a lot if my character has something to do, whether it's a goal to reach or events to react to.

I like catching elims, but personally, I don't put a lot of effort into it. I know that what I do in terms of analysis could be a lot more effective, and I'm trying to find (low to medium effort) ways to improve my elim and village hunting. I know that some players will wake up early and stay up late for SE, such as in LG21, where Burnt got up at around 4 in the morning to do some vote manipulation for the elim team. Personally, I think that's going a little too far, but I know that I value my sleep more than some others in this forum.  My activity is rather reactive, so I'm more active when others are active and less active when others are less active.

Really, when it comes to gameplay, I don't have a lot of limits. If I decide to avoid doing something for a game, it's usually because I know that other players dislike it. (For example, Orlok doesn't like mayoring. That's why I decided not to reveal my tin powers inthread in the game he was GMing.)

Recently, I've stopped being engaged with the game after I die. I think part of it is due to lack of game investment in general, or maybe a lack of interest in the dead doc.

[Yitzi2]

So it seems, at least from responses thus far, that the main themes in what people are looking for are:

1. Fun for all players.  This is definitely desirable, but does not need to be specifically accommodated; if we make sure everything else is achieved, then it's achieved automatically.

2. The strategy/battle of wits.  For this, I think our primary goal needs to be that the game should be balanced.

3. Interacting with others.  To make the game fun for people looking for this, I think it is important to ensure that people are not jerks in the service of achieving any of these goals, and that the game doesn't devolve into fiat.  Fortunately, our community is apparently such that the former can usually be achieved by asking people not to do such things, and fiat games are extremely difficult to make even when you try to (someone who mayors and says "no discussing things in the thread" or "no interactions that don't go through me" isn't very likely to be listened to).

4. RP.  Encouraging this is really up to the GM and players, but there's unlikely to be any opposition to it.

So it seems that the real conflicts arise when:

i) People get so caught up in the strategy that they do jerky things.  It seems to me that setting boundaries there is fairly feasible, if it turns out it needs to be done.  Even if explicit boundaries are not needed, letting new players know that there's a rule "don't do anything that you'd be upset if someone did it to you if the situations were reversed" would probably help avoid issues from those who expect a more "hardcore" game (and therefore either take license, or take precautions that look like jerky moves).

ii) Someone gets so caught up in the strategy that people feel that that person is taking over the thread and that they have to go along with what the other person wants even if it makes it less fun for them.  To that, I propose we adopt an official rule: "Playing that way would make the game less fun for me" is a valid reason for not doing something.  That way, people who want to lead the village can do so, without it mayoring to the point that it affects other people's fun.

iii) People who enjoy the strategy (and therefore need a balanced game) feel that the game is not balanced because one side has significantly more non-optimal players (weighting for non-optimality and proportionate to the side's size) than the other.  The only way I can see to resolve this (though I'd like to hear if anyone else has ideas) is for those players who play non-optimally to be known, and GMs make sure to consider that when balancing sides.

 

So the main things I think we need to discuss from here on are:

a) Do we need explicit boundaries, or is "don't be a jerk" enough?

b) Should we have an official rule that "that isn't fun for me" is a valid reason not to do something, treating it like blue-text stuff (i.e. no lying and saying something would detrimentally impact your fun if it won't) and perhaps even having a special text color for it?

c) How should we let new players know about whatever resolutions we decide on for a and b?

d) How should we make sure that games are balanced (and thus fun for the strategizers) in light of the fact that some players are significantly more likely to play non-optimally due to finding it fun than others are?

Edited July 24, 2017 by Yitzi2

[Arrae]

I think we also should be careful about setting too many limits. I think it would choose to set consistent values instead of rules, to avoid limiting a player's autonomy too much.

I think it's inevitable that a regular and recurring player of SE will get upset at some point. Their team might make a move that throws the game, or somebody they were thinking was elim turned out to be village. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they don't get too upset. SE is just a game, but it is a game we invest weeks of our lives into. I'd argue that betrayals by a trusted player could be one of the most upsetting things there are, but it's still perfectly viable. In my first game, I trusted Burnt, died, and when I found out she was an elim, typed out several pages in the dead doc howling for vengeance. The same thing happened in LG23 with El. I specifically remember that she delighted in prodding me when she too joimed the dead doc. Nowadays, when I remember it, it's usually in an almost nostalgic light of "Hey, remember when that thing happened way back when?" I'm on good terms with Burnt and El today. If the rules are too strict, they might also block things like these, which are upsetting in the moment but only for a bit, as well as genuinely upsetting things that stay upsetting for a long time.

[Steeldancer]

I enjoy strategy, and occasionally I come up with a character that I really enjoy RPing. Namely, Bracken the Pony, Barry Allen, and RIP Eobard Thawne (im a little miffed about that I died. I had grand plans for that character. Alas. Another game I guess.) But I'm not sure what exactly I prefer. 

I do not enjoy trolling. I stick to a certain honor code in my interactions, and for me, that is outside of it. I also am not a fan of any form of blackmail, that really irks me. 

But I'm not entirely sure what my favored play style is. I appear to enjoy analysis, however it hasn't really been all that succesful. I'm sort of playing it out and seeing. 

I would prefer a case by case basis, rather than a blanket ban. 

[little wilson]

I'm with my sister right now and therefore busy and can't focus on this as much as I'd like to. Suggestions for this are well and good. Continue discussing this. But keep in mind that the moderators are the ones who actually institute any changes and we have historically preferred a more "hands off" method. The more suggestions that come from players for players rather than for mods as rules, the better. Thanks.

[Yitzi2]

58 minutes ago, Arraenae said:

I'd argue that betrayals by a trusted player could be one of the most upsetting things there are, but it's still perfectly viable.

I'd argue that betrayal by a trusted player who turns out to be on the opposite team after all is somewhat upsetting but viable, but there are things that are far more upsetting (e.g. a betrayal by a player on your own team).

Likewise, there's a difference between a teammate making a move that throws the game (or otherwise hurts the team) by accident (upsetting, but it's just a game), and doing so on purpose (feels much more like a betrayal).

[Elenion]

@Yitzi2 What constitutes a teammate, though? In last shard game I ended up on two different teams (Autonomy and Hoid) that couldn't win together. Was I wrong to tell Team Hoid about the state of Team Autonomy and help Team Hoid (which was already in the lead) kill the last threats to them?

[Alvron]

2 minutes ago, Elenion said:

@Yitzi2 What constitutes a teammate, though? In last shard game I ended up on two different teams (Autonomy and Hoid) that couldn't win together. Was I wrong to tell Team Hoid about the state of Team Autonomy and help Team Hoid (which was already in the lead) kill the last threats to them?

Technically Autonomy and Hoid teams could've won together that game. All we needed to do was kill Hoid.  Team Hoid wasn't in the lead either.  Autonomy had the advantage as we knew some of their members but they didn't know ours.  Not until you stabbed us in the back that is.  

[Aonar]

4 minutes ago, Elenion said:

@Yitzi2 What constitutes a teammate, though? In last shard game I ended up on two different teams (Autonomy and Hoid) that couldn't win together. Was I wrong to tell Team Hoid about the state of Team Autonomy and help Team Hoid (which was already in the lead) kill the last threats to them?

Now, to be fair, they could win together, with a bit of finagling. If Hoid died, all remaining Sharders were converted by Auto, and the teams were whittled down to even, it could've worked. (Although it would've taken a lot of annoying Shard-switching, really fine timing, and an excessive amount of trust.) 

2 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Technically Autonomy and Hoid teams could've won together that game. All we needed to do was kill Hoid.  Team Hoid wasn't in the lead either.  Autonomy had the advantage as we knew some of their members but they didn't know ours.  Not until you stabbed us in the back that is.  

That's debatable.  We had two kills, a resurrect, and didn't need to know who all was on your team in order to win. Things were pretty even, I'd say.

[Elenion]

12 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Technically Autonomy and Hoid teams could've won together that game. All we needed to do was kill Hoid.  Team Hoid wasn't in the lead either.  Autonomy had the advantage as we knew some of their members but they didn't know ours.  Not until you stabbed us in the back that is.  

I had done analysis on that and it wasn't feasible. The Auto win con was to be the last ones standing, and the Hoidites had the outnumber win con. Most of the Hoidites had Shards so the conversion would have failed on them (discounting mayoring by me, which was a no go) so team Auto would have had to kill them all except me for the Auto win con, but for the Hoidite win con I would then have had to outnumber the village without triggering an Auto win first. Really, the only workable no-mayoring solution would have been to kill all Hoidites except me, all Auto except me, and one inactive true villager for me to kill and then be last man standing. It also would have taken a million cycles.

@Aonar Faileas Your plan assumes I would have gone full mayor and ordered Shard passes, which I was not going to do.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Elenion

[Alvron]

11 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

That's debatable.  We had two kills, a resurrect, and didn't need to know who all was on your team in order to win. Things were pretty even, I'd say.

I'm not saying we had a huge advantage but with unlimited Lifeless and conversions, a Shattering Kill and the ability to reforge Shards, Autonomy had the edge.   And if we weren't going for peace then I would've had Odium attack you rather the Bard as I was fairly sure you held Ruin.  You were after all the very first holder of the Shard.
 

Quote

I had done analysis on that and it wasn't feasible. The Auto win con was to be the last ones standing, and the Hoidites had the outnumber win con.

Ah, so that's where you went wrong.  The Hoidities only had to outnumber the Village.  Not everyone.  If we kept a few villages alive while converting the Hoidities then we could've both gotten our win together.  It would've taken work and talking between the teams but it was possible to do in a max of five cycles.

But that's all in the past now.  No need to dredge up the past like stale vomit.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Alvron

[Elenion]

Really, I was in a lose-lose-lose.

Option 1: Mayor the Shardholders. This makes it no fun for anyone, because nobody has any Autonomy.

Option 2: Help nobody. Auto and Hoid were about to have a war, and I was fairly sure each faction would have torn the other apart. Also, each would have demanded my protection power.

Option 3: Pick a side. This ensured a quick game and no mayoring, but the downside was I had to choose who would win and lose.

@AlvronYou're overestimating Auto, because I would have had to remain neutral in a fight, so no unshattering, vote manip, or infinite Lifeless on Auto. You would have had a few Lifeless and Odiation Nation.

Edit: just saw Alv's edit. Sounds like a good idea; I was just making sure that it was known that I didn't coldly backstab Auto without reason. I honestly thought that was the best choice to make.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Elenion

[Metacognition]

7 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

So the main things I think we need to discuss from here on are:

a) Do we need explicit boundaries, or is "don't be a jerk" enough?

Should we have an official rule that "that isn't fun for me" is a valid reason not to do something, treating it like blue-text stuff (i.e. no lying and saying something would detrimentally impact your fun if it won't) and perhaps even having a special text color for it?

c) How should we let new players know about whatever resolutions we decide on for a and b?

d) How should we make sure that games are balanced (and thus fun for the strategizers) in light of the fact that some players are significantly more likely to play non-optimally due to finding it fun than others are?

If you read the Etiquette section of the General Rules, you'll see that we basically already have a "Don't be a jerk" clause.  We already have a section on putting yourself in other people's shoes and on treating other players as individuals (which covers, in part, the fact that some people don't play as competitively as others). 

In fact, most of that section is a very good guide for how to approach these games and the other players in them. It basically covers your A through C questions, if you really consider what they mean in different aspects of the games, IMO. 

As far as D goes, I'm not sure I'd want to make those kind of categories in the first place. It makes it sound like we'd be dividing people into groups, where one style of play is more preferable than another and that just isn't the case. That's part of why there was a push (probably about a year ago now?) to stop referring to people that have played a lot as "Experienced" or "Veteran" players, because it gave the illusion that those players were a- bigger threats, b- should be paid attention to more, and c- should have more authority when it comes to their opinions. 

We have a very close tight-knit community here partially because we've shied away from dividing everyone up into classifications anymore. Especially when, IMO, I don't feel like it's necessary. 

I like the strategy side of the game. I enjoy, as Elenion said, the battle of wits and manipulation. And as a strategist, that means also finding ways to play around "imperfect" play. A good general will try to turn their weaknesses into strengths. If they have an army of 50% archers, they won't bemoan that they don't have more cavalry. They change their tactics to a more guerrilla style warfare and perform more hit and runs. In LG 34, when Sart was basically inactive other than being able to put in actions, we used that to our advantage and let him put in most of the kills rather than try to force him into a role he was unable or unwilling to play. 

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, on either side of the factions. I'm actually a pretty lousy Elim, IMO. I have some great and fun ideas, but I can never enact them when I'm an Elim. On the other hand, I almost have a 6th sense at times when it comes to ferreting out Elims when I'm village. Wilson practically mirrors me, as she has had her fair share of moments where she totally fell for Elim lies as a Village, but has proven to be quite difficult to pin down as an Elim. 

My point in all this is that we're all playing to each other's strengths and weakness in each game already. You let those that are more likely to be helpful later in the game slide a bit initially because they shine latter. You don't always try to kill off the players that instigate discussion because you need that initial spark to get things moving. There's no clear, defined line that delineates one type of play as sub-optimal in comparison to another and I think that if we were to try to actually define it, we would find a lot of biased towards how we, individually, play the game. Not to mention the unnecessary dividing of our community into groups and the turmoil something like that could cause. 

Because another part of the game that I truly love is the setting. If you've played on other forums or watched Aman's games over on MafiaUniverse, you'll notice that most of them don't ever even acknowledge that there is a setting to their games, let alone play with it. Part of what makes SE special is the fact that we all love a good story because we're readers. So taking part in Sanderson's worlds in a way that we never could before, or watching a dramatic moment unfold, or helping create one is thrilling and worthwhile in its own right. Without our stories to tell, I don't think SE would've continued on throughout the years as strongly as it has. 

And because I love that aspect of the games, I would say that the RPers and the fun-lovers are just as important to the success of a game as much as the strategists. They help keep us involved and coming back. They can provide much needed comedic relief (Matilda or HH's character and his rat from the last AG anyone?) in an otherwise serious game. Sure, they might play "sub-optimally" in the terms of a strategist, but they still play optimally to the game as a whole and to themselves, which all the more I would ask of anyone. 

Finally, I agree with Wilson. The reason we don't want to create a lot of rules and how people can play is because that severely limits the way everyone can play. It limits strategies that can be used and can make all the games basically feel the same. We want people to come up with creative ways to find Elims or manipulate the Village. We love when a particularly daring plan comes together. We allow everyone the freedom to play as they want specifically so that everyone can find their own inspiration and, in a way, cut out their own part of what makes these games so amazing. So the more ideas that allow our players to do that without us needing to limit everyone's play via rules is going to be the best option, IMO

Well, that turned into an essay fairly quick!  I do hope that this conversation continues. I think it's a great question and I'm glad that you brought it up here, Yitzi. I'm not trying to criticize your suggestions up there as much as using them as a backboard to state some of my own thoughts on the matter as well. This is the perfect place for such discussions and I'm looking forward to seeing everyone's thoughts.  

[Megasif]

I'm in my second game right now and it's good so far. What got me interested was the amount of different skills involved. From my observation of a few games, I noticed that it's a bit of everything. Interaction with other players, Strategy, wit, prediction, reading players, friendship, trust, betrayel, deception(not too fond of this one...), fun obv(the big one), discovering new things about others and myself... to name a few.

It's...amazing?... how you get a snippet of someone's personality thorugh the games. Everyone's been really welcoming. However, I do think if there were ranks etc. like someone mentioned above, it would feel just that little bit more dividing.

Everyone else is going a little deeper but I haven't played enough games yet to answer the question posed. These are just my thoughts right now concerning SE.

[Yitzi2]

20 hours ago, Elenion said:

@Yitzi2 What constitutes a teammate, though? In last shard game I ended up on two different teams (Autonomy and Hoid) that couldn't win together. Was I wrong to tell Team Hoid about the state of Team Autonomy and help Team Hoid (which was already in the lead) kill the last threats to them?

I'd say that for the context of this discussion, it only counts if you have the exact same win condition as them...in such case, a betrayal is a particularly troubling move.

18 hours ago, Metacognition said:

I like the strategy side of the game. I enjoy, as Elenion said, the battle of wits and manipulation. And as a strategist, that means also finding ways to play around "imperfect" play. A good general will try to turn their weaknesses into strengths.

This is true.  However, it is only viable up to a point; if the play is so "imperfect" that it essentially means that player might as well not be on your team...well, one player on an elim team can be the difference between a fair game and a game so imbalanced that it's no fun.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Yitzi2

[Elbereth]

Just now, Yitzi2 said:

I'd say that for the context of this discussion, it only counts if you have the exact same win condition as them...in such case, a betrayal is a particularly troubling move.

I'll have other comments later that aren't finished yet, but one thing: this has never happened. The closest anyone has ever come to this is LG4 with Gamma, and he didn't do anything against his win condition except keeping the identities of elims a secret (and it isn't exactly fair to have someone tell you all the elims and you just out them to the thread - what fun is that?), and that game was horribly broken anyway. That's the only time that I can ever recall.