Just so we do not clutter up the ban list thread and devolve into a bickering mess. I decided to start up a new thread where we could discuss and hopefully implement something that could make the hosting process easier in that we eliminate a lot of gray areas between hosts and maybe the ban list actions in themselves.
Here are some topics i would like to consider
1) Different rules about non voting, this is one of the pet peeves of mine that I want all mods to homogenize on. Rayn says this is the most important part of mafia is voting. I would agree but there are to often times where there is grey area because of how active some people are caught away at lynch time etc.
And mod killing for this probably eliminates some of the strategy scum and some town can use to draw out scum or try to hold there motivation. So I personally would like to see it eliminated from modkill territory and the ban list actions personally. We can punish people in game just as easily as in the ban list for non votes, especially when we see motivation in there actions. So whats the point of it besides to try to moderate how people play to an invisible standard we set ourselves?
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Basically we are almost to the point in some games where people are almost modkilling themselves to confirm themselves and its bullcrap.
We need to crack down on such behaviors even more no warnings, it doesn't matter how emotional mafia is we can still treat each other with respect even if we disagree with arguments. Other sites do it and we can as well.
Thats probably my biggest two things. But I do think we need to change several things to become a viable community again instead of dropping people like we currently are.
On June 25 2016 23:10 Damdred wrote: 2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Thank you so much Damdred, I 1000% agree with what you're doing. I've been told time and again I have been a strict host and I know modding alongside Greymist I found his style of hosting (IMO I thought he was stricter than I was) VERY refreshing.
To me, playing TL mafia should be this: Play the game, play to win as the alignment assigned and don't make people's lives miserable doing so, end of.
So to keep on point with what Damdred said
(1) Non voting. I personally have no preference and I have tinkered with both warning and then modkill and then immediate modkill.
If we want to stay consistent as all hosts on this matter, I would propose adopting warning for first offence and modkill for second. The reason being that in newbies, newbies may not know any better. I know that might sound shite, and yes said newbie might have a coach but....eh. Between that and EoDs that might be problematic for North American players, the standard TL deadline is roughly evening rush hour for them - I would agree with Damdred to standardise that rule to not modkill on the first go.
For themed games where voting occurs at night for whatever reason, I think there needs to be separate explanations by the host and penalities need to be explicitly stated, but absolutely no modkills for any issues at night because players just aren't used to doing voting at night.
Also this should be obvious but aimed at the newer hosts just in case - if there is a situation in themed games where premature no lynches end the day early, you obviously don't touch the people who haven't voted. Obvious I would hope for most, but there it is.
(2) Behaviour. This is where I've gotten some of pushback from certain people I won't name - some who have hosted and others who have been around mostly/exclusively as players - and I remember having a long conversation with Greymist about the pushback against the stricter hosts when we were setting up PYP Intriguing and at that time he strongly disagreed with players' behaviour...the way he ran PYP a few months ago I thought was solid and he addressed the BM/controversial actions in that game in a way that was constructive for everyone involved. Additionally, the decision to remove a certain player in pre-game who was disruptive in another game (and was modkilled) also was a positive thing he did.
I bring him up because (1) he's experienced and knows his stuff (2) he's respected around here AFAIK and (3) he appears to me one of the stricter hosts compared to the vast majority I've seen on this site.
Obviously across the board there's been an issue with consistency, myself included - swear words that can get you warned/modkilled by one host doesn't get you touched by someone else.
Here's the way I see it. Insults meant to hurt people, threaten them (topics such as suicide, mental health issues), excessive swearing where insults are directed at people (i.e. you are a fucking motherfucker), expressing in any way you don't want to play with a certain player are examples of things that I think need to be stopped dead in its tracks.
Using swears to describe an argument (i.e. that is such a bullshit argument, your case is shit, etc) are okay. because you can always attack arguments but not people.
Racism/homophobia/sexism should always be a modkill. Yes I am saying this because I have dealt with people who disagree with this. I forget who it was but I caught someone in one game using "faggot" to describe how someone was playing - it wasn't a direct attack, but it was still unacceptable when there's a million other ways you can push someone. Thankfully the host in question modkilled him.
I know there are also certain people around here who don't care for the PC end of things either - well one way or another we have to get around it for the betterment of the community here, I realise different cultures/backgrounds treat things different. If the majority don't care for it around here, then do what's best for the majority. That's how I see it and from my understanding, if the majority prefer to be PC, then let it roll that way.
I know geript also did something like pre-warning people when he ran games and that I liked, you could just tap someone on the shoulder so they knew where the line was. Again super subjective but it was a way for people to keep themselves in check.
The other issue I can potentially see as people treat differently - some hosts prefer public warnings and others private. The argument for private is that it reduces WIFOM in some cases but the problem is that if other players see or think behaviour is going unpunished, then it STILL affects their thinking or gives them the impression they can push it behaviourwise too. IDK. People complain about host interference but there's a downside to that, last few games I've been fortunate enough to not have serious behaviour issues in my games, but recently I look at insults in question and decide on a case by case basis what to do so as to reduce the impact an action has on players.
I'll probably post more, but off the top of my head, that's kinda more or less how I feel.
though I have cohosted but never have I actually led a game. I do not have enough experience to conclude what I would do to no voters, I think they are disruptive from a voting analysis/gameplay standpoint though, and I think hosts need to deal with them one way or another. I don't have the magic formula though.
as for bm, I'll just say this much, it took hts and bh both upwards of six months to get me to play my first game here one year ago, the bm on this site was enough and what made me hesitant to start playing here to begin with.
there have been a few games where bm have ruined the game I think and I think hosts/bans need to be stricter with situations where it's clear players are ruining the game for other people.
excellent example - I was excited to be testing myself against people in rayn's invite game but the bm in that game really ruined the experience for everyone. I personally ignored it, which was a poor decision gameplay wise and it got me vigshot, which I can understand. but it was also extremely unpleasant to be even reading and I wanted to continue playing the game as if the two sparring players didn't exist.
if I remember correctly, ace even went as far to say that such behaviour was grounds for a policy lynch in that game. even as mafia, I can understand you want to fuck around with town and disrupt town and keep them from being productive...but even I think there's a limit to how much bm you can use before you go overboard.
as the playerbase gets older - this is an sc2 site after all, isn't it - I think people not only have lesser time for playing these games but it becomes ever more important their experience here is a good one, regardless of outcome.
Just so we do not clutter up the ban list thread and devolve into a bickering mess. I decided to start up a new thread where we could discuss and hopefully implement something that could make the hosting process easier in that we eliminate a lot of gray areas between hosts and maybe the ban list actions in themselves.
Here are some topics i would like to consider
1) Different rules about non voting, this is one of the pet peeves of mine that I want all mods to homogenize on. Rayn says this is the most important part of mafia is voting. I would agree but there are to often times where there is grey area because of how active some people are caught away at lynch time etc.
And mod killing for this probably eliminates some of the strategy scum and some town can use to draw out scum or try to hold there motivation. So I personally would like to see it eliminated from modkill territory and the ban list actions personally. We can punish people in game just as easily as in the ban list for non votes, especially when we see motivation in there actions. So whats the point of it besides to try to moderate how people play to an invisible standard we set ourselves?
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Basically we are almost to the point in some games where people are almost modkilling themselves to confirm themselves and its bullcrap.
We need to crack down on such behaviors even more no warnings, it doesn't matter how emotional mafia is we can still treat each other with respect even if we disagree with arguments. Other sites do it and we can as well.
Thats probably my biggest two things. But I do think we need to change several things to become a viable community again instead of dropping people like we currently are.
Well get to discussing
1) Just to clarify - you don't want to punish not voting at all? I 100 % disagree. We had this discussion not long ago and the conclusion was to warn ingame and ban afterwards and in my opinion that's the only correct thing to do. Not voting as town is cancerous and you have no way of preventing it ingame.
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 disagree that you cannot punish people for non voting in a game. There is the lynch option after all if they cannot shoe themselves to be town.
There's also another option, make mods do away with a weak make 2-3 posts a day etc. Rule and enforce a much stronger 10-15 posts a day. Missing that would give a warning and then a modkill. At least in that situation you would have the information to determine alignments and if not you lynch Scum any way.
As for the second point jat, there are more than just onegu. Shining, Rels myself, rayn even koshi are people who can go off and be determined town by it because of meta and a lot of time people subtly do push to see those things.
And you are wrong I believe that people do leave because of bm in the thread. Other things might influence but there are a lot of times things go well over the line. And things should be taken out of the gray area instead of one host modkilling for an insult and another not doing a thing.
And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote: And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote.
Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
On June 26 2016 07:34 Damdred wrote: I disagree that you cannot punish people for non voting in a game. There is the lynch option after all if they cannot shoe themselves to be town.
There's also another option, make mods do away with a weak make 2-3 posts a day etc. Rule and enforce a much stronger 10-15 posts a day. Missing that would give a warning and then a modkill. At least in that situation you would have the information to determine alignments and if not you lynch Scum any way.
As for the second point jat, there are more than just onegu. Shining, Rels myself, rayn even koshi are people who can go off and be determined town by it because of meta and a lot of time people subtly do push to see those things.
And you are wrong I believe that people do leave because of bm in the thread. Other things might influence but there are a lot of times things go well over the line. And things should be taken out of the gray area instead of one host modkilling for an insult and another not doing a thing.
You don't lynch someone for not voting alone if you want to win a game. If you want harsher activity rules - go for it. But I don't see what it has to do with the voting thing.
I don't doubt that behaviour made some people leave. But it is not the reason for the recent decline of TL mafia. If you want people to stop "confirming themselves" by raging talk to them to stop it. Don't change rules.
To your examples: Onegu and rayn - bad examples. Both rage as either alignment. Rels probably too. Koshi is somewhat true but also pretty irrelevant since he can confirm himself by just playing his normal towngame. I also think he just got modkilled for being an asshole so where exactly is the problem here? Shining I don't know well enough and you (damdred) could just stop doing that instead of demanding a rulechange to prevent yourself from doing something you think ruins the community.
Edit: In essence - if you can confirm yourself as town due to behaviour without violating the existing rules then you don't value your mafia game enough and that's nothing stricter rules are able to fix.
On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote: And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote.
Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
That's why you should warn at the first offense. And it really shouldn't happen - you generally have 48 hours to place a vote. Just cast a placeholder vote if you don't know if you will be available.
And yeah, there obviously is a huge difference between last second off wagon votes and not voting.
On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote: And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote.
Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
I disagree I think if you go back and look a majority of mafia will be on either the wagon and counter wagon with maybe one mafia on the outside looking in from being afk or many other things.
And the consolidation is a dream we all have but most generally don't care to the extent where only scum vote on the off wagon etc.
Honestly not voting and voting on an off wagon are basically the same principal almost no responsibility and 0 information.
On June 26 2016 07:42 Damdred wrote: And really what's the difference between someone throwing a vote on an off wagon last second and note voting both are scummy things. Both are useless and both have almost the same amount of information behind them.
This part I disagree. Off wagon voting (especially solo wagons) are generally a scum tell. I mean it's possible you have a townie saying fuck the majority or intentionally protesting a clear majority vote that isn't going anywhere but the vast majority of townies will consolidate to keep mafia from controlling the vote.
Non-voting especially due to unavailability can happen however, to either alignment.
I disagree I think if you go back and look a majority of mafia will be on either the wagon and counter wagon with maybe one mafia on the outside looking in from being afk or many other things.
And the consolidation is a dream we all have but most generally don't care to the extent where only scum vote on the off wagon etc.
Honestly not voting and voting on an off wagon are basically the same principal almost no responsibility and 0 information.
Absolutely not. You have the information that the person in question obviously did not care about the lynch which you can use to determine their alignment like any other information. And it is something you do not have if there are no votes.
Yes JAT, you get just as much information from a vote on an off wagon which is they don't care as you do with a non vote. Which is they do not care.
If you absolutely need someone to place a vote to be able to determine alignments then that person is not playing mafia any way and is a detriment to the team.
And as for the asshoke meta I've totally stopped doing everything that looks emotional. It has gone way to far in numerous games lately. If you can look at games and see all the modkills now and in the past and still say no problem with how we are playing the game.
We have an issue with behavior and just a general toxic atmosphere in a lot of games now.
On June 26 2016 08:13 Damdred wrote: Yes JAT, you get just as much information from a vote on an off wagon which is they don't care as you do with a non vote. Which is they do not care.
If you absolutely need someone to place a vote to be able to determine alignments then that person is not playing mafia any way and is a detriment to the team.
And as for the asshoke meta I've totally stopped doing everything that looks emotional. It has gone way to far in numerous games lately. If you can look at games and see all the modkills now and in the past and still say no problem with how we are playing the game.
We have an issue with behavior and just a general toxic atmosphere in a lot of games now.
No, if someone doesn't vote you get 0 information since they could just be afk for whatever reason. If they do vote someone they have to justify that decision. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this.
Getting rid of emotion in mafia is impossible and not even desirable. There are behaviour rules and usually if someone goes way overboard he is modkilled. Changing the rules will not result in less modkills or nicer players.
Alright, I'm not going to comment further on the voting issue, personally I'd like to see where a few other hosts stand on the issue - I know BH modkills almost as much as possible, I know Artanis has/had taught me he prefers warnings for first offences, modkill for second, for example.
To comment further on behaviour, emotion is impossible to get rid of but the issue is where it goes overboard and where people draw the line. Even being on tilt isn't always bad provided how and to whom, if anyone the player is channeling at.
Where I disagree with JAT is how warnings/modkills are applied for behaviour - what is acceptable to one host in certain circumstances may not be acceptable to another. I tried to give a few examples in my initial post and I can think of two games (Tropical Storm and one of the Noir games) where the host(s) in question admitted in the end they would have been a bit more strict on behaviour given events in their games. IDK.
Then I should probably just look for a new community tbh that don't treat each other like shit in games then birch when people get hit with bans. We shouldn't be in the category where people see personal attacks as a legitimate means to gauge someone's alignment, or the inverse mafia attacks ! someone Enough to get that person mod killed or so checked out of the game they might of not even signed up.
Both things are true, he'll we would put robik up to lynch to see how he reacts.
And I'm not even saying mafia shouldn't have no emotion I'm saying that we should act like adults, none of us would even have an account if tl decided to,moderate us to any degree
And honestly I just want all the rules to line up between hosts and the community to work it out so that there aren't many grey areas left rather than pages of debate about player x here and player y there.
On June 26 2016 08:48 Half the Sky wrote: Where I disagree with JAT is how warnings/modkills are applied for behaviour - what is acceptable to one host in certain circumstances may not be acceptable to another. I tried to give a few examples in my initial post and I can think of two games (Tropical Storm and one of the Noir games) where the host(s) in question admitted in the end they would have been a bit more strict on behaviour given events in their games. IDK.
So what is your solution/proposed change exactly? Where do we even disagree? Because nothing in this post disagrees with what I said.
My stance is that each host should decide for themselves what kind of behaviour he is willing to tolerate and what not.
On June 26 2016 08:58 Damdred wrote: Then I should probably just look for a new community tbh that don't treat each other like shit in games then birch when people get hit with bans. We shouldn't be in the category where people see personal attacks as a legitimate means to gauge someone's alignment, or the inverse mafia attacks ! someone Enough to get that person mod killed or so checked out of the game they might of not even signed up.
Both things are true, he'll we would put robik up to lynch to see how he reacts.
And I'm not even saying mafia shouldn't have no emotion I'm saying that we should act like adults, none of us would even have an account if tl decided to,moderate us to any degree
I don't even know where this reactions comes from. Nowhere did I say any of the things you list in this post are ok. Yes, people should not treat each other like shit. That's why we have behaviour rules. I don't understand what exactly you think should be done. A general "let's all be nice!" probably won't work. And you also said you want fewer modkills...
On June 26 2016 08:59 Damdred wrote: And honestly I just want all the rules to line up between hosts and the community to work it out so that there aren't many grey areas left rather than pages of debate about player x here and player y there.
I don't see how this would improve anything at all and why anyone would honestly want that. Less diversity in our games probably won't make TL mafia more attractive. And the things you are talking about (especially behaviour) are very very subjective and case specific so you can't just "line up" everything.
If you want strict rules join a game with strict rules/convince a host to implement strict rules. Don't force your preference on everyone.
On June 27 2016 01:53 Vivax wrote: It's simple, we turn the entire place into a casino.
Future games will have a buy-in and a prize pool. Everyone will play to the best of his abilities.
Buy-ins? Prize pool?
No, no, no, no.
We will open up a site for a new up coming Esport (Mafiacraft) and call the site TeamScum. Then, we will Get Professional teams for Mafiacraft going, and expand into everything, Like Dota, Lol, Poker, etc. Post "news" for Mafiacraft, while just chilling in the ban list discussion subfourm, debating who has the most bans among the admins. Also, Have our own Mafiabet's and teams, which are like fantasy Football, but for Esports!
We will also rig the tournaments at Towncon, to make us even richer. Just blame it on RNG fixing.
OH, and maybe get TLO to play mafia or something idk.
On June 26 2016 08:59 Damdred wrote: And honestly I just want all the rules to line up between hosts and the community to work it out so that there aren't many grey areas left rather than pages of debate about player x here and player y there.
I don't see how this would improve anything at all and why anyone would honestly want that. Less diversity in our games probably won't make TL mafia more attractive. And the things you are talking about (especially behaviour) are very very subjective and case specific so you can't just "line up" everything.
If you want strict rules join a game with strict rules/convince a host to implement strict rules. Don't force your preference on everyone.
tbh I wouldn't say it this strongly...and while I think the ideal is commendable, I really don't see how it's even possible to make behavior rules consistent across the board in mafia games. Not only is it subjective between hosts, but it's also subjective between games w/ the same host.
The only way to make it objective would be to ban ALL bad language and ALL offensive words, ALL negative comments aimed at people and not play (which enters into subjective world again btw) and while that may have made the community more welcoming before...that would kill TL Mafia now. Even the "best" of us curse and say "bad" things occasionally in high-stress games. You'd have no player base.
Besides which, some people are simply better at being complete and total assholes without cursing or saying something objectively "wrong". And you're telling an international community with varying levels of fluency that unless they can get better at insulting people in "acceptable" ways, they just have to get bullied by the egos. Not sure that's really a step up.
Essentially, if you want this to work, you have to make everyone play 100% nice. All the time. Does anyone actually think that this community is capable of that? I'd actually be surprised if you could find one person even with the generally nicer and better-behaved players that is ALWAYS nice and NEVER says anything offensive.
-shrugs-
I agree with those of you saying it would be better if TL Mafia worked this way, I just don't see it as a plausible thing to enforce...The current subjectivity between hosts may be annoying, but it's probably the best system we can have when talking about behavior in a high-pressure game, where behavior is subjective by definition.
On June 26 2016 03:42 Half the Sky wrote: Thank you so much Damdred, I 1000% agree with what you're doing. I've been told time and again I have been a strict host and I know modding alongside Greymist I found his style of hosting (IMO I thought he was stricter than I was) VERY refreshing.
To me, playing TL mafia should be this: Play the game, play to win as the alignment assigned and don't make people's lives miserable doing so, end of.
So to keep on point with what Damdred said
(1) Non voting. I personally have no preference and I have tinkered with both warning and then modkill and then immediate modkill.
If we want to stay consistent as all hosts on this matter, I would propose adopting warning for first offence and modkill for second. The reason being that in newbies, newbies may not know any better. I know that might sound shite, and yes said newbie might have a coach but....eh. Between that and EoDs that might be problematic for North American players, the standard TL deadline is roughly evening rush hour for them - I would agree with Damdred to standardise that rule to not modkill on the first go.
For themed games where voting occurs at night for whatever reason, I think there needs to be separate explanations by the host and penalities need to be explicitly stated, but absolutely no modkills for any issues at night because players just aren't used to doing voting at night.
Also this should be obvious but aimed at the newer hosts just in case - if there is a situation in themed games where premature no lynches end the day early, you obviously don't touch the people who haven't voted. Obvious I would hope for most, but there it is.
(2) Behaviour. This is where I've gotten some of pushback from certain people I won't name - some who have hosted and others who have been around mostly/exclusively as players - and I remember having a long conversation with Greymist about the pushback against the stricter hosts when we were setting up PYP Intriguing and at that time he strongly disagreed with players' behaviour...the way he ran PYP a few months ago I thought was solid and he addressed the BM/controversial actions in that game in a way that was constructive for everyone involved. Additionally, the decision to remove a certain player in pre-game who was disruptive in another game (and was modkilled) also was a positive thing he did.
I bring him up because (1) he's experienced and knows his stuff (2) he's respected around here AFAIK and (3) he appears to me one of the stricter hosts compared to the vast majority I've seen on this site.
Obviously across the board there's been an issue with consistency, myself included - swear words that can get you warned/modkilled by one host doesn't get you touched by someone else.
Here's the way I see it. Insults meant to hurt people, threaten them (topics such as suicide, mental health issues), excessive swearing where insults are directed at people (i.e. you are a fucking motherfucker), expressing in any way you don't want to play with a certain player are examples of things that I think need to be stopped dead in its tracks.
Using swears to describe an argument (i.e. that is such a bullshit argument, your case is shit, etc) are okay. because you can always attack arguments but not people.
Racism/homophobia/sexism should always be a modkill. Yes I am saying this because I have dealt with people who disagree with this. I forget who it was but I caught someone in one game using "faggot" to describe how someone was playing - it wasn't a direct attack, but it was still unacceptable when there's a million other ways you can push someone. Thankfully the host in question modkilled him.
I know there are also certain people around here who don't care for the PC end of things either - well one way or another we have to get around it for the betterment of the community here, I realise different cultures/backgrounds treat things different. If the majority don't care for it around here, then do what's best for the majority. That's how I see it and from my understanding, if the majority prefer to be PC, then let it roll that way.
I know geript also did something like pre-warning people when he ran games and that I liked, you could just tap someone on the shoulder so they knew where the line was. Again super subjective but it was a way for people to keep themselves in check.
The other issue I can potentially see as people treat differently - some hosts prefer public warnings and others private. The argument for private is that it reduces WIFOM in some cases but the problem is that if other players see or think behaviour is going unpunished, then it STILL affects their thinking or gives them the impression they can push it behaviourwise too. IDK. People complain about host interference but there's a downside to that, last few games I've been fortunate enough to not have serious behaviour issues in my games, but recently I look at insults in question and decide on a case by case basis what to do so as to reduce the impact an action has on players.
I'll probably post more, but off the top of my head, that's kinda more or less how I feel.
(edited for readability)
It was me. I regret all of the things.
I don't play this game to really have an opinion but
1) I think voting should be forced and it should be a modkill if you don't vote. It is a massively important part of the game and it's pretty harmful to the game overall.
2) A no asshole rule would make every game incredibly boring, just let people be , I think in general people aren't going full batshit crazy at newbies. It's normally veterans getting in a squabble which is rather entertaining.
Any way possible that we allow a warning and then modkill for newbies and then immediate modkill for no-voting for non-newbies? And then standardise that across all games with mods remembering to be more lenient on this for newbies (especially when the mistake is made by newbies)?
On June 27 2016 23:31 Half the Sky wrote: I thought about the voting aspect a bit more.
Any way possible that we allow a warning and then modkill for newbies and then immediate modkill for no-voting for non-newbies? And then standardise that across all games with mods remembering to be more lenient on this for newbies (especially when the mistake is made by newbies)?
Thoughts?
I am all for standardising it. But I am against the immediate modkill because it will ruin a lot of games needlessly. Warn once, modkill afterwards across the board. You can punish the first offense by giving a warning/ban post game. Which is btw. exactly what was consensus when we discussed this topic the last time.
Just so we do not clutter up the ban list thread and devolve into a bickering mess. I decided to start up a new thread where we could discuss and hopefully implement something that could make the hosting process easier in that we eliminate a lot of gray areas between hosts and maybe the ban list actions in themselves.
Here are some topics i would like to consider
1) Different rules about non voting, this is one of the pet peeves of mine that I want all mods to homogenize on. Rayn says this is the most important part of mafia is voting. I would agree but there are to often times where there is grey area because of how active some people are caught away at lynch time etc.
And mod killing for this probably eliminates some of the strategy scum and some town can use to draw out scum or try to hold there motivation. So I personally would like to see it eliminated from modkill territory and the ban list actions personally. We can punish people in game just as easily as in the ban list for non votes, especially when we see motivation in there actions. So whats the point of it besides to try to moderate how people play to an invisible standard we set ourselves?
2) Our asshole meta probably needs to stop. We sort of need to bring all hosts action in line when it comes to behavior. There is to often now where people can confirm themselves town because of the emotional pull they can bring. Especially when they toe the line so heavily or even go across it to proove they are town.
Basically we are almost to the point in some games where people are almost modkilling themselves to confirm themselves and its bullcrap.
We need to crack down on such behaviors even more no warnings, it doesn't matter how emotional mafia is we can still treat each other with respect even if we disagree with arguments. Other sites do it and we can as well.
Thats probably my biggest two things. But I do think we need to change several things to become a viable community again instead of dropping people like we currently are.
Well get to discussing
i agree. tbh I think I did this once when I first started and was less chillaxed and hated myself for it. I think its also up to the players to realise its a game for fun and thats not fun. we all role mafia
im on the side where its probably best to not punish someone at all for no voting. Its how its done on other sites altho I think if its done twice your dead by default. Yes towns have a potential to be shitty if they dont vote jat but shitty towns have allways and will always be part of the game. You have to adjust to them not the other way around.
I dont think its matters much tho and should just be consistent
Like I have no problem playing with shit towns or guys who dont take the game too seriously and thats along the line of no voting sometimes. More people the better if your annoyed at shit towns there is always invite games if we had a bigger community
On June 27 2016 23:31 Half the Sky wrote: I thought about the voting aspect a bit more.
Any way possible that we allow a warning and then modkill for newbies and then immediate modkill for no-voting for non-newbies? And then standardise that across all games with mods remembering to be more lenient on this for newbies (especially when the mistake is made by newbies)?
Thoughts?
I am all for standardising it. But I am against the immediate modkill because it will ruin a lot of games needlessly. Warn once, modkill afterwards across the board. You can punish the first offense by giving a warning/ban post game. Which is btw. exactly what was consensus when we discussed this topic the last time.
ya acualy the direct modkill has ruined quite a few games i have been in. like by modkilling me randomly the first and provably only time I ever failed to vote
Despite my standards in my games, I have always thought that Modkilling should be a last resort even in cases of intentional behavior. It seems odd to me that I should punish an unintentional action more severely than itentional misconduct.
That being said believe me that I understand how non-voting can affect a game. I have a couple of ideas on how to adress a non-voters vote that should work to lessen its impact.
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.
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 00:38 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.
On June 28 2016 00:03 sicklucker wrote: im on the side where its probably best to not punish someone at all for no voting. Its how its done on other sites altho I think if its done twice your dead by default. Yes towns have a potential to be shitty if they dont vote jat but shitty towns have allways and will always be part of the game. You have to adjust to them not the other way around.
I dont think its matters much tho and should just be consistent
I wasn't aware that this was the case - curious as to how towns work out consistent no-voters in some of these games though. It's been ages since I've played off-site...
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 00:38 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.
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
... Modkill is the same...
The only imbalance here is that town gets to choose. Which is fine.
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 00:38 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 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 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. [...]
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 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 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 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 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 00:10 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 ^^
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 .
On July 03 2016 02:15 marvellosity wrote: 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 .
Exactly. That's why we should only warn for the first novote and why we will never be able to "standardise" punishments for bad behaviour.
I've only known you as scum ;( Maybe we could've had plenty occasions to scumhunt together if I would have posted this sooner.
A couple of thoughts and a suggestion.
Apart from flavor the amusement in forum mafia depends entirely on interaction and there are numerous obstacles to be overcome, some of them not initially apparent.
It requires long-term attention, effort and nonchalance, but good luck realizing you're failing or making others fail at the 3rd requirement before it's too late to let it slide; nevertheless swearing and busting balls can make up a considerable percentage of the fun which tightening regulations on freedom of expression would dampen.
So with all this investment that we know this game is good at luring there's a high risk of the rewards falling short, even if you're victorious.
[Problem] Once upset there's nothing worse than having to tiptoe on the edges of the rules of conduct in order to circumvent getting penalized while still communicating what is on one's mind with high fidelity to emotions. Some might snap, some might stomach it, some might release demons for all to see. Some might be more talented at this than others but is this the skillset people want to exhibit in a game of mafia? [Why]
Fuck no, I think finding scum and manipulating town into mislynching townies while having a jolly time is, but if someone gets between you and your rewarding experience chances are that holding back will only creep up on you later.
[Solution] Layers of control.
What if one of the players acted as a trustee by providing a quicktopic for the player base to vent without fear of repercussions (except with race/gender/homophobic/mental disorder stuff and posting after death), while the host keeps the game thread squeaky clean with a rigid policy against personal attacks; including calling someone bad or something they said insufficient, instead enforcing a strict adherence to the finality of alignment indication and to the use of the euphemism scummy(?). Or multiple trustees (as few as possible/convenient) with various degrees of liberty.
This way the kind of behavior in question becomes alignment-irrelevant. One may choose to ignore and never even access the speakeasy QT or revel in it extensively or fugitively, to get something off one's chest and carry on having fun; what happens there stays there only until the game is over and may not be invoked as grounds for voting someone, nor may the link be made available to third parties, hosts included.
Certainly you as a player will recognize a theatrical element even in the most abrasive comments, or not, you choose but #keepTLmafiashinyontheexterior
Actually, this is something the INFP site hosts (QT and RB) have kinda done.
They give each player a QT. It works like this.
Each Town member has a QT where only the host and the said townie can see. Each mafia member has the same, but also the mafia chat.
Anything can be said in said personal Qt's
It works some-what from what I can tell. And can even be used for posting thoughts etc. Not to say it stops it enitraly, though, my experience with it did seemed to help a bit.
On July 09 2016 07:26 Shapelog wrote: Actually, this is something the INFP site hosts (QT and RB) have kinda done.
They give each player a QT. It works like this.
Each Town member has a QT where only the host and the said townie can see. Each mafia member has the same, but also the mafia chat.
Anything can be said in said personal Qt's
It works some-what from what I can tell. And can even be used for posting thoughts etc. Not to say it stops it enitraly, though, my experience with it did seemed to help a bit.
Noted but I don't think so. What I suggested was a kind of Vegas whereas this would be like the rl equivalent of a complaint box.
So the Vegas Idea of what happens in vegas, stays in vegas?
This way the kind of behavior in question becomes alignment-irrelevant. One may choose to ignore and never even access the speakeasy QT or revel in it extensively or fugitively, to get something off one's chest and carry on having fun; what happens there stays there only until the game is over and may not be invoked as grounds for voting someone, nor may the link be made available to third parties, hosts included.
Here's the problem with that.
1. Hosts need to have access to it. just to not have a cheating insensitive. Don't have to have say or anything, but still should be able to at least check it. 2. Finding "trustees". It isn't that I do not think the community cannot find trustees (hell I do it.) It is more about, if it A) will be lip tight, and B) what if the rage implies the trustee? Or has something that pisses off the trustee.
We could also have a vent/offsite venting (like gaming) thread. CSGO sub forum has one. The only prob. will be people not talking about it or any games they are in.
Hosts have enough on their plate. If someone wanted to cheat they'd use other means just the same.
Trustees can use it ad libitum as well. Edited posts would be considered spam as there is no way to distinguish a creator edit from the original poster's one, but it has to be one of the two so.. shared shame.
A venting topic for general use would be persistent whereas a speakeasy QT gets deleted when the game has concluded, dissolved like the conflicts it bears. The former would send the wrong message imo. Nevertheless I am all for it if the venting thread has an expiration date like say a week, and a queue or randomized shuffle to supply new creators.
I feel like there is need for one right now, and me being upset about what happened notwithstanding I'm not mad at VisceraEyes. I think it's the conclusion to something that has been brewing below the surface and it's not Koshi-specific.
Therefore I will provide the first of hopefully more venting threads; it's the QT I meant to use for Bavaria. Acces should be restricted to mafia players so PM me linking a gamethread and stating your Quicktopic username if interested and I will provide the link.
The next creator will be provided a list of insiders, so they can PM them the new link, in roughly a week from now.
On July 09 2016 07:56 Koshi wrote: So your sacrifice was not in vain.
I kinda like the idea of this. During some games I basically made a rant QT for myself, where I could yell at a wall and stuff. xD Overdid it on purpose in there, but it was nice.
In my first scum game, I was also ranting to myself a lot in the scum qt after my two teammates got lunched. Some of the hosts did drop some words of encouragement, also was very nice.
So I think that idea would be nice. Like not everyone will want/need something like this. Still not sure about finding enough Trustees though. Worth a shot though.
[Solution] Rank town players post-game with regard to the timeframes they managed to vote for scum as opposed to town. Convert it to bragging rights currency. For example in a 13p game with 3 scum if you vote scum for 4 hours on day1 you get 9/3 x 4 = 12BR (town - 1 to scum ratio x timeframe in hours). If you vote for a fellow townie instead you get substracted 1 BR per hour from your balance, and you leak 0.2 if you're not voting. This should make things more interesting and give incentive to scumhunt asap.
However there are times when one votes for reactions / pressure and doesn't want to compromise bank in which case a simultaneous PM to the host would suffice to void liquidity.
Sanctions for breach of conduct should also include a bragging rights cash fine.
Maybe we can also set up some sort of service exchange market for those who are not solely into accumulating bragging rights for the general scoreboard, and those who wish to make bank without playing. Like hosts who may want to lease their flavor space.
On July 14 2016 03:09 Race Bannon wrote: [Problem] Failure to vote.
[Solution] Rank town players post-game with regards to the timeframes they managed to vote for scum as opposed to town. Convert it to bragging rights currency. For example in a 13p game with 3 scum if you vote scum for 4 hours on day1 you get 9/3 x 4 = 12BR (town - 1 to scum ratio x timeframe in hours). If you vote for a fellow townie instead you get substracted 1 BR per hour from your balance, and you leak 0.2 if you're not voting. This should make things more interesting and give incentive to scumhunt asap.
However there are times when one votes for reactions / pressure and doesn't want to compromise bank in which case a simultaneous PM to the host would suffice to void liquidity.
Sanctions for breach of conduct should also include a bragging rights cash fine.
Maybe we can also set up some sort of service exchange market for those who are not solely into accumulating bragging rights for the general scoreboard, and those who wish to make bank without playing. Like hosts who may want to lease their flavor space.
Get rid of the penalties, I think people would have a lot of fun / be motivated enough with scum voting bragging rights alone. Awesome idea though
What about it would make things worse, and what would not make them better than the way they are now, except for someone having to do some math after the game is over.
To clarify the last bit, I think it would be fun if one could do something productive with or for the hard earned ß. If it mimicks money, harbors value instead of simply remaining a finality its energy doesn't dissipate, but gets reintroduced as a procurer, evaluator and regulator of activity, effort, content and service into the enveloping community body.
Flavor, obsing, coaching, shadowing, guides, archives, community threads, banlist administration and hosting regulation already transcend the game per se. They are adapted augmentations, proof of room to grow.
[Shortcoming] All other games native to TL are of a competitive nature and have people arguing about quality of play too, with people judging and fighting for the relevance of their assessment, but mafia lacks a straightforward way to objectively measure skill, as reflected in recent subjective judgements which have an undeniable tendency to offend and may lead to disruption of games and/or killing the joy of playing.
[Solution] Ranked match. Face off two randomly selected players by having them compete for victory in 3 simultaneous games with the same setup and players list. The player who is being ®anked will be scum once, while the other is town, and town two times. Once while the other is scum and in an eventual tiebreaker were they're both townies, relying on bragon income to determine the better performance and thus the victor.
Every player will have to deposit a fee to participate but the amount of bragons they receive for voting scum doubles by default and quadruples for games won by their faction. However only the result of the face-off counts for the ®leage, the power ranking of which bears a purely relativist signifcance, gaining relevance exponentially with every new result.
With ranked matches and the introduction of bragons (ß) and maybe an equivalent for scumgames (§) the evaluation of player caliber can become a legitimate extension to the service spectrum the community provides.
Remember, Day[9]'s daily wouldn't have become a viewer magnet without an iccup A rank and neither should much consideration be given to the opinions of someone who doesn't have the cred. Furthermore the quality of post-game analysis, coaching and guide concocting has only to gain if it's primarily the A list players who engage in such activities.
Ranked match. Face off two randomly selected players by having them compete for victory in 3 simultaneous games with the same setup and players list. The player who is being ®anked will be scum once, while the other is town, and town two times. Once while the other is scum and in an eventual tiebreaker were they're both townies, relying on bragon income to determine the better performance and thus the victor.
The underline is a big issue. 1 game of fourm mafia already draws a lot of attention, but three? Not only that, but if I know that X is either 66% town or 33% mafia in those 3 games, and X flips mafia via lynch in game 1. He is confirmed town in game 2 and 3.
If you really want rank, I can create a Ranking system, following the lines of:
-Either, Game join is a rank game over all ([R] tag) or PM telling me that they want that game they are about to start to count to ranking. This wouldn't be allowed in any newbie or coaching games, due to obv details. -Must play at least 3-5 games to be ranked (Kinda like placement matches, however, instead of placing you, it teaches you the game.) -Separate MMR for both town, 3rd party, and scum . -Monthly Reports about the Top 25 (or what ever) MMR players for the 3 alignment. -To be placed, you must send me or whoever at least X games where you Y alignment. Y being the Alignment you want to be ranked. -MMR will be added/removed depending on players actions during the game. (If you are the last remaining scum, and you carry your team, you should get extra MMR IMO)
It is kinda of a headache, But I could maybe make it work if People show interest. I think it is better if you have it to where any games can count towards your rank (minus expectations) and the thread doesn't need to necessarily know.
On July 15 2016 12:27 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: rb that might be the worst idea I ever heard. And that transcends forum mafia. It might be the worst idea I've ever heard about anything ever.
Nobody except the 1 host out of three who randomized the roles of the 3 games, until he found a suitable pair, knows who is being ranked right up until the games are finished.
3 simultaneous games with the same setup and players is unlike 3 random games with nothing in common. It is demanding to perform well and players may have to compromise intelligently on their effort investment because the scumteams will exploit inefficiency, but it also eliminates many variables which obstruct meaningful ranking; which is why I'm skeptical of your approach. Lengthening days might be a fair tweak, probably would result in roughly the same workload overall though.
None taken. I appreciate your feedback, I just need to explain it better for you to stop thinking of it as one of your average games multiplied by 3, before I consider compromising for 2 games.
..one game spanning across 3 game threads; more like a 3d game as opposed to 3 2d games played side-by-side is really just 1.5 × the investment and triple the richness if the same players, all of them reluctant to loose too much sleep over something as trivial as mafia, balance out their workload among each other and the games. Furthermore they reap all of the benefits of 3 games, all with unique flavor inclusive for easier delineation. Plus they get to experience something unprecedented one could call live meta, which can mean the [Solution] to the [Problem] of lackluster newblood influx and stay, and is the result of the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
As time progresses both town and scum gauge the capabilities of their fellow players faster and more easily, without the need for prior encounters and meta-dive masochism, supplying sufficient raw materials in the form of impressions for analysis / manipulations. This might not mean much to veterans but it's a huge interactivity boost for newer players but generally a convenient shortcut for those unfamiliar with each other, facilitating the cognitive flow and tying the game together like the dude's rug, man.
PalmarPerson was signed in when posted 09-05-2016 05:01 PM ET (US) Congratulations and well played gentlemen. I am a huge fan of the pivot you pulled off on day 2. I thought the whole "bus Palmar" thing had gone too far but you pulled out nicely and ejaculated all over TW instead.
Fantastic...
^ Major Manner Penalty in my book, no eels for you. Other than that Bragon, Eel count for $W:®1H Mafia: 5§ + 3§×3 = 14§ (modkills don't count) host didn't react to imbalance => -4 = 10®§ for Koshi and Holyflair
Original Message From Rewarden: Oh yeah, so it is. I do see you on the warning list there. I'll make a note and remove you when I get the chance. Anything else?
So. Let's start by removing the warning then, shall we?
.. oh wait changed my mind. But I'll ask someonenelse to do it.. or not. gg
Original Message From Grackaroni: Ok I appreciate your dedication to insanity. However it's not cool to send the Obs QT link to a player currently playing in the game.
as Damdred aka Kang ®§ -- whacked (<l3) => Placeholder: Shapelog aka heyoka l Liquid`Sheth aka Leo => Leeliu vs Grack Vader vs Emperorels
Tumblewood
as ConstellationConnaisseur
Vivax
as Palmar aka Leonard Zunin
Koshi aka Koshi
as Palmar aka #thisstupid #nocohost4u
geript
as himself
Palmar
as Koshi aka #urrantsuxbroggnore (gf switcheroo)
Trfel
as Pantsless
Holyflare
as Ether
Tictock
as "grandfather"
DanelerH
as "rookie"
scott#
as VisceraEyes
Onegu
as Tictock (Tumblewood l Artanis[XP] l Skynx)
Lunaticman
as Tictock (Tumblewood l Artanis[XP] l Skynx)
beetherdonethat
as Tictock (Tumblewood l Artanis[XP] l Skynx)
marvellosity
representing The_Templar Caste
Alakaslam
as Grandmaster Slammy Slam aka Russian Battlecruiser
The_Templar
as fuba aka Robert Porter alias Prot aka Kruppe the §
Shoutouts: to Damdred and his progeny, Shapelog, Grack, Mafia Awards Nominators, Foolishness for being blasé, Blazinghand in advance for for his time and kitaman27 for saving the sheet
WIFOM Addendum: Theme mechanic: The rule of 4 §core lead in lylo => clue revelation
4
Dynamic, sensible setup balance l Live meta, wifom-reaction crumb-test l Modkill compensation
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Original Message From beentheredonethat: Brave Soul (Vanilla Town)
As your spaceship dives into the planet's atmosphere, you're troubled to find a good spot on that pile of dirt that your system classified as "planet". Trimeria XXVI, you think. The name lies oddly on your tongue.
Finally, your thrusters are disabled, and with a slight jolt, your ship docks to the hard ground. Leaving your ship, you start to explore the immediate surroundings, and it doesn't take long until you encounter others. Those are the right coordinates, and all you have to do now is to wait for the Alliance's generals to arrive.
Let's just hope that the Empire doesn't know you're here...
On August 16 2016 16:10 beentheredonethat wrote: Hey guys, I appreciate the interest but I just found out that I completely disregarded the queue. As others already pointed out, there are also still games going on and this game will probably take a long time to fill. I have consulted Foolishness via the Active List of Mafia Games thread and will give another update here once signups are open. I will leave the /ins and /replaces as they are without removing them but I'll definitely ask if they're still eligible when the game is again open for signups.
Still "[T][N]" at this point
So I asked Rels if he wants to host the new [N]TL Mafia # in archon mode with btdt, merge his Haunted Mansion [T][M] with this one. He said nothing, so maybe some other time then. Still.. [T][M]Awesomeness HEAR ME ROAR .. back @ u. echo
On August 16 2016 18:50 Race Bannon wrote: The force is strong with this game. Foolishness Profile Blog PM Joined May 2009 United States3015 Posts 1 hour ago #5686 It's all good, we got it sorted out. Rels told me he wanted to wait a bit for Palmar's game to be over, and that he doesn't mind if you host first. So you can keep your game open (though signups might take a bit, as I'm sure you're already noticed) and Rels will host his game after yours. geript: "Foolishness's cases are persuasive and reasonable but leave you feeling dirty afterwards. Kinda like a whore." ---- Manager of the TL Mafia forum, come play!Signup sesame now open!
I am the most polarizing element in the game, hijole!
I should do something other than mimicking Slam.
Out of curiosity, why did you talk about the vanilla role pm? Give us YOUR version of it.
A wifom reaction test. Not sure about the reactions though. I wouldn't want to lynch the people who took sides on my alignment bearing in mind what I've said just yet. Palmar and disfo on one side, and geript, Koshi on the other, I'd like to keep at least until day 3.
Also, I will address the elephant in the room once more, and say that the PM flavor =/= OP flavor. Therefore I am nonplussed about Trfel, scott and Palmar explicitly claiming it not be so, while others at least circumvented commenting directly on this issue, and wound up discussing my alignment instead .. which could be a sign of scum probing for information following the scare that the game might be breakable.
beentheredonethat Person was signed in when posted 08-31-2016 06:13 PM ET (US) Sidenote on Race Bannon:
1. He sparks up discussion about how role PMs have different flavour to the OP 2. He claims to not have opened his role PM and gets modkilled because he brags about it.
Like, what the hell? Race, can you explain?
[THIS IS IT] Race Bannon: His te level was insufficient @that π
On July 18 2016 08:50 Damdred wrote: No offense but I just don't think the idea will work because to put it frankly playing two games at once is taxing but three at once is hellish.
Its just really draining to people and honestly it waters down the mafia product in that situation
Yeah that is why I said something where you Just declare if you are playing 4 rank or not.
We are not like QT and those people, who can play 4 games at once rofl.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://images.hellogiggles.com/uploads/2016/05/31034733/burn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iV4Bamm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/ray-2.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=769)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0DoPBqD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/283750_S/The-Other-Star-Wars-Characters-People-Should-Cosplay-For-Halloween.jpg)
but I just found out that I completely disregarded the queue. As others already pointed out, there are also still games going on and this game will probably take a long time to fill. I have consulted Foolishness via the 
![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8e/ac/9f/8eac9f7d19cc8747394bd07c3c4875fc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZKrNRt0.jpg)
