I think we should encourage upcoming hosts to manage player posting fairly strictly so that we can see what systems do and don't work.
How do you propose we motivate this without replacements or modkills becoming any easier? I don't believe hosts don't strictly monitor activity because it is too hard or they don't care - they don't do it because the enforcement system we have is difficult to implement.
Queues will fill rapidly enough, if it's a game people are interested in.
I think it may be a good experiment to create a schedule for at least certain game types. That gives people a date to put on their calendar rather than check in daily, so we'll be able to capture those players, and gives us the capacity to run things outside the queues. As is, it's incredibly frustrating seeing a game you don't want to join fill up glacially slowly, with no other options in the wings to kickstart that process. We cannot continue with that system. We cannot let the interest level in one game, dictate the interest level in mafia for the entire subforum, for months on end. We won't survive.
By "Queues" we mean the queues for the games themselves, which are basically empty. How can we schedule games when the only queue with more than ONE game ready to fire is the Micro queue (with two)?
Modkills/replacements are challenging for mods to use: we don't have many people available for replacement (long gone are the days of overfull signups), and modkills can have a huge and unfair-feeling impact on a game. This leads to people not being punished as frequently or consistently as we might like, which means they're not dissuaded.
Sure.
However, allowing players to not post in games for entire day phases is equally unfair and even more so. Allowing players to V/LA for entire day phases is just not fair period. Not replacing players that haven't posted for a week and having not moved to do so is bad modding period. I'm not saying it should be set in stone, if a player is going V/LA for a week but says I'll try and check in and post, I might say to them that it needs to be a good faith effort and that it will be ok. If that player has already had a history of lurking and is now doing this, that probabally isn't going to be ok.
I'm not even certain that it should be a "Post every X day requirement." At the moment I'd take a descourse style of posting over some of our current lurkers. But that feels to me that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the biggest problem I see is rules not being enforced. If the rules say post once every three days then players need to post once every three days. I might be willing to occasionally ignore the one day late posts, but if that player is habitually being a problem then it needs to be dealt with.
I think currently we have a problem with out of touch moderators having not been players in a long time, and thinking that modkilling is worse then letting a player lurk for god knows how long. As a player I can say there is nothing worse than having this happen to me. Its incredibly unfun to watch a mafia player be allowed to not post for a week straight and then nothing to be done about it.
Personally, I'd propose the following changes to everyone's mod rules(I'd also like us to get standardized rules).
First, a slot is only going to be replaced at maximum two times. After that its just a mod kill.
Secondly, a strike system for warning players for lurking. Everyone of us is going to have personal problems at some point, and I don't think they should be punished for this. But, we have to look at the greater good. If a player is having personal problems and can't play, I think they should be replaced. Its not personal, I'm probabally not going to look for any punishment, but game health dictates that they need to be replaced. Game health does not dictate that a player that hasn't posted for over a week shouldn't be replaced for "game health reasons".
Third, we need to be a lot more aggressive about checking posts. I ****ed up in Arkham and didn't noticed Dota hadn't posted for like a week and when I had I was close to modkilling him along with another few players. I didn't because I felt it was a little harsh and that it was going to hurt the mafia team significantly. I regret not doing it. When I look at my game a lot of the problems came from my tolerance of the mafia lurking, and I really feel sorry for Tom in that game, because **** he was really the only mafia member that tried. I just can't imagine it was any fun for Tom or any of the town as they just lynched lurkers. It wasn't really playing mafia, it was just POE lynching because content was lacking.
At the end of the day, I really feel that most of our flaming problems and lurking problems have been caused by us being to lax. Not applying the rules we right equally or even literally. If a rule says cross X line get Y, then every player that crosses X line gets Y. Period. Not doing so allows for this *****ty behavior, isn't in line with MTGS forum rules and really just isn't fair.
Would it have been any *more* fair to Tom if you *had* modkilled his partners and essentially ended the game by modkilling lurkers instead?
Because that's what would have happened; we would have been so far ahead as a village that there would have been no possibility of recovery.
And that's why modkilling is such a bad tool.
You can't modkill wolves because it essentially puts their team in an unwinnable position through sheer numbers.
And you can't modkill villagers because that outs wolf lurkers due to them not being modkilled; it turns modkills into cop shots.
The best we can do is implement set ups with built in modkill mechanics; something like "if you no-post for two mod periods without responding to prods, you will be force replaced, and if no replacement is found within 48 hours, you will be modkilled. If a member of the Mafia is modkilled this way, the Mafia get to double kill the following night" would sort of help but creates incentives to actually get modkilled on purpose in corner cases.
Game mechanics where the lowest posting player dies in addition to the lynch would bloat our games even further.
We could set up double modkilling where the lowest posting wolf *and* villager get modkilled whenever a modkill is handed down, but that creates the reverse incentive for villagers to get modkilled on purpose to kill wolves.
Simply modkilling people for missing a prod when there aren't any replacements left would ruin basically every game we run from now on, and even though you're saying you want consistent objective measures you've already admitted it's fine if some players miss one or two prods but not others, so like. ???
I get the feeling you want to punish lurkers more than have healthy games. Obviously having no lurkers would be ideal, but having a lurker is better than a free vig shot into the PoE if the set up isn't explicitly set up to deal with it.
Now clearly this is part of a feedback loop; people lurk, which makes games look unfun, which makes people leave or not sign up, which gives us fewer players to replace lurkers with, etc. etc.
But implementing hardline modkilling isn't going to make games look fun, either, and will also make wolfing completely miserable as your potential mislynches get eaten by modkills.
I think due to laziness I haven't exactly explained what I mean.
I think players should be prodded close to missing the three day deadline. If a player comes back on day fourish I wouldn't say that its the biggest deal, at least the first time. After that they should get some sort of strike system. Mods have to prod you, say three times I'm looking for replacement. You come back you plead, I think maybe giving them a break is possibly acceptable, but if it happens again, instantly replaced with no break being given. At that point, use a replacement.
If you have a slot that has a total of very few combined posts, and you have to keep replacing that player, that is a problem. I can point to many many games where this has happened. Its always felt cheap to me.
I can modkill wolves. It isn't a problem. You're worried about game balance I'm not. I don't think moderators should random teams for good game balance for example. Or try and balance out players. Sometimes you get ***** players on good roles and they die, because of their ***** plays. Modkilling because of lurking shouldn't be looked at for any other reason.
I think you are creating a false equivalency of what mod kills are. They should be a punishment for bad play. Lurking is bad play. Lurking is unfair. Lurking is not good game health. The solution to this is to get rid of lurkers.
Yeah I'm not sure what the mechanism should be for "Prod length". I'd almost argue that maybe it should be three days. So, you don't post for three days, I prod you. I give you another three days, I prod you. At this point you have two strikes and I'm probabally looking for replacement because it has been 6 days. At this point maybe it should ramp up to replacing you within the next two days. I'm unsure of exactly how the rules should look.
However, we need to be more proactive as moderators about catching players not posting. I've seen too many games where someone doesn't post for like 6 days and then the prods start. That's incompetence of the moderator and we need to remove such things.
I'm not arguing that if I can't find a replacement and you miss one prod you're dead. But if you've missed 3 and I can't find a replacement, yeah you're dead. To argue otherwise is illogical and I question your sincerity of you are arguing that.
As with the rest of it I'm unsure. I can't help players not posting, but it isn't fair to me to not replace or modkill them if I can't find a replacement. The thing with your logic at the end of the day is you're ignoring your own rules. You wrote a rule saying post within three days, and then you didn't enforce it. So why have it written at all. If you're not going to enforce it equally between players then just delete the rule and don't enforce it on anyone. Its bull***** to enforce the rule on the first rule breakers and then because you can't find replacements allow others to simply not post. This isn't fair and I question how you could think that is reasonable. And continuing to allow this continues to allow this behavior and this problem to persist.
Its my same approach to the current flaming problem. We need to write rules that are clear and none of this gray area bull*****, and when players cross them we punish them. When they don't we don't. Its really just that simple. We can easily codify these things and write good rules, and I think if players have it explicitly explained to them what we expect and we don't make exceptions for the way we are feeling that day then the rules stay the rules. That's the problem, we have lurking because we have allowed it in the past and set up that you won't be replaced for not meeting the posting requirements. And its so sporadically enforced that players have no clue what is and isn't acceptable.
There's a huge difference between modkilling and reranding for player balance lol. I don't rerand until the game looks balanced and I'd hope no one else does either. Yeah, sometimes you can't help the rand and one team gets roflstomped. That's hugely different from saying "I'm going to give the town a free vig shot I hadn't accounted for in the set up because this player isn't posting enough."
Modkills/replacements are challenging for mods to use: we don't have many people available for replacement (long gone are the days of overfull signups), and modkills can have a huge and unfair-feeling impact on a game. This leads to people not being punished as frequently or consistently as we might like, which means they're not dissuaded.
Sure.
However, allowing players to not post in games for entire day phases is equally unfair and even more so. Allowing players to V/LA for entire day phases is just not fair period. Not replacing players that haven't posted for a week and having not moved to do so is bad modding period. I'm not saying it should be set in stone, if a player is going V/LA for a week but says I'll try and check in and post, I might say to them that it needs to be a good faith effort and that it will be ok. If that player has already had a history of lurking and is now doing this, that probabally isn't going to be ok.
I'm not even certain that it should be a "Post every X day requirement." At the moment I'd take a descourse style of posting over some of our current lurkers. But that feels to me that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the biggest problem I see is rules not being enforced. If the rules say post once every three days then players need to post once every three days. I might be willing to occasionally ignore the one day late posts, but if that player is habitually being a problem then it needs to be dealt with.
I think currently we have a problem with out of touch moderators having not been players in a long time, and thinking that modkilling is worse then letting a player lurk for god knows how long. As a player I can say there is nothing worse than having this happen to me. Its incredibly unfun to watch a mafia player be allowed to not post for a week straight and then nothing to be done about it.
Personally, I'd propose the following changes to everyone's mod rules(I'd also like us to get standardized rules).
First, a slot is only going to be replaced at maximum two times. After that its just a mod kill.
Secondly, a strike system for warning players for lurking. Everyone of us is going to have personal problems at some point, and I don't think they should be punished for this. But, we have to look at the greater good. If a player is having personal problems and can't play, I think they should be replaced. Its not personal, I'm probabally not going to look for any punishment, but game health dictates that they need to be replaced. Game health does not dictate that a player that hasn't posted for over a week shouldn't be replaced for "game health reasons".
Third, we need to be a lot more aggressive about checking posts. I ****ed up in Arkham and didn't noticed Dota hadn't posted for like a week and when I had I was close to modkilling him along with another few players. I didn't because I felt it was a little harsh and that it was going to hurt the mafia team significantly. I regret not doing it. When I look at my game a lot of the problems came from my tolerance of the mafia lurking, and I really feel sorry for Tom in that game, because **** he was really the only mafia member that tried. I just can't imagine it was any fun for Tom or any of the town as they just lynched lurkers. It wasn't really playing mafia, it was just POE lynching because content was lacking.
At the end of the day, I really feel that most of our flaming problems and lurking problems have been caused by us being to lax. Not applying the rules we right equally or even literally. If a rule says cross X line get Y, then every player that crosses X line gets Y. Period. Not doing so allows for this *****ty behavior, isn't in line with MTGS forum rules and really just isn't fair.
I'm going to have to agree with you that lurking 3+ days is too much. There's a difference between strategy-lurking and just plain not playing. But to be fair, we already have a way to deal with lurkers in the game: just lynch them. As a player, this is your only tool to get the game balanced to your liking. Yeah, you could be making a bad play, but it may also be your best option to move forward. They're lurking for a reason, or their dead weight for your team.
You, as a player, should never have to leverage for any kind of modkill or replacement. It's simply not your job, and it's not fun. Modkills are a result of direct rule-breaking, not for punishing bad play. Players play badly all the time, but that alone shouldn't trigger modkills. If the host has the appropriate rules listed in their post #1, s/he is can and should enforce those rules. We have a copy/paste rules list still floating about.
If the host is failing to actually host by not enforcing their ruleset, that is a separate issue. Hosts failing to perform can be due to a lack of experience or knowledge on how to proceed, in which case the host should contact the council for advice, protecting the game state and keeping it moving forward. We want to give everyone a chance at hosting, but it isn't easy and often tedious to keep up with. If a host isn't cut out for the work, they may not get another chance to host again. Hosts have to respect the time and months-long dedication their players put into the game, and honor that by following their ruleset to the letter and ensuring a clean game. That means it's the hosts' responsibility to provide a cohesive list of rules for their game, and recognize that ALL players agree to those rules, even when they disappear on you.
So to prevent this from happening again, I recommend we review our 'standard' rules list and notify future hosts that it's available as a resource when designing their own ruleset. But no matter how many rules we write, there's still going to be someone who figures out what we missed and pull a stunt. The host has every right to take action how they see fit in a "no real rule for that" scenario, but again I encourage hosts to seek advice from the council if they aren't sure how to proceed. Simply doing nothing isn't respecting players' time and dedication to the game.
Its my same approach to the current flaming problem. We need to write rules that are clear and none of this gray area bull*****, and when players cross them we punish them. When they don't we don't. Its really just that simple. We can easily codify these things and write good rules, and I think if players have it explicitly explained to them what we expect and we don't make exceptions for the way we are feeling that day then the rules stay the rules. That's the problem, we have lurking because we have allowed it in the past and set up that you won't be replaced for not meeting the posting requirements. And its so sporadically enforced that players have no clue what is and isn't acceptable.
I'd just like to point out that this is bit different issue than the others. All the other things you mentioned are responsibility of game mods, but this is responsibility of site mods (like me, Iso, Cythare, Wildfire...)
So while you can affect all other things by creating rules with mafia council, this is site-wide issue and isn't something that mafia council can just change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Prophylaxis »
Also modgaming Bur setups is kind of treading down a dark path
Its my same approach to the current flaming problem. We need to write rules that are clear and none of this gray area bull*****, and when players cross them we punish them. When they don't we don't. Its really just that simple. We can easily codify these things and write good rules, and I think if players have it explicitly explained to them what we expect and we don't make exceptions for the way we are feeling that day then the rules stay the rules. That's the problem, we have lurking because we have allowed it in the past and set up that you won't be replaced for not meeting the posting requirements. And its so sporadically enforced that players have no clue what is and isn't acceptable.
I'd just like to point out that this is bit different issue than the others. All the other things you mentioned are responsibility of game mods, but this is responsibility of site mods (like me, Iso, Cythare, Wildfire...)
So while you can affect all other things by creating rules with mafia council, this is site-wide issue and isn't something that mafia council can just change.
I guess it is time to talk about this. I do not completely agree with DV's point of view, but it is an issue for all of us, not just site mods. Site rules should be clearly explained and upheld, by game hosts, players, and mods alike. But part of the issue there is that site staff, especially admins, are notoriously inconsistent, and more importantly, transparent rules and arbitration are ideas so abhorrent that I might even get warned for this post.
But MtGS Mafia is really a separate entity and should have its own, probably stricter, rules than the site. If we can minimize any involvement by any site staff who are not just here to play/host (Tom, maybe ExpiredRascals) other than Iso, Bur, and maybe Cythare, that will likely keep things safer. Especially amongst the admins and globals, everyone else has their own agenda and cannot really be trusted to get involved in the subforum without, intentional or not, taking steps to kill it or irrevocably cripple it.
As far I can tell, any of us who have tried have gleaned that other than the fact that we generate an absurdly high percentage of site traffic, to the point of Zero Escape Mafia causing site lag, Iso is hands down the only reason that we still exist. New staff's standard impression of the Mafia community, given very intentionally and pervasively by "well-meaning" and "mentoring" senior staff, just as it was for the Debate community as well, was a 4chan Lite, a deranged cesspool for the scum of the Earth. From our first days on staff, we are carefully conditioned to fawn after the admins and spurn what they spurn. Anyone who does even the slightest otherwise, be it following the seductor Iso into Mafia, or trying to do even the slightest work to better the site without a careful sucking up to the admins and to their favorites, is likely to be gaslighted, silenced, and/or removed, if they do not recognize the toxicity in much of the site staff community and leave themselves, as I did and a number of current staff have expressed considering themselves. I very much doubt that I am the only Magic player here who would look for other sites for everything except maybe spoilers if the Mafia section closed down.
I left in response to being dragged through the mud over minor social faux pas and small mistakes from months to over a year prior when I was zealously trying to find things to do or had to teach myself the inner workings of the site because senior staff could not be bothered to do so, even for people directly involved with said workings. I was being berated for being a terrible person by one of the admins who I had previously trusted. Another staff member, who had been a close friend, confidant, and the only person with whom I was regularly (more than once a year) playing Magic at the time, posted when I left that they were not surprised and that it was a long time coming, in a context of derision for me and any contribution I may have ever made to the site or that community.
So having strict, consistent rules that we impose on ourselves and enforce, making sure that site mods, in particular non-Iso senior staff, are not really involved here is best. We can make sure that people understand that flaming and general open toxicity will not be tolerated. We can make sure that people understand that they have to alert the host if they are going to not be around for more than 48 hours, and if it is more than, say, 72 hours, or if they do not alert the host, they must be aware that they may be replaced. Obviously we do not have enough players at the moment to always have a replacement. But going V/LA without alerting the host IS BAD BEHAVIOR. It should be moderated as such. In some games, the host will modkill and/or personally blacklist if this occurs too often. There should be no need to get to the point where we each have our own personal blacklist. There should be no players that necessitate a personal blacklist.
We absolutely can and should make sure that people understand that any bad behavior is unacceptable. And I get it. We play Mafia for fun, to take a break from the real world, to destress. But if it becomes more of a stressor than a stress relief, senior staff being generally unable to be trusted and disliking or being afraid of this subforum and many people in it will be a minor concern in comparison to a lack of people who feel comfortable here. I play and host here since our player quality is one of the highest many of us have witnessed online and our somewhat more relaxed deadlines work well for my schedule. I play and host here to hang out with the friends I have made here over the past year(s). We absolutely can and should be able to maintain a constructive standard of discourse. And heck, it will likely make the average player here even better at the game.
I am not just advocating for modkills handed out like candy. But right now, hosts are incredibly reluctant to moderate bad behavior, and players are more willing to slip into it than they should be, myself included. This is not a sustainable state of affairs for our community.
In that vein, this makes for several larger discussions that players, Mafia Council, and Mafia mods should all be involved in. These discussions should happen regularly. They should not ever be approached, or ever need to be approached, as personal vendettas, as chores, or as remedial patching of serious concerns with the state of affairs in the Mafia section. And these discussions absolutely should not require getting non-Mafia site staff involved outside of the barest, most technical capacity.
To summarize:
We need to have stricter rules, in particular stricter than the site.
Lurking is bad behavior.
We should not be afraid to modkill, but we should also not be afraid that we will be modkilled too easily.
Site staff outside of our select few supporters are regularly toxic towards our community and cannot be trusted.
We should have regular, urburdened discussions about the state of affairs in our community.
I don't think it *is* possible to "easily codify" the rules for flaming, angleshooting, and lurking, is the thing.
You can't enumerate the entire list of things that would be considered pejoratives because it's entirely context dependent. If I told Shadow or Vaimes to **** off with a rolling eyes emote they'd know I was at least half joking and would probably laugh; if I did the same thing to another player, they'd probably think I was flaming them. Some words and phrases are innocent but *become* pejoratives in-context. If I'm obviously angry and call you a "peanut butter sandwich, but you're missing the jelly," that's the same thing as saying "you have a few screws loose" or "you're a few ships short of a fleet." And even though none of those contain censored words, they're still technically insults. Maybe as a community we aren't using the report button frequently enough because some of us have thicker skins and the rest don't want to be the bad guy that gets their fellow mafia players warned.
Same thing with angle shooting; you can't really list all the things that are OGI or angleshooting, you just know it when you see it. Maybe we could do with a slightly longer list of examples here but you can't list all the possible situations that count as OGI / angleshooting.
And sometimes there are legitimate reasons for lurking and stuff. Life happens to all of us and zero tolerance / 3 strikes rules take away the Council's and the game host's ability to deal with unique situations. If we need more stringent activity guidelines because games aren't pacing themselves the way we'd like, that's one thing, but leaving the activity guidelines as they are and enforcing them more heavily isn't actually going to change the lurking feeling. Under the current rules, someone could post less than ten times in a 3 week phase and never be prodded as long as they changed their vote once every three days. Don't even need to produce actual content. It's a technicality, sure, but what we actually need are better activity guidelines that match what we actually feel is the minimum level of acceptable activity.
But yeah, I think Zionite nailed it. If a game host isn't policing OGI / angleshooting or isn't enforcing their stated activity guidelines that's a moderator problem not a rules problem.
As far as flaming goes, that might be a conversation we need to have as a community as to whether we want to utilize the report button more frequently than we are, if we want to tell game hosts to use it and make them police players that way, etc. Because I'll be honest; I don't really use the report button as a game host. If I see someone is getting heated or people start complaining about a player's behavior to me, I talk to that player privately and say "hey, that isn't cool, cut it out" essentially. If it becomes an issue, I'll replace them or modkill them because those are the tools I have available as a game host. But it doesn't really seem like it's my place to report flaming on behalf of the players. I don't live in my game threads and read every single post. Some days I don't even open the thread, I just run the vote counter for the next hundred posts, if votes haven't changed I log off. Maybe we need that in the game rules / subforum rules. If you see flaming: hit the report button, don't take it to the game host, it isn't their job and they can't do anything except talk to that player. Or: tell the host, if it doesn't stop hit the report button. Or whatever we want to do.
Maybe we've been incorrectly bypassing the site moderators / report system on this issue and we need to bring them in more. It isn't like if we hit "report" it goes into a huge inbox where non-mafia admins or moderators can do whatever they want with it. It goes to a subforum inbox where Bur, Iso, Cythare, and kaburi (apparently, I don't know who that is lol) get the report and can deal with it. Unless I've misunderstood.
Its my same approach to the current flaming problem. We need to write rules that are clear and none of this gray area bull*****, and when players cross them we punish them. When they don't we don't. Its really just that simple. We can easily codify these things and write good rules, and I think if players have it explicitly explained to them what we expect and we don't make exceptions for the way we are feeling that day then the rules stay the rules. That's the problem, we have lurking because we have allowed it in the past and set up that you won't be replaced for not meeting the posting requirements. And its so sporadically enforced that players have no clue what is and isn't acceptable.
I'd just like to point out that this is bit different issue than the others. All the other things you mentioned are responsibility of game mods, but this is responsibility of site mods (like me, Iso, Cythare, Wildfire...)
So while you can affect all other things by creating rules with mafia council, this is site-wide issue and isn't something that mafia council can just change.
So would we kick players after a certain amount of flame warnings? If we forcibly replace players for flaming should their be site mods having given them warnings? If that player has close to zero or zero warnings is removing a player for that reason acceptable?
I don't think villainizing the senior staff is the best way to keep Mafia alive on this site.
I'm not sure what your issue is with my modding, DV - you seemed to understand and agree when I explained some of the choices I've made with regards to moderating Mafia to you.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Also, we've had a lot of recent turnovers and promotions within the senior staff - as in, within the past month or two - and I think that there's probably less overall hostility towards Mafia as a result of this, with more members leaning towards either neutrality with regards to our little community. This is a good thing. In the past, I have had to fight to keep us open, but I'm hoping that's going to become but a memory.
That said, senior staff is willing to open a discussion about any bounds that anyone feels may be overstepped with regards to how Mafia is handled.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
How do you propose we motivate this without replacements or modkills becoming any easier? I don't believe hosts don't strictly monitor activity because it is too hard or they don't care - they don't do it because the enforcement system we have is difficult to implement.
By "Queues" we mean the queues for the games themselves, which are basically empty. How can we schedule games when the only queue with more than ONE game ready to fire is the Micro queue (with two)?
If the queues are empty, you can still schedule the slot to fire by a certain date, setup name TBA. And that may actually help highlight which areas we need new designs to be submitted, and provide a timeframe for their submission.
Hey, I'd just like to chime in and address a few comments that have been made here.
There is no talk at all among senior staff about shutting down Mafia. It was briefly discussed while we were in the process of reducing the footprint of our non-Magic-related areas like debate, but ultimately it was decided to keep it alive, and the issue has not come back up since. One of the current admins, Cythare, has his name on the door of Mafia and regularly plays it, and while I haven't played in a while, I do support the existence of Mafia myself. There is no indoctrination among the staff against Mafia - most of the mods aren't even really aware you guys exist. While it's possible we could do more to push the mods towards Mafia (when I started out as a mod, we had a Mod Mafia that got me into it), we aren't doing anything to actively push them away from it.
Senior staff other than Cythare only intervene in a game when all three current mods (Iso, Bur, and Cythare) are either in that game or otherwise unavailable, and even then we only do it when the situation specifically calls for it - generally there is a report and Iso or Bur will alert us that it needs one of us to look at it. If there aren't problems, we don't intervene, and we certainly don't go out of our way to look for problems.
It would probably be better if this was not required (i.e. make sure at least one of the above mods isn't in any given game), but we're fine doing it when the situation calls for it, and we certainly don't view it as an undue burden or anything. And on the flipside, we're definitely not doing it capriciously or vindictively.
Hope that clarifies where things stand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Hey, I'd just like to chime in and address a few comments that have been made here.
There is no talk at all among senior staff about shutting down Mafia. It was briefly discussed while we were in the process of reducing the footprint of our non-Magic-related areas like debate, but ultimately it was decided to keep it alive, and the issue has not come back up since. One of the current admins, Cythare, has his name on the door of Mafia and regularly plays it, and while I haven't played in a while, I do support the existence of Mafia myself. There is no indoctrination among the staff against Mafia - most of the mods aren't even really aware you guys exist. While it's possible we could do more to push the mods towards Mafia (when I started out as a mod, we had a Mod Mafia that got me into it), we aren't doing anything to actively push them away from it.
Senior staff other than Cythare only intervene in a game when all three current mods (Iso, Bur, and Cythare) are either in that game or otherwise unavailable, and even then we only do it when the situation specifically calls for it - generally there is a report and Iso or Bur will alert us that it needs one of us to look at it. If there aren't problems, we don't intervene, and we certainly don't go out of our way to look for problems.
It would probably be better if this was not required (i.e. make sure at least one of the above mods isn't in any given game), but we're fine doing it when the situation calls for it, and we certainly don't view it as an undue burden or anything. And on the flipside, we're definitely not doing it capriciously or vindictively.
Hope that clarifies where things stand.
Thanks for those remarks, Wildfire. I know my from my perspective, it's been a very long time since we've had anything but appreciation for the job our staff members have been doing for us, and I really can't recall the last time we've had to discuss some of the contextual differences necessary to help the mafia sub run more smoothly. Things have been very happily quiet on that front.
Modkills/replacements are challenging for mods to use: we don't have many people available for replacement (long gone are the days of overfull signups), and modkills can have a huge and unfair-feeling impact on a game. This leads to people not being punished as frequently or consistently as we might like, which means they're not dissuaded.
Sure.
However, allowing players to not post in games for entire day phases is equally unfair and even more so. Allowing players to V/LA for entire day phases is just not fair period. Not replacing players that haven't posted for a week and having not moved to do so is bad modding period. I'm not saying it should be set in stone, if a player is going V/LA for a week but says I'll try and check in and post, I might say to them that it needs to be a good faith effort and that it will be ok. If that player has already had a history of lurking and is now doing this, that probabally isn't going to be ok.
I'm not even certain that it should be a "Post every X day requirement." At the moment I'd take a descourse style of posting over some of our current lurkers. But that feels to me that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the biggest problem I see is rules not being enforced. If the rules say post once every three days then players need to post once every three days. I might be willing to occasionally ignore the one day late posts, but if that player is habitually being a problem then it needs to be dealt with.
I think currently we have a problem with out of touch moderators having not been players in a long time, and thinking that modkilling is worse then letting a player lurk for god knows how long. As a player I can say there is nothing worse than having this happen to me. Its incredibly unfun to watch a mafia player be allowed to not post for a week straight and then nothing to be done about it.
Personally, I'd propose the following changes to everyone's mod rules(I'd also like us to get standardized rules).
First, a slot is only going to be replaced at maximum two times. After that its just a mod kill.
Secondly, a strike system for warning players for lurking. Everyone of us is going to have personal problems at some point, and I don't think they should be punished for this. But, we have to look at the greater good. If a player is having personal problems and can't play, I think they should be replaced. Its not personal, I'm probabally not going to look for any punishment, but game health dictates that they need to be replaced. Game health does not dictate that a player that hasn't posted for over a week shouldn't be replaced for "game health reasons".
Third, we need to be a lot more aggressive about checking posts. I ****ed up in Arkham and didn't noticed Dota hadn't posted for like a week and when I had I was close to modkilling him along with another few players. I didn't because I felt it was a little harsh and that it was going to hurt the mafia team significantly. I regret not doing it. When I look at my game a lot of the problems came from my tolerance of the mafia lurking, and I really feel sorry for Tom in that game, because **** he was really the only mafia member that tried. I just can't imagine it was any fun for Tom or any of the town as they just lynched lurkers. It wasn't really playing mafia, it was just POE lynching because content was lacking.
At the end of the day, I really feel that most of our flaming problems and lurking problems have been caused by us being to lax. Not applying the rules we right equally or even literally. If a rule says cross X line get Y, then every player that crosses X line gets Y. Period. Not doing so allows for this *****ty behavior, isn't in line with MTGS forum rules and really just isn't fair.
I'm going to have to agree with you that lurking 3+ days is too much. There's a difference between strategy-lurking and just plain not playing. But to be fair, we already have a way to deal with lurkers in the game: just lynch them. As a player, this is your only tool to get the game balanced to your liking. Yeah, you could be making a bad play, but it may also be your best option to move forward. They're lurking for a reason, or their dead weight for your team.
You, as a player, should never have to leverage for any kind of modkill or replacement. It's simply not your job, and it's not fun. Modkills are a result of direct rule-breaking, not for punishing bad play. Players play badly all the time, but that alone shouldn't trigger modkills. If the host has the appropriate rules listed in their post #1, s/he is can and should enforce those rules. We have a copy/paste rules list still floating about.
If the host is failing to actually host by not enforcing their ruleset, that is a separate issue. Hosts failing to perform can be due to a lack of experience or knowledge on how to proceed, in which case the host should contact the council for advice, protecting the game state and keeping it moving forward. We want to give everyone a chance at hosting, but it isn't easy and often tedious to keep up with. If a host isn't cut out for the work, they may not get another chance to host again. Hosts have to respect the time and months-long dedication their players put into the game, and honor that by following their ruleset to the letter and ensuring a clean game. That means it's the hosts' responsibility to provide a cohesive list of rules for their game, and recognize that ALL players agree to those rules, even when they disappear on you.
So to prevent this from happening again, I recommend we review our 'standard' rules list and notify future hosts that it's available as a resource when designing their own ruleset. But no matter how many rules we write, there's still going to be someone who figures out what we missed and pull a stunt. The host has every right to take action how they see fit in a "no real rule for that" scenario, but again I encourage hosts to seek advice from the council if they aren't sure how to proceed. Simply doing nothing isn't respecting players' time and dedication to the game.
In response to this, I'm moving that the council re-exam my claims about PlayStation Mafia and the moderation done there. Ecophogy has indicated that he believes I wasn't treated equally, but has stated that treating players equally isn't required by moderators of games.
Also, I'm moving for DotArchon to be placed on probation, his lurking has become untenable. He's a nice guy so nobody has really dealt with it, but we need to start being more proactive about this.
Effective immediately, I am retiring from the Mafia Council.
I'm sorry for the sudden announcement. It's been a wonderful number of years with all of you, but lately, I've felt like my responsibilities to this site have been more of a burden to me than not, I just don't have the same fire or passion for Mafia that I used to, and I find it extremely difficult to enjoy the game as of late. I'm also sorry if that's detrimentally affected any of you guys' abilities to enjoy the game, yourselves. I'm not as in-tune with the lifeblood of the playerbase as I used to be, and I don't feel like there's a whole lot more I can do for our community in the capacity that I have been in. I've brought a lot of reform and new ideas to MTGS Mafia in order to inject vigor and structure into our routines, and I hope that I'm remembered fondly in that respect, as well as an enjoyable person to have played with (at least in my earlier years on the site). I will remain on MTGS staff (including in Mafia) for the foreseeable future, however, as I have several projects I'm working on.
Once my current Mafia game is completed, I will also be retiring from forum Mafia for a very long time, if not forever. I may occasionally sign up for a game but I will not have anywhere near the level of activity that I once had. I will still play in Wuffles's game as I told him that I would, but that's all.
I will complete my reviews of the two setups I'm currently looking at, but please remove me from all reviewer lists.
Thank you all for all the memories; may your lynches always hit scum, and may your Nightkills always hit power roles.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Effective immediately, I am retiring from the Mafia Council.
I'm sorry for the sudden announcement. It's been a wonderful number of years with all of you, but lately, I've felt like my responsibilities to this site have been more of a burden to me than not, I just don't have the same fire or passion for Mafia that I used to, and I find it extremely difficult to enjoy the game as of late. I'm also sorry if that's detrimentally affected any of you guys' abilities to enjoy the game, yourselves. I'm not as in-tune with the lifeblood of the playerbase as I used to be, and I don't feel like there's a whole lot more I can do for our community in the capacity that I have been in. I've brought a lot of reform and new ideas to MTGS Mafia in order to inject vigor and structure into our routines, and I hope that I'm remembered fondly in that respect, as well as an enjoyable person to have played with (at least in my earlier years on the site). I will remain on MTGS staff (including in Mafia) for the foreseeable future, however, as I have several projects I'm working on.
Once my current Mafia game is completed, I will also be retiring from forum Mafia for a very long time, if not forever. I may occasionally sign up for a game but I will not have anywhere near the level of activity that I once had.
I will complete my reviews of the two setups I'm currently looking at, but please remove me from all reviewer lists.
Thank you all for all the memories; may your lynches always hit scum, and may your Nightkills always hit power roles.
I think the lurking mostly comes from a place that post quality just has to be up there, even as a town player. I think if it was more relaxed, like on other sites, people would post most, even just one-two liners. Yes, only one post like this a day is going to be obnoxious, but I can struggle to post a day, when I feel like I have to actually type a paragraph.
The only thing is that's a playerbase issue, and not something a moderator can do about that. But for making a post, I found it easy to just look at the game on my phone, respond to maybe one post at a time, just to put out a little content.
Iso's retirement from the council has left some big shoes to fill, and we're looking for folks who are interested in coming on board with some fresh energy and new ideas for directions to guide the sub going forward. If you're interested, let us know.
Iso's retirement from the council has left some big shoes to fill, and we're looking for folks who are interested in coming on board with some fresh energy and new ideas for directions to guide the sub going forward. If you're interested, let us know.
10/10 Osie. Dude is mafia obsessed. He'd be a good fit, if he can keep his distaste for the MTGS mod team under control.
Lol. It's not like I would be the only council-person to have reasons to dislike the moderation team. *Cough* *Cough*
But I find ways to function with or around them. I am already part of a similar group on this site for another subforum (EDH Primer Committee). I'm also an admin for Mafia Society (the MyAnimeList Mafia group). So this would be similar in that respect.
Anyways, I would also be totally down for Shadow on the council. Alternatively, I would nominate Silvercrys, or maybe Prophylaxis (if Proph didn't have most of my responsibilities and more right now and more IRL things to keep him busy).
For those who would like to apply to the Council, please send answers to the following questions to the MafiaScribe account. What we're primarily looking is people with the experience, standing, and demeanor to calmly and reasonably settle disputes, the ability to work within a team, and with a vision for the subfoum and - importantly - the drive to see it accomplished.
What do you consider to be the Council's purpose?
What makes you a good fit for the council?
What is your philosophy of leadership?
What are the subforum's biggest problems/risks and how would you go about addressing or preventing them?
What are the subforum's biggest strengths/selling points and how would you go about preserving and leveraging them?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Christmas season from what I’ve seen has been notorious for people being “too busy” for Mafia in general, but I do think we should try to get something special ready to kick off for the new year to entice people in/back.
The team Mafia event was overall good, but didn’t seem to draw in more people. Granted, I’ve seen some newer faces in the current signup/games, so that’s helpful. I’m going to try and brainstorm some possible ways to bring some more traffic over here.
I'd still like to talk about the state of the Fast Track/Specialty Queue. We just turned away five special-complexity games that might not ever see the light of day and are probably around a year out from even being potentially resubmitted because that's how long it will take to polish and fire the three we chose. Given the state of the queues (mostly empty other than absent friends still in the list) I'm not sure we can afford to turn down that many game concepts.
Could we hybridize them where we just pull games out of the specialty queue once a year to fire first or something like that, maybe? I know this is somewhat similar to the way we had the queues structured when they ran side-by-side, but I guess I'm not super clear on why the Specialty queue was closed in the first place, heh. It seemed like the FTQ was supposed to fire higher-quality games faster than the Specialty queue did and it isn't really delivering in the speed department.
It's possible this is due to the lightly enforced FTQ requirement that submissions be complete before hand, but I also know it would be pretty bad to expect potential hosts to fully develop set-ups just to have most of them never fire. Having a place to put those games where the host is incentivized to complete the set up because they know they'll get to host eventually would be a net positive, I think.
I also feel like these games are the main thing that pulls players from elsewhere to our board and tempts old hands back in for another go. It could definitely be my bias showing, though, as I heavily prefer special-complexity games to normals and such, but there's a pretty clear interest in hosting these games that isn't present for hosting normals or minis.
The biggest reason for requiring hosts have their setups complete before submission was because at one point in time, at least half of the queue list was full of inactive people and people who had not finished their setups by the time it was time for them to host. This caused a massive delay in firing off new games, because the Secretary would then have to message hosts and wait for a response, and then every time that host's turn would roll around again, it would bottleneck the process, again, because of the wait and the inevitable "my setup isn't complete".
If we want games firing off, removing that requirement is not the way to go.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Right, what I'm saying is we currently have that requirement in place but it isn't being enforced, but we also don't have anywhere to stick the unchosen-but-completed set ups anyway, which contributes to the problem because very few people are going to go to the effort of building and balancing a special-complexity game that might not ever fire because it couldn't beat the competition.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'd definitely be in favor of bringing back the specialty queue, or otherwise taking steps to increase the fire rate of our complex setups.
As mentioned, we seem to have an issue with completion of setups, which the specialty queue solved by providing a deadline. FTQ, with its immediate firings, does less to resolve that issue.
Thought: Make the specialty queue be for semi-completed to completed specialty-level setups at any time and the FTQ be for completed specialty-level setups only?
Alternatively, combine the two. Make the specialty queue the submission zone, and then at regular intervals, an FTQ search for ONE, COMPLETED setup will lead to one being picked off the specialty queue by a fair process.
Thought: Make the specialty queue be for semi-completed to completed specialty-level setups at any time and the FTQ be for completed specialty-level setups only?
Alternatively, combine the two. Make the specialty queue the submission zone, and then at regular intervals, an FTQ search for ONE, COMPLETED setup will lead to one being picked off the specialty queue by a fair process.
This is effectively what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how it was significantly different from just a specialty queue.
Thought: Make the specialty queue be for semi-completed to completed specialty-level setups at any time and the FTQ be for completed specialty-level setups only?
Alternatively, combine the two. Make the specialty queue the submission zone, and then at regular intervals, an FTQ search for ONE, COMPLETED setup will lead to one being picked off the specialty queue by a fair process.
This is effectively what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how it was significantly different from just a specialty queue.
I mean, that would practically going back to Specialty queue system like it used to be (not that I'd mind if we did that).
Anyways, I think that the problem is that the games submitted to the FTQ aren't ready to run. However, as a host, I can tell that designing, reviewing and doing all the finishing touches IN A MONTH can be really hard to pull off, considering that both the hosts and reviewers do have life outside of MTGS.
That's part of the reason why I'd like us to bring back the good ol' specialty queue: nowadays, you either need to design and prepare your set-up and then just wait until we decide to have next FTQ submissions and hope to make it. Alternatively, you need to rush your set-up in a span of single month and neither of these option is very appealing to me as a designer.
By removing the time restriction for submissions, I think we could actually fill our queues as people seem to be more motivated to design specialty games than other types of games AND there's no need to rush the set-ups because you need to fire your game when that stupid jerk of a Mafia Secretary called Bur tells you to launch it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Prophylaxis »
Also modgaming Bur setups is kind of treading down a dark path
Thought: Make the specialty queue be for semi-completed to completed specialty-level setups at any time and the FTQ be for completed specialty-level setups only?
Alternatively, combine the two. Make the specialty queue the submission zone, and then at regular intervals, an FTQ search for ONE, COMPLETED setup will lead to one being picked off the specialty queue by a fair process.
This is effectively what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how it was significantly different from just a specialty queue.
I mean, that would practically going back to Specialty queue system like it used to be (not that I'd mind if we did that).
Anyways, I think that the problem is that the games submitted to the FTQ aren't ready to run. However, as a host, I can tell that designing, reviewing and doing all the finishing touches IN A MONTH can be really hard to pull off, considering that both the hosts and reviewers do have life outside of MTGS.
That's part of the reason why I'd like us to bring back the good ol' specialty queue: nowadays, you either need to design and prepare your set-up and then just wait until we decide to have next FTQ submissions and hope to make it. Alternatively, you need to rush your set-up in a span of single month and neither of these option is very appealing to me as a designer.
By removing the time restriction for submissions, I think we could actually fill our queues as people seem to be more motivated to design specialty games than other types of games AND there's no need to rush the set-ups because you need to fire your game when that stupid jerk of a Mafia Secretary called Bur tells you to launch it.
Yeah, I think as a general rule, saying that setups have to be complete/ready to run would be wise.
I could see bringing back the Specialty queue, since it does seem a bit counter-productive to turn away games that people actually want to run when the other queues are so bare. I do think that we ought to require games to be mostly complete before being added to the queue though, because it sucks to think you have lots of games to run but in reality none of them are ready. This should be ok because the FTQ has similar (but under-enforced) criteria, and at least effort put into games that join a queue that effort has no risk of being effectively wasted as it can in the FTQ.
Whether we would still need an FTQ at all is another question. It was intended originally to allow really exciting games to skip long queues (which we don't have any more) and to stimulate game design through competition (which we might still need?) - so maybe it can be retired as a regular for now and be run occasionally if we need to spur some creativity.
I think the FTQ still serves as an excellent way to encourage hosts to come up with creative, appealing concepts, and to highlight and feature those projects once they're ready. They can coexist.
If these are the types of games people enjoy both designing and playing, let's ramp that back up again.
I'm torn. I know a large portion of our player base enjoys more complex games and as a designer they are by far the most enjoyable to create despite how much extra work they take.
It's much easier to make a truly flavorful and unique game if you're not limited by complexity requirements. Which is really appealing as a designer. Doesn't always make for better games, but it's seductive.
Anyway I know the FTQ "competition" appealed to me. After the last one I started slowly chipping away at a design for the next one and have been doing slow but steady work on it since to be ready for the next one.
I wonder if a better solution than just bringing back the specialty queue would be to only select 1 game each time and have a faster turn around on firing those games but have the selection event more often. I'm not sure if that's feasible in terms of how much supply there would be of games or demand for the games once the queues are up.
I guess that doesn't help the "I made this cool setup and now it's consigned to the dust bin" but if there is enough demand it can be slightly alleviated by quick turn arounds and more "competitions" to enter it into.
But you do run into the issue of turning people away and/or discouraging new designs once you max out your available slots.
I think it's better not to cap them. I used to design setups with the idea that I've got to get this submitted to the specialty asap because it will take 2 years to run otherwise. Without that pressure, there's less urgency.
I also think we required at least an initial review before being granted access to the queue, which would be very helpful.
How do you propose we motivate this without replacements or modkills becoming any easier? I don't believe hosts don't strictly monitor activity because it is too hard or they don't care - they don't do it because the enforcement system we have is difficult to implement.
By "Queues" we mean the queues for the games themselves, which are basically empty. How can we schedule games when the only queue with more than ONE game ready to fire is the Micro queue (with two)?
Sure.
However, allowing players to not post in games for entire day phases is equally unfair and even more so. Allowing players to V/LA for entire day phases is just not fair period. Not replacing players that haven't posted for a week and having not moved to do so is bad modding period. I'm not saying it should be set in stone, if a player is going V/LA for a week but says I'll try and check in and post, I might say to them that it needs to be a good faith effort and that it will be ok. If that player has already had a history of lurking and is now doing this, that probabally isn't going to be ok.
I'm not even certain that it should be a "Post every X day requirement." At the moment I'd take a descourse style of posting over some of our current lurkers. But that feels to me that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the biggest problem I see is rules not being enforced. If the rules say post once every three days then players need to post once every three days. I might be willing to occasionally ignore the one day late posts, but if that player is habitually being a problem then it needs to be dealt with.
I think currently we have a problem with out of touch moderators having not been players in a long time, and thinking that modkilling is worse then letting a player lurk for god knows how long. As a player I can say there is nothing worse than having this happen to me. Its incredibly unfun to watch a mafia player be allowed to not post for a week straight and then nothing to be done about it.
Personally, I'd propose the following changes to everyone's mod rules(I'd also like us to get standardized rules).
First, a slot is only going to be replaced at maximum two times. After that its just a mod kill.
Secondly, a strike system for warning players for lurking. Everyone of us is going to have personal problems at some point, and I don't think they should be punished for this. But, we have to look at the greater good. If a player is having personal problems and can't play, I think they should be replaced. Its not personal, I'm probabally not going to look for any punishment, but game health dictates that they need to be replaced. Game health does not dictate that a player that hasn't posted for over a week shouldn't be replaced for "game health reasons".
Third, we need to be a lot more aggressive about checking posts. I ****ed up in Arkham and didn't noticed Dota hadn't posted for like a week and when I had I was close to modkilling him along with another few players. I didn't because I felt it was a little harsh and that it was going to hurt the mafia team significantly. I regret not doing it. When I look at my game a lot of the problems came from my tolerance of the mafia lurking, and I really feel sorry for Tom in that game, because **** he was really the only mafia member that tried. I just can't imagine it was any fun for Tom or any of the town as they just lynched lurkers. It wasn't really playing mafia, it was just POE lynching because content was lacking.
At the end of the day, I really feel that most of our flaming problems and lurking problems have been caused by us being to lax. Not applying the rules we right equally or even literally. If a rule says cross X line get Y, then every player that crosses X line gets Y. Period. Not doing so allows for this *****ty behavior, isn't in line with MTGS forum rules and really just isn't fair.
Because that's what would have happened; we would have been so far ahead as a village that there would have been no possibility of recovery.
And that's why modkilling is such a bad tool.
You can't modkill wolves because it essentially puts their team in an unwinnable position through sheer numbers.
And you can't modkill villagers because that outs wolf lurkers due to them not being modkilled; it turns modkills into cop shots.
The best we can do is implement set ups with built in modkill mechanics; something like "if you no-post for two mod periods without responding to prods, you will be force replaced, and if no replacement is found within 48 hours, you will be modkilled. If a member of the Mafia is modkilled this way, the Mafia get to double kill the following night" would sort of help but creates incentives to actually get modkilled on purpose in corner cases.
Game mechanics where the lowest posting player dies in addition to the lynch would bloat our games even further.
We could set up double modkilling where the lowest posting wolf *and* villager get modkilled whenever a modkill is handed down, but that creates the reverse incentive for villagers to get modkilled on purpose to kill wolves.
Simply modkilling people for missing a prod when there aren't any replacements left would ruin basically every game we run from now on, and even though you're saying you want consistent objective measures you've already admitted it's fine if some players miss one or two prods but not others, so like. ???
I get the feeling you want to punish lurkers more than have healthy games. Obviously having no lurkers would be ideal, but having a lurker is better than a free vig shot into the PoE if the set up isn't explicitly set up to deal with it.
Now clearly this is part of a feedback loop; people lurk, which makes games look unfun, which makes people leave or not sign up, which gives us fewer players to replace lurkers with, etc. etc.
But implementing hardline modkilling isn't going to make games look fun, either, and will also make wolfing completely miserable as your potential mislynches get eaten by modkills.
I think players should be prodded close to missing the three day deadline. If a player comes back on day fourish I wouldn't say that its the biggest deal, at least the first time. After that they should get some sort of strike system. Mods have to prod you, say three times I'm looking for replacement. You come back you plead, I think maybe giving them a break is possibly acceptable, but if it happens again, instantly replaced with no break being given. At that point, use a replacement.
If you have a slot that has a total of very few combined posts, and you have to keep replacing that player, that is a problem. I can point to many many games where this has happened. Its always felt cheap to me.
I can modkill wolves. It isn't a problem. You're worried about game balance I'm not. I don't think moderators should random teams for good game balance for example. Or try and balance out players. Sometimes you get ***** players on good roles and they die, because of their ***** plays. Modkilling because of lurking shouldn't be looked at for any other reason.
I think you are creating a false equivalency of what mod kills are. They should be a punishment for bad play. Lurking is bad play. Lurking is unfair. Lurking is not good game health. The solution to this is to get rid of lurkers.
Yeah I'm not sure what the mechanism should be for "Prod length". I'd almost argue that maybe it should be three days. So, you don't post for three days, I prod you. I give you another three days, I prod you. At this point you have two strikes and I'm probabally looking for replacement because it has been 6 days. At this point maybe it should ramp up to replacing you within the next two days. I'm unsure of exactly how the rules should look.
However, we need to be more proactive as moderators about catching players not posting. I've seen too many games where someone doesn't post for like 6 days and then the prods start. That's incompetence of the moderator and we need to remove such things.
I'm not arguing that if I can't find a replacement and you miss one prod you're dead. But if you've missed 3 and I can't find a replacement, yeah you're dead. To argue otherwise is illogical and I question your sincerity of you are arguing that.
As with the rest of it I'm unsure. I can't help players not posting, but it isn't fair to me to not replace or modkill them if I can't find a replacement. The thing with your logic at the end of the day is you're ignoring your own rules. You wrote a rule saying post within three days, and then you didn't enforce it. So why have it written at all. If you're not going to enforce it equally between players then just delete the rule and don't enforce it on anyone. Its bull***** to enforce the rule on the first rule breakers and then because you can't find replacements allow others to simply not post. This isn't fair and I question how you could think that is reasonable. And continuing to allow this continues to allow this behavior and this problem to persist.
Its my same approach to the current flaming problem. We need to write rules that are clear and none of this gray area bull*****, and when players cross them we punish them. When they don't we don't. Its really just that simple. We can easily codify these things and write good rules, and I think if players have it explicitly explained to them what we expect and we don't make exceptions for the way we are feeling that day then the rules stay the rules. That's the problem, we have lurking because we have allowed it in the past and set up that you won't be replaced for not meeting the posting requirements. And its so sporadically enforced that players have no clue what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm going to have to agree with you that lurking 3+ days is too much. There's a difference between strategy-lurking and just plain not playing. But to be fair, we already have a way to deal with lurkers in the game: just lynch them. As a player, this is your only tool to get the game balanced to your liking. Yeah, you could be making a bad play, but it may also be your best option to move forward. They're lurking for a reason, or their dead weight for your team.
You, as a player, should never have to leverage for any kind of modkill or replacement. It's simply not your job, and it's not fun. Modkills are a result of direct rule-breaking, not for punishing bad play. Players play badly all the time, but that alone shouldn't trigger modkills. If the host has the appropriate rules listed in their post #1, s/he is can and should enforce those rules. We have a copy/paste rules list still floating about.
If the host is failing to actually host by not enforcing their ruleset, that is a separate issue. Hosts failing to perform can be due to a lack of experience or knowledge on how to proceed, in which case the host should contact the council for advice, protecting the game state and keeping it moving forward. We want to give everyone a chance at hosting, but it isn't easy and often tedious to keep up with. If a host isn't cut out for the work, they may not get another chance to host again. Hosts have to respect the time and months-long dedication their players put into the game, and honor that by following their ruleset to the letter and ensuring a clean game. That means it's the hosts' responsibility to provide a cohesive list of rules for their game, and recognize that ALL players agree to those rules, even when they disappear on you.
So to prevent this from happening again, I recommend we review our 'standard' rules list and notify future hosts that it's available as a resource when designing their own ruleset. But no matter how many rules we write, there's still going to be someone who figures out what we missed and pull a stunt. The host has every right to take action how they see fit in a "no real rule for that" scenario, but again I encourage hosts to seek advice from the council if they aren't sure how to proceed. Simply doing nothing isn't respecting players' time and dedication to the game.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Non-Staff Quasi-ModI'd just like to point out that this is bit different issue than the others. All the other things you mentioned are responsibility of game mods, but this is responsibility of site mods (like me, Iso, Cythare, Wildfire...)
So while you can affect all other things by creating rules with mafia council, this is site-wide issue and isn't something that mafia council can just change.
I guess it is time to talk about this. I do not completely agree with DV's point of view, but it is an issue for all of us, not just site mods. Site rules should be clearly explained and upheld, by game hosts, players, and mods alike. But part of the issue there is that site staff, especially admins, are notoriously inconsistent, and more importantly, transparent rules and arbitration are ideas so abhorrent that I might even get warned for this post.
But MtGS Mafia is really a separate entity and should have its own, probably stricter, rules than the site. If we can minimize any involvement by any site staff who are not just here to play/host (Tom, maybe ExpiredRascals) other than Iso, Bur, and maybe Cythare, that will likely keep things safer. Especially amongst the admins and globals, everyone else has their own agenda and cannot really be trusted to get involved in the subforum without, intentional or not, taking steps to kill it or irrevocably cripple it.
As far I can tell, any of us who have tried have gleaned that other than the fact that we generate an absurdly high percentage of site traffic, to the point of Zero Escape Mafia causing site lag, Iso is hands down the only reason that we still exist. New staff's standard impression of the Mafia community, given very intentionally and pervasively by "well-meaning" and "mentoring" senior staff, just as it was for the Debate community as well, was a 4chan Lite, a deranged cesspool for the scum of the Earth. From our first days on staff, we are carefully conditioned to fawn after the admins and spurn what they spurn. Anyone who does even the slightest otherwise, be it following the seductor Iso into Mafia, or trying to do even the slightest work to better the site without a careful sucking up to the admins and to their favorites, is likely to be gaslighted, silenced, and/or removed, if they do not recognize the toxicity in much of the site staff community and leave themselves, as I did and a number of current staff have expressed considering themselves. I very much doubt that I am the only Magic player here who would look for other sites for everything except maybe spoilers if the Mafia section closed down.
So having strict, consistent rules that we impose on ourselves and enforce, making sure that site mods, in particular non-Iso senior staff, are not really involved here is best. We can make sure that people understand that flaming and general open toxicity will not be tolerated. We can make sure that people understand that they have to alert the host if they are going to not be around for more than 48 hours, and if it is more than, say, 72 hours, or if they do not alert the host, they must be aware that they may be replaced. Obviously we do not have enough players at the moment to always have a replacement. But going V/LA without alerting the host IS BAD BEHAVIOR. It should be moderated as such. In some games, the host will modkill and/or personally blacklist if this occurs too often. There should be no need to get to the point where we each have our own personal blacklist. There should be no players that necessitate a personal blacklist.
We absolutely can and should make sure that people understand that any bad behavior is unacceptable. And I get it. We play Mafia for fun, to take a break from the real world, to destress. But if it becomes more of a stressor than a stress relief, senior staff being generally unable to be trusted and disliking or being afraid of this subforum and many people in it will be a minor concern in comparison to a lack of people who feel comfortable here. I play and host here since our player quality is one of the highest many of us have witnessed online and our somewhat more relaxed deadlines work well for my schedule. I play and host here to hang out with the friends I have made here over the past year(s). We absolutely can and should be able to maintain a constructive standard of discourse. And heck, it will likely make the average player here even better at the game.
I am not just advocating for modkills handed out like candy. But right now, hosts are incredibly reluctant to moderate bad behavior, and players are more willing to slip into it than they should be, myself included. This is not a sustainable state of affairs for our community.
In that vein, this makes for several larger discussions that players, Mafia Council, and Mafia mods should all be involved in. These discussions should happen regularly. They should not ever be approached, or ever need to be approached, as personal vendettas, as chores, or as remedial patching of serious concerns with the state of affairs in the Mafia section. And these discussions absolutely should not require getting non-Mafia site staff involved outside of the barest, most technical capacity.
To summarize:
You can't enumerate the entire list of things that would be considered pejoratives because it's entirely context dependent. If I told Shadow or Vaimes to **** off with a rolling eyes emote they'd know I was at least half joking and would probably laugh; if I did the same thing to another player, they'd probably think I was flaming them. Some words and phrases are innocent but *become* pejoratives in-context. If I'm obviously angry and call you a "peanut butter sandwich, but you're missing the jelly," that's the same thing as saying "you have a few screws loose" or "you're a few ships short of a fleet." And even though none of those contain censored words, they're still technically insults. Maybe as a community we aren't using the report button frequently enough because some of us have thicker skins and the rest don't want to be the bad guy that gets their fellow mafia players warned.
Same thing with angle shooting; you can't really list all the things that are OGI or angleshooting, you just know it when you see it. Maybe we could do with a slightly longer list of examples here but you can't list all the possible situations that count as OGI / angleshooting.
And sometimes there are legitimate reasons for lurking and stuff. Life happens to all of us and zero tolerance / 3 strikes rules take away the Council's and the game host's ability to deal with unique situations. If we need more stringent activity guidelines because games aren't pacing themselves the way we'd like, that's one thing, but leaving the activity guidelines as they are and enforcing them more heavily isn't actually going to change the lurking feeling. Under the current rules, someone could post less than ten times in a 3 week phase and never be prodded as long as they changed their vote once every three days. Don't even need to produce actual content. It's a technicality, sure, but what we actually need are better activity guidelines that match what we actually feel is the minimum level of acceptable activity.
But yeah, I think Zionite nailed it. If a game host isn't policing OGI / angleshooting or isn't enforcing their stated activity guidelines that's a moderator problem not a rules problem.
As far as flaming goes, that might be a conversation we need to have as a community as to whether we want to utilize the report button more frequently than we are, if we want to tell game hosts to use it and make them police players that way, etc. Because I'll be honest; I don't really use the report button as a game host. If I see someone is getting heated or people start complaining about a player's behavior to me, I talk to that player privately and say "hey, that isn't cool, cut it out" essentially. If it becomes an issue, I'll replace them or modkill them because those are the tools I have available as a game host. But it doesn't really seem like it's my place to report flaming on behalf of the players. I don't live in my game threads and read every single post. Some days I don't even open the thread, I just run the vote counter for the next hundred posts, if votes haven't changed I log off. Maybe we need that in the game rules / subforum rules. If you see flaming: hit the report button, don't take it to the game host, it isn't their job and they can't do anything except talk to that player. Or: tell the host, if it doesn't stop hit the report button. Or whatever we want to do.
Maybe we've been incorrectly bypassing the site moderators / report system on this issue and we need to bring them in more. It isn't like if we hit "report" it goes into a huge inbox where non-mafia admins or moderators can do whatever they want with it. It goes to a subforum inbox where Bur, Iso, Cythare, and kaburi (apparently, I don't know who that is lol) get the report and can deal with it. Unless I've misunderstood.
So would we kick players after a certain amount of flame warnings? If we forcibly replace players for flaming should their be site mods having given them warnings? If that player has close to zero or zero warnings is removing a player for that reason acceptable?
I'm not sure what your issue is with my modding, DV - you seemed to understand and agree when I explained some of the choices I've made with regards to moderating Mafia to you.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
That said, senior staff is willing to open a discussion about any bounds that anyone feels may be overstepped with regards to how Mafia is handled.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
If the queues are empty, you can still schedule the slot to fire by a certain date, setup name TBA. And that may actually help highlight which areas we need new designs to be submitted, and provide a timeframe for their submission.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThere is no talk at all among senior staff about shutting down Mafia. It was briefly discussed while we were in the process of reducing the footprint of our non-Magic-related areas like debate, but ultimately it was decided to keep it alive, and the issue has not come back up since. One of the current admins, Cythare, has his name on the door of Mafia and regularly plays it, and while I haven't played in a while, I do support the existence of Mafia myself. There is no indoctrination among the staff against Mafia - most of the mods aren't even really aware you guys exist. While it's possible we could do more to push the mods towards Mafia (when I started out as a mod, we had a Mod Mafia that got me into it), we aren't doing anything to actively push them away from it.
Senior staff other than Cythare only intervene in a game when all three current mods (Iso, Bur, and Cythare) are either in that game or otherwise unavailable, and even then we only do it when the situation specifically calls for it - generally there is a report and Iso or Bur will alert us that it needs one of us to look at it. If there aren't problems, we don't intervene, and we certainly don't go out of our way to look for problems.
It would probably be better if this was not required (i.e. make sure at least one of the above mods isn't in any given game), but we're fine doing it when the situation calls for it, and we certainly don't view it as an undue burden or anything. And on the flipside, we're definitely not doing it capriciously or vindictively.
Hope that clarifies where things stand.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Thanks for those remarks, Wildfire. I know my from my perspective, it's been a very long time since we've had anything but appreciation for the job our staff members have been doing for us, and I really can't recall the last time we've had to discuss some of the contextual differences necessary to help the mafia sub run more smoothly. Things have been very happily quiet on that front.
In response to this, I'm moving that the council re-exam my claims about PlayStation Mafia and the moderation done there. Ecophogy has indicated that he believes I wasn't treated equally, but has stated that treating players equally isn't required by moderators of games.
Also, I'm moving for DotArchon to be placed on probation, his lurking has become untenable. He's a nice guy so nobody has really dealt with it, but we need to start being more proactive about this.
I'm sorry for the sudden announcement. It's been a wonderful number of years with all of you, but lately, I've felt like my responsibilities to this site have been more of a burden to me than not, I just don't have the same fire or passion for Mafia that I used to, and I find it extremely difficult to enjoy the game as of late. I'm also sorry if that's detrimentally affected any of you guys' abilities to enjoy the game, yourselves. I'm not as in-tune with the lifeblood of the playerbase as I used to be, and I don't feel like there's a whole lot more I can do for our community in the capacity that I have been in. I've brought a lot of reform and new ideas to MTGS Mafia in order to inject vigor and structure into our routines, and I hope that I'm remembered fondly in that respect, as well as an enjoyable person to have played with (at least in my earlier years on the site). I will remain on MTGS staff (including in Mafia) for the foreseeable future, however, as I have several projects I'm working on.
Once my current Mafia game is completed, I will also be retiring from forum Mafia for a very long time, if not forever. I may occasionally sign up for a game but I will not have anywhere near the level of activity that I once had. I will still play in Wuffles's game as I told him that I would, but that's all.
I will complete my reviews of the two setups I'm currently looking at, but please remove me from all reviewer lists.
Thank you all for all the memories; may your lynches always hit scum, and may your Nightkills always hit power roles.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Sad day
The only thing is that's a playerbase issue, and not something a moderator can do about that. But for making a post, I found it easy to just look at the game on my phone, respond to maybe one post at a time, just to put out a little content.
@Iso: Sorry to hear that man, I'll miss ya.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
GJ could also fit?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffLol. It's not like I would be the only council-person to have reasons to dislike the moderation team. *Cough* *Cough*
But I find ways to function with or around them. I am already part of a similar group on this site for another subforum (EDH Primer Committee). I'm also an admin for Mafia Society (the MyAnimeList Mafia group). So this would be similar in that respect.
Anyways, I would also be totally down for Shadow on the council. Alternatively, I would nominate Silvercrys, or maybe Prophylaxis (if Proph didn't have most of my responsibilities and more right now and more IRL things to keep him busy).
alienoverlords!-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffLooking forward to working with Eco, Az, shadow, and Zionite.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Non-Staff Quasi-ModAnd I edited it again to keep all the council members in alphabetical order.
Any changes/suggestions off the get go? Anyone?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe team Mafia event was overall good, but didn’t seem to draw in more people. Granted, I’ve seen some newer faces in the current signup/games, so that’s helpful. I’m going to try and brainstorm some possible ways to bring some more traffic over here.
Could we hybridize them where we just pull games out of the specialty queue once a year to fire first or something like that, maybe? I know this is somewhat similar to the way we had the queues structured when they ran side-by-side, but I guess I'm not super clear on why the Specialty queue was closed in the first place, heh. It seemed like the FTQ was supposed to fire higher-quality games faster than the Specialty queue did and it isn't really delivering in the speed department.
It's possible this is due to the lightly enforced FTQ requirement that submissions be complete before hand, but I also know it would be pretty bad to expect potential hosts to fully develop set-ups just to have most of them never fire. Having a place to put those games where the host is incentivized to complete the set up because they know they'll get to host eventually would be a net positive, I think.
I also feel like these games are the main thing that pulls players from elsewhere to our board and tempts old hands back in for another go. It could definitely be my bias showing, though, as I heavily prefer special-complexity games to normals and such, but there's a pretty clear interest in hosting these games that isn't present for hosting normals or minis.
If we want games firing off, removing that requirement is not the way to go.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
As mentioned, we seem to have an issue with completion of setups, which the specialty queue solved by providing a deadline. FTQ, with its immediate firings, does less to resolve that issue.
Alternatively, combine the two. Make the specialty queue the submission zone, and then at regular intervals, an FTQ search for ONE, COMPLETED setup will lead to one being picked off the specialty queue by a fair process.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Non-Staff Quasi-ModI mean, that would practically going back to Specialty queue system like it used to be (not that I'd mind if we did that).
Anyways, I think that the problem is that the games submitted to the FTQ aren't ready to run. However, as a host, I can tell that designing, reviewing and doing all the finishing touches IN A MONTH can be really hard to pull off, considering that both the hosts and reviewers do have life outside of MTGS.
That's part of the reason why I'd like us to bring back the good ol' specialty queue: nowadays, you either need to design and prepare your set-up and then just wait until we decide to have next FTQ submissions and hope to make it. Alternatively, you need to rush your set-up in a span of single month and neither of these option is very appealing to me as a designer.
By removing the time restriction for submissions, I think we could actually fill our queues as people seem to be more motivated to design specialty games than other types of games AND there's no need to rush the set-ups because you need to fire your game when that stupid jerk of a Mafia Secretary called Bur tells you to launch it.
Yeah, I think as a general rule, saying that setups have to be complete/ready to run would be wise.
Whether we would still need an FTQ at all is another question. It was intended originally to allow really exciting games to skip long queues (which we don't have any more) and to stimulate game design through competition (which we might still need?) - so maybe it can be retired as a regular for now and be run occasionally if we need to spur some creativity.
If these are the types of games people enjoy both designing and playing, let's ramp that back up again.
It's much easier to make a truly flavorful and unique game if you're not limited by complexity requirements. Which is really appealing as a designer. Doesn't always make for better games, but it's seductive.
Anyway I know the FTQ "competition" appealed to me. After the last one I started slowly chipping away at a design for the next one and have been doing slow but steady work on it since to be ready for the next one.
I wonder if a better solution than just bringing back the specialty queue would be to only select 1 game each time and have a faster turn around on firing those games but have the selection event more often. I'm not sure if that's feasible in terms of how much supply there would be of games or demand for the games once the queues are up.
But you do run into the issue of turning people away and/or discouraging new designs once you max out your available slots.
I think it's better not to cap them. I used to design setups with the idea that I've got to get this submitted to the specialty asap because it will take 2 years to run otherwise. Without that pressure, there's less urgency.
I also think we required at least an initial review before being granted access to the queue, which would be very helpful.
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.