Meta discussion

[VectorZero]

I don't think going from 1 large and 2 mediums to 3 (15-30) solves anything; if anything, it'll make the problem worse, as almost all mods max out the player load. This would only encourage more games with >20 players.

[Weeks]

15-30 is exaggerated. I was thinking the max would be 25 or 26, and only 2 games of this type.

[_infina_]

these changes haven't been set yet. They are still flexible, and should stay relatively flexible to fit the state of the sub-forum.

[mpolo]

Maybe say 2 games with >15 players. The mods should know that the really large ones only work occasionally.

[cjdrum]

How about the header for the queue simply being "Large Queue (15-25 players, MAX 30)"?

[Lataro]

Here is my suggestion. First, we get rid of the staggered start date system. It's failing so hard it's not even funny. More than half of the time, games are not running because the mod is AWOL anyway despite committing to a time frame in advance. All it does is slow down the queue significantly. It was a good idea in theory that has turned out to be a shitty idea in practice. We need to go back to the old queue system that is more flexible when dealing with fail games.

Large (21-27 people Max) 1 active, 2 queue

Medium (13-20 people Max) 2 active, 4 queue

Small (8-12 people Max) 2 active, 4 queue

Micro (less than 7 people Max) 1 active, 2 queue

Turbo (no player cap, must be designed to run with the number of signups received within one week, you can limit the number for the game, but be prepared to either step down or run it with what you have after a week of signups, 21 days max run time, divided at mod's discretion.) 1 active, 2 queue

Vanilla (Small or Micro size-game, newbies get preference for spots, IC's can sign up to fill it out, must have simple game mechanics.) 1 active, 2 queue

Overall, this doesn't charge much as far as what we have running, it basically removes the turbo mini, adds a micro, and adds stability to our running of newbie friendly games. It doesn't really cut any active game slots, just restructures them.

While I like my above idea obviously, my main point of consideration is that this set start date system has got to go, the idea itself wasn't bad, but how it's functioning on these forums is horrible, and it's destroyed the medium queue IMO.

[mpolo]

Micro should be "7 or less", right? Or are games with exactly 7 verboten?

Otherwise, the idea looks sound.

Maybe make the upper limit for "Large" a guideline rather than a rule. Occasionally, the really large games work and are fun…

[Lataro]

Sorry, yeah, micro was meant to be inclusive of 7.

[Heliman]

I was just a bit curious about this, but why does this subforum have a thread where the players can come clean about their roles? I mean, sure, it's spoilered, but aren't you worried about other players trying to cheat?

[cjdrum]

From what I understand, it's kind of both to let other people (non-players) see what's actually going on in the game, as well as storing thoughts for later.
It can also act as a bit of an "I told you so" at the end of a game

But about cheating - it's a trust thing, really. By my logic: If somebody truly understands that it's just a game, they won't cheat. If people don't truly understand that it's just a game, they eventually cycle out of the Mafia forum anyway.


This is how I see it, anyway. You should probably leave this question open for people who have more experience than I They can probably give a lot more detail.

[Dark Loink]

It's always been a trust system thing. When someone reads a spoiler(which just happened in scummer, by the way) they usually come clean to it, and ask for a replacement. Accidents happen, and we understand that. Just tell the mod and it works. But if you find out information about the game through a spoiler, and keep playing, you begin to ruin the game.
And the game isn't fun without that challenge. You don't want to be known as the person who ruined a game by reading spoilers, because nobody is going to forget that. We use trust, but it also has an unspoken punishment thing that I just realized-your username would always be remembed as the person who read spoilers.

Also, in a bastard mod a while back, someone got one spoiler per night as their power. They didn't chose, one was sent to them from the mod. I guessed someone may be able to read spoilers, and thought I was teamed up with a townie. So I...lied in my spoilers. I was scum and claimed town in my spoilers. I still sometiems do things like that, to mess with spectators. That's another thing. You can't always trust spoilers, either.

[Heliman]

Wouldn't it be easier to just have the mod give everyone who asks a spoilspec? You know, access to the mod's notes, scumchat, deadchat, etc?

[PhoenixEnigma]

Some mods do that in addition to, or in place of, posting in the discussion thread. Inception is like that at the moment, I believe - PM the mods, and you can get access to the volumes of modnotes. What's missing there, though, are the thoughts of the players in the game, which are often quite entertaining. I do recall at least one game where the mod attempted to get players to PM that sort of thing to the mod and have them added to a google doc or something. It didn't work so well - as I recall, they had to resort to threatening modkills to get people to bother submitting anything that way.

[Krong]

This isn't really an answer to the question anymore, but just general meta discussion on spoilers:

The spoiler thread is there for fun: it keeps spectators entertained and is a fun parting gift when you die in a game / the game ends. It is not a part of the game thread, and no one's required to post there.

Therefore, I don't think mods should EVER include spoiler-reading abilities, even in a bastard game. People who don't post spoilers at all are rewarded by such things, plain and simple. We don't want to discourage people from using that thread, which is really one of the main things making this subforum a community and not just a random collection of games.

The other obvious issue is that spoilers can be for several games; for instance (not a real spoiler, obviously):

Mafia City / Mafia Ocean:

Spoiler:

Annoying how mafia is lurking to death in MC but town is lurking to death in MO. I can't catch a break.

Someone who's modding Mafia City won't be allowed to read that if they're a player (or potential player) for Mafia Ocean.

[ameretrifle]

Some mods do that in addition to, or in place of, posting in the discussion thread. Inception is like that at the moment, I believe - PM the mods, and you can get access to the volumes of modnotes. What's missing there, though, are the thoughts of the players in the game, which are often quite entertaining. I do recall at least one game where the mod attempted to get players to PM that sort of thing to the mod and have them added to a google doc or something. It didn't work so well - as I recall, they had to resort to threatening modkills to get people to bother submitting anything that way.

We also have a spoiler doc. All the spoilers in the discussion thread, copied into a doc. Yeah. It may work, but I'm not sure I could in good conscience recommend these methods. Maybe if you're not the kind of masochists who have anon PMs. XD

Also, that was MoA. Holiday Revenge. Oh yeah, I'm not gonna allow the names to be changed to protect the guilty. As I recall it, it was more like "NO SPOILERS SEND THEM TO ME." "We don't like this idea :/" "I DON'T CARE PMs OR NOTHING." "Then I guess I won't post any spoilers at all..." "SEND ME SPOILERS OR I KILL YOU!!" ">_< I see you makin' shit rules in a game I love, and I'm like, fuck you. I guess the bullshit I sent you wasn't enough, and I'm like, fuck you, and your comod too. Said if I don't confess, yeah, I'm gonna be dead-- now ain't that some shit? (Ain't that some shit.) And though it pains me to send, here's my spoiler PM, and, uh, fuck you."

...I disapproved of this system. With some vehemence. XD

There may be some risks involved in the current spoiler system, but, well, insert the old "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for every other that has ever been tried" here. XD

[Misnomer]

I see you makin' shit rules in a game I love, and I'm like, fuck you. I guess the bullshit I sent you wasn't enough, and I'm like, fuck you, and your comod too. Said if I don't confess, yeah, I'm gonna be dead-- now ain't that some shit? (Ain't that some shit.) And though it pains me to send, here's my spoiler PM, and, uh, fuck you."

Ha, that has actually made my day


But yeah, I don't think there's any need to change the honour system on spoilers. As with not discussing the game outside of the thread, it's a rule that you just have to trust people on.

[Adacore]

The interesting question is what happens when/if people are suspected of breaking that rule. It's not particularly pretty (just ask infina).

Spoilers are at least 50% of what makes these games fun, and build the community. They contain most of the meta-game discussion, detailing irrational vendettas against players that have wronged people in the past, and are frequently hilarious (or, in the case of DN:L spoilers written by amt, epic). I completely agree with Krong that no power of any sort which allows reading spoilers (or garnering any information at all from them, their post times, or anything else to do with them) should ever exist in a game - I refuse to play in any game where this isn't explicit. Although I forgot to ask for Inception, so I'll just hope that one is ok.

Spoilers are frequently far, far more interesting than modnotes, scumchat, masonchat or dead-player thoughts. Spoilers detail the misconceptions and suspicions people hold while playing the game. Their transient thoughts, their fears, everything that makes mafia interesting and fun. Reading how someone is responding to their particular subset of partial information is really cool. Incidentally, even moreso as a mod - reading spoilers about a game you're modding gives you warm fuzzies

[mpolo]

_infina_ was the only real case we had of that suspicion since I've been here, so I see it as pretty much a non-problem. I don't even remember if it turned out that he was just really lucky early on, or if he had actually succumbed to the temptation. In any case, he is now a respected member of our little community, so it doesn't really matter.

[Adacore]

_infina_ was the only real case we had of that suspicion since I've been here, so I see it as pretty much a non-problem. I don't even remember if it turned out that he was just really lucky early on, or if he had actually succumbed to the temptation. In any case, he is now a respected member of our little community, so it doesn't really matter.

I don't think it was ever completely clear - I think the consensus ended up at not proven. As you say, though, it's in the past and infina is great - I was more bringing up the unpleasantness of the event, rather than specifically referencing him. It's only happened once, so it's not a big issue at all, but it is the only real downside of our spoiler system.

[Heliman]

Hmm, Been thinking about this for awhile, and I guess the easiest way to prove if the spoiler system is abused at all would be to compare lynched scum who posted their role in the spoiler thread with scum that didn't post. This is coming from the guy whose not willing to conduct such a survey of course, so w/e.

[_infina_]

what would you think about a template for signups. I was thinking something like this:

Game Name
Mod(s): <mod name(s)>
Game type(L/M/S/M/T/V)
Setup type(Open, Closed, semi-open)
Bastardry level: <least 0-10 most>
Description:

Other Info:

Players:
1.
2.
...

Replacements:
1.
2.
3.

[mrface]

Hmm, Been thinking about this for awhile, and I guess the easiest way to prove if the spoiler system is abused at all would be to compare lynched scum who posted their role in the spoiler thread with scum that didn't post. This is coming from the guy whose not willing to conduct such a survey of course, so w/e.

But then every time we got a new player we'd have to start all over again. Besides, the fora (forums?) is basically a community, and I kind of like the idea of us all being able to trust each other to not read spoilers. Anyone who does will eventually be found out and suffer the consequences--basically what DL said. For those of us who remember that it's all just a game, the spoilers are a large part of the fun.

I have my own question. What the hell's up with breadcrumbing? It seems way too easy for scum to fake and then use near endgame to convince everyone they're the ones telling the truth.

[Adacore]

what would you think about a template for signups. I was thinking something like this:
<TEMPLATE>

That's already been largely adopted anyway, I think. I'd prefer a more descriptive than numerical scale of bastardry, since different people have different definitions of bastardry. So it's best off to tell people what elements of bastardry will exist to what degree. Silknor (I think) made a good post a while back about the different types and possibilities for bastardry, basically starting from the fact that any closed setup, and hence almost every game we have here, is (in concealing things from the players) inherently bastard in some respects.

[RoadieRich]

Are there any thoughts on how to run the Vanilla signups? They're supposed to give priority to newbies, and that's what I was trying to do with my two-list signups. It ended up just over half newbies, with the extra IECs being listed as replacements, which is probably not too far off what we want. Is there a better way of promoting newbie priority in those games?

[Misnomer]

Are there any thoughts on how to run the Vanilla signups? They're supposed to give priority to newbies, and that's what I was trying to do with my two-list signups. It ended up just over half newbies, with the extra IECs being listed as replacements, which is probably not too far off what we want. Is there a better way of promoting newbie priority in those games?

Personally, I'm not sure there's much of a need to explicitly give new players priority. I kind of pictured the Vanilla queue as being designed to make sure there were always games simple enough for new players to feel comfortable with, as opposed to games specifically for new players. Still, if we do have a priority system, you could have an initial sign up period in which certain slots (maybe a third or half of them?) are reserved for new players and the rest are open to everyone. Then if the newbie slots aren't filled quickly, you declare them open as well. I think one of the critical points with newbie games is ensuring that signups are filled up fairly quickly, as potential new players are liable to wander away from the forums if the game they signed up for doesn't look set to start any time soon.

[Dark Loink]

So! Inception ended, and it ended with a strategy that ended up utilizing its modkill system. So, being a mod of a large game that's getting up to about 6 and 7 in number of replacements on day one, I'm wondering what we think here is a good system for modkills/replacements, and dealing with activity. We tried to put in a system that penalizes players until they post, with not being able to use powers while not posting. I honestly liked the inception system, in terms of when someone needed to get replaced, it happened at the end of the day. It made for people to have a greater chance of not getting modkilled in most circumstances.

I remember the time before we had replacements-this happened less, but it was more devastating to a game.(I only had a few months before this system was put in, but I remember a lot of complaints about trying to find replacements midway through a game, right after someone said they needed one is when the search started.) Replacements were tried, but hardly found, so mod-kills are what usually came from low activity. Now that we have replacements, I'm noticing a lot more of them-because its a system, now its easier to quit a game while the game is going. On the one hand, this can save balance, as a modkill will ruin the balance of a game slightly no matter what. But it will also mess with it for a day, and some people are likely hesitant to lynch someone who just replaced into a game, for reasons that their predecessor is scummy. But people are fine with lynching day one, and while it would suck to be lynched for something the last one did, I don't see why we usually seem to throw out what the other person wrote.(Sometimes because they didn't write much. ...often because they didn't write much.) Its still valid, but the main issue is it would suck to be lynched for someone elses mistake.

[roband]

The 'lose your vote' system in Inception worked well.
The 'mass cull' system didn't.

Fair enough if scum control a lynch due to town's inactivity. It's not fair enough if they can swing the game due to it.
My opinion, and I'm not giving any slight on AMT or Entropy here. They made it clear what the risks were, and some people didn't care.

But it did seem to give scum wayyyyy too much power.

edit: sure, if it's endgame and lurkers lose their vote, so scum get an easy win, I'd be fine with that. But D3 of a large with 4 town and 1 indy removed from the game?

[Adacore]

I agree with roband - the 'lose your vote' mechanic was nice. I'd prefer a slightly more lenient mechanic for the modkills. Perhaps just a longer time period? Or two game-Days in a row with no post in the 72 hours pre-lynch?

I didn't really feel like I was lurking in Inception. I was reading the thread actively and posting whenever I had any new information or insight.

[mpolo]

I had the dubious advantage of being in the center of all the discussion, so was basically forced to post daily (which should probably be our goal in any case -- at least one post per real-life day). On the one hand, it's not a turbo, but on the other hand, too many people lurking kills any game.

I think the 72-hour vote-lose thing was very good. There is probably a slight favoring of scum in this rule, as the scum tend to have more invested in the game, so check in, but I think it's totally fair.

The mass kill was less successful. Totally fair, in that the rule was stated clearly, but in the execution, it probably can only really help scum. I can't claim that it had occurred to me during the game, but this rule could have pushed townies not to vote, since a successful lynch almost certainly would take out more townies than scum.

[Krong]

I'll admit that anyone who was in Inception is going to be biased, especially me, but the thing you're forgetting is that the institution of the new modkill rule also replaced the typical modkill rule. That rule is usually unwritten, but something like "go for 3-4 days without posting and get prodded, fail to respond and get replaced/killed." By this definition, I'm pretty sure cjdrum and Eajik would have been modkilled anyway.

But by replacing the old rule, it meant that there were absolutely no penalties to lurking until a lynch took place. And if that lynch isn't a speedlynch, that means you can literally go a week or two without posting, come back to say "Oops sorry", and suffer no penalties beyond a bit of ire from the town. This is not good for promoting thread activity.

And you really can't remove the modkill aspect, or the thing has no bite at all. Scum doesn't really control the lynch if they can lose control of it the next day... we weren't about to push a lynch through and reveal ourselves if that put us at 7T 4S or whatever in the morning.

I know some of you weren't really lurking that bad (especially Adacore -- I know you'd at least been messaging during the previous 72 hours), but the rule was specific. Plus, if you were aware there could be negative consequences and didn't act to prevent them... that's not on the mods, nor on the scum.


But I think we can agree that this system works better as a warning to future lurkers than as something we want in all games. Problem is, the default system works worse, because we often end up with people being modprodded only to say "got a prod" and then disappear again.

So... let's brainstorm ideas for the future:

1. A suggestion from Entropy in IRC last night: Each player begins the day self-voting. You may move your vote to another player, but may never unvote.

The idea behind that is to promote early-game discussion and force people into a voting mindset right away; I have to find someone who deserves my vote, because it's certainly better on someone other than me. Issues that I can think of: (1) it makes lylo/mylo basically decided on posting speed (2) jesters! (3) it doesn't do much for the problem of the person who shows up just to move their vote and then leaves, but it at least forces them to contribute in some way.

2. Strict timelimits for modprods and replacements/modkills. I tried doing this in American Pie, and while it did add some clarity, I'd call it a failure. The biggest issue is that those timelimits can come at horrible times -- for instance, I had to call in more_people as a replacement hours before he was lynched. Maybe being too strict on the lynch deadline was the real cause, though.

3. Someone has to say it... Limit participation of past offenders. If you've inexplicably dropped games, lurked for long stretches of time, ignored modprods... mods shouldn't feel an obligation to take you on when you sign up. Mods tend to put a lot of effort in their games, and the least that players could do is respect that when choosing to sign up for games.

The biggest problem with this is that it could lead to a bit of animosity round here. There's also the problem that we want to include raw newbies in games if they join up, but we have no idea if they'll lurk or not. And I haven't done the research on this, but my gut tells me that newbies tend to inexplicably lurk/drop more, as well.

Anyone have any other ideas?

[Elvish Pillager]

Comments on those ideas (spoilered for being less important than the rest of this post)

Spoiler:

1 is a cool idea for a game mechanic regardless. It's not terribly compatible with the standard lynch rules (because of the speedlynching thing, and also because a vote on yourself is basically the same as a non-vote if you're not under much suspicion), but it could be cool with slightly altered rules. I definitely like the thing about it encouraging people to make decisions and get to discussing.

2 is kind of yucky given people's activity patterns. What if you have a rule that someone who doesn't post in 48 hours will be modkilled, and it's been 47 hours since they posted when you go to bed, and then they show up 2 hours later and have an extensive discussion with the other players while you sleep. When you wake up, you'd be kind of a douchebag if you modkilled them. Similarly, strict rules take away your discretion to allow a player to lurk for a little while if something big comes up for them IRL.

If I ever run another turbo, I'll definitely do 3. I will only take signups from players who have already played games, preferably turbos, and not lurked or abandoned them too much.

Mostly, I don't think the onus is on the mod to figure out a good way to coerce their players into fulfilling the responsibility they chose to take on when they signed up for the game. I think it should work approximately the way making any promise works: You assume good faith and expect the person to keep their promise the first time, but if they break their promises, you get more suspicious and stop relying on them to keep them. Here, that means your 3 - if someone lurks or abandons games a few times, exclude them from games unless you're convinced they've reformed.

For future games, I might ask players to swear to some sort of vague statement about good-faith participation in order to sign up. It's easy to write something like:

7. mcmesher

without feeling like you're actually promising anything, even though you *are* promising something and people will be frustrated if you go back on your promise.

[Weeks]

About 3, I guess we just note the players who lurked the most in each game and each mod decides whether to include them or not, but then lazier or more generous mods will just let them in anyway, hurting the players...but then I guess we note which mods do this, too. I also like the idea of promises...we already have one honor based-system that works, I guess we can attempt another.

I think another good way to deal with lurkers would be a bot that determined the content of each player over time, then suggested the worst lurkers for modkill. I suppose it's easier said than done (I don't have the ability to code such a thing) but it sounds like a nice solution, if someone is up to it. (The alternative is to have a lackey, I mean, a co-mod do it.)

Finally, you could just duke it out ootd style and modkill at whim. Merciless but effective. "This is your last chance to survive, make your time."

[Elvish Pillager]

Finally, you could just duke it out ootd style and modkill at whim. Merciless but effective. "This is your last chance to survive, make your time."

When there is more than one player remaining in the game, modkills become necessary.

[Weeks]

You can't kill just one.

[ameretrifle]

It's like eating one potato chip.

(if you're light yagami)

[Dark Loink]

Here, that means your 3 - if someone lurks or abandons games a few times, exclude them from games unless you're convinced they've reformed.

The problem with that is convincing someone that you are reformed is difficult without playing a few more games first. Yet I understand if you lurk to the point of modkill in every game, you've got a good point.
I used to lurk really badly, and have still had the occasional game where it happens, but 1984 was a major one. That was the only game where I lurked to getting modkilled(Beach led to replaced), and I was scum. I felt really bad about it (and vector zero still pulled off that win) so the next game my activity rose. But I think more Shark Week of not playing games did help, where I realized something. I sign up for a lot of games at a time-so I care less about each game the more games I play, usually. Also, in busy patches of life, I'd always say "I'm busy! That's why I'm not posting!"
...
That's when you don't sign up for games, DL. That's a pretty weak point.

1. is quite interesting, and would make votes go faster, if that's a goal. Like you've said, it still can lead to speed lynching, but I'd like to see a game with that, see how it turns out. Testing it is always a good way to find an indication of how well it can work.

2. This also can work, and is better, and has happened. It works depending on the number of lurkers though. INCEPTION, again, had a large number, which is why the rules of 72 hours to a replacement changed in the first place, right? Also with inception-the torturer role would make this conflicting, where the person can't post in three days. I guess they'd be a little more cooperative, though.

[Elvish Pillager]

The problem with that is convincing someone that you are reformed is difficult without playing a few more games first.

Waiting a few months and saying something to the effect of "I regret my actions and would like a fresh start; I will try harder this time" is usually sufficient for me.

[Weeks]

It sounds like people are getting pissed off about their meta. What's up with that? What can/should be done about it?

Also, some say playing scum is harder than playing town. I think this is true, but again, do we just accept it or what? It's also less likely for people to be scum...What do you think?

[Weeks]

Also, if this is of any value whatsoever, I really really dislike listeners and anything involving that. Having to work around that is exactly that...extra work that the mafia usually does not appreciate having to do and that has little to do with actually playing mafia. If I ever mod another game, I will not add listeners, and I won't play any game that hints that there could be some sort of listener. (Traitors not so much, but they grate after a while.)

[Adacore]

Yeah - I think playing scum is particularly hard in forum play, especially with the really slow gameplay that seems to be the norm now. It's incredibly difficult to look townie when your posts are analysed for that long in the level of detail that forum play enables. I don't really have any ideas for solutions, though, except to increase the scum:town ratio of games and/or enforce shorter deadlines.

I agree on the dislike of listeners.