Gameroom policy discussion thread

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So Kingmaker with no nights?

Basically. And no roles/more mafia.

And people can be confirmed.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

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.

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

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.

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).

I've added a troubleshooting section to the timer post 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.

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?

What's the conversion to Schrute bucks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

El Barto

---

:stare: GeneralHankerchief

Why are thanks not allowed?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Hughes

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

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.