|
On June 28 2016 01:00 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 00:45 Rels wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
This might be the greatest idea ever to take care of non-voters. Actually it is an awful idea. Trash town players can be mislynched for free in MYLO. Super unfair for mafia Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 00:49 Half the Sky wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
Not a bad idea, some drawbacks here are if you put a vig or additional kp as it stands, and then you have a situation like this, where people of either alignment can't be arsed to vote, also could be problematic either way going into mylo/lylo. No, not really, it's essentially a way for town to opt out of modkilling someone who fails to vote. Also, of course it would work in a way where a night kill is delivered before the snap lynch (so in a 3v1 mylo, if a townie gets lynched, mafia nk will still win the game, even if one of the other remaining townies didn't vote). The only real problem is dumb meta like people offering themselves up to not vote in order to be snap-lynched before mylo. I'm not sure it would actually be a problem, but people are assholes. Then again, you can already do the same by trying to get strategically modkilled, so not voting on purpose could simply fall under the strategical modkill rule.
No it is very different. Strategic modkill are forbidden by the rules and punished post game. Here you propose a system where town can strategically modkill someone. If there are post game consequences to this kill, it is no different from being strategically modkilled so it doesn't have a purpose.
If there is no consequences though it's fine. It means town has more killing power than usual so the setup needs to account for that.
|
On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
I've done this before on a site where non-voting was a much bigger problem than here. It was actually fairly successful. Damdred can attest.
|
On June 28 2016 01:24 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 01:00 Palmar wrote:On June 28 2016 00:45 Rels wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
This might be the greatest idea ever to take care of non-voters. Actually it is an awful idea. Trash town players can be mislynched for free in MYLO. Super unfair for mafia On June 28 2016 00:49 Half the Sky wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
Not a bad idea, some drawbacks here are if you put a vig or additional kp as it stands, and then you have a situation like this, where people of either alignment can't be arsed to vote, also could be problematic either way going into mylo/lylo. No, not really, it's essentially a way for town to opt out of modkilling someone who fails to vote. Also, of course it would work in a way where a night kill is delivered before the snap lynch (so in a 3v1 mylo, if a townie gets lynched, mafia nk will still win the game, even if one of the other remaining townies didn't vote). The only real problem is dumb meta like people offering themselves up to not vote in order to be snap-lynched before mylo. I'm not sure it would actually be a problem, but people are assholes. Then again, you can already do the same by trying to get strategically modkilled, so not voting on purpose could simply fall under the strategical modkill rule. No it is very different. Strategic modkill are forbidden by the rules and punished post game. Here you propose a system where town can strategically modkill someone. If there are post game consequences to this kill, it is no different from being strategically modkilled so it doesn't have a purpose. If there is no consequences though it's fine. It means town has more killing power than usual so the setup needs to account for that.
I can easily see people not voting on purpose with this thing implemented. And there is 0 way to prove it so you can't punish it. Nice idea otherwise.
|
On June 28 2016 02:13 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 01:24 Rels wrote:On June 28 2016 01:00 Palmar wrote:On June 28 2016 00:45 Rels wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
This might be the greatest idea ever to take care of non-voters. Actually it is an awful idea. Trash town players can be mislynched for free in MYLO. Super unfair for mafia On June 28 2016 00:49 Half the Sky wrote:On June 28 2016 00:38 Palmar wrote:
This is Palmar.
Palmar thinks complex, wordy rules and regulations are generally boring and useless. But Palmar also understands that people not voting is a problem.
Palmar likes to solve problems using tools instead of rules. So in his next game, Palmar will make non-voters trigger a snap-lynch during the following night. If the majority of players in the game vote in a non-mandatory vote to snap-lynch the non-voter, he flips at daybreak. If not, he lives. This way towns can punish and not have to deal with afk players, while active players who just forget to vote will avoid an unnecessary modkill.
Be like Palmar.
Not a bad idea, some drawbacks here are if you put a vig or additional kp as it stands, and then you have a situation like this, where people of either alignment can't be arsed to vote, also could be problematic either way going into mylo/lylo. No, not really, it's essentially a way for town to opt out of modkilling someone who fails to vote. Also, of course it would work in a way where a night kill is delivered before the snap lynch (so in a 3v1 mylo, if a townie gets lynched, mafia nk will still win the game, even if one of the other remaining townies didn't vote). The only real problem is dumb meta like people offering themselves up to not vote in order to be snap-lynched before mylo. I'm not sure it would actually be a problem, but people are assholes. Then again, you can already do the same by trying to get strategically modkilled, so not voting on purpose could simply fall under the strategical modkill rule. No it is very different. Strategic modkill are forbidden by the rules and punished post game. Here you propose a system where town can strategically modkill someone. If there are post game consequences to this kill, it is no different from being strategically modkilled so it doesn't have a purpose. If there is no consequences though it's fine. It means town has more killing power than usual so the setup needs to account for that. I can easily see people not voting on purpose with this thing implemented. And there is 0 way to prove it so you can't punish it. Nice idea otherwise.
100%
This is my point exactly
If there is no consequences post game I will abuse it to gain mislynches if I'm town so I have more chance to win the game
If there are consequences post game it is no different from being strategically modkilled
|
I like this idea anyway though the more I think about it. It's a pretty cool idea to have a self moderating town. Just gotta remember town have a vig to take care of shitty townies in the balance.
|
On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer.
|
On June 29 2016 15:07 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer.
I have been around for a while/read quite a few old games and this just isn't true.
|
On June 29 2016 15:07 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer.
This. In more recent games I monitor the playerlist a lot more closely than I used to when I first joined.
More specifically, I think it really depends on certain players - or more specifically - certain combinations of players being signed up together.
Speaking for myself, there is one player in particular that's made my gaming experience pretty miserable, not once, not twice, but four separate occasions, the final of which he was modkilled, but by then the damage had been done. Prior to my last game here, I had made it a point to permanently avoid games that individual was signed up in.
That said though, I disagree about some of the points made on asshole meta. Even in games I don't play in, when I read and/or host games, I find that it is worse in some games than in others and I'm not talking about newbies either.
The asshole meta though, is not the only reason for the decreasing games/players tbf though. It is part of the problem IMO but it isn't the only one.
|
On June 29 2016 20:43 Half the Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 15:07 prplhz wrote:On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer. This. In more recent games I monitor the playerlist a lot more closely than I used to when I first joined. More specifically, I think it really depends on certain players - or more specifically - certain combinations of players being signed up together. Speaking for myself, there is one player in particular that's made my gaming experience pretty miserable, not once, not twice, but four separate occasions, the final of which he was modkilled, but by then the damage had been done. Prior to my last game here, I had made it a point to permanently avoid games that individual was signed up in. That said though, I disagree about some of the points made on asshole meta. Even in games I don't play in, when I read and/or host games, I find that it is worse in some games than in others and I'm not talking about newbies either. The asshole meta though, is not the only reason for the decreasing games/players tbf though. It is part of the problem IMO but it isn't the only one.
No, the actual problem is that the core of this community is getting too old to have enough time for mafia and there is not enough new blood since the game this site is based around is dying.
You have a problem with certain individuals? I guarantee you that wouldn't have been any different a few years ago.
|
On June 29 2016 20:24 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 15:07 prplhz wrote:On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer. I have been around for a while/read quite a few old games and this just isn't true.
Yes it is.
|
Why not 2 game post-game ban + in game warning for no vote, modkill and an additional p-g ban on repeat. 3 ingame warnings = x amount of p-g ban etc.
|
On June 29 2016 22:08 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 20:24 justanothertownie wrote:On June 29 2016 15:07 prplhz wrote:On June 26 2016 07:10 justanothertownie wrote:
[...]
2) TL Mafia always had an "asshole meta". That's certainly not why there have been less games and players in the recent past. I also don't think many people can confirm themselves by that - example would be Onegu in whatever game it was he raged as mafia. You cannot bring all host actions in line if every host can decide his way of handling behaviour. This has always been up to them and it should remain this way.
[...]
I don't think so, games used to be a lot nicer. I have been around for a while/read quite a few old games and this just isn't true. Yes it is.
You should read some of those games then. I did recently.
If you think people were more polite or nicer back in the day you are (once again) looking back through rose-tinted glasses.
|
eh tbh w/ you i'm kind of resistant to p/g bans for no-voting at all unless it's a chronic problem
i.e. player has been modkilled for no-voting on at least two separate occasions within a 6-month span (maybe shorter but games here last 3 weeks or so anyway) that were not running at the same time
^ i kind of would prefer something like this because things come up. hospitalizations, work emergencies, etc. and especially if the player is playing in more than one game at once it can effect both games. warning first fail to vote, modkill second and p/g bans if it's a chronic problem i think would be enough to mostly avoid "punishing" people for incidents over which they had no control
-pokes at prp- i miss you btw ;o;, says the person who may have played 3 or 4 games at all this year lol ><
|
On June 30 2016 00:10 rsoultin wrote:
eh tbh w/ you i'm kind of resistant to p/g bans for no-voting at all unless it's a chronic problem
i.e. player has been modkilled for no-voting on at least two separate occasions within a 6-month span (maybe shorter but games here last 3 weeks or so anyway) that were not running at the same time
^ i kind of would prefer something like this because things come up. hospitalizations, work emergencies, etc. and especially if the player is playing in more than one game at once it can effect both games. warning first fail to vote, modkill second and p/g bans if it's a chronic problem i think would be enough to mostly avoid "punishing" people for incidents over which they had no control
-pokes at prp- i miss you btw ;o;, says the person who may have played 3 or 4 games at all this year lol ><
That's why I would only give a banlist warning for the first offense/novote. That accounts for all possible rl things.
Edit: Misread your post.
Btw. If someone signs up for multiple games and then can't keep up that's 100 % his own fault.
|
On June 30 2016 00:12 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:10 rsoultin wrote:
eh tbh w/ you i'm kind of resistant to p/g bans for no-voting at all unless it's a chronic problem
i.e. player has been modkilled for no-voting on at least two separate occasions within a 6-month span (maybe shorter but games here last 3 weeks or so anyway) that were not running at the same time
^ i kind of would prefer something like this because things come up. hospitalizations, work emergencies, etc. and especially if the player is playing in more than one game at once it can effect both games. warning first fail to vote, modkill second and p/g bans if it's a chronic problem i think would be enough to mostly avoid "punishing" people for incidents over which they had no control
-pokes at prp- i miss you btw ;o;, says the person who may have played 3 or 4 games at all this year lol >< That's why I would only give a banlist warning for the first offense/novote. That accounts for all possible rl things. Edit: Misread your post. Btw. If someone signs up for multiple games and then can't keep up that's 100 % his own fault.
eh kinda? but say, hypothetically, you normally would have time but death in the family...there's no way to predict that. it effects all games you're in -shrugs- that's all i'm saying
obviously you could make it a case-by-case subjective thing, but i'd rather steer clear of that anyway cause (even though i don't know why when talking about internet games) some people are more trustworthy than other. take the subjectivity out and just acknowledge that anyone can have an emergency and the emergency is likely to influence all games they're in at once lol ><
anyway i don't know how important any of that is. my main point is i don't think we should be banning people for not voting unless there's evidence that it's a pattern, which you seem to agree with so we're good ^^
|
Oh man I am so old too old for Mafia
Hi btw. Still on the island, just got into town is all.
I have a beard now too.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On June 30 2016 05:35 Alakaslam wrote:
Oh man I am so old too old for Mafia
Hi btw. Still on the island, just got into town is all.
I have a beard now too.
wow that is awesome
|
On June 30 2016 05:35 Alakaslam wrote:
Oh man I am so old too old for Mafia
Hi btw. Still on the island, just got into town is all.
I have a beard now too.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iV4Bamm.jpg)
hows wilson
|
On June 30 2016 05:35 Alakaslam wrote:
Oh man I am so old too old for Mafia
Hi btw. Still on the island, just got into town is all.
I have a beard now too.
Only relevant post in the thread.
Length of beard?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I don't really get this 'taking subjectivity out of it' line. Even legal systems (the most procedural of all) are rife with subjective decisions. All no votes and swearing or whatever else simply aren't the same .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
