MTG Salvation

I'm good with sharing.

Great! I'll send you both the MafiaScribe account info.

One of the schemes I've been considering is actually setting up a rotation for the secretary position, where we'd have a total of up to four persons with secretary responsibility, on a rotation of two on, two off, on a quarterly basis. If we can get enough other volunteers to sustain that, or just add third or fourth person to the mix, that'd certainly go a long ways to cutting down on burnout in the secretary position.

Awesome, thanks guys.

PM is away to those on the hosting list to see if they are still interested in hosting, if their setups are complete and if they have been reviewed.

Speaking of reviewed, it appears to me that several of those on the reviewers list are not currently active. So I am also going to contact everyone on that list to see if they are still willing to review setups. Depending on the number of responses we may need to look into finding a few more people as reviewers because the current policy of requiring two per setup in addition to the mod might interfere with our ability to launch games since the player base is not what it once was.

We actually currently only require 1 qualified reviewer and then 1 additional pair of eyes for people who want to test their review chops because of that. I guess Void/Killjoy never updated that.

Quote from Ecophagy »

The PCQ is great for one off games and for letting particularly good games jump the queue, and I'm fine with it replacing the FTQ, but if the PCQ is the only way to get highly complex games into circulation then you'll just see the same group of mods winning every time and people will give up entering (and what to do with games that never win? They can't be run in any other queue).

***

Basically, if we're almost completely out of actual completed setups which we apparently are, this is a disaster. Running a PCQ to kick start some creative juices is a very good idea, but I don't think only running games by vote is a good idea. We should queue up the winners in order their final vote tally, and dump them all into the Speciality queue. For fairness, all active mods currently on the queue should be entered into the PCQ and/or given some bonus for time served, and inactive mods dropped from the queue.

Actually, why don't we do a similar thing with the Normal queue? If the consensus is to leave the queue mostly intact and discontinue the League, why don't we run a PCQ for Normals to try and drum up some actual games and repopulate the queue?

Deciding what to do with the normal queue may affect that also - as originally envisioned, taking off complexity restrictions from the normal games would allow specialty-level complexity to run in that queue.

Quote from Iso »

We actually currently only require 1 qualified reviewer and then 1 additional pair of eyes for people who want to test their review chops because of that. I guess Void/Killjoy never updated that.

Ok I am still gunna double check with the reviewers just so the list is up to date, when I go to edit it I will fix the requirements being wrong.

While we're at it, lets start enforcing the rule where you can't hop on the list without a completed and reviewed setup again.

Here's something we should be able to agree on pretty quickly:

Why don't we adapt the first post in the "New Players - Welcome to the Mafia Subforum! (Rules, Info, and Articles)" thread, to allow new players to sign up to be contacted if there:

A) There aren't currently any signups up, for whatever reason.
B) Isn't a game type they want to play in that's currently open.
C) Want to chat with somebody before joining/don't know which kind of game to join/want to have a mentor.
D) Have any other questions.

Question Part 2A- Is anyone not named Bur or Tordeck interested in being our official welcoming committee?
Question Part 2B - If no, is it too much work to have the secretaries manage the responses to that, yes or no?

Quote from Azrael »

While we're at it, lets start enforcing the rule where you can't hop on the list without a completed and reviewed setup again.

I don't know why Killjoy stopped enforcing that.

As for the welcome thread, sure. What happens when we want to add more articles, though?

Quote from Azrael »

While we're at it, lets start enforcing the rule where you can't hop on the list without a completed and reviewed setup again.

That is part of what I was doing by contacting those on the hosting list. If the setup wasnt complete they were going to be removed until such time as it was. If it wasnt reviewed I was going o strongly suggest they get on that and move them further down on the hosting list in favor of those with setups that are ready to fire.

Quote from Azrael »

Question Part 2B - If no, is it too much work to have the secretaries manage the responses to that, yes or no?

Not to me.

Ok, wonderful. I feel so much better about how things are going there now, this is great guys.

Quote from Iso »

I don't know why Killjoy stopped enforcing that.

As for the welcome thread, sure. What happens when we want to add more articles, though?

I figured we'd have spring cleaning and wipe out posts every once in a while, if that becomes necessary, like we used to do with the player contact list. I'll get working on editing that.

We'll need to reach a consensus on the PCQ and other queue changes before the 8th, so I'll poke Zionite and let him know we need his input.

Fixed the welcome thread.

-Az

Quote from Ecophagy »

If that's true, then we have a very large structural problem, as that means the number of actually completed non-mini setups can be counted on one hand, what with the Normal hosting list being so small. Sure we've had problems with having to skip over hosts, but the lists were always large enough to absorb that. Do people really just not want to host games any more? Do we not have the reviewer support? Madness.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the problem is just that fewer people have the time and/or interest to run Mafia games nowadays, actually? And I don't just mean on MTGS - MafiaScum's got at most half as many queued setups as it did back when I left (right now their Micro queue is empty and I know the Normal queue was empty in the last six months, both of which would have been unthinkable five years ago and are still hard to believe since the 'Scum playerbase is probably an order of magnitude larger).

Another thought... should we scale back the requirements for reviewing games in general? I'm a bit hesitant here, because games that aren't reviewed (or where the host has protection from editors, as I know from experience!) are a crapshoot, but a lot of the players who are willing/able to review are some of our most active players and getting enough reviewers is a bit of a problem right now. Alternately, we could have something like an [Experimental] tag for Minis/Specialties (not Basics/Normals, that playerbase wants balanced games) which comes with laxer review standards, intended for setups where creativity is more important than balance? It would be part warning for the players who want balance, part invitation for the players who like more off-the-wall games.

---

I'm iffy about changing the queues right now, I think?

In general, I'm a bit wary about a dedicated non-Basic Micro queue. MafiaScum implemented their own Micro queue a few years back, and from what I can tell that queue has sapped support from existing game types (especially host-wise, though I'm not sure how much of that is because of MafiaScum's somewhat restictive hosting rules). I could see a merged Basic/Micro queue if we resurrect Basics, because the playerbase that might be interested in Basic games is probably only enough to fill a Micro game; if we do implement a dedicated Micro queue, we probably need to cut back the number of Minis we run (and in that case we could just encourage smaller Minis instead, so...)

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I think Normal discussion should probably be tabled until after SG-1 finishes? We're not running another Normal until after SG-1 anyways, and while I can't go into detail for obvious reasons I don't think it's a giant spoiler that SG-1 is more complex than the other League Normals have been this season (I mean, I raised the possibility of more complex League games back in the spring and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it at least once around when signups went up) and I think seeing player feedback to that might be useful.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure dropping the Specialty queue makes much difference right now, either? Part of that depends on how many mods in the queue are actually around to run games - the first five names in the queue are one player who's almost certainly gone (desCoures - pity, I helped with Apprentice, that was a good setup), one player listed on hiatus (g_d), and three players who haven't posted in months (RobRoy, Tanarin, Generic). The next game in the Specialty queue that I'm sure is ready to fire is my Mind Screw Salvation... which looks like it's probably going to finish somewhere in the top two of the PCQ vote, so if the current votes hold we could potentially just fire Mind Screw Salvation via the Specialty queue and Big Red Button via the PCQ and reassess later? (I'll admit I'm biased here and that my main concern is that I'd like Mind Screw to fire sooner rather than later... I'm not sure how long the playerbase can support Mind Screw, and while I'm pretty sure I'll be around for six months or so I'm not sure I can commit to much longer than that.

I think there *is* a decent argument for cutting the FTQ and either replacing or merging it with the PCQ (i.e, the current FTQ guidelines but the voting for the next game is done in public by the playerbase rather than in private by a committee). I'd suggest the latter, honestly - given my experience with Majora's Mask, I'm a bit wary that some of the current PCQ setups that are either unfinished or only now going into review. There's definitely a niche for this sort of thing, at any rate - in particular, a PCQ system responds to changes in player preference more quickly than a queue system.

If we *do* change the queues, I think I might lean towards something like the following:
- X Basic games (7-9 players, Basic complexity, rolling signups - new signup fires when previous signups fill)
- 1? Micro game? (9 players or fewer, any complexity, reassess this after 3 or 6 months)
- 1 Mini Normal game (your grandmother's game of Mafia)
- 1 Mini Specialty (Minis with odd mechanics/bastard modding)
- 2? PCQ games

Not sure that's enough space in the non-PCQ queues, but with Basics and possibly Micros covering the small game niche we could increase the size of Minis to compensate (rename to "Medium" and go to somewhere between 13 and 15 players max?). That would still mean that larger games need to go through the PCQ, but given how hard it can be to fill larger games nowadays I'm not sure that's a bad thing?

I'm not entirely sure keeping a Large Normal queue makes sense if we're cutting Specialties - Specialties have a larger constituency than Normals AFAICT, and large Normals can potentially fire through the PCQ, especially if the playerbase wants Normals or a game has a mod/flavor draw (I wonder how many votes SG-1 would get if I was putting it through the PCQ?). Borrowing Mini Normals from MafiaScum keeps the Normal playerbase happy, and Basics fill three niches simultaneously (new players, players who want low complexity, and helps offer small games for players who want that).

I could also see just converting the FTQ to a PCQ, adding Basics back in to fill the new player/low complexity/very small game niches, and capping Specialties at either 17 or 18 players (keeping very large games in the PCQ) and Normals at either the same size or slightly smaller. That would mean something like the following:

X Basic games (7-9 players, Basic complexity, rolling queue)
2 Mini games (max 12 players, any complexity)
1 Normal game (13-16? players, Normal complexity)
1 Specialty game (13-18? players, Specialty complexity)
1 PCQ

(If we need more Normal slots, we can turn one Mini slot into a Mini Normal slot.)

TL:DR:
- I'm not sure that changing Normals before SG-1 ends makes sense, I think that feedback would be useful.
- We *could* drop the Specialty queue, but I'm not sure it's necessary to do so at this time (unless we're going to "fire new setups immediately after old setups fill"), especially if I'm right and Mind Screw Salvation (which looks very likely to finish in the top 2 in the current PCQ) is functionally next in the Specialty queue - we can let Mind Screw fire via Specialty, fire the other top-2 finisher (likely Big Red Button) via PCQ, fire Minis as normal, and reassess when SG-1 finishes.
- I think we should either keep both the Specialty and Normal queues or drop both. If we drop both and need a niche for Normal games (and we probably do), I'd recommend making it part of the Mini queue and try to keep a Mini Normal and Mini Specialty running at all times.
- I think we *do* need a Basic queue, but at a smaller size. That probably needs time to ramp setups, in which case we should get started on that now.

Quote from Prophylaxis »

Heh, I was going to revamp the reviewers/setups a couple of days ago but you guys did it for me - thanks!

I think you can retire AsianInvasion (hasn't posted since March), Dagger (lol 2012) and DYH (been MIA since.. 2013).

You can add me to the reviewers list.

I'd be willing to do this.

Is there anywhere else we can put the articles, though? I remember when I first joined this mafia community I was looking through those articles and they flew completely over my head. I agree that they're great for advanced players, but do we really want to introduce our mafia community with something like "In Defense of Pace"?

I would think about linking a Google Docs or something for each of the articles and then deleting the posts, which would make it cleaner.

That sounds like a good idea, on both counts. Google docs would be fine by me.

Why don't we have you and/or Tordeck be the official welcoming committee, and copy each other on PMs that you send out to the new players?

I've been attempting to follow along, but got really lost as to what the new queue looks like. A lot of people had some input. Is Taredas' proposal the revised queue structure?

I'm entirely in favor of queue changes. I think as long as we're receptive to new comers and still actively acquiring those who have never played, we will be fine. Keep channels clear and organized, as stated.

Welcome new Mafia Scribe(s)!

Quote from Zionite »

I've been attempting to follow along, but got really lost as to what the new queue looks like. A lot of people had some input. Is Taredas' proposal the revised queue structure?

I'm entirely in favor of queue changes. I think as long as we're receptive to new comers and still actively acquiring those who have never played, we will be fine. Keep channels clear and organized, as stated.

That's kind of exactly what we're talking about: what should the queue structure look like. What would you like them to look like?

We're also not actively requiring new players, so any ideas you might have around that would be useful.

Quote from Zionite »

I've been attempting to follow along, but got really lost as to what the new queue looks like. A lot of people had some input. Is Taredas' proposal the revised queue structure?

I'm entirely in favor of queue changes. I think as long as we're receptive to new comers and still actively acquiring those who have never played, we will be fine. Keep channels clear and organized, as stated.

Welcome new Mafia Scribe(s)!

Nobody's position has quite received a firm consensus yet - I think iso and I are pretty much on the same page, tareadas is kind of in agreement too I think, zds might be coming around.

The post to read that contains the more controversial suggestions is one of mine. We're talking about adding a tiny queue, dropping specialties, deciding if normals should have complexity restrictions, replacing the ftq with the pcq, and running two pcq slots full time.

Az, what is your suggestion for what will happen to the hosts currently on the Specialty queue if we drop it?

I think an intuitive solution would be to let the current Specialty queue play out as-is and then start firing up a second PCQ when it's cleared.

The 9th is the deadline for prospective mods to get back to me about hosting. Once that list is updated we can see exactly how many games from the various hosting lists are ready to fire. That will make it a little easier to see how many games need to be reshuffled when a new queue system is agreed on.

Quote from Azrael »

Quote from Zionite »

I've been attempting to follow along, but got really lost as to what the new queue looks like. A lot of people had some input. Is Taredas' proposal the revised queue structure?

I'm entirely in favor of queue changes. I think as long as we're receptive to new comers and still actively acquiring those who have never played, we will be fine. Keep channels clear and organized, as stated.

Welcome new Mafia Scribe(s)!

Nobody's position has quite received a firm consensus yet - I think iso and I are pretty much on the same page, tareadas is kind of in agreement too I think, zds might be coming around.

The post to read that contains the more controversial suggestions is one of mine. We're talking about adding a tiny queue, dropping specialties, deciding if normals should have complexity restrictions, replacing the ftq with the pcq, and running two pcq slots full time.

Yes to tiny queue. Minis have an increased popularity and it might be a good starting point for new comers depending on the complexity of the game. They also have a quick turn-around.
Dropping specialties could ruffle feathers, but it does make some sense. We might be at a point where specialties and PCQ are basically the same thing. Yes, we're losing the pleasure of sitting on a list for a couple of years before "getting our shot", but a popularity contest means the game is always what the players want, and engagement will be higher (because it was a chosen game rather than an available game). The players currently on the specialties list could just run itself out, but if we want immediate results we could throw them all into the PCQ.
Normals absolutely need complexity restrictions, otherwise they run the risk of bounding outside the realm of "normal".
FTQ is basically the PCQ too, so that makes sense to merge.

The important thing is that we try a sensible restructure. If it doesn't work we can change it. The only aspect I think we should tread softly is those currently serving time on a hosting list waiting patiently for their turn.

Quote from Iso »

Az, what is your suggestion for what will happen to the hosts currently on the Specialty queue if we drop it?

I think an intuitive solution would be to let the current Specialty queue play out as-is and then start firing up a second PCQ when it's cleared.

Running it out seems like the most tactful solution.

Alright, so, I think a good compromise would be:

* Drop Specialty queue; let it play out until empty.
* Run a constant PCQ, and supplement this with a 2nd PCQ game once the Specialty queue is emptied. Refresh the queue as needed. This will encourage hosts to churn out competitive and interesting designs.
* Open a Micro queue, strongly recommending either open setups or those of lesser complexity. It'll give newer players a good place to jump in, and quell the thirst for people who want smaller games but have time commitment issues.
* Drop the League, keep Normals at 14-18 players (though I strongly recommend we drop the recommended cap to 16 to accommodate our waning playerbase), and encourage hosts to explore design space within the current restraints of the Normal restrictions
* Keep the Mini queue open as-is and run 1 or 2 at a time - whatever the playerbase can support.

All in favor?

Fine, I can accept that compromise so that we can move forward.

I still don't think that running constant PCQs is actually a good idea, but that should hopefully become apparent pretty quickly.

The Micro queue also needs more of an identity. Is it a Basic queue with smaller games and a bit more imagination, or is it smaller Minis? The former would be massively preferable for new players since the latter is basically redundant (you can run 9-man Minis in the Mini queue!)

I'd be inclined to believe the former is a better fit. Stuff like Overturn to Riddler, and perhaps some experimental smaller games for fun.

if we are going to run rolling PCQ I think we should have a restriction on hosts. that is, if I get picked to run a game I should not be eligible to be picked for the next one (or two) pcq rounds.

Also, to encourage diversity, as well as to make up for the lack of setups floating about, I think we should remove hosting limitations. Everyone should be able to sign up to host 1 of everything at a time. I do agree that we should have a rotational PCQ thing, though - perhaps something to the effect of "if your setup has been selected in the past 6 PCQs, you can not submit another."?

Quote from Iso »

Also, to encourage diversity, as well as to make up for the lack of setups floating about, I think we should remove hosting limitations. Everyone should be able to sign up to host 1 of everything at a time. I do agree that we should have a rotational PCQ thing, though - perhaps something to the effect of "if your setup has been selected in the past 6 PCQs, you can not submit another."?

Happy with this as long as we enforce the rule that games need some reviewing to get on the list, and generally discourage hosts actually running more than 1 game simultaneously.

Quote from Iso »

Alright, so, I think a good compromise would be:

* Drop Specialty queue; let it play out until empty.
* Run a constant PCQ, and supplement this with a 2nd PCQ game once the Specialty queue is emptied. Refresh the queue as needed. This will encourage hosts to churn out competitive and interesting designs.
* Open a Micro queue, strongly recommending either open setups or those of lesser complexity. It'll give newer players a good place to jump in, and quell the thirst for people who want smaller games but have time commitment issues.
* Drop the League, keep Normals at 14-18 players (though I strongly recommend we drop the recommended cap to 16 to accommodate our waning playerbase), and encourage hosts to explore design space within the current restraints of the Normal restrictions
* Keep the Mini queue open as-is and run 1 or 2 at a time - whatever the playerbase can support.

All in favor?

Agreed.

Quote from Iso »

Alright, so, I think a good compromise would be:

* Drop Specialty queue; let it play out until empty.
* Run a constant PCQ, and supplement this with a 2nd PCQ game once the Specialty queue is emptied. Refresh the queue as needed. This will encourage hosts to churn out competitive and interesting designs.
* Open a Micro queue, strongly recommending either open setups or those of lesser complexity. It'll give newer players a good place to jump in, and quell the thirst for people who want smaller games but have time commitment issues.
* Drop the League, keep Normals at 14-18 players (though I strongly recommend we drop the recommended cap to 16 to accommodate our waning playerbase), and encourage hosts to explore design space within the current restraints of the Normal restrictions
* Keep the Mini queue open as-is and run 1 or 2 at a time - whatever the playerbase can support.

All in favor?

Aye. Lets do it.

Alright! I'll make a post in the Hosting thread.

Megiddo has requested to be put on the reviewers list. In light of the things that went on a few months ago I just wanted to make sure this was OK with the council before Bur or I add him.

Sure.

I think right now it's set so that anyone who clicks the link has to request permission to view it?

Got it.

Quote from Prophylaxis »

EDIT:Revamped the reviewers list as well

I really wish you had waited and allowed me to complete it as I said I would as now it has caused me more to work to have to go back and make sure it is correct.

Iso, council member?

Huh. I've been gone* a long time. Feel like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes....

Good on you, amigo. Good on you!

Haha, somehow I knew that's what your post was gonna be about.

Thanks, good to see you. Play a game, sometime!

Quote from Iso »

Quote from Azrael »

While we're at it, lets start enforcing the rule where you can't hop on the list without a completed and reviewed setup again.

I don't know why Killjoy stopped enforcing that.

As for the welcome thread, sure. What happens when we want to add more articles, though?

I don't recall ever actually enforcing it. Mostly because not having the reviewed completed setup was irrelevent since we just bumped them down the line anyway. It didn't effect the speed of the list, but as long as I was caught up on where a person was in how reviewed/completed their game was the line would move just fine. So, yeah. A month too late I know but now I'm pretty much back to stay. I can continue to assist with Sec duties, although I'm a bit out of the loop as to what games are ready to go.

Quote from Killjoy »

I don't recall ever actually enforcing it. Mostly because not having the reviewed completed setup was irrelevent since we just bumped them down the line anyway. It didn't effect the speed of the list, but as long as I was caught up on where a person was in how reviewed/completed their game was the line would move just fine. So, yeah. A month too late I know but now I'm pretty much back to stay. I can continue to assist with Sec duties, although I'm a bit out of the loop as to what games are ready to go.

That would have been helpful to discuss with us directly.

The idea behind our previous queue revamp was to have signups for each game type available, always, so that new players (and older returning veterans) would always have a desired game to jump into. We did not want to turn away new players for lack of anywhere to sign up. It was less about speed, and more about recruitment and publicity.

Instead, we wound up firing one signup at a time when games finished, but without any place for new players to sign up in the meantime, the worst of both worlds. For however long that was in place, the better part of this past year IIRC, our recruiting for the mafia sub was crippled as a result. I was led to believe, based on my questions to you about why the system was not working as planned, that this was due to a problem with our hosts being non-compliant, I was not aware that it was a decision on your part to alter the system we had devised, without fully understanding the consequences of that choice. We've been on thin ice for some time in terms of player population- we could ill afford the loss of all our recruiting potential for the past year, when we needed fresh players more than we ever have before.

Does that explain the purpose we intended a little more clearly?

Quote from Azrael »

Quote from Killjoy »

I don't recall ever actually enforcing it. Mostly because not having the reviewed completed setup was irrelevent since we just bumped them down the line anyway. It didn't effect the speed of the list, but as long as I was caught up on where a person was in how reviewed/completed their game was the line would move just fine. So, yeah. A month too late I know but now I'm pretty much back to stay. I can continue to assist with Sec duties, although I'm a bit out of the loop as to what games are ready to go.

That would have been helpful to discuss with us directly.

The idea behind our previous queue revamp was to have signups for each game type available, always, so that new players (and older returning veterans) would always have a desired game to jump into. We did not want to turn away new players for lack of anywhere to sign up. It was less about speed, and more about recruitment and publicity.

Instead, we wound up firing one signup at a time when games finished, but without any place for new players to sign up in the meantime, the worst of both worlds. For however long that was in place, the better part of this past year IIRC, our recruiting for the mafia sub was crippled as a result. I was led to believe, based on my questions to you about why the system was not working as planned, that this was due to a problem with our hosts being non-compliant, I was not aware that it was a decision on your part to alter the system we had devised, without fully understanding the consequences of that choice. We've been on thin ice for some time in terms of player population- we could ill afford the loss of all our recruiting potential for the past year, when we needed fresh players more than we ever have before.

Does that explain the purpose we intended a little more clearly?

I mean, I understood the intent. If you recall, I voiced a concern about running out of games/running into a point of no interest in games, but I followed the plan because it was what we were doing.

It was not "decision on your part to alter the system we had devised, without fully understanding the consequences of that choice." The only thing I did that apperently I was not supposed to do is put people on the list before their games were done. But I don't recall the inverse of that being specifically a rule. That was just people asking me to put them on the list and people complying.

Again, I did not consciously only run one game at a time. The games just weren't getting finished in review fast enough. Everything I told you was true. I certainly would not just start making unilateral decisions like that due to my lack of experience in this responsibility as Secretary.

Now that that is hopefully cleared up, though... I have an idea. It seems like we're doing Micros, Normals, and PCQs. That's good. My idea is that maybe we need games that either we can rush through review, or that maybe don't get reviewed at all (with a disclaimer, obviously) because, as what happened before... we just ran out of fully reviewed games and we ended up having to have people like Tare run both of his Specialties at the same time (which is suboptimal, but was obviously necessary).

I am sorry for any misunderstanding here. Again, I was referring to Iso saying why I stopped enforcing the people needing a reviewed and completed game rule before being on the list... not anything else.

Gotcha. No need to apologize, the misunderstanding was all on my part.

Hey, guys - due to a failure in communications on the senior staff's end, apparently we're no longer allowed to utilize the Council thread as an additional helpdesk. They're telling me that if we want a rules thread, it has to double as the Helpdesk or something like that. I'm objecting as strongly as I can but I don't know if I'm going to be able to talk them out of this one.