MTG Salvation

It seems that the general agreement is that we don't need to be so drastic as to alter the game queues, we just need to change the culture of large games hosts to cut down the numbers. I hope that upcoming hosts have followed along and are making changes.

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.

I'd be interested in seeing this happen. I'll see if I can dig up some older games and ask people what they think of them. I'd have to "review" them myself first. I might see if people are happy for me to release old setups for basics I reviewed too...

I'm also in the process of "reviewing a reviewer", which is interesting but quite difficult to put into words. Perhaps we could group together some well respected reviewers (like the FTQ list or something) and try and have a roundtable discussion on "how to review". I'm not sure if that'd actually be helpful, but it would be interesting to see how others go about evaluating setups.

That's a good idea, Eco.

I think Axel's pointing system is required reading before designing. I also think there should be a list of questions to ask yourself before running a setup, such as "how many mislynches is the town allowed, in a worst case scenario?"

Quote from Ecophagy

I'm also in the process of "reviewing a reviewer", which is interesting but quite difficult to put into words. Perhaps we could group together some well respected reviewers (like the FTQ list or something) and try and have a roundtable discussion on "how to review". I'm not sure if that'd actually be helpful, but it would be interesting to see how others go about evaluating setups.

I would like to assist in helping getting this system up and running. I haven't reviewed games or hosted one yet (I am up to hos the next Basic), but I'm sure there is something I can do to help with this process.

Let me know.

Quote from Iso

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.

I figured as much. Although when I logged back in after what, a year, I only saw one message? And it wasn't a 'mod-prod', it was a 'are you ready to host just in case'.

Really? Because I sent a message to EVERYONE asking to confirm their setup around April lest they be dropped from the hosting list.

Quote from Iso

Really? Because I sent a message to EVERYONE asking to confirm their setup around April lest they be dropped from the hosting list.

I got one "would you be ready to run early" message that dC was copied on, but the followup - Mafia Hosting List Purge (Specialty) - did not have him in the list of recipients. He may have been missed.

Recipients: arimnaes, Axelrod, Charm_Master3125, Ecophagy, iLord, Infinis, rianalnn, RobRoy, Roja, Syrenz, Toastboy, Zajnet, Zchinque

--

Also, I probably have some spare time over the next day or two. I'll try to do a writeup on the review process as I do it. Hopefully that will be useful.

My mistake.

No harm done, just put him back in his previous position.

Once his setup's done, dC can be re-added to the queue.

BTW since everyone and the council (?) has agreed with the "2 reviewers for each game" thing, I think it's safe to assume all games from now on need two reviewers correct?

I ask this because games that have already been approved may need to be reevaluated by the second reviewer with haste considering they will start shortly.

Quote from DRey

BTW since everyone and the council (?) has agreed with the "2 reviewers for each game" thing, I think it's safe to assume all games from now on need two reviewers correct?

I ask this because games that have already been approved may need to be reevaluated by the second reviewer with haste considering they will start shortly.

Show where the Council has agreed on this DRey.

Council, I have been getting PMs from DRey asking to see my game prior to launch forcing the "2 reviewer" rule on me when it has not been decided. I find this to be rude and not needed. If the Council decides on the "2 reviewer" rule, then I will find a second reviewer per the rule.

I used the "?" exactly because I know the council haven't given the verdict Void... and it's important to decide stuff before moving on to other things.

I think you are the one being rude but I will refrain from discussing this in public. Let me just remind you that I'm not a reviewer therefore I can't review your game even if I wanted to, you totally misunderstood my PM's.

While I like the idea of the 2 reviewer rule:

1) There was never a council consensus
2) It's really hasty to be forcing that on people lined up to host in the next month or two

It seems more realistic to expect the 2-reviewer rule to apply to people 3-4 down in the hosting lists.

On a mod note: please people, cool it. This is hardly something to get worked up over

It never hurts to get another reviewer, regardless of if you 'have to'.

Quote from Iso

My mistake.

I was working on a setup toooooo.

I'll try to have it done by april. If I can't, I'll let you know.

Should I start PMing reviewers about having their setups done?

I haven't got a complete setup right now anyway - just a couple of incomplete ones. I'll let you know when I have one complete... or actually, you'll know it because I'll be asking for reviewers.

My specialty/ftq setup is currently being reviewed/modified. I think I've got like 3 reviewers in there: Zionite, Axelrod, & Iso.

I just want to point out and remind all current and potential game Mods. Just because a player gets suspended or even banned you dont need to immediately go find a replacement. Give it a few days and speak to an Admin first. There is an appeal process in place and by jumping the gun all you end up doing is screwing over your players.

. . .or keep a game moving. You should have been replaced ages before that.

Both of you should know better than to discuss ongoing games. Want to say something wait till its over.

Bolly has requested to be added to the Blacklist until July of 2013 or later for personal reasons.

I don't get people requesting themselves like that. Throw a wrench at him, deny his request. That would blow his mind. Really.

He just wants to be able to avoid the temptation of playing or something like that for a while.

Quote from Raging Levine

Quote from MafiaScribe

-Out-of-game Promises-

Players may not use out-of-game promises (example: I swear on my grandmother's life, I bet you my entire collection of magic cards, etc.) in an effort to influence other players.

Quote from Dork Knight

EBWODP- in case you're wondering, I absolutely *detest* people who post crap like "I am one million percent sure that so-and-so is scum." Because unless the person you're talking about has already been lynched you are NOT sure. Millers, Godfathers, Traitors, etc all exist so not even a perfectly sane COP is ever sure of his target's alignment. That's not taking into account Naive, paranoid, or reverse cops. So anytime, someone posts that nonsense, I immediately bet them their sig space. If they lose, they have to proclaim that they suck at reading people for an acceptable amount of time. If they win, I happily change my signature to worship them and proclaim their greatness. The last person to win this bet with me was AniX.

This is occurring in Basic 68 and I think it needs addressing.

I would like to re-raise this issue now that the game is over.

Quote from Raging Levine

I would like to re-raise this issue now that the game is over.

I think it's kind of silly and doesn't really matter much in the long-run.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

Quote from Raging Levine

I would like to re-raise this issue now that the game is over.

I think it's kind of silly and doesn't really matter much in the long-run.

I agree. Since this is a first offence from DK then there is no need for harsh displine.

I suggest giving a warning this time around, but if future occurrences happen, then punish the player further. Just my 2 cents.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

Quote from Raging Levine

I would like to re-raise this issue now that the game is over.

I think it's kind of silly and doesn't really matter much in the long-run.

Then why have this rule? It's a pretty good one.

I'm not asking for anyone to be blacklisted or anything. I think a warning is in order, though.

I don't even support a warning. I support people calling it out as silly and forced (because it is), but not a warning.

EDIT: @RL: Because there are legitimate uses for it and this isn't one. I remember there being a problem with someone swearing on their kids a few months ago, and that truly was a problem. This isn't really a problem; moreso the letter of the law interfering with the spirit of the law.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

I don't even support a warning. I support people calling it out as silly and forced (because it is), but not a warning.

EDIT: @RL: Because there are legitimate uses for it and this isn't one. I remember there being a problem with someone swearing on their kids a few months ago, and that truly was a problem. This isn't really a problem; moreso the letter of the law interfering with the spirit of the law.

So you support being allowed to bet sig space? I sure don't.

To put it plain and simple, the rules are in place to be enforced. Not to be ignored when someone breaks the integrity of a game.

It doesn't matter if the rule is broken in a small way or a big way, the rule is still broken.

ZDS has the intent of the bet correct. I am not in any way shape or form influencing whether people think I am town or scum with the bet.

In fact, one could make the argument that my "bet" prevents others from influencing the game with outside items. The reason being, IIRC, the player I challenged said that he was "more sure that I was scum that he had ever been about anything." What is that, but betting his *reputation* in an attempt to sway the opinions of other players to think I am scum? My "bet" prevents them from doing this by giving them an equivalent consequence to their statement. You want to use your reputation as a good mafia player to get me lynched? Fine. But if you're wrong, be prepared to HUMBLE yourself and your reputation, and next time you try to use that argument, maybe someone will look at your sig and see that you were wrong last time you were *sure* someone was scum.

And yes, the sig on one of my old accounts named me "Disciple of AniX, who hunts scum by sense of smell." A tongue-in-cheek reference to him nailing me day 1 and getting me lynched because I "smelled like scum".

And for reference, if any post is going to draw a warning/penalty/etc its this:

Quote from Void

I don't believe I have been anymore sure of the scum team than I am now. By that I mean in all the games I have player. (20+)

That sure does look like someone is trying to influence people with something other than in-game knowledge. However, I do respect Void as a player and I would rather not see him punished for simply being confident. Even though in the scheme of mafia games, his reputation is arguably, more swaying than someone's faceless children, I simply think people should think about what they post before they do so. As I said before, not even a cop investigation is 100% sure thing until the target is dead and the alignment is revealed. Posting that you're sure about *anything* in a mafia game is just wrong.

I'll shut up now.

First off we should be using the intent of the law, not the word of the law. The word of the law usually causes abusive interpretations. The intent of the law was to prevent people from swearing on their children's lives for example. The intent of the law was not to punish people for saying I bet you are wrong.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

The "bet" suggested by Dork Knight is not an attempt to influence other players. It is won depending on who was right before the bet was made, if I read correctly, and therefore has absolutely no incidence whatsoever on game play (or no more than any other time of whining, anyway). Dork Knight thus did not break the rule in any way I can conceive.

To make an analogous point, compare the two following bets: "I bet you this tomato you are about to eat is rotten", and "I bet you this tomato you just ate is rotten".
The first bet can have an effect on whether the tomato is going to be eaten, and as a result is detrimental if that tomato is somehow involved in a Mafia game (maybe it'll be featured in Azrael's next super-ambitious Specialty). The second one doesn't, all that is left to do after betting is to wait and see.

So, in conclusion, there was no harm done by Dork Knight (not sure about the tomato).

Sensible. Then I agree he shouldn't be punished and the rule should be amended to better reflect this. My apologies to DK.

No offense taken. I'm also a fan of the rules and enforcing them, so I can appreciate where you were coming from.

The reason bets are banned is not because of the bets themselves, but rather because they add a preposterous amount of WIFOM to the game. Even if Dork's point is just to point out the absurdity of superlative statements in the game, there's no way anyone can be certain he isn't trying to influence the game, either. Banning bets just serves to avoid people getting mad about that uncertainty, and prevents that uncertainty from unintentionally affecting games.

I'd say the spirit of the law, if not the rule, favors DK, but I'd still indicate to him not to do it in the future. I understand why he does it, but I'm also sure it's going to frustrate someone, eventually.

I agree completely with Xyre.

Better to apply the rule broadly in this case than to be nit-picking each instance at the end of games. Where do we draw the line - sig space, kids, grandmothers? (hi Axel and Az!)

Even RagingLevine, who posted the complaint, doesn't feel that I broke the rule at this point. If you're saying that I did, then neither the wording nor the spirit of the rule is correct as written and it needs to be changed to prevent this from happening again.

However, I urge you to look at the situation again. There is no WIFOM caused by my comment.

Player A: I am 100% sure Player B is scum based on my years of experience.
Player B: Are you sure enough about that statement to publicly post that you were wrong if you should prove to be wrong?
Player A: ...

Where is the WIFOM? Especially considering I publicly stated that the "bet" would have been offered no matter what my alignment was. My alignment didn't trigger the bet, making an un-substantiated claim based on something I cannot defend against did.

I agree with the current iteration of the rule both the word and the spirit. So does RagingLevine I'll wager. I feel that you might be getting stuck on the word "bet." The issue at hand here is that what transpired between me and Void isn't and shouldn't be covered under that rule.

If the council wants to create a new rule and use that going forward, I'll be happy to follow that rule as I do all the others on site. But I would fight to make sure that rule applies to both sides of this case. If a player can use their raw experience to claim knowledge of another player's alignment, then the accused should have the right to force that player to back that claim up with something.

Please note, had Void said "I believe DK is scum because... point A, point B, etc." This would be a non-argument. I would have refuted those specific points against me and moved on.

/barn ZDS

The hosting list thread has been cleaned up and everything is up-to-date. I'm ready to start PMing mods to make sure that their games are ready per new ordinance. Just to clarify: the queue restructuring was never to be implemented, correct? Just the need to have a complete setup?

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

In the recently finished Clan Contest Mafia VI, the town won because one of the scum unknowingly had the ability to win with them, under specific conditions. However, the town's play was poor this game, and you can see from the post game discussion that they themselves feel the win was not (entirely) deserved..

On the basis that winning a game of Mafia should be a matter of skill, not one of pure luck, I would like to suggest a site-wide ban on hidden win conditions, as well as on hidden loss conditions (eg: the player doesn't know it, but s/he loses if s/he dies).

I can agree with such a ban.

In this particular instance, such a role seems especially inappropriate for a CCM.

I agree, at least in this instance.

Also! Should we be posting Mafia Awards 2012 soon?

They're in the sitewide section, right?

Best Mafia Newcomer and Best Mafia Player are in the sitewide section. Not the more in-depth ones, though.

Also: Did we ever officially implement a player cap for games?

Quote from Iso

I agree, at least in this instance.

Also! Should we be posting Mafia Awards 2012 soon?

Usually we post them early-mid December.

EDIT: Though, to be fair, arim used to post them around this time, and the nominations just opened for the rest of the forum, so maybe it's worth doing them now?