EPTActive List of Mafia Games - Page 21
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
| ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
We need a way to ban hosts. Let's be honest, we all have hosts whom we do not like, for whatever reasons. While we currently do not have anyone on Bill Murray's level (and we probably never will again) where do we draw the line? At some point we need to say, "no you cannot host anymore". It should be said now that there is no easy, objective way to go about this problem. At some point, someone (me) will have to make a decision that will anger someone. But it is necessary for the sake and growth of this forum. I currently feel that it is important that the system be done privately, via PMing. I think it will be more effective since newer players aren't likely to speak out publicly about a bad host. There are obvious problems with this, as I will have to deal with a potentially enormous amount of PMs. I can also understand if one feels like everything should be made public to stop me from doing whatever I wanted or what have you. We need to stop the elitism, but I don't think there is a way to do this without generating some. A rough draft of the system I have in mind is as follows: after a game is over, people PM me any complaints they have with the host. If I get enough complaints, then the case is either presented in the thread for people to weigh in on or I discuss it with some pre-approved committee of trusted people and it is decided from there. Yes, it is not perfect but it is a starting point, and hence I am bringing it up for discussion. Also we need to figure out how long a ban is for (and obviously something that the banlist thread has won't work here). The easiest way is to give a time ban, but that raises the obvious question of 'how long?' The other option is to have a "until the next four normal games are finished" type of ban. Please share any and all ideas! I would also like there to be some way to promote good hosting as I feel there are some really good hosts who do not get enough credit. | ||
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:34 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: I am going to start balancing and writing up the OP for my game. I should have it up by tomorrow night. I tam thinking 25ish players? That's fine. Keep in mind you won't be starting until the two current big games are finished. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
| ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:36 Foolishness wrote: That's fine. Keep in mind you won't be starting until the two current big games are finished. bitch, whose your daddy? and yeah, I am going to open sign ups as soon as I post the thread, but probably won't start for a week or so. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:53 Incognito wrote: We wouldn't have to ban hosts if we changed the queue system. Right now we are handing out monopolies on hosting so obviously if we keep the system, dealing with bad hosts is going to end up being somewhat arbitrary and is going to get someone angry somewhere. Of course, if we change the system we wouldn't have so much of a problem. How is changing the system going to stop bad hosts from hosting? Don't get me wrong, I am all for changing the system. But if you want to implement the sub-folder idea that is beyond my control. Without that, what you are suggesting is basically going to back to the way things were before the queue was invented. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:53 Incognito wrote: We wouldn't have to ban hosts if we changed the queue system. Right now we are handing out monopolies on hosting so obviously if we keep the system, dealing with bad hosts is going to end up being somewhat arbitrary and is going to get someone angry somewhere. Of course, if we change the system we wouldn't have so much of a problem. I don't think theres a "monopoly" on hosting really, what kind of change would you suggest? As far as banning hosts, thats an issue we should deal with when it comes up, I *really* don't see it becoming a problem any time soon. I mean if someone hosts badly enough to merit a ban from hosting I'm pretty sure the dramaxplosion will be large enough that we will have to publicly debate it anyway. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:01 GMarshal wrote: I don't think theres a "monopoly" on hosting really, what kind of change would you suggest? As far as banning hosts, thats an issue we should deal with when it comes up, I *really* don't see it becoming a problem any time soon. I mean if someone hosts badly enough to merit a ban from hosting I'm pretty sure the dramaxplosion will be large enough that we will have to publicly debate it anyway. I have talked to enough people to know that there are some hosts that are generally not liked, and not just for personal reasons. Where are you going to draw the line? I don't want to be pointing fingers or anything, so if you want to talk in private about this I'm sure I can convince you that this needs to happen. | ||
|
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Also the sub-folder idea isn't going to go through. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:58 Foolishness wrote: How is changing the system going to stop bad hosts from hosting? Don't get me wrong, I am all for changing the system. But if you want to implement the sub-folder idea that is beyond my control. Without that, what you are suggesting is basically going to back to the way things were before the queue was invented. Changing the system will make it so that if someone doesn't like a host, they just don't sign up for that game. If a host is that bad, nobody will signup for his games, or at least, not enough people will. Nobody has to wait out a whole game out just because they don't like a host. If we can't implement the subfolder idea, some sort of poll like previously suggested would be a suitable alternative. We can have a separate poll for each game. Games with not enough interest after an arbitrary period of time are dropped. Whoever runs the poll thread (presumably you?) would update the OP every so often when a game receives enough interest/is there too long and needs to be dropped. On June 07 2011 14:01 GMarshal wrote: I don't think theres a "monopoly" on hosting really, what kind of change would you suggest? As far as banning hosts, thats an issue we should deal with when it comes up, I *really* don't see it becoming a problem any time soon. I mean if someone hosts badly enough to merit a ban from hosting I'm pretty sure the dramaxplosion will be large enough that we will have to publicly debate it anyway. Monopoly as in: once you are "up" to host, no other games of that type can be hosted by anyone else. Meaning if you want to play a mafia game, you have to play the one that is currently being hosted by whoever is hosting it, or not play at all. By monopoly I just mean this all or nothing proposition where you are forced to play a certain game with a certain setup/host or not play. For example, based on the current game queue: Poll: [N] TL Mafia XLII (Flamewheel) Interested (8) (3) 11 total votes Your vote: [N] TL Mafia XLII (Flamewheel) Poll: [N] Real Time Mafia [RoL] Interested (7) (2) 9 total votes Your vote: [N] Real Time Mafia [RoL] Poll: [N] Closed Casket Mafia [Ace] Interested (8) (2) 10 total votes Your vote: [N] Closed Casket Mafia [Ace] Poll: [N] BC's Arkham Asylum [BC] Interested (6) (2) 8 total votes Your vote: [N] BC's Arkham Asylum [BC] Poll: [T] Lynch All Liars Mafia [bumatlarge] Interested (7) (1) 8 total votes Your vote: [T] Lynch All Liars Mafia [bumatlarge] Poll: [T] It's another Caller game! [Caller] Interested (7) (3) 10 total votes Your vote: [T] It's another Caller game! [Caller] Poll: [T] Paranoid Mafia [iGrok] Interested (3) (3) 6 total votes Your vote: [T] Paranoid Mafia [iGrok] Poll: [M] The Hosting Game [LSB] Interested (4) (4) 8 total votes Your vote: [M] The Hosting Game [LSB] You may vote for as many or as few games as you would like. For themed games, we could include a short description if the host desires. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:21 Incognito wrote: Changing the system will make it so that if someone doesn't like a host, they just don't sign up for that game. If a host is that bad, nobody will signup for his games, or at least, not enough people will. Nobody has to wait out a whole game out just because they don't like a host. If we can't implement the subfolder idea, some sort of poll like previously suggested would be a suitable alternative. We can have a separate poll for each game. Games with not enough interest after an arbitrary period of time are dropped. Whoever runs the poll thread (presumably you?) would update the OP every so often when a game receives enough interest/is there too long and needs to be dropped. Monopoly as in: once you are "up" to host, no other games of that type can be hosted by anyone else. Meaning if you want to play a mafia game, you have to play the one that is currently being hosted by whoever is hosting it, or not play at all. By monopoly I just mean this all or nothing proposition where you are forced to play a certain game with a certain setup/host or not play. See, I feel that the poll idea dosn't really remedy the system, if anything it makes hosting *really* elitist, as people would rather play with time tested hosts than with new hosts. How many people do you think would have signed up for iGrok's sleeper cell mafia if he had been competing against say flamewheel's normal mafia? I'm pretty sure most of us would have chosen fw, because we know he runs a tight ship. While the current system "forces" you to play with certain hosts, I think we can alleviate that by simply having a bunch of minis running at the same time, so that people have alternatives where they can still play, but newer host/hosts who aren't yet popular get a chance at hosting. An alternative idea is that perhaps we could have hosts pass a trial by fire of hosting a mini-game as well as having to cohost a larger game, that way they will be at least reasonably known and a system like the poll system might work. I like the system we have now though, although perhaps we should consider the possibility of running two games of the same type at once, now that we have an expanded player base. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:18 flamewheel wrote: The forum is expanding, and the demand is increasing. However, quality must still be met. I agree with Foolishness on this (since I believe that was my idea... or at least we have the same idea), but I personally haven't heard any complaints [about people] yet. I know they exist, and if they become numerous enough to cause a public problem... Also the sub-folder idea isn't going to go through. Let me try to make something clear in addition to this. Right now it's more about promoting good hosting and good hosting habits, and not "these people need to be banned from hosting!!!!" There are issues which most people never hear about because it stays within a small group of people (mainly Qatol, myself, and the host in question). When something happens now, it feels like we give the host a slap on the wrist and they move on. On June 07 2011 14:21 Incognito wrote: Changing the system will make it so that if someone doesn't like a host, they just don't sign up for that game. If a host is that bad, nobody will signup for his games, or at least, not enough people will. Nobody has to wait out a whole game out just because they don't like a host. If we can't implement the subfolder idea, some sort of poll like previously suggested would be a suitable alternative. We can have a separate poll for each game. Games with not enough interest after an arbitrary period of time are dropped. Whoever runs the poll thread (presumably you?) would update the OP every so often when a game receives enough interest/is there too long and needs to be dropped. Monopoly as in: once you are "up" to host, no other games of that type can be hosted by anyone else. Meaning if you want to play a mafia game, you have to play the one that is currently being hosted by whoever is hosting it, or not play at all. By monopoly I just mean this all or nothing proposition where you are forced to play a certain game with a certain setup/host or not play. I think the poll idea has a lot of merit to it. But I think that even with that we need some sort of ban list for hosting. Either that or we make everything public that a host messes up, so that everyone will know how a host messed up and know the potential consequences. You will be very surprised at how many people I can list that messed something up (lots of them are minor things, but they still need to be addressed). | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
Sorry to interrupt the discussion here '-_- | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:36 iGrok wrote: Ugh, I have too many ideas! Is it frowned upon to completely change up my game? And if I do, will I lose my spot? Sorry to interrupt the discussion here '-_- You're not hosting for a while so you got plenty of time to figure things out | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:31 GMarshal wrote: See, I feel that the poll idea dosn't really remedy the system, if anything it makes hosting *really* elitist, as people would rather play with time tested hosts than with new hosts. How many people do you think would have signed up for iGrok's sleeper cell mafia if he had been competing against say flamewheel's normal mafia? I'm pretty sure most of us would have chosen fw, because we know he runs a tight ship. While the current system "forces" you to play with certain hosts, I think we can alleviate that by simply having a bunch of minis running at the same time, so that people have alternatives where they can still play, but newer host/hosts who aren't yet popular get a chance at hosting. An alternative idea is that perhaps we could have hosts pass a trial by fire of hosting a mini-game as well as having to cohost a larger game, that way they will be at least reasonably known and a system like the poll system might work. I like the system we have now though, although perhaps we should consider the possibility of running two games of the same type at once, now that we have an expanded player base. We don't know that. For one, sleeper cell had a really unique mechanic for mafia. I'm pretty sure some people (like Ace) signed up for the novelty. Unless people don't pay attention to the setup at all, I don't think this will be too big of a problem. Games will be chosen based on both host and setup. The only competition that could be elitist is proven hosts and new hosts both trying to run large normal games, as unless there is some differentiation, setups will be identical. Older hosts don't tend to be itching to host mini games, so that does give newer hosts a niche area where they can get experience. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:33 Foolishness wrote: Let me try to make something clear in addition to this. Right now it's more about promoting good hosting and good hosting habits, and not "these people need to be banned from hosting!!!!" There are issues which most people never hear about because it stays within a small group of people (mainly Qatol, myself, and the host in question). When something happens now, it feels like we give the host a slap on the wrist and they move on. I think the poll idea has a lot of merit to it. But I think that even with that we need some sort of ban list for hosting. Either that or we make everything public that a host messes up, so that everyone will know how a host messed up and know the potential consequences. You will be very surprised at how many people I can list that messed something up (lots of them are minor things, but they still need to be addressed). Publicizing what a host did wrong is not a very good idea imo. There are too many things that can and do go wrong when hosting, even with experienced hosts. Nit picking at every detail is just going to create a lot of angst and drama that we don't need. I think as long as a host knows what he did wrong, theres no reason to publicize it. If it was a really big error and the players catch on, well that's that. But adding pressure on hosts to do everything perfectly isn't going to solve anything imo. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
| ||
