Gameroom policy discussion thread

[GeneralHankerchief]

This thread is to be used to discuss any aspects of Gameroom policy beyond the regular in-character events that go on in the game threads.

This definition can cover a wide variety of topics: It could cover administrative policy (what the current Queue status should be, etc.), suggestions about adding features, requests to re-examine the rules, discussions about any official moderation actions I might have taken, etc. Basically, if it affects the forum as a whole, it goes here. Aside from responding to questions/comments, I personally, as moderator, will be using this thread to announce rule changes and solicit opinions on possible features/rule changes.

The only real caveat I have is that if your issue a) can be considered contentious and b) directly arises from an event that happened in an ongoing game, you wait until the game in question has finished out of respect for the host and your fellow players. In the meantime, you are of course always free to address me privately.

All posts in this thread are considered outside the scope of any games. Here you are speaking as a member of the Gameroom community and not as your particular role in a certain game. Likewise, I am speaking officially as a moderator. Any attempts to use this thread to manipulate or otherwise influence events in an ongoing game will be harshly addressed.

The original contents of this post can be found under the spoiler below.

I intend for my second tour of duty as Gameroom moderator to be primarily focused on taking care of administrative issues for you guys: Renaming threads, moving stuff around, killing spambots, etc. In terms of policy, my goal is to determine consensus and then go from there - though I do reserve the right to act as dictator when I deem it necessary.

With this in mind, the first question I'd like to throw to the public is: What should be the restriction on the number of games allowed at a time?

The old queue system of two large games, two small games, and an unlimited amount of minis at once served us well for many years, but it also reflected activity levels that were far greater than what we're now accustomed to. The last thing I want to do is to take this mini-resurgence we're currently experiencing and squander it because the playerbase got burned out too quickly - but at the same time I want to work on nurturing and growing the number of people who want to play Mafia on this site.

My current thought is one game at a time, no matter what, under the belief that most games we host will not be too large or too long so that people lose interest. In the meantime, it will allow us to set a steady pace that we can all keep up with. I'd also be amenable to letting one mini run simultaneously with the other games to give people who die early something to do. Hosting order will be determined by consensus/who's willing to go, probably still doing so in the other thread, but in a perfect world we'd be able to segue nicely from Pirate Ship III to another game (Zack mentioned something about hosting a Futurama mafia afterwards).

Secondarily is the issue of moderation for content. I plan to enforce the ruleset that made the Gameroom's culture so great in the first place: Play fair, be nice to each other, and most importantly have fun. If everybody's fine with that very broad and general ruleset, fantastic. If you desire to get specifics nailed down, by all means, feel free to suggest specifics here.

As per the above mission statement, I now open this thread up to hear everyone's opinions on the matter. :bow:

[Zack]

I don't think a more formalized queue would hurt - not a calendar as in the past, but a simple list as is common in other sites. I agree that sticking to one game at a time is a good idea for now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I come from the year 2017, a harbinger of doom, telling you of the future....

Your precious .Org resurgence will be short-lived! Like the death of Darth Vader, nothing can stop it now... life support systems will fail, and/or you might accidentally snap the poor lad's neck while trying to remove his helmet. It's a trap, etc.

Face it lads, the .Org is a place for total war games. Nostalgia alone is not enough, James.

That all being said, I cannot help but try to spit in the face of all of that, because I want my precious .Org to live again. I'm in.

Screw that guy from the future, he's more of a buzzkill than Buzz Killington. I want to funnel some people here from elsewhere, like I have before many times.

[BSmith]

I agree that one game at a time for now is a good pace. That can always be evaluated as we get more activity and interest.

[Zack]

I'd also like to see a GAH revival. Maybe post some Pirate Shipe themed stuff in there. I might make a thread for the Futurama game.

[Visor]

I've got a quick and easy game to run before Pirate Ship starts.


http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Popcorn_Mafia

24 hour days. No nights. Basically a changed lynch mechanic.

[Zack]

So Kingmaker with no nights?

[Visor]

Basically. And no roles/more mafia.

And people can be confirmed.

[El Barto]

That's one game format I can get behind.

I have a quite simple (and low-maintenance! and balanced! and no cops whatsoever!) setup that can be run after that, but it'd need 20 players and I'm a bit burned out so I'd host it after exams, i.e. in late September or October.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Okay, it seems like general opinion is in favor of sticking to one game at a time for now. I'll make a queue and update the stickies to reflect this in the next couple of days. In the meantime, if anyone who hasn't spoken yet disagrees with this or wants to discuss another issue. please feel free to do so. :bow:

[Zack]

In the meantime, if anyone who hasn't spoken yet disagrees with this or wants to discuss another issue. please feel free to do so. :bow:
I disagree with "in the next couple of days". How about in the next couple of seconds. :yes:

Other than that, since it's exactly what I suggested, I reluctantly agree.

[El Barto]

Even Zack isn't crazy enough to follow Zack's lead.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Alright, the last administrative project I need to take care of is updating the rules and reference thread (probably just the rules, I'm not touching that list of previous games anytime soon). That will be for tomorrow. I'll make a post signifying it's done when the time comes.

[GeneralHankerchief]

The Rules and Reference thread has been updated. The major changes include keeping the table of contents accurate, making the rules reflect our current discussions in this thread (in terms of the queue), adding information on how to get in contact with me, and incorporating TinCow's instructions on how to add a timer into the thread in order to cut down on stickies. Please let me know if anything in the main rules post appears off (I'm completely aware that some of the supplementary material is woefully out of date, that goes without saying).

[GeneralHankerchief]

I've added a troubleshooting section to the timer post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135992-Gameroom-Rules-and-Reference-READ-THIS-BEFORE-PLAYING&p=2053655063&viewfull=1#post2053655063) in the Rules & Reference thread, addressing some of the issues that have come up with it during Pirate Ship III as well as another historical issue we've had in the past. I'll add to it if needed in the future.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I've had an idea to introduce an element of currency/a points system to the Gameroom - probably inspired by Pirate Ship, except this one would be more overarching. Basically, if you opt in, you would receive a certain amount of points as a baseline. You'd also receive some for every game you participated in, a further amount based off your success in those games, and could use them to wager and/or make deals with other people for things such as queue spots. Basically, it would be El Barto's paradise. They wouldn't be redeemable for anything, but I figured it would be something fun to keep track of.

Would there be any interest in this?

[Zack]

What's the conversion to Schrute bucks?

[El Barto]

El Barto
:stare: GeneralHankerchief

[Visor]

Why are thanks not allowed?

[Askthepizzaguy]

General response to the thanks rule issue:

Thanks have been abused in the past on other games I've played in where dead players indicate who they think people should listen to.

It's also against the rules on several sites or disabled to prevent that sort of stuff. Thanks weren't always enabled on the .org, and given that some players like to test the limits of the rules, and it's not illegal unless the game host says it's illegal, I needed to say it is.

I don't believe this group abuses the thanks button, but if we do a 10 year anniversary game we might have more guests than we currently have from other sites, and I'm nipping it in the bud now and getting used to that rule as a more standard one, like don't screenshot, etc.

Other game hosts should feel free to allow thanks, I just won't in games I host. There's nothing I can realistically do if dead people break the rule during the game itself because they're dead, but I am trying to prevent the action in the first place.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The LoZ game on TWC, there was repeated and sustained cheating by a dead townie in the tags, for example. Same difference, using board functions to break the no communication after dead rule. And you can thank posts there and leave comments (rep system)

It's banned on a lot of boards and in El Barto's game I think it was all innocent stuff, but at the same time, I see the issue with thanking posts in a mafia game because I've experienced similar things before, and it's banned on other sites for a reason, and people from other sites push all the boundaries, like if cyphers are allowed, they'll post cyphers and talk to each other in encrypted communications that they worked out prior to the game and it's all legal because it's not illegal. Just as an example.

Happened during the champs series on 2+2 with people who were not natives to that board, since it was legal, it was allowed in the game and disallowed in future games.

Basically the rule exists because people find new and innovative ways to break the spirit of the game, but not the rules which were laid out.

And good for them, they're being creative. But I don't want that tactic used.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I personally have no issue with the thanks system so I'm not going to put a blanket ban on it. If individual hosts want to put the rule in their games for the reasons that Pizza mentioned (or any others) then I'll be happy to enforce them on a game-by-game basis, but at this time I trust our userbase enough where I don't feel I need to go beyond that.

Should the situation arise where I need to do something more drastic in the future, we have the technical ability to disable the thanking system in an entire subforum, but not individual threads, so it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal unfortunately.

[Zack]

I still don't see why living people can't thank posts. Or why people can't talk during night. Or why dead players can't talk. Or why people can't be expected to not cheat. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of clamping down so harshly on anti-cheating measures, as that removes features I enjoy, but I can see why you'd do it.

[Beskar]

Now this is brought up, I did remember thanking a post as a dead townie, because even if the poster had the wrong conclusions, I wanted to encourage their type of contributions as it was a very interesting post. Though, in hindsight now, it could have looked as if I was supported that conclusion or have been some kind of code.

But yes, Mafia-spirit is competition. I remember back in the olden days, used to have a bunch of friends I spoke to a lot, and we were constantly trying to screw eachother over, which was frustrating at times, but amusing too. So even though me and Pizza were close, we never trusted eachother at all when it came to a mafia game.

[seireikhaan]

The LoZ game on TWC, there was repeated and sustained cheating by a dead townie in the tags, for example. Same difference, using board functions to break the no communication after dead rule. And you can thank posts there and leave comments (rep system)

It's banned on a lot of boards and in El Barto's game I think it was all innocent stuff, but at the same time, I see the issue with thanking posts in a mafia game because I've experienced similar things before, and it's banned on other sites for a reason, and people from other sites push all the boundaries, like if cyphers are allowed, they'll post cyphers and talk to each other in encrypted communications that they worked out prior to the game and it's all legal because it's not illegal. Just as an example.

Happened during the champs series on 2+2 with people who were not natives to that board, since it was legal, it was allowed in the game and disallowed in future games.

Basically the rule exists because people find new and innovative ways to break the spirit of the game, but not the rules which were laid out.

And good for them, they're being creative. But I don't want that tactic used.
Fair enough. For me, I learned a very harsh lesson from two of my early games about people violating the spirit of the rules, and that's probably why I made it a bolded point of emphases in my opening posts to follow the spirit of the rules that I lay out. It's worked pretty well for me since then. But, then again, there's only so much to be done once the damage is inflicted. :no:

[GeneralHankerchief]

I still don't see why living people can't thank posts. Or why people can't talk during night. Or why dead players can't talk. Or why people can't be expected to not cheat. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of clamping down so harshly on anti-cheating measures, as that removes features I enjoy, but I can see why you'd do it.

Speaking as an individual Gameroomer, I agree with you and will not implement those rules in games I personally run. But speaking as a mod, I do want to create an atmosphere that's accommodating to hosts. If it's a reasonable enough request, which all of these are, and it comes from a good intention, then obviously I'm not going to deny that request as doing so sets a very bad precedent.

[Winston Hughes]

Or why dead players can't talk.

If you don't have reveals, then dead talking is fine. But host-confirmed town voices are an abomination.

[GeneralHankerchief]

If you don't have reveals, then dead talking is fine. But host-confirmed town voices are an abomination.

Agreed on this point, it definitely has to be one or the other. My personal preference is no reveals + dead talking and I wish more games ran that setup like they used to, but again I'm not going to impose it as a rule on anybody.

[Zack]

You could argue that nightkilled players are close enough to host-confirmed town anyways. I like dead players being able to talk and I like alignment reveals.

[Winston Hughes]

You could argue that nightkilled players are close enough to host-confirmed town anyways.

True, though it depends on the set-up, and even if scum are the only killers they at least have control over who gets confirmed.

[Zack]

Thingyman asked me to post this on CFC, figured I might as well post it here too.


Invitation to The Mafia Championship Season 3

Hello everyone, it’s that time of the year again :)

I am making this post with the hopes that your community would be interested in participating in Season 3 of the Mafia Championship. It will be bigger and more epic than ever before.

This year we’re expanding once again; 136 communities will be invited to participate, making this not only the biggest Mafia event ever, but also the largest cross-forum event in the history of the Internet. We’ve also moved the venue to Mafia Universe, a new site created largely because of this series.

Are you interested?

As always, how you decide your representative is completely up to you. To guarantee your community a spot in Season 3 of the Mafia Championship, I will need to know of your community's interest within the next week (until April 4th). Following this, you will have an additional two weeks to decide your nominee (until April 18th). Additionally, it would be a very good idea to also name an alternate.

Remember that your representative needs to be prepared to deal with a lot of activity. Expect at least upwards of 500 posts per 24 hours during the early stages of the game. The representative needs to not only be able to read all this, but should also at least be able to manage making 10+ posts per day phase.

Season 3 Specifics

• 136 different communities are invited to participate. If some decline the invitation, I may opt to allow larger communities an additional nominee.
• 8 Qualifying Games will be played with 17 players each.
• 2 players advance to the Finale Game from each game based on post-game votes.
• 1 Wildcard Game will be played (Wildcards are decided by a jury consisting of former finalists), determining the 17th and final spot in the Finale. Runner-ups in this game will be first in line to replace any finalists who may have to drop out.

Season 3 Timeline & Important Dates

The first Qualifying Game is set to start April 25th. Additional games will take place in the 1-3 months following. I will create a Doodle and find out the best times to start the various games so that preferably everyone gets to play during a time that suits them well.

In addition to this, it is also a priority to ensure as much as possible that all the players in any given game has no prior history of playing with each other to ensure a level playing field (but I cannot 100% guarantee that this won’t happen).

Season 3 Game Design & Setup

For each season, we’ve changed it up. This time, we’re doing something new again!

The setup is called Matrix12 and is inspired by mafiascum’s popular Matrix6 setup, if any of you are familiar with that. In short, the concept is that there are 12 different possible setups and the host randomizes which one is used. The players know what setups are available, but not which one will be used!

More on the setup here: http://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/1374-Setup-Discussion-Matrix12-%28Proposed-Season-3-Format%29

Regarding lynch mechanics: There will be a deadline each day phase, and the person with the most votes at the end of the day is lynched, unless a majority has already been reached before then, in which case the day ends prematurely.

Days will last 36 hours and nights 12 hours, meaning 48 hours (2 days) per game day. With one exception: The weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) will be one game day (so day will be 60 hours and night 12 hours on weekends).

It'd be cool if someone other than me/visor/atpg was the org rep, since the three of us all played in season 2. Fair warning though: there's a good possibility the activity rate of any game you play in will make Pirate Ship Mafia III look leisurely in comparison. Also, the people you play with likely take mafia much more seriously than we do here, so they will hound you if you lurk or post mostly fluff.

But, Mafia Universe is a cool site with cool mafia-specific features, and the game will guaranteed be thoroughly exhilarating. You can proudly rep The Org. There are some of you not named Zack/Visorslash/ATPG who I think could do really well if you felt up to the time/energy commitment.

We need to declare interest by April 4 and a specific nominee/alternate by April 18.

[Zack]

This humblebrag just in: apparently ATPG and I are ineligible for Season 3 because we were finalists in season 2.

[Zack]

I nominate Warman.

[Zack]

GeneralHankerchief
Montmorency
Visorslash

[Visor]

seconding GH

[Zack]

Too bad Sasaki's not active anymore. He would be perfect.

[Zack]

Visor do you ever post from a computer?

[Visor]

Visor do you ever post from a computer?

i actually post with reasonable regularity from a computer

i used an ipad to play ATPG mafia II years ago, and ever since then it has been posted from a mobile device iirc

[Zack]

Test mobile post

Why do only you have the "posted via mobile device" and why is that even a forum feature in the first place

[Visor]

Test mobile post

Why do only you have the "posted via mobile device" and why is that even a forum feature in the first place

I have no idea. it has crippled my mafia playing ability for years

its a handicap i have learned to deal with

[Double A]

I nominate the concept of jokers second warman

[GeneralHankerchief]

Uh, let me look into this when I'm not half-asleep.

[El Barto]

11 hours and 45 minutes later…

[Zack]

when did we get the new sub-forum?

[El Barto]

Eh?

[Zack]

Eh?

https://i.imgur.com/dGr8Jf1.png

[Zack]

in a perfect world we'd be able to segue nicely from Pirate Ship III to another game (Zack mentioned something about hosting a Futurama mafia afterwards)
and it only took a year!

[El Barto]

That? It's not exactly new.

[GeneralHankerchief]

In light of recent events, I need to make one or two things perfectly clear.

First, everybody - particularly those who attack others for "struggling to read" and/or those who moderate other forums and should thus have a higher inclination to appreciate forum rules - needs to make absolutely sure they familiarize themselves with the Gameroom Rules and Reference (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135992-Gameroom-Rules-and-Reference-READ-THIS-BEFORE-PLAYING) (which you'll note is stickied and has a large "READ THIS BEFORE PLAYING" tag in the title).

The point I want to highlight is in the second post of that thread, under the "Communicating with the moderator" section:


3. If I make a post in green font, this means that I am speaking officially as Gameroom moderator and should be taken as separate from any in-character posts I make as part of whichever game the post is in. If I make a post in bold green, I am also speaking officially as Gameroom moderator, but it probably means that I am not amused about something and really need to emphasize a particular point.

When I'm reading a thread, I'm always reading it from the viewpoint of a moderator first and foremost. I'm checking to see if there's any obviously objectionable or NSFW material included that I have to delete or put under spoilers. I'm making sure that the post is in line with the guidelines laid down by the game host in the OP or clarified elsewhere in the thread. I'm debating whether the post crosses the line from a sharp comment to a personal attack. Etc.

I'm doing all of this before I take off my moderator hat and put on my player hat. With every post. If it doesn't pass muster, then I do what I have to do as mod, probably drop some green text, maybe send a PM, and look to see if there's anything else I have to deal with. If it does, then and only then do I begin to examine it from the standpoint of a player.

Basically, it comes down to a matter of trust: By playing a game in a subforum that I moderate, there is an implicit agreement on your part that the game is 100% put aside whenever I make an official action and indicate as much by writing in green text. If that trust is not there, then perhaps your forum gaming needs would be better served elsewhere.

----------

Now, for a second, somewhat related issue.

I can count on one hand the number of times this has happened in the Gameroom in its 10+ year history, but occasionally the situation will arise where the moderator's official actions become the subject of debate in a game thread. Without going into whether the mod was in the wrong or not, there is a time and place to air your grievances, and the game thread is not it. While this has never been an official rule before, many hosts have some sort of stipulation in place about this and I've always operated under this guideline in the past.

The time has come to officially codify this rule. I am placing it under the "Communicating with the moderator" section in the Rules and Reference thread:


4. If your issue is with the moderator or the moderation itself, you have three avenues of recourse:
- PM the moderator (and potentially the game host depending on the circumstance) and work it out privately
- Post in the Gameroom policy discussion thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149504-Gameroom-policy-discussion-thread)
- If you wish to escalate the issue, post in the Watchtower (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?26-Watchtower)
Doing so in a game thread, particularly while the game is ongoing, is not the appropriate place for this and may be met with official action regardless of and separate from the original issue.

Further discussion of this is welcome here.

[Visor]

agreed 100%

[Askthepizzaguy]

Further discussion of this is welcome here.

I think most folks here understand that since we have a limited number of people on here, we have to have moderators from within the active player base, otherwise the section will go unmoderated- just something we have to deal with being a low traffic site and a very small player base. Recent and new people may be familiar with the standards of elsewhere, and there's always culture shock going from one site to another. It's also the case that probably very few people ever take a look at the rules and regs in full before being somewhere. I know I don't.

I think, regardless of the rulebook, situation happened because adversarial accusatory guessing game plus what looked like a rulebreak- don't post after night, and don't edit posts. One was intended to fix the other, but if person isn't familiar with how we deal with rulebreak posts, or that we just have you only, pretty much... it can look strange or unfamiliar. And it may become a part of the game. It isn't supposed to, but person was trying to guess motivations for behavior, and didn't know what to make of the situation.

Very unfortunate situation. Unhappy for everyone involved. I don't think anyone is the bad guy here. We're just people and we're not perfect.

As for the moderation action, decision, and policies, all are fine with me.
As for the player in question, I would chalk it up to an honest misunderstanding, based on publicly available data. I don't know what if anything was said in private.

It's a bummer when something like that happens. I ran into something similar when moderating a clear rulebreak in another game elsewhere- sure, my action was right, but then people started to read into it for alignment. I had to adjust, because it was something I could adjust.

Here, we're not so flexible, and we have to make do with an imperfect situation- active player is also the only active moderator, tasked with enforcement of rulebreaks.

These are the random thoughts I'm having as they come at me, speaking as a fellow player in that game.

I can say that I spoke with neither party about this thing before making this post, this is just me talking and trying to approach it as honestly as possible.

It is ultimately, not a huge deal, the only problem I really can see here is there may be lingering negative feelings, or a negative impression of the site. That's all unfortunate and I don't know what to do about it other than say it's a minor misunderstanding blown up bigger than it is, due to the setting of it being a mafia game, and an instance of unintentional rulebreaking by someone else which precipitated it. No one went into it intending to harm the game, yet it happened anyway and people got bummed out.

I support both the moderator in question and the point of view that folks can make an honest mistake, or mistake honest behavior for mafia-insidiousness. That's the main thing that informs me not to get upset when Riedquat accidentally broke a rule. Hell, I've done similar things before. Keeping it in perspective it is just a parlor game, albeit one we get emotionally wrapped up in and take very seriously at times.

Blah blah blah, that was my 3 bucks and 2 cents.

[novice]

It was definitely a culture shock to me to see a player also acting as forum moderator in a game. I did a double take when it happened in the Futurama game as well. If it's the best option available it's obviously fine though, just unexpected for those who haven't seen it before.

I guess an additional factor is that the threshold for moderation is different here from what I'm used to. Foul language, personal attacks and illegal posts could be censured where I play, but would probably not be edited out or deleted. Basically, forum moderator actions in a mafia game are a bit of a culture shock in themselves. I'm used to more self-moderation and peer moderation, and less intervention and "don't talk about" rules.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I find myself in a situation where there's an emergency moderating problem I need to solve right away and am the only one around, I may put on my mod hat and take off my player hat on MU, and sub out of the game once my moderating is done. Thing is, we had an incredible amount of sub-ins this game, usually we don't have subs and just have to modkill the slot, impacting the game balance.

When we have under 20 players at a time, most of them in the game itself, it's kind of a 'we have to make do with what we have' situation.

Other forums have more options than we do. Plus, since we're such an incredibly close knit community, we all pretty much trust GH or any green hat implicitly to do whatever moderation they need to do and have that come first, not have it be impacted by one's alignment. It's also extremely rare that a mod even needs to intervene in our games. I think the most times it has happened have involved spambots or first timers from other forums who refused to come close to being civil.

In which case I remember Beskar or Andres, whichever was admin at the time, would come in and nuke the account from orbit, in a manner nearly as glorious as the time I Wogged Neverwonagame.

[Askthepizzaguy]

In other news, I approve of GeneralHankerchief 's new undertitle.

[Montmorency]

In which case I remember Beskar or Andres, whichever was admin at the time, would come in and nuke the account from orbit, in a manner nearly as glorious as the time I Wogged Neverwonagame.

Isn't that the Askvaard game where Zack subbed in as Mafia godfather and killed my mason partner, I couldn't admit his scumminess and begged him to be town role, he reacted along the lines of 'Huh? Whatever", killed me, then got lynched?

[novice]

It's also extremely rare that a mod even needs to intervene in our games. I think the most times it has happened have involved spambots or first timers from other forums who refused to come close to being civil.
I would agree that it's rarely needed, but it did happen in the Futurama game and in the latest game, and also in the IKEA game I just read. In that game the moderator action was also used for solving purposes.



Enough with the pretzels.
GH and Zack are very unlikely to be Mafia together.

[Montmorency]

I would agree that it's rarely needed, but it did happen in the Futurama game and in the latest game, and also in the IKEA game I just read. In that game the moderator action was also used for solving purposes.

How much of the Gameroom history are you reading? If all of it, would you mind giving a summary of my play 2011-2014? I only remember the highlights.

Also, if possible compile a dossier on everyone who has played here and forward it for my eyes only.

[El Barto]

Oh, come on, if he reads your latest games he'll realise that you are always mafia and always with atpg.

Regarding the other, more serious business, yes, moderators don't act as players and nothing should be read into their actions. I was genuinely pissed last game.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would agree that it's rarely needed, but it did happen in the Futurama game and in the latest game, and also in the IKEA game I just read. In that game the moderator action was also used for solving purposes.

I'm glad you brought this up. That post you quoted annoyed me at the time - though not nearly to the extent as the more recent incident - and was in my mind (along with the events from the most recent game) when I made my above post/rule change.

(also you'll note that I've moderated the game thread as both mafia and town, so stop trying to read into things that way)

Basically, the main thing I want people to get out of this is that when I post something in green text, or make an action as moderator, the game is 100% out of the equation, and now it's officially codified as such. If folks understand this much, then we've done well here. :yes:

[Dp101]

I see no issues with this policy, if you can't trust someone to separate their in-game motivations from their moderation then how can you trust them as a moderator? Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[Riedquat]

Well... I'm still a bit angered to be honest, all originated with my mistake!

To me always has been crystal clear, what's written in red or green by a staff member is the law, you abide by them and/or carry the matter privately.

I only disagree with GH in how he managed the situation, he didn't need to drop from the game, a single pm saying drop it or I'll bann you could have solved all the issue! :clown:

[seireikhaan]

Well... I'm still a bit angered to be honest, all originated with my mistake!

To me always has been crystal clear, what's written in red or green by a staff member is the law, you abide by them and/or carry the matter privately.

I only disagree with GH in how he managed the situation, he didn't need to drop from the game, a single pm saying drop it or I'll bann you could have solved all the issue! :clown:
Nonsense. You made a mistake posting at night, but that means nothing by itself. Most of us have done stuff that required some effort from a mod at some point, and this was a fairly harmless example - it's not like you were flaming other players or anything, you just made a mistake. It was the reactions and accusations that resulted from it that caused the issue. Now, I can't speak for GH himself, but as a former mod, I would have done the same in his shoes re - dropping from the game. This is honestly one of the things we've generally never had issues with in the GR, so I was personally flummoxed that this even became a thing. Still, it was good to clarify this in the sticky.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Well... I'm still a bit angered to be honest, all originated with my mistake!

To me always has been crystal clear, what's written in red or green by a staff member is the law, you abide by them and/or carry the matter privately.

I only disagree with GH in how he managed the situation, he didn't need to drop from the game, a single pm saying drop it or I'll bann you could have solved all the issue! :clown:

khaan pretty much hit the nail on the head here. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I don't blame you for what happened in the slightest. In a perfect world, once I made my moderation action (and later reversed it on Visor's request), that would have been the end of it. It was only when people started using the action I took as a moderator to try to determine my in-game alignment - and the fact that it dominated discussion and wasn't just a one-off thing - that the wheels came off. By that point I had to sub out.

[BSmith]

A voice from another former mod – GH did the right thing all round, and I agree that mod hat always comes first. Moderating can sometimes be a murky world of subjectiveness. “Should I act or let it pass” types of calls happen all the time. I have the utmost confidence that GH knows what side of the line he needs to be on, and when issues arise has the integrity to do the right thing.

[novice]

A voice from another former mod – GH did the right thing all round, and I agree that mod hat always comes first. Moderating can sometimes be a murky world of subjectiveness. “Should I act or let it pass” types of calls happen all the time. I have the utmost confidence that GH knows what side of the line he needs to be on, and when issues arise has the integrity to do the right thing.

Subbing out was very wise.

I don't think deleting Riedquat's post was a good idea though, I don't see what that was supposed to fix. People had already seen Riedquat's post. IMHO posting in green, and especially editing and deleting posts, should only be done if absolutely necessary.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Subbing out was very wise.

I don't think deleting Riedquat's post was a good idea though, I don't see what that was supposed to fix. People had already seen Riedquat's post. IMHO posting in green, and especially editing and deleting posts, should only be done if absolutely necessary.

I agree with this principle.

Same time, this is a judgment call. Once a rule has been broken, moderator can pretty much deal with it as they like.

On MU, we don't delete rulebreak posts because people will have seen it, and they will have an advantage over the players that hadn't seen it. But that's MU and we have a different and larger group of people with different expectations there.

I fully appreciate that GH's judgment call here is his decision, I personally would advise against deleting any content that isn't flaming or porn. But since the game host asked that the material get restored, it wasn't really a problem. GH made the best call he could, and then the game host requested an alternative and GH was only too happy to comply. Not really a problem from where I sit.

The cultural differences do basically come down to this-house-these-rules. Game hosts are free to make whatever rule they wish and enforce it as they wish, if folks don't like the way game hosts setup and host games, they don't have to play. Forum moderators likewise have all the leeway to use their own judgment, and although we can share our concerns in post, the middle of the game is a bad time to argue with the referee, as it does derail things. And, ultimately, if the moderator doesn't agree and we want a different standard, we basically have to volunteer to be moderator and do it ourselves. Otherwise, I support the guy doing the thankless job that everyone is prone to second-guessing. XD

Running the moderator team on MU, I saw there are often differences of opinion on how we should moderate even within the team, and we already all agree pretty much completely on the rules and code of conduct. There's no manual for this stuff, and people of good conscience often disagree on the details.

At this stage, I can only say that most of the time, there's more than one right answer. Sometimes there's a right-er answer, but we should learn to be satisfied with a decent answer, or volunteer to be a mod. XD

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ideally the referee shouldn't be a player, but given our small size, a guy who is referee first and player second is the next best alternative and perfectly serviceable.

Can't let perfect get in the way of good.

[Zack]

I completely understand why GH deleted the post even if I don't necessarily agree with it. He also immediately restored it when the game host asked him to. GH is a great moderator and has always done a wonderful job of being able to step in when necessary as a moderator while still being involved enough in the community as a player and host so he still feels like "one of us".

[Zack]

Ideally the referee shouldn't be a player, but given our small size, a guy who is referee first and player second is the next best alternative and perfectly serviceable.

Can't let perfect get in the way of good.

I agree that it isn't ideal, but GH is one of the few people I trust 100% to always be impartial as a moderator and never let his status in the game get in the way of that.

[Sooh]

Thumbs up for GH!

I trust your integrity, even though I don't really know the issue at hand!

[Winston Hughes]

Likewise. I don't know the particulars of this case, but I have complete trust in GH's integrity as a player and mod.

That said, with players from elsewhere regularly joining games here, it's a wise move to codify the rule. It's impossible to guarantee that nobody will ever come to the mistaken conclusion that they've gained information from a mod action. But, so long as they don't actually talk about it, the potential for negative consequences is drastically reduced. Someone might end up feeling frustrated that they're unable to explain their full reasons for suspecting/clearing a player, but that situation is just like having a strong gut read: you have to go find reasons you can explain.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Hi folks. Me again.

After reviewing the posts and events of the most recent game, I don't think what happened is symptomatic of any larger issues that need to be addressed on an official level for the most part. Things got heated, but they never truly spiraled out of control. People got emotional, but for the most point they recognized that sometimes they needed to step away. This is behavior that, while I don't want to say I encourage it, I certainly won't discourage it as a response to emotions running high in the thread. Sometimes that happens, it's unavoidable, and all in all things could have gone a lot worse. Plus the tone of the postgame discussion in the thread is highly encouraging, and you all are to thank for that. :bow:

So I guess I'll just repost a couple of points from the Rules and Reference thread as a reminder:


2. Sportmanship. We expect players to adhere to it.

Sportsmanship is conformance to the rules, spirit, and etiquette of sport. More grandly, it may be considered the ethos of sport. It is interesting that the motivation for sport is often an elusive element. Sportsmanship expresses an aspiration or ethos that the activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

3. Friendliness. Be nice to our new and old players. We should also strive to help new players feel welcome. Any comments perceived to be detracting from the friendly environment are particularly unwelcome.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is one thing not in the rules that I do want to address, however. It's the issue of profanity.

Look, I get it. Sometimes it's cathartic. Sometimes points need to be emphasized. But sometimes it can get to be too much.

Those of you who have been around here for a while know that we've had a long and at times tortured history with the official policy on profanity. Sometimes there was zero tolerance. Sometimes there wasn't. There was once the long and teeth-pullingly awkward process of determining exactly which words were and were not acceptable. Sitewide rules have changed with different administrators taking the reins over the years. I won't get into the specific timeline but right now there essentially *isn't* a policy for the Gameroom specifically.

This is probably a mistake on my part, but going back to zero tolerance is probably an overcorrection, and I have no desire to go back to the Good Bad Word/Bad Bad Word list from yesteryear either. So the current (lack of a) policy will stand in the meantime.

However.

It is my unscientific opinion that an excessive amount of profanity is more likely to lead to a poor thread environment. It can potentially signify a lack of self-censorship, which can lead to less of a filter, which can lead to emotions running higher, etc etc etc. To go full wet blanket mode, it can be classified as a gateway drug to the stuff I do need to step in and bust heads over, such as personal attacks or other behavior that goes against what is outlined in the Rules and Reference thread.

Which is all my mangled way of saying, no, the rules on profanity are not changing officially and nothing will be codified at this point in time. But unofficially, I am making a request as moderator to you all to please keep it to a manageable level, and never use it to refer to a specific individual or action. As always, I reserve the right to drop green text and start acting officially if I deem this imaginary line is crossed. Never forget that the : daisy : smiley (:daisy:) is your friend.

Feel free to comment/lament/vent here.

[Zack]

A lot of words to say the nothing is changing. Typical bureaucracy! :soapbox:

:rtwyes:

[Dp101]

What is the daisy smiley meant to represent?

[Zack]

What is the daisy smiley meant to represent?
censored profanity

[Askthepizzaguy]

What? This policy is total :daisy:, and if I weren't such an upstanding :daisy: I'd tell you :daisy:s to go daisy with a fish-smelling tablecloth!

:daisy: in the alps! Son of a :daisy: blackberry :daisy: teakettle :daisy: racecar :daisy: hornswoggle :daisy: with a pea soup-colored hair dryer!!!

Pineapple tin-can sizzle bacon!

Et cetera.

Obviously it's fine. Nevermind the above.

[GeneralHankerchief]

There's been some talk in the queue thread about provisionally moving back to two games at once. I'm kind of ambivalent about it, so I'll throw it to you guys to see what you think. :yes:

(Well, I'm ambivalent in the sense that if the games are scattered, i.e. signups for the second game begin around, say, D4 or D5 of the first game, it could go either way. Still strongly opposed to two games *not* being scattered.)

[Zack]

I think it's a bad idea. Maaaaaaybe if they're significantly staggered.

[Sooh]

I think, like Dragonmount, that this community isn't big enough at the moment for two games at the same time. I would like to reiterate the idea I had about starting sign-ups while one game is in progress, so that we can start a new one within a day or two of the previous one ending. If there are enough hosts who are able and willing, this should be possible to pull through.

[El Barto]

I think it's a bad idea. Maaaaaaybe if they're significantly staggered.
Define ‘significantly’, both in terms of Day/Night cycles and actual (RL) time.

[Csargo]

I think, like Dragonmount, that this community isn't big enough at the moment for two games at the same time. I would like to reiterate the idea I had about starting sign-ups while one game is in progress, so that we can start a new one within a day or two of the previous one ending. If there are enough hosts who are able and willing, this should be possible to pull through.

I agree with this, I think it would be good to start sign-ups while a game is still ongoing, but near to completion. That wouldn't leave a significant gap between games, which I think would be a good thing. Don't think two games running simultaneously would work though.

[Jabbz]

So what do we think a minimum amount of time in between games should be?

[Sooh]

I think that could be discussed in the sign up thread. The host could clarify that "This game won't start until _____ is done." and then people could state their preferences and/or limitations.

[Montmorency]

From the updated rules thread:


We used to be very lax on the global "no outside contact" rule, but this has tightened up in recent years. Follow the host for exact guidelines as to what exactly you can and cannot do in a particular game - most if not all hosts will have very specific instructions on this front.

I've marked this for over a year, that some time after the 2015 revival hosts began universally shutting down unmonitored private communications, and typically even one or both of night chat and public participation by the dead.

I'm assuming it has to do either with off-site cultural influence or wider theoretical developments...

[GeneralHankerchief]

Just for clarification, the new stickied thread isn't an updated rules thread so much as just a general guide for offsite players coming in so they can hopefully have an easier time adjusting. It does not supersede the Rules and Reference thread.

But yes, you are correct in both the general trend and one of the reasons why this is the case. Is this something you - both "you" singularly, Monty, and "you" in terms of everybody - approve or disapprove of, generally?

[Montmorency]

Just for clarification, the new stickied thread isn't an updated rules thread so much as just a general guide for offsite players coming in so they can hopefully have an easier time adjusting. It does not supersede the Rules and Reference thread.

But yes, you are correct in both the general trend and one of the reasons why this is the case. Is this something you - both "you" singularly, Monty, and "you" in terms of everybody - approve or disapprove of, generally?

Well, it's disconcerting and a bit sad. A far cry from living players PMing dead players threats to relay to the game thread on their behalf, like in Capo. What's the story behind the new order?

[GeneralHankerchief]

It's kind of a combination of things. I'd say the heart of the change is two related events: First, a lot of the players that started here (or CFC, etc) have branched out and played mafia elsewhere, where more of an emphasis is placed on keeping the game self-contained. Secondly, most/all of our new arrivals nowadays also come from mafia sites elsewhere (as opposed to them being regular Orgahs who have gotten curious) and thus come in with their own expectations and standards, which are more in line with the changes you described.

I don't want to go so far as to say that the games will not fill if we stick to the old style, "Wild West" type of environment that we saw in the monster games from years back, but I do think it's fair to say they'll have a harder time filling. Any mafia > no mafia, so we cater the wishes of the people.

Also don't worry, when I run Pirate Ship IV next year, it'll have all of the usual outside communication and PMing backroom deals that you're used to. :yes:

[Montmorency]

Besides its use as a network mechanic in complex games, I've enjoyed it in vanilla games where it usually has no strategic value for any alignment or individual.

Even if I haven't used it most of the time it's been available, or even much of the time, it's fun to know that if I desired I could contact any player, not knowing if they are town or scum.

Usually it's been to my/Town's detriment.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure, now that everyone posts 10 times a day on average, whether any place for one-on-one PMs would get muscled out or amplified.

[El Barto]

I think it should be up to each game's GM.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I think it should be up to each game's GM.

Fully concur, and I have no plans on ever instituting a blanket rule saying "all games must follow pre-approved .Org meta" or anything along those lines. The purpose of the thread was simply to give offsite players coming in a better idea of what to expect - nothing more, nothing less.

[El Barto]

I'll grant that hosting in MU is easier with modbot (as long as you don't do weird roles MB cannot handle) and the ability to close/open the thread at will.

Hosting here, with smaller postcounts, should not be too taxing even with an influx of MU folks.

[Dp101]

Side note, maybe you should add a link to Novice’s script to the welcome to org mafia post, as even if vote counts don’t work (due to people using unvotes for some reason) it still makes it far easier to ISO someone.

[El Barto]

Far easier…? We already have the Who's Posted? feature.

[Visor]

From the updated rules thread:



I've marked this for over a year, that some time after the 2015 revival hosts began universally shutting down unmonitored private communications, and typically even one or both of night chat and public participation by the dead.

I'm assuming it has to do either with off-site cultural influence or wider theoretical developments...


It's kind of a combination of things. I'd say the heart of the change is two related events: First, a lot of the players that started here (or CFC, etc) have branched out and played mafia elsewhere, where more of an emphasis is placed on keeping the game self-contained. Secondly, most/all of our new arrivals nowadays also come from mafia sites elsewhere (as opposed to them being regular Orgahs who have gotten curious) and thus come in with their own expectations and standards, which are more in line with the changes you described.

I don't want to go so far as to say that the games will not fill if we stick to the old style, "Wild West" type of environment that we saw in the monster games from years back, but I do think it's fair to say they'll have a harder time filling. Any mafia > no mafia, so we cater the wishes of the people.

Also don't worry, when I run Pirate Ship IV next year, it'll have all of the usual outside communication and PMing backroom deals that you're used to. :yes:

GH definitely hits the nail on the head here, but its also just part of the people who host the games naturally evolving their preferred hosting style/games. When you allow dead players to post or people to PM it does change the balance of the game a bit, or at least some of the potential outcomes.

Out of thread communication has its own problems: Networking isn't something that is fun for a lot of people, a lot of work can end up being done outside of the thread rather than in it - often ends up being a group of people who have a clearing role or action deciding a lot of what happens. Also typically requires more attention from people to respond to PMs and conversations. Really it ends up changing how the game is played a little too much.

Dead Players Chat: Not fun for mafia, they get no use out of it, and the people they kill despite not being able to vote, can still talk, when you kill someone its for a reason typically and usually its because you dont want that player to keep talking/performing an action. Not being able to participate after death gives kills some actual weight - the thread loses a voice. We've also shifted from nightkilling the same players early game over and over so its no longer a participation thing either where people are being robbed from playing the game.

Both also provide balance issues in terms of roles and reveals, you have to keep the dead chat + private communication ability in mind when putting roles into your games. Having a cop (not that we play with cops much) that can PM his villagers with his results and get them to fakeclaim for him, etc could be horrendous for mafia.

We've also shifted from alignment reveals to alignment + role reveals which is a mixture of personal style and necessity for the setup.

Around 2015 is when a lot of Orgahs starting properly branching out from here onto other sites and ideas mingle.

I think you could get a game running with out of thread mechanics or dead chat (or both to some degree) going but in the end it provides a more streamlined, more 'fun' experience without most of the time. I have positive memories of both, but no real desire to return back to those times, I think the changes are for the better, its just part of the evolution of how mafia is played. We started with cops, realised they aren't much fun, so we don't play with them, or jesters, or what have you. Hosts and players slowly work out good and bad combinations.

EDIT: Something like Capo or Pirate Ship require private communications and that is an integral part so no complaints there, its just for a lot of regular setups private comms isnt quite as necessary.

In a vanilla game you could possibly get away with using them though, for sure.

[Montmorency]

Fair points, though a little unsatisfying.

We may not have a large enough sample to examine, but in principle I don't expect that these features in isolation would be found to skew the game toward Town victories. Not to a significant extent.

One problem is that it's been 4 years since games were held regularly that this was the norm; it's difficult to remember, especially since in general most people didn't proactively utilize these features where available. Most people didn't PM whether or not there were roles, most people didn't participate (or gave only a limp attempt) after dying, and most didn't use the thread at night (though part of it may have been connected to the overall low post volume of that era's games).

It probably isn't a monocausal relationship, but one shift I lament is the overturning of the activity distribution: in the past, activity would largely be consistent throughout the game (days), with perhaps even a increase toward the endgame - going out with a bang. Nowadays, half or more of all game activity is usually concentrated in the first 2 or 3 rounds, and as time passes one or both sides become too demoralized and exhausted to do beyond the motions.

One thing to note about dead player chat was that it could be useful for Mafia in those non-reveal vanilla-ish setups, commonly associated with 2-3 Mafia even in rather large games. Why did that feature go by the wayside, no reveals and small teams? I often cursed it, but it's odd to see it eliminated.

[Visor]

Fair points, though a little unsatisfying.

We may not have a large enough sample to examine, but in principle I don't expect that these features in isolation would be found to skew the game toward Town victories. Not to a significant extent.

One problem is that it's been 4 years since games were held regularly that this was the norm; it's difficult to remember, especially since in general most people didn't proactively utilize these features where available. Most people didn't PM whether or not there were roles, most people didn't participate (or gave only a limp attempt) after dying, and most didn't use the thread at night (though part of it may have been connected to the overall low post volume of that era's games).

It probably isn't a monocausal relationship, but one shift I lament is the overturning of the activity distribution: in the past, activity would largely be consistent throughout the game (days), with perhaps even a increase toward the endgame - going out with a bang. Nowadays, half or more of all game activity is usually concentrated in the first 2 or 3 rounds, and as time passes one or both sides become too demoralized and exhausted to do beyond the motions.

One thing to note about dead player chat was that it could be useful for Mafia in those non-reveal vanilla-ish setups, commonly associated with 2-3 Mafia even in rather large games. Why did that feature go by the wayside, no reveals and small teams? I often cursed it, but it's odd to see it eliminated.

You're right about games in the past and how they were handled, but times and players have changed - it may very well get more use.

You've got a good point about the change of pacing in the games. In the earlier days people treated D1 as random and the first couple of days were mostly random votes or one liners until someone said enough is enough and the game really kicked into gear. Now the philosophy has changed and people kick into gear in the early game (and exhaust themself for the late game as you say). There is a higher focus on posting and interactions now compared to before and the 'old style' doesn't really work. I'm not sure on the best course of action here besides getting players to limit themself a little d1/d2 in order to have a more healthy endgame but players can play how they like.

No reveals has tended to go the way of the dodo mostly because it doesn't provide any sense of progression for town + leads to player exhaustion as you don't have anything to really grasp onto. There is room for perhaps old style Mafia X games once in a while but I think in general people prefer having results and reveals and knowing what they're up against to some degree.

[Visor]

Game has changed to where volume and posting is expected over just accepting the baseline of a number of players of 2-3 posting at best per phase.

Also now we have a few people who highpost a lot (and at higher numbers than before) so volume is up in general.

[El Barto]

No reveals has tended to go the way of the dodo mostly because it doesn't provide any sense of progression for town + leads to player exhaustion as you don't have anything to really grasp onto. There is room for perhaps old style Mafia X games once in a while but I think in general people prefer having results and reveals and knowing what they're up against to some degree.
Acutally I was thinking of hosting an old-style mafia game with no reveals (or only partial ones), no hammer, just your (half-)wits and the truth. Maybe with a day vigilante or so. I'm not sure how to balance it, though.

[Logic]

Acutally I was thinking of hosting an old-style mafia game with no reveals (or only partial ones), no hammer, just your (half-)wits and the truth. Maybe with a day vigilante or so. I'm not sure how to balance it, though. El Barto

I actually have a scum role in an upcoming mafia game on the Playground that can hold the role reveal of a single player indefinitely. If this scum dies, or picks a new target, the player's hidden role is revealed at the start of the next applicable phase.

Just something you might want to consider.

[El Barto]

El Barto

I actually have a scum role in an upcoming mafia game on the Playground that can hold the role reveal of a single player indefinitely. If this scum dies, or picks a new target, the player's hidden role is revealed at the start of the next applicable phase.

Just something you might want to consider.
I was thinking of having the old ‘forensic’ rôle, actually. Once a certain player is killed there's no more reveals.

[Logic]

I was thinking of having the old ‘forensic’ rôle, actually. Once a certain player is killed there's no more reveals.

That sounds pretty brutal. I could see that being very difficult for town.

Out of curiosity, why do you leave the accent over the "O" in "rôle?" I've seen you do that twice in quick succession now.

[El Barto]

I posted about that in the Chess game. It's the French spelling and pizzaman has decided to speak French so I humour that garçon.