MTG Salvation

Quote from Nai

By the way, guys, we were finally able to do something I know you guys have wanted a long time:

From this day forwards, nested quotes are automatically on for Mafia.

Quote from KittyCupCake

Quote from Guardman

Mini: Any game with 13 or less players.
Normal: Any game with 14 to 17 players.
Grande: Any game with 18 or more players.

I think I like Guardman's original suggestion best. Thanks for the link, DRey.

Maybe running 2-2-1? And then letting the people who are currently signed up for Normals and Specialties decide if they want to be on the Normal or Grande list?

atlseal's player-cap based on previous games run is also a good idea.

Rejoice.

And there was much rejoicing



Yaaaaay!

I'm going to toss in an opposing viewpoint here on having setups completed before allowing signups to a queue. This is based almost entirely on me, so I'm not sure how well it will translate over to other people.

I am a tinkerer. I will design a mafia game, then redesign it, then make a few changes, then let it sit for a while, then make a few changes, then tear it all down and build it back up again. At each step I end up with what I believe to be a better design than the iteration before. This process, in the past, has continued right up until I post signups for a game. Both Symbiote and Powerful Wizard were well-received, and both of them were different games than they would have been if they had been run 6 months before they actually were, and even more different from the version I had a year before. (Or three years before, in the case of Powerful Wizard.)

I am currently 10th on the Specialty hosting list, and my name is not bolded, indicating that I haven't confirmed that I will be ready when my turn comes up. The reason for this is not that I don't have a setup ready. I have two different setups that I could run next week were it my turn, not counting the one that I am tinkering with as a League submission, but I am not happy enough with either of them to want to do so, so I haven't submitted them to anyone for review. I would rather take my time and continue to make the best design that I can.

I can understand that queue management can be rough, and that we need some guidelines for it. But if you make me submit a design now and force me to run that design in two years (or however long it takes to get through the Specialty queue), I'm not going to be happy, since I'm going to have a better version of it in six months. On the other hand, if you make me submit a setup but allow me to change it in the meantime, then submitting the setup now was essentially meaningless, since it's just to be superceded.

I'm not sure there is a good answer aside from proactive communication on the part of the secretary and/or council. Check in with the mods on the list quarterly or something, and get whatever assurances from them you require to be sure that they will be ready once they reach the top. That doesn't have to be a submitted setup, although that would certainly be reassuring.

/barn

I fully agree with you, and I want to say more. If the current protocol is strictly followed it's impossible for any mod to reach first place in the queue with an incomplete setup, he would be bumped before that happens. That being said I can sympathize with Iso for having to deal with so many things on his plate at the same time, it must be maddening!

@Iso don't push yourself so much, we know you are trying your hardest and we appreciate it but I think you can reduce your workload by simply being "harsher" with the mods. Reduce your strikes from 3 to 1, bump mods 3 slots instead of 2 when they reach top5 with an incomplete setup, don't babysit anyone cause we are all grown ups here.

I will say I think the best compromise since I am a tweaker as well is that once you are in the Top 3 for minis and the Top 2 for all other sign-ups you should have your set-up reviewed and finalized for the sake of keeping the list moving and Iso's sanity.

Quote from RobRoy

I'm going to toss in an opposing viewpoint here on having setups completed before allowing signups to a queue. This is based almost entirely on me, so I'm not sure how well it will translate over to other people.

I am a tinkerer. I will design a mafia game, then redesign it, then make a few changes, then let it sit for a while, then make a few changes, then tear it all down and build it back up again. At each step I end up with what I believe to be a better design than the iteration before. This process, in the past, has continued right up until I post signups for a game. Both Symbiote and Powerful Wizard were well-received, and both of them were different games than they would have been if they had been run 6 months before they actually were, and even more different from the version I had a year before. (Or three years before, in the case of Powerful Wizard.)

I am currently 10th on the Specialty hosting list, and my name is not bolded, indicating that I haven't confirmed that I will be ready when my turn comes up. The reason for this is not that I don't have a setup ready. I have two different setups that I could run next week were it my turn, not counting the one that I am tinkering with as a League submission, but I am not happy enough with either of them to want to do so, so I haven't submitted them to anyone for review. I would rather take my time and continue to make the best design that I can.

I can understand that queue management can be rough, and that we need some guidelines for it. But if you make me submit a design now and force me to run that design in two years (or however long it takes to get through the Specialty queue), I'm not going to be happy, since I'm going to have a better version of it in six months. On the other hand, if you make me submit a setup but allow me to change it in the meantime, then submitting the setup now was essentially meaningless, since it's just to be superceded.

I'm not sure there is a good answer aside from proactive communication on the part of the secretary and/or council. Check in with the mods on the list quarterly or something, and get whatever assurances from them you require to be sure that they will be ready once they reach the top. That doesn't have to be a submitted setup, although that would certainly be reassuring.

Okay, but hear me out. If you have your setup completed, then if you have to be bumped up 10 spaces for some reason, then you can run it immediately. I have no problem with the setup constantly being tinkered with when it's on the queue so long as you have a complete setup to run when it's your turn. If you don't have a setup you like that you'd be willing to run if you have to supersede everyone on the list due to unpreparedness, then don't sign up. Again, if you want to change your setup after you're on the list, that's fine, but at least have something you can run because if you (ambiguous "you") don't, then we have problems and it's just really impolite to me, the other hosts, and the players. I can understand wanting to flesh out new ideas and whatnot, but the completed setup rule is already in place for the Specialty queue - you told me when I added you that you would have your setup complete within a couple of weeks (correct me if I'm wrong), and that's why I added you to begin with. I'm not looking to rain on your parade because I understand that everyone operates differently - personally, I make a setup, get it reviewed, and then slap myself on the list. And then I keep making setups. I have at least 12 setups either in-the-making or completed. I don't revise setups often, usually because my inspiration comes in spurts and if I want to come up with game ideas, I have to be in the right mindset and want to work on that specific setup to create it, so if I don't get it done by a certain time, I usually abandon the idea. But I think I've only made changes to four of my setups after getting them reviewed, and then they were really minor changes (and I, of course, asked my reviewer). But while I can understand your desire for perfection, can you honestly say that your setup would be complete when it was your time to host?

Quote from DRey

/barn

I fully agree with you, and I want to say more. If the current protocol is strictly followed it's impossible for any mod to reach first place in the queue with an incomplete setup, he would be bumped before that happens. That being said I can sympathize with Iso for having to deal with so many things on his plate at the same time, it must be maddening!

@Iso don't push yourself so much, we know you are trying your hardest and we appreciate it but I think you can reduce your workload by simply being "harsher" with the mods. Reduce your strikes from 3 to 1, bump mods 3 slots instead of 2 when they reach top5 with an incomplete setup, don't babysit anyone cause we are all grown ups here.

Thanks DRey, I might start doing that.

But bear with me, there's another reason I want setups to be completed before signing up - I want to be able to include all the setup's information in the hosting list so that players can show interest in upcoming games ahead of time (since a lot of mods don't even announce their flavor beforehand). That would keep players eager to move the queue on in the event that another game they wanted to play in was coming up, and it would get mods who generally get fewer players interested in their games to get more.

I think Iso has a very good point. Perhaps you must have *a* completed, approved set-up in order to be added to the queue, but you can run *any* completed, approved set-up? That way, if you are a tinkerer who is constantly modifying the set-up, you can run that set-up when your turn arises, but if you have to run your set-up before you want to, we don't run into issues where we have a mod with no game.

Or we could just get Az, Zinda, and Xyre to run every game.

Quote from Iso

Okay, but hear me out. If you have your setup completed, then if you have to be bumped up 10 spaces for some reason, then you can run it immediately. I have no problem with the setup constantly being tinkered with when it's on the queue so long as you have a complete setup to run when it's your turn. If you don't have a setup you like that you'd be willing to run if you have to supersede everyone on the list due to unpreparedness, then don't sign up.

Sounds fair. I mainly wanted permission to change the setup I intend to run (including changing it drastically and/or completely replacing it) while I was sitting in the queue.

Quote from Iso

I can understand wanting to flesh out new ideas and whatnot, but the completed setup rule is already in place for the Specialty queue - you told me when I added you that you would have your setup complete within a couple of weeks (correct me if I'm wrong), and that's why I added you to begin with.

I ended up spending some time taking my more-polished setup and revising it for League submission, leaving me with a less-fleshed-out (but probably more interesting overall) backup that I am still working on for the actual Specialty queue. I expect that Aspect Mafia will be ready for review once I put about 7-10 days into it instead of the other stuff I've been doing.

Alright.

But yes, you can alter setups in queue so long as your setup is done when it's your time to run (and technically when you first sign up [as far as Specialties are currently concerned]).

I'm looking for some other council input on this. My current proposal is:

1) Keep the list demarkations the same. That is, Basic, Mini, Normal, ...

2) Tell everyone signed-up to host a game that they have 1 month if they have not already completed a setup after which if they still don't have a completed setup, they will be removed from the hosting list. This doesn't have to be the setup they end up running, but everyone on the hosting list should have at least one setup available to pull out if they're needed at a moment's notice.

3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players

And beyond that?

Quote from Iso

And beyond that?

Assuming that you're asking about beyond the third game:

Quote from atlseal

3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players

Basically every game after your second is capped at 18 players unless you get council permission.

Is there really enough of a difference between running a 16 person game and an 18 person game that we want to restrict people to this progression? I don't think the gradient is high enough to restrict that. Unless all you are trying to do is force more mid-sized games to be run...

Quote from RobRoy

Is there really enough of a difference between running a 16 person game and an 18 person game that we want to restrict people to this progression? I don't think the gradient is high enough to restrict that. Unless all you are trying to do is force more mid-sized games to be run...

There is no really good position between 12 and 16. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument. As for between 16 and 18, I'm wanting us to try and limit most games to no more than 18 players. I could see an argument for changing the second stepping stone to being allowed to host a 12 person mini and the last step is 18 players. I still want someone to have a couple games under their belt before being able to host at the limit (barring council exceptions).

Quote from atlseal

I'm looking for some other council input on this. My current proposal is:

1) Keep the list demarkations the same. That is, Basic, Mini, Normal, ...

2) Tell everyone signed-up to host a game that they have 1 month if they have not already completed a setup after which if they still don't have a completed setup, they will be removed from the hosting list. This doesn't have to be the setup they end up running, but everyone on the hosting list should have at least one setup available to pull out if they're needed at a moment's notice.

3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players

I like the overall idea, but I don't see a reason to enforce the artificially low game cap for third games and beyond. I would rather encourage host creativity and allow games up to 24 players (but no more), with the added stipulation that hosts must be prepared to swap or abandon their large games if they do not fire.

Quote from AsianInvasion

I like the overall idea, but I don't see a reason to enforce the artificially low game cap for third games and beyond. I would rather encourage host creativity and allow games up to 24 players (but no more), with the added stipulation that hosts must be prepared to swap or abandon their large games if they do not fire.

We've already established that anything 20+ is having a hard time filling. I'd rather 18 be the max with people getting permission to create a game (or change their game) with more than that.

Well my current set up has 21 players and is being reviewed.

I don't think that it is that difficult for Mods to make setups to accmomodate more than 20 players, but make the same setup able to be run with 18. If you open a setup and 24 people apply and you know how to accommodate them all, you should be allowed to do so. As long as your game could also run with 18 people.

Quote from DorkKnight »

Well my current set up has 21 players and is being reviewed.

Again, this enforcement would only be applied to people that aren't currently on a hosting list.

Quote from Cyan

I don't think that it is that difficult for Mods to make setups to accmomodate more than 20 players, but make the same setup able to be run with 18. If you open a setup and 24 people apply and you know how to accommodate them all, you should be allowed to do so. As long as your game could also run with 18 people.

As far as I'm concerned, that would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's how I plan to design future games anyway. That way, you can pretty much always be guaranteed to start, but you have extra roles available if more people sign up.

Quote from atlseal

There is no really good position between 12 and 16. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument. As for between 16 and 18, I'm wanting us to try and limit most games to no more than 18 players. I could see an argument for changing the second stepping stone to being allowed to host a 12 person mini and the last step is 18 players. I still want someone to have a couple games under their belt before being able to host at the limit (barring council exceptions).

My idea would be to have the second step (after a basic) be running any game up to 18 players. Third step is, you can run more than 18 with permission.

I can understand that you want people to work up to running the bigger games, and I think that "run a basic" is a great first step. But I think that, once you've proven you can do that, you should be set loose on all the regular queues. It takes a long time to work through the queues anyway without forcing people to run games they may not want to (or in a form they consider suboptimal) in order to level up to where they can get those extra two players.

Quote from atlseal

I'm looking for some other council input on this. My current proposal is:

1) Keep the list demarkations the same. That is, Basic, Mini, Normal, ...

2) Tell everyone signed-up to host a game that they have 1 month if they have not already completed a setup after which if they still don't have a completed setup, they will be removed from the hosting list. This doesn't have to be the setup they end up running, but everyone on the hosting list should have at least one setup available to pull out if they're needed at a moment's notice.

All good.

Quote from Atlseal »

3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players

Mm, this worries me, even with the exceptions clause.

Not everyone is interested in being funneled into running basics. Some, quite the opposite. Many of our most creative mods got their start on other game types. And although we should continue to find ways to encourage smaller game sizes, I don't think imposing restrictions on new mods is the way to go on that.

Quote from Azrael

Not everyone is interested in being funneled into running basics. Some, quite the opposite. Many of our most creative mods got their start on other game types. And although we should continue to find ways to encourage smaller game sizes, I don't think imposing restrictions on new mods is the way to go on that.

Agreed. I would encourage most mods to start with basics/minis, but there's no need to apply complex requirements so long as we effectively review new setups.

I don't think a restriction on complexity for new hosts makes sense. You can't truly learn how to balance complex games without designing and running complex games and making mistakes in the process. My first game, Hollywood Mafia, had a lot of wacky stuff and probably wasn't that well balanced, but that would have been the case even if I had already run a basic.

Now, what running a basic will teach you is how to deal with the logistics of actually running the game. For that reason, restricting the size of a new host's first game might have some merit.

I disagree and I think you misunderstood atlseal intent. The rules as stated don't want to force everyone to design basics, far from it, the rules want mods to design games they should be more comfortable with in the first place.

Let me give a real example, Tordeck's first game was a mini, not only a mini but a mini with a cult. Tordeck is an experienced player and veteran, he's certainly not a noob, but that doesn't mean he had much knowledge of game design nor the risk of using cults (that should totally be banned because approximately 110% of games with cults resulted in disaster so far :p) not only that, he did a questionable modkill that probably would never have happened if he had more games under his belt.

Besides the "exceptions granted by council request" solve all problems anyway by permitting exceptional mods to design the games they want.

TLDR: When a noob joins a game over his capacity the chances are that he only hurts himself and his team to a lesser extent. That's not good, but when a mod hosts a game over his capacity he not only hurt his reputation but hurts all the players that participated in it, some players that may even decide to abandon mafia altogether after a bad first experience. This is a real problem and we are losing players because of poorly balanced games.

EWP: I have nothing against Tordeck but his game was emblematic of the problem, please don't get offended man, no bad feelings.

Quote from arimnaes

I don't think a restriction on complexity for new hosts makes sense. You can't truly learn how to balance complex games without designing and running complex games and making mistakes in the process. My first game, Hollywood Mafia, had a lot of wacky stuff and probably wasn't that well balanced, but that would have been the case even if I had already run a basic.

Now, what running a basic will teach you is how to deal with the logistics of actually running the game. For that reason, restricting the size of a new host's first game might have some merit.

Yeah, but do you prefer that new mods have to deal with logistic plus balancing issues or only just balancing issues? Never forget that restrictions breed creativity. I think players are being hurt by badly designed games and bad mods, and unfortunately that's changing from the exception to the rule.

I think we're starting to lose sight of what the real problems here are:

Large games (for the most part, unless exceptional mod/flavor) are not nearly as popular as they once were. Much to the detriment of both the players of those games and the mods that run them. This is bad for our sub as a whole.

To a much lesser extent are the games being ready on time. I feel we may have at least come to a solution for this one in giving all players on the hosting list a month to get a game together or tough cookies.

My primary concern at the moment is how to solve the larger problem of ... well, large games. I'm up for any suggestions on how to help curb the problem without starting to reign in on how large games have gotten/are getting.

I would like to point out that the tiered hosting system doesn't stop you from creating whatever games you want. With a move to needing a game created before you can be put on a hosting list, you'd have to create the game first anyway and if the game is good enough, I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed onto the sign-up list.

Quote from atlseal

I think we're starting to lose sight of what the real problems here are:

Large games (for the most part, unless exceptional mod/flavor) are not nearly as popular as they once were. Much to the detriment of both the players of those games and the mods that run them. This is bad for our sub as a whole.

To a much lesser extent are the games being ready on time. I feel we may have at least come to a solution for this one in giving all players on the hosting list a month to get a game together or tough cookies.

My primary concern at the moment is how to solve the larger problem of ... well, large games. I'm up for any suggestions on how to help curb the problem without starting to reign in on how large games have gotten/are getting.

I would like to point out that the tiered hosting system doesn't stop you from creating whatever games you want. With a move to needing a game created before you can be put on a hosting list, you'd have to create the game first anyway and if the game is good enough, I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed onto the sign-up list.

I'm not sure if the "large game problem" can or needs to be fixed. The problem with large games is player preference. Players just prefer smaller games due to the fact large games are unwieldy and take a long time to finish. I'm not sure you can change that or want to change. I personally don't. To me this is just a natural progression of a userbase. I believe the correct response is to change large games rather than change the userbase.

Quote from Guardman

I'm not sure if the "large game problem" can or needs to be fixed. The problem with large games is player preference. Players just prefer smaller games due to the fact large games are unwieldy and take a long time to finish. I'm not sure you can change that or want to change. I personally don't. To me this is just a natural progression of a userbase. I believe the correct response is to change large games rather than change the userbase.

In case it's not clear, I agree with you. I'm not trying to change what players want. I'm trying to change the supply to meet the demand. I'm looking for any and all suggestions about how we fix the supply-side of the equation.

Quote from atlseal

Quote from Guardman

I'm not sure if the "large game problem" can or needs to be fixed. The problem with large games is player preference. Players just prefer smaller games due to the fact large games are unwieldy and take a long time to finish. I'm not sure you can change that or want to change. I personally don't. To me this is just a natural progression of a userbase. I believe the correct response is to change large games rather than change the userbase.

In case it's not clear, I agree with you. I'm not trying to change what players want. I'm trying to change the supply to meet the demand. I'm looking for any and all suggestions about how we fix the supply-side of the equation.

A simple way to do this would be to run at the very least larger games on demand.

The large game problem is a thorny one. At this point, we've done an awful lot to slant towards smaller games. We have six times as many minis and basics running as we do regular normal slots.

The only attractive measures I can think of that would help tilt that further than it is would be to A) put a moratorium on a more normal game signups and eventually retire that queue, and B) continue to encourage smaller specialties, FTQs, league games, and PCQs. That seems to be where our larger game creep is coming from.

I don't think we want to retire the specialty queue entirely as well. *frowns*

Drastic steps.

For the short term, we can simply ask the league committee to keep the numbers down, and the FTQ committee can keep on eye on that as well. PCQ we can't really do anything about, aside from voting down large setups.

Retire the normal queue and put a 16 player cap on specialties, barring special requests? Cap both?

I still think 18 is a perfectly reasonable cut-off size.

18 is a pretty good cap, I'd agree.

---

2nd thought. The problem with reviewing seems to be that it's a crapshoot whether a single reviewer is going to identify all the potential problems in a setup, unless they're very good.

So, perhaps we need a system where multiple eyes are looking at the issue?

Batch review committees. All players wanting to review copies of basic games, gain communal access to an email or gimmick or topic or other convenient mechanism. Do the same for all other game types - or do all game types to one location.

The issue there is disqualification. We could have them post a request, and then have people follow up, but that's a lot like the current system. We could disqualify people from ever playing in that game type while they're on the reviewer list as well, but that may or may not fly too well with some mods - depending on whether they have a desire to play in them ever again. Or, we could trust in our reviewers' integrity to not to peek at things they plan to play in, and/or delete the setup after it's ready to post signups.

Maybe just up the requirement from one reviewer to two? Two reviewers working independently, each communicating with the designer separately so that they don't acquire ideas from each other, would do a better job of catching problems than just one, and without the problem of getting people to not look at stuff.

Quote from RobRoy

Maybe just up the requirement from one reviewer to two? Two reviewers working independently, each communicating with the designer separately so that they don't acquire ideas from each other, would do a better job of catching problems than just one, and without the problem of getting people to not look at stuff.

This is what I'd suggest. I know for my mini I have a second pair of eyes looking at it, and it greatly increased the quality of the setup from just a single reviewer. A two-reviewer system is likely sufficient; 3 people removes the issues often seen by just 2.

2 is fine.

Quote from RobRoy

Maybe just up the requirement from one reviewer to two? Two reviewers working independently, each communicating with the designer separately so that they don't acquire ideas from each other, would do a better job of catching problems than just one, and without the problem of getting people to not look at stuff.

If we do decide to move to a two-reviewer system, I'd like to sign up as a reviewer -but only in that situation. Because while I think I could be a useful set of eyes for looking over a design, I don't think I should ever be the only set of eyes.

I also like the current suggestions of locking the normal queue and letting it die naturally, while also capping specialties at 18.

So Council, what's the verdict?

While I haven't been around for a while, let me throw my two small denomination coins of choice in...

I'm very much not in favour of a hard cap of 18 players. I feel very much like it restricts mods and setup creativity. For reference, of the two setups I was working on previously (and which I need to get back to working on, really), one is modifiable for 18 players, but probably needs to remove a neutral, whereas the other might be unworkable for that player amount, due to the presence of two unlynchable and unkillable neutrals.

And frankly, most of my best mafia memories are of 20+ player normals and specialties. Like Inheritance. And FF7. And Amistaria and Hecatea.

As for the double reviewer requirement, I'm inclined to agree. Requiring setups to be done before signing up... might be a bit difficult. Given how long reviewing and fixing can take at times, that's a very long lead time we're looking at, and we run the risk of signed-up mods simply losing interest by the time their turn finally comes around. (Which already happens somewhat at present, and which I suspect is the reason behind some mods not being 'ready'.)

I understand the current practice is to require a completed setup by the time you enter 10 spaces to the front of the queue? I'm fine with that. I expect that's why I'm no longer on the Specialty list?

There's no need for a hard cap. Just tell people to not produce a game they don't expect they'll be able to fill (with an emphasis on that line being at 18). There are more than a few mods whom I believe could still fill a 20+ game, and their existence makes this rule troublesome, because you'll need a lot of exceptions. Better I feel to just tell the average mod to not step over the line without good cause.

Fair, Xyre, but what of the ambitious inexperienced hosts who would feel the need to push that limit?

@dC: Specialties have required completion for you to sign up for some time now - in addition, I issued a universal mod-prod to players who wanted to host and anyone who didn't respond within 3 weeks of the prod was auto-dropped to clean up the queue of hosts who had no intention of hosting anymore.

Quote from Iso

Fair, Xyre, but what of the ambitious inexperienced hosts who would feel the need to push that limit?

That's what the two reviewers are for, right?

Just send them to me. I'm ironically a hardass when it comes to reviews.

What do you propose about deadlines?

Quote from Iso

So Council, what's the verdict?

I believe the verdict right now is implement the 1 month leeway to people on the hosting queues to get a game ready (not necessarily reviewed) or be removed and any further people that wish to join a queue must have a completed game. I'm not comfortable implementing anything else right now as we don't really seem to have any form of consensus.

Two reviewers would work alright - except the burden on reviewers from doubling the amount of requests might be rough. And/or perhaps we need to start testing folks before we put them on the reviewer list though - send 'em some sample setups and see what problems they can identify.

Maybe some old-school Xyre setups.

Quote from Azrael

Two reviewers would work alright - except the burden on reviewers from doubling the amount of requests might be rough. And/or perhaps we need to start testing folks before we put them on the reviewer list though - send 'em some sample setups and see what problems they can identify.

Maybe some old-school Xyre setups.

This seems like an excellent idea.

Quote from Azrael

Two reviewers would work alright - except the burden on reviewers from doubling the amount of requests might be rough. And/or perhaps we need to start testing folks before we put them on the reviewer list though - send 'em some sample setups and see what problems they can identify.

Maybe some old-school Xyre setups.

Quote from atlseal

I believe the verdict right now is implement the 1 month leeway to people on the hosting queues to get a game ready (not necessarily reviewed) or be removed and any further people that wish to join a queue must have a completed game. I'm not comfortable implementing anything else right now as we don't really seem to have any form of consensus.

It's funny because I don't think anyone has agreed with this change, to the contrary, looks like everyone is against this "to join queues you must have a completed game".

"2 reviewers" is a non-issue though, everyone agrees with this.

Public consensus and Council consensus are different things.

To be fair, the council does put great weight in the public's ideas. If I'm wrong about there not being a public consensus on that, that that is my mistake. I just didn't remember anyone speaking out against that idea.

Quote from DRey

Quote from atlseal

I believe the verdict right now is implement the 1 month leeway to people on the hosting queues to get a game ready (not necessarily reviewed) or be removed and any further people that wish to join a queue must have a completed game. I'm not comfortable implementing anything else right now as we don't really seem to have any form of consensus.

It's funny because I don't think anyone has agreed with this change, to the contrary, looks like everyone is against this "to join queues you must have a completed game".

"2 reviewers" is a non-issue though, everyone agrees with this.

Drey, atlseal changed one concept on the completed game idea.

IIRC, the origanl idea was to have the game completed and reviewed prior to being placed on the Hositng List. Where as atlseal is saying a completed game that has not been reviewed. They are minor differences in words, but change the concept of getting on Hosting List alsmot completely.

I, for one, agree with atlseal and say that a Host must have a completed game idea prior to being on the Hosting List, then let the reviewers have at it.