MTG Salvation

Quote from Azrael »

Council, shall we see where we stand?

I'd vote in favor of reinstituting the speciality queue, with the requirement that a first draft of the setup be reviewed prior to entry.

I'm in support. I think we ought to discuss how we go about populating the list. It seems straightforward to fill the top three slots are filled with the winners of the most recent FTQ (in order TBD based on who is most ready to run). But after that, do we just open up a first-come-first served list or give precedence to hosts who entered the FTQ but did not win?

For future FTQs, I suggest we maybe try and incorporate entries from all queues to pick a best game to jump all the queues as part of an event - say we run it once a year and combine it with an invitational player list/team event/cross-site advertising. This would be instead of just doing it ad hoc (how it used to be) since I don't think we really have the player the player demand to support occasionally running a large game on top of the queue structure. Obviously if we do get a surge there's no reason we couldn't run an ad hoc FTQ to fill it in.

Also /support.

We could do a sort-of FTQ where we just stick all the games in the queue on a first come, first serve basis but do a review of game status and put the best/most finished game at the front every time a Specialty fires, so we know which one will be next. I guess that leaves the chance that a game never fires, but it gives us the most quality control? It'd effectively just turn the specialty queue into a rolling FTQ you can submit to at any time, but you never know when your game will fire until someone contacts you. Obviously has it's own downsides to just having it be regular queue, but.

I'll think about whether we need to give FTQ participants priority. My gut says they don't really need it, technically speaking, since most of those games are already half finished and have reviewers so they can just submit straight away anyway, but explicitly giving them priority is ~fine.

My thought was not to run them together conceptually at all. Just open up the specialty queue for business again, first-come, first serve, and leave the FTQ as is.

Our FTQ designers can either choose to put the finishing touches on their setups and jump into the specialty queue same as everyone else, or wait for the next FTQ round.

The idea was to generate more setups of this type, so having two separate queues seems to be the best way to do that. We've already tried experimenting with mashing the two together with extra FTQ firings, and kind of failed on that because we didn't have enough finished setups. In the end it just altogether reduced the number of complex and original designs we had to run.

Quote from Silvercrys3467 »

We could do a sort-of FTQ where we just stick all the games in the queue on a first come, first serve basis but do a review of game status and put the best/most finished game at the front every time a Specialty fires, so we know which one will be next. I guess that leaves the chance that a game never fires, but it gives us the most quality control? It'd effectively just turn the specialty queue into a rolling FTQ you can submit to at any time, but you never know when your game will fire until someone contacts you. Obviously has it's own downsides to just having it be regular queue, but.

I fear that it would be too much book-keeping and time consuming to be honest, as well as difficult to measure. It's already enough hassle to keep tabs on what games are ready to run and getting people to finish them, to have to hands-on review games and calculate their relative readiness and to deal with people complaining about being moved around every time doesn't seem like it would be worth it. If we push the best to the top, then it's just a rolling FTQ but worse because people have to have a game perpetually able to run but it might never fire - at least with the FTQ you have more awareness of time scales.

Yeah, that's true. I'd rather have the two separate, I think, was just kind of spit balling.

Alright. Then let's declare the specialty queue officially restored. We'll need to edit the hosting threads, and soon as folks submit finished setups, we can populate and fire one.

Hello.

I don't play mafia anymore because I don't have the energy, but I miss doing so, and it brings be great pleasure to see that MTGS is still at it. Insane to recognize as many names in this thread as I do.

Kpaca, I was not available for a team game in July as I was busy unionizing and moving across the country, but the offer is very much appreciated.

Bur, I don't think we've met, but sorry for not responding more promptly to inquiries about whether I'm still up for being an active reviewer. I'm evidently not.

Y'all are great. Consider not using the word lynch in games anymore. If anyone super wants to get in touch, I'll probably pop back in here within the next few days.

Goodbye.

Ged!

You are missed! It's nice to hear from you.

Hope life is treating you well. You should come say hi more often.

Quote from Ged »

Consider not using the word lynch in games anymore.

Old habits die hard.

Welcome back! I'm sure I'm not the only one that misses playing with you.

MafiaScribe was deleted as part of the EU Privacy Laws Requiring Account Deletion.
I've added him to a list of "try to recover" accounts.


(tl;dr Because EU people use this account, it was flagged as being subject to EU Privacy Laws. Because no one ever logged in and hit "accept" as part of the Fandom switch, the account was deleted. EU Laws require an opt-in only policy, so it was deleted in accordance with EU law)

Thanks Feyd, let us know if we need to do anything further for it.

Quote from Iso »

Old habits die hard.

Welcome back! I'm sure I'm not the only one that misses playing with you.

Same! Eventually realized mafia was just too much of a time sink for me, even considering how much I liked playing and the people. Might have some time off soon though; considering dipping back in for a game.

Hey all! I know I just came back after a long time, but to add my 2 cents, I always like the specialty games best myself. Also, I would be down for running a game sometimes, but I'm not sure the process for reviewing.

Quote from shadowlancerx »

Quote from LnGrrrR »

Hey all! I know I just came back after a long time, but to add my 2 cents, I always like the specialty games best myself. Also, I would be down for running a game sometimes, but I'm not sure the process for reviewing.

The process for reviewing is not too bad, I’m actually in the process of sending out an informational message inviting some specialty hosts in the next few days, I’ll add you to my list.

Thanks Shadow! Not trying to do something as advanced as Arkham, but my favorite game here was the post-apocalyptic game where I was a doc and had to keep protecting an old man at night or he would die. (Think it was a Cantrip game, or maybe eco?) The flavor on that role was amazing, to the point where I probably played it incorrectly because damn it, I wasn't going to let him die!)

I would love to create and/or run a game that's half as memorable.

Hi everyone. I am regrettably announcing that after just over seven years, I am retiring from the Mafia council. It's been a satisfying honour to help guide the subforum through its ups and downs over that period, but after so long I can no longer muster the motivation and engagement required to properly fulfil the responsibilities of the Council. However, with the current combination of experienced hands and enthusiastic new blood, I have every confidence in the Council and the subforum going forward.

As part of my retirement I will be transferring control of the discord server to current Council member SilverCrys, who will probably look at instating some moderators on it.

I will still be around on the discord, and I will doubtless continue to play occasionally. I am still keen to review games, and will always be open to discussing mafia theory and mentoring.

My sincere thanks to everyone I've worked with: councillors, secretaries, and forum mods alike. Special thank you to all the players and game hosts past and present: without you we wouldn't have our wonderful little corner of the internet, and I am so proud that I have helped look after it.

Here's to the future.

Eco.

Quote from Bur »

I wish you all the best Eco, it's been a pleasure to work with you!

You too, you are invaluable to the smooth running of the game queues and your assistance has been incredibly appreciated.

Thank you for all of your hard work through the years, Eco. You've been a big part of what's kept our community alive, after all this time.

Thanks for everything Eco.

Quote from Killjoy »

Thanks for everything Eco.

Who?

Eco. He's this British dude who used to be in the Council. He resigned recently.

OMG I JUST GOT AN IDEA FOR A GAME. IT'S GONNA BE BASED ON THE PRISONER.

Sorry caps. To excite.

Quote from Killjoy »

Eco. He's this British dude who used to be in the Council. He resigned recently.

Oh, you mean the guy Az, Sir Chris, and I murdered that one time?

Quote from Iso »

Quote from Killjoy »

Eco. He's this British dude who used to be in the Council. He resigned recently.

Oh, you mean the guy Az, Sir Chris, and I murdered that one time?

Only once? I thought British people could regenerate 11 times.

Quote from Iso »

Quote from Killjoy »

Eco. He's this British dude who used to be in the Council. He resigned recently.

Oh, you mean the guy Az, Sir Chris, and I murdered that one time?

Yup. I played in that game.

Osie: Nah, they changed that rule. There's no limit now.

Like a phantom in the night, should you mention my name I will come roaring from the depths of the internet.

I don't suppose there is a sign up going up soon? I have a fantastic new job that keeps me busy but I've been itching to play mafia the right way (that is, in a timely fashion that does not require me to post on mobile way too much) but I admit... I have gotten rusty. I may be around Iso level these days ;). Kidding my old friend, kidding of course.

Poor Eco.

This series of events is doing nothing to dissuade my paranoia that Sir Chris is secretly Eco in disguise.

Sup Chris?

Oh yeah? Got a link? That's nice that you guys think about me every now and again! I used to love playing 48H days but I can't anymore - I mean I can, but I am not up to the standards I hold to myself - and now that I started to play mafia again this year after a big move, lots of life changes I think it is a good idea to return to my home away from home!

Hah, of course I was scum. I do love the bits about me being able to kill someone in broad daylight and I could convince everyone it wasn't me. I did that once or twice!

I am just an innocent guy, trying to hunt the bad guys. I'd never deceive you nice folks

I would like to formally call for D_V’s probation or blacklist

Reason:
Every game I have been in with him (and just the ones I have been in) it seems like he gets warned and takes things too far. He is constantly hot headed and it brings down the game. This has been going on in every game I have been in with him and I am sure I am not the only one who sees a problem.

This is not a personal attack in his character in any means. I just notice a pattern of anger and hot-headedness that really goes against the rules and standards of this site.

I have seen him warned multiple times and I am surprised the council hasn’t done more.

Thank you for your time.

I was going to write this long thing but ultimately I agree with Rodemy.

I think the best solution is for me to be placed on probation with incredibly thin. In other words one more **** up I'm out. Probation lasts lets say X games or X time. Ya'll figure out X.

I'd also move that GJ be given the same treatment.

Thanks
DV

My $0.02 as a former Councillor and long-time Mod of Mafia:

Looking through the offending posts in question, I agree with Rodemy's movement. D_V has a history of flaming people in Mafia games until he has 2 infractions, toeing the line until the infractions expire, and then doing it all over again once they have. This is toxic behavior, and, unfortunately, it has not changed in all the years I've been playing Mafia on MTGS with D_V. I don't have any personal qualms with him - we've had some good conversations OoG, even if we have a lot of starkly contrasting views, whether they be on the way our community is run, Mafia role creation, game balance, or what have you. That said, his repeated behavior is not conducive to a friendly gaming environment for a tight-knit community such as ours, and I do third putting D_V on probation.

As far as GJ goes, I looked at his part in the exchange, as well, and while there was some action worthy of infraction, GJ is certainly not a repeat offender/problem user for us, and I can remember maybe only one or two other times where he blew up in a way that was disproportionate to the stimulus, in question. His play attitude, lately, has been of the "IDGAF" variety, but I don't think it generally comes into games in a problematic way, except in rare instances such as this one. Bearing all of this in mind, I don't think GJ needs to be put on probation.

I disagree with the first part Iso. I don't purposefully toe the line. My best guess is that it puts me on alert and I go yeah that was wrong of me, and so I stop for a while and I just happen to slip back in about the time they fall off.

I agree with the overall sentiment though.

The reason I bring up GJ is he recently bragged in after game chat about how he was purposefully doing this as Mafia. Additionally, the on going game in question had a purposeful attack by him that can only be described as him trying to cyber bully. That action crosses a line for me that maybe it doesn't for you.

Understood RE: awareness. I just noticed the trend and assumed it was deliberate that you weren't flaming past a certain point; sorry for the misunderstanding.

With regards to GJ, if there were posts that required carding, rest assured that they were. Can you link the after-game chat that you're referring to, here?

Edit: I do believe D_V does sincerely wish to address his behavior, and this is evidenced both by him speaking to me privately about this and seconding his own probation in here.

I'm not going to discuss the ongoing game and what happened there.

I've talked with DV, Shadow, and others about this before.

I don't think that DV is a willfully toxic individual. I do think that he fundamentally does want to see positive games and does not want to contribute to toxicity in games.

But I also do think that he loses sight of the game in the moment and easily slips into bad habits.

I'm not convinced that being on probation will inherently help affect his behavior significantly. That's not to say that he's not likely to behave better at least at the start under probation.

Instead, I'm saying that while he does want to consciously try to do better, he's not always aware in the moment of what he needs to focus on or do differently, in particular if he gets wound up as is easy for many of us to do in a game of mafia.

This leads to an awkward situation. While probation is an easy catharsis for the community, a more productive solution involves DV having a plan to do better. I don't know for certain what makes the most sense as a course of action there, but I'd hope that we don't just leap to solving every problem with a hammer.

I'm not going to comment on ongoing games, and will try to phrase this in general terms.

I think that a community is well served by allowing people a chance to adjust their behavior to that community's standards when there is a significant discrepancy between the current behavior and the standards. I also think that it is ultimately the responsibility of those people to make that adjustment, and that if they do not succeed in doing so (regardless of whether they intend to; outcomes are more important than intent), it is more productive for the community to remove those people from the community than to extend indefinite second, third and Nth chances.

The decisions of what discrepancies are too big, and how long is an acceptable period for "chances", and ultimately whether "removal" is temporary or permanent - these are up to the community leadership, in our case the council.

It's also up to the council to decide where "chances" begin - whether they start with the council, or whether they begin with MTGS warnings/infractions before the council itself turns its attention to a matter.

Quote from KamikazeArchon »

I'm not going to comment on ongoing games, and will try to phrase this in general terms.

I think that a community is well served by allowing people a chance to adjust their behavior to that community's standards when there is a significant discrepancy between the current behavior and the standards. I also think that it is ultimately the responsibility of those people to make that adjustment, and that if they do not succeed in doing so (regardless of whether they intend to; outcomes are more important than intent), it is more productive for the community to remove those people from the community than to extend indefinite second, third and Nth chances.

The decisions of what discrepancies are too big, and how long is an acceptable period for "chances", and ultimately whether "removal" is temporary or permanent - these are up to the community leadership, in our case the council.

It's also up to the council to decide where "chances" begin - whether they start with the council, or whether they begin with MTGS warnings/infractions before the council itself turns its attention to a matter.

It sounds like you're suggesting that non-council members shouldn't be weighing in? I fundamentally disagree with that idea. That said, I do agree with the idea that moderation (either council-level or site-level) shouldn't be decided primarily in the court of public opinion, but that is not exactly what you just said here.

I think Kami was just saying that we -- the Council -- are ultimately the authority that decides whether probation or blacklisting is the appropriate course of action when things get out of hand. I doubt he meant to imply that no one should express an opinion on the matter.

For what it's worth, I value the external input, particularly from board moderators and former Councilors like Iso, but also just from regular members; what you all consider to be over the line, etc. is important to me (at least) because this isn't my mafia forum, it's yours.

That said, we're discussing this internally for the moment. I'm not comfortable having an in-depth public discussion about it until after the game is over, since I'd like to avoid damaging the integrity of the game any further.

Quote from osieorb18 »

Quote from KamikazeArchon »

I'm not going to comment on ongoing games, and will try to phrase this in general terms.

I think that a community is well served by allowing people a chance to adjust their behavior to that community's standards when there is a significant discrepancy between the current behavior and the standards. I also think that it is ultimately the responsibility of those people to make that adjustment, and that if they do not succeed in doing so (regardless of whether they intend to; outcomes are more important than intent), it is more productive for the community to remove those people from the community than to extend indefinite second, third and Nth chances.

The decisions of what discrepancies are too big, and how long is an acceptable period for "chances", and ultimately whether "removal" is temporary or permanent - these are up to the community leadership, in our case the council.

It's also up to the council to decide where "chances" begin - whether they start with the council, or whether they begin with MTGS warnings/infractions before the council itself turns its attention to a matter.

It sounds like you're suggesting that non-council members shouldn't be weighing in? I fundamentally disagree with that idea. That said, I do agree with the idea that moderation (either council-level or site-level) shouldn't be decided primarily in the court of public opinion, but that is not exactly what you just said here.

No, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to lay out decisions that I think need to be made, and tangentially/secondarily to acknowledge the difference between expressing an opinion and making a decision.

Do what you want, as far as I am concerned. I let myself get baited.

The fact that I do this as mafia implies plural instances. 1). AtE is actually a thing and while it shouldn't be listened to at all, people on this site do, for whatever God forsaken reason. And 2). The "brag" that DV seems all too happy to bring up was that I tried to sound legit angry after I was mechanically outed and LYNCHED FOR THE DAY, I tried to create some anger to legit antispew for one of my wolf mates, while throwing WIFOM into the thread. I was an outed wolf and my brag was that even though every player in the game knew I was an outed wolf, they seemed to believe at least parts of it.

I have already taken steps to insure this won't happen again. I am already barely playing on mtgs as it is for many other issues that this site refuses to address, one of them being the only reason I was in said game to begin with. Do what you must. The only reason I was in any of the last two games was because Shadow asked me to join. I've pretty much stuck to MU, or have been taking a break since life has gotten busy.

If you need to pass a probation to make everyone feel better, go right on ahead.

FWIW, I don't think you deserve probation, Johnny.

Quote from osieorb18 »

FWIW, I don't think you deserve probation, Johnny.

Seconded.
D_V has been warned in almost every game I have played with him.

You have not.

I think the crux of this goes back to the lack of a clear line on acceptable aggression. It's a really hard thing to manage and different people have a different tolerance. I'm more thin skinned than average who supports a stricter line, while others would find my line chafing and limit their game play options. I think more important than a specific intervention here is a clarification of what's acceptable and what's not. And possibly codifying to some small degree what would lead to warnings/probation/blacklisting if that's going to be handled separately from site wide moderation.

One change that even if not codified would be a community decision to try and frown upon and discourage any sort of near death or post death emotional outburst as either alignment. This isn't restricted to anger but encouraging and rewarding players indignation and emotion when they are about to die as town forces scum to try and mimic that emotion. Which I feel is a problem. I know not everyone agrees though and last time we had this discussion that concern was largely not shared, but I thought it might be time to raise it again. Mafia is stressful, rewarding additional emotional input leads to bad incentives.

Quote from Grapefruit21 »

One change that even if not codified would be a community decision to try and frown upon and discourage any sort of near death or post death emotional outburst as either alignment.Toledo, Ohio This isn't restricted to anger but encouraging and rewarding players indignation and emotion when they are about to die as town forces scum to try and mimic that emotion. Which I feel is a problem. I know not everyone agrees though and last time we had this discussion that concern was largely not shared, but I thought it might be time to raise it again. Mafia is stressful, rewarding additional emotional input leads to bad incentives.

Have fun trying to enforce that. That's also absurd to have as a standard, especially as a frustrated townie can often get irrate if they feel like they are being lynched by an apathetic town.

As far as rewarding it, it's really simple: Don't take outed wolves word as gospel. And if the person flips town, take it with a grain of salt because emotions over logic.

Like, you are trying to govern emotional responses, and AtE overall. AtE is enough of a factor in mafia that people are aware of it. I don't think discouraging that play when it clearly works is the way to make good mafia play encouraging. Compared to most other mafia sites, rule wise we are already quite restrictive.

Quote from Rodemy »

Quote from osieorb18 »

FWIW, I don't think you deserve probation, Johnny.

Seconded.
D_V has been warned in almost every game I have played with him.

You have not.

Since I've been going through almost all of my games per Iso's advice and looking things. This isn't exactly true Rod.

You and I've played I believe five games together.

I had problems in Playstation and the current on going game.

Pirates I actually never got any warnings. I'm not saying that was great behavior though.

Overwatch Mafia and Horsemen of the Apaocalypse were fine as far as I can tell.

I'm still not disagreeing with your sentiment. I think my behavior is bad. I'm just not big on hyperbole that with only five games played together is sort of a wash.

Quote from Grapefruit21 »

I think the crux of this goes back to the lack of a clear line on acceptable aggression. It's a really hard thing to manage and different people have a different tolerance. I'm more thin skinned than average who supports a stricter line, while others would find my line chafing and limit their game play options. I think more important than a specific intervention here is a clarification of what's acceptable and what's not. And possibly codifying to some small degree what would lead to warnings/probation/blacklisting if that's going to be handled separately from site wide moderation.

One change that even if not codified would be a community decision to try and frown upon and discourage any sort of near death or post death emotional outburst as either alignment. This isn't restricted to anger but encouraging and rewarding players indignation and emotion when they are about to die as town forces scum to try and mimic that emotion. Which I feel is a problem. I know not everyone agrees though and last time we had this discussion that concern was largely not shared, but I thought it might be time to raise it again. Mafia is stressful, rewarding additional emotional input leads to bad incentives.

Yeah, IDK its hard to figure out.

I think TappingStones is a good example of that. I don't think TappingStones broke any forum rules(Or didn't often) and yet players hated playing with him. Fundamentally, the thing I think is important is players are not enjoying playing with me when I am that way. That's a problem. That's the problem. I don't think anyone would care if I got infracted by forum standards, but nobody was insulted in game.

So, what does that mean? It probabally means that we need something more codified and I would agree with you. We can do a case by case basis thing, but then it turns into a X is acceptable to some players, and Y isn't to others. Should players behavior be forced to conform? I'm unsure. I'd say yes, in my own case with this scenario. But, maybe no in other scenarios.

Example, if a player uses GIFS and others ask them to stop should they be forced to? What if it is only one player complaining about one player? That almost seems like weaponized complaints. What about self assigned PRs? Hopefully you see the problem in trying to "correct" player behavior.

I'm incredibly thick skinned. I'll go the full nine rounds with someone typically before I call uncle. I'm pretty sure I get flamed a lot more by other players too than most, but I also due to how I play provoke it. So, for me its sort of this build up that keeps going. I think I'd be better served if I went to moderators when things bothered me. After moderating a game and seeing how much players did do that, I should be more open to doing that myself. That's something I need to work on.

For me, I would find rules really helpful. I push against boundaries. I'll walk right up to that line and sit there. I'm not sure what that solution accomplishes though other than to allow that up to the line toe touching. Its hard for me to say if that would even work.

Also, what is aggression? Is it player non-enjoyment? Something else?
Let me give an example, and I'm not meaning for this to be an issue.
In Pirates and Playstation KA was town and voted me permanently basically. He didn't enjoy playing with me and didn't like the way I played so he sat on me both games. Then came Ghostbusters. He was scum that game and he mimicked his town play and sat and voted on me.
I was miserable with him voting me in two games previously and he did that again. He did it because he saw it as a way to get town read. I don't think there was any malice in him voting me again the third game. And yet, that heavily detracted from my game enjoyment in Ghostbusters.
KA would damn me for my own play causing his non-enjoyment of the games. Yet, would probabally defend his own play causing my non-enjoyment of the game.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think this issue is incredibly complex. I clearly have a pattern of making games unfun, and so I think its safe to say I need to do something about it. I sort of scapegoated Playstation on other issues and personal issues at the time and so I kind of decided that it wasn't a problem, but I was clearly wrong on that.

I can say looking through my games at least its a recent pattern and not an overall pattern, I'm not sure that's great either, but hey at least I got a starting point. I'm not having these issues in my personal life at this time, so hey at least I know its something about how I play mafia. And has something to do with mafia and isn't just me on the whole.

Anyways, I think what I want to say is I think games should be fun. I think players that make games unfun should be dealt with. I think it might be hard to have a metric of what "Unfun" means. I also think if you're intentionally being unfun that's the worst of all, because then you're just intentionally ruining peoples games.

DV, are you okay with me posting my messages to you about my recommendations on how to handle this? It might elicit some helpful input from others.