Can we start a discussion about the legitimacy of players being able to give game Mod's suggestions/ultimatums about other players being allowed in games in which they are participating?
This seems to have come up multiple times in regards to me. At this point I'm calling foul. I submit that players should not have the right to dictate to Mod's who is or isn't allowed in their game through willpower, friendship, or other influence.
To put one fine point on it, I've made a conscious effort to be nice to Yanni. It has now cost me a game through bias married with Mod error. This is a separate issue that may need to be discussed at a later date.
To put a second fine point on it, when attempting to replace into the above mentioned game (1984 Mafia), I was informed by the Mod (pinkfloyd) that it had been requested pre-game that I not be allowed to replace in by an unidentified player. It took some discussion (perhaps with the unidentified player?), but PF agreed to let me join.
kpaca has admitted he was the unidentified player. I'm disappointed that it has come to this. I had been looking forward to 1984 for a lengthy period, and pinkfloyd as my friend had specifically requested I play it from the start. When it kicked off I was in too many games. The fact that I was denied (briefly) replacement entry puts the Mod in an unfair place as well as setting an ugly precedent for how things are handled in the subforum.
I'd like this practice to stop. Generally, and specifically about me.
No player can tell a mod what they can and can't do. However, players can certainly state their personal preferences and then the mod decides what to do. If one player is already in the game and it's going to cause undesirable consequences to have another player replace in, I'm not going to allow that player to replace in unless I absolutely have to.
As for it happening specifically to you, sorry dude. It's not our fault that you make games unfun. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're condescending and egotistical. I don't enjoy playing with people like that.
(And, yes, I get the irony that Iso can be the same way, but he is intentionally not like that to me because he respects me.)
I know where to find him if he's not on MTGS. I'll poke him.
Oooh, sounds kinky.
Thanks for reaching out to get the game going. We just had a basic end, also, so r_0 can fire his when he's ready (which he's ready now, I'm sure.) I'll poke him as well.
What happened to the rolling mini sign-ups? Have they been replaced with the "notification list" thing?
Yes, but as I said in there, Flew already has clearance to post his game, and I believe he is giving priority to those players that signed up in the rolling sign-up thread.
OK, if you don't mind I will add my humble opinion too. I think best starting game for new player is basic game but not necessary open setup with only pre-set roles as it is also necessary to get player intrigued to convince them to play on.
Some experienced players should be in those games, otherwise players will run around like headless chickens, not sure what to do.
These players shouldn't go for the throat of each other and new players as well. A lot of players have strong confrontational style and, pardon me, some games create quite hostile environment, at least between some players who bicker quite a lot and ask others not to talk to them and similar stuff. I think it can be discouraging for a lot of people. Either use just players who doesn't use such confrontational style or just encourage people to temper their emotions and be more friendly.
Overall I think more newbie-friendly environment should be fostered in games with new players.
That comes from person who haven't played single game here so you can just disregard it.
Anyone that disregards your opinions because you are new is a jerk. They're good opinions.
This needs to be stressed. We, as a community, need to be better at teaching players to separate between competitiveness and outright being mean; both when they post and when they read posts.
I couldn't agree more, but can you clarify one thing for me?
And how would it be enforced? Reviewers checking in with the Council?
I believe the secretaries would suffice. We're responsible for giving the go-ahead on games running.
And how should a Mod remedy in-game issues? Would they need to check with the reviewer before repairing bugs that are discovered during game play? inb4 "Ideally there should be no bugs." Mistakes happen.
That's what I would do. Seek a second opinion, and preferably from the reviewer.
By "repairing", do you mean modifying the setup while the game is going? If so, it is a terrible idea and it should NEVER be done. If the game is flawed, the only thing the mods and reviewers can do is apologise and do better next time.
Actually, agreed, although the bolded wasn't in the post when I quoted it.
Az, I think I recall saying something about players adding stipulations regarding what kind of games they wanted to be notified for. That being said, I would favor the return of the Basic rolling thread because I think one of the reasons why r_0's hadn't filled up yet is because we currently have 3 Basics going on. I would be greatly disappointed to see the Basic queue go down in size simply because I enjoy Basics; they are simple game setups and encourage newer players to focus on behavioral analysis in favor of PR gaming and modgaming. I realize that some games can turn into "follow the Cop, protect the Cop", but more often than not, Basics are what newer players feel more comfortable playing, and if we're decreasing the number of Basics available to play, not only are we going to alienate a newer playerbase, but more experienced players such as myself who enjoy Basics will be severely limited in what games they can play. I petition the reinstatement of the Basic queue thread so that everything is as it was before the Mini rollers, with the addition of the notification list. All in favor?
Either this or just increasing the number of basics that run at a time I think are necessary. Basics are popular for the reasons Iso's provided, imo.
r_0's complaint was the catalyst for the change, but not the reason.
If the first available game to come up is not a game the player is interested in playing, then they can decline that game and wait for the next. Being on that list does not demand that they play in the next game to run.
Also as an aside, when/if we do compile chronic replacements, I would like one named waived from my Basic replacement list. pinkys_brain replaced out due to special circumstances. Mainly she was not on the original basic signup list, but when the pre in list was lost she got in over pinkfloyd, who was on the list. She then relinquished her spot voluntarily so pinkfloyd could play. If that could be taken into consideration, that would be appreciated.
As this mod, this is your call. I'm assuming you do not want her listed as a replacement?
I think that the 'rolling mini queue' is a bad idea, especially on top of the rolling basic queue. People just have no sense of urgency when it comes to signing up for a game now. They just put their name in a queue and disappear until we tell them that it is time to play.
Also, mods should just consider not replacing. If people just completely refuse to participate, then modkill them. Yes it sucks/is swingy, but it also weeds out people that perpetually require replacement. Replacement will subtly ruin a game as much as modkilling can directly do so.
Wait, can we do that? I mean, I suppose we can cause we're the mod and such.
I MAY have a new rule in my next game. My theory is, if it's in the rules that I won't be replacing people, only modkilling them if they desire to not play anymore, then they'll think twice about joining my game.
A simple, "Gentlemen/Ladies, please be civil." from time to time goes a longway.
This is quite true, I have to agree.
The problem then becomes that players LOVE to analyze, "Oh, hay, why that mod did say dat? He must bee scum."
Which is ridiculous. I know. But, it happens. Anytime a mod says something in-game, everyone starts trying to break the game open based on mod-statements.
As a new "thing", Manders or I can PM the moderator of games whose sign-ups have filled up the names of the chronic replacers who have signed up for their game, if that'll help anything.
While I very much appreciate your willingness to help (and, just know, this will make you a GREAT secretary!), I think this is a bit of unnecessary work. We're here, primarily, to serve the Council. Game mods, if they want to know who in their game is a chronic replacer, can look it up.
Who hadn't logged onto the site in a year?
If you mean Flew, it says 2012, man. Like I said, he PM'd me the other day. He's been watching for this. Just hasn't been playing.
No player can tell a mod what they can and can't do. However, players can certainly state their personal preferences and then the mod decides what to do. If one player is already in the game and it's going to cause undesirable consequences to have another player replace in, I'm not going to allow that player to replace in unless I absolutely have to.
As for it happening specifically to you, sorry dude. It's not our fault that you make games unfun. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're condescending and egotistical. I don't enjoy playing with people like that.
(And, yes, I get the irony that Iso can be the same way, but he is intentionally not like that to me because he respects me.)
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Oooh, sounds kinky.
Thanks for reaching out to get the game going. We just had a basic end, also, so r_0 can fire his when he's ready (which he's ready now, I'm sure.) I'll poke him as well.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Yes, I talked to him the other day and he confirmed it. But I haven't heard anything since. He was last on 03/01/12
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Yes, but as I said in there, Flew already has clearance to post his game, and I believe he is giving priority to those players that signed up in the rolling sign-up thread.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Anyone that disregards your opinions because you are new is a jerk. They're good opinions.
I couldn't agree more, but can you clarify one thing for me?
What do you mean by "when they read posts"?
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
I believe the secretaries would suffice. We're responsible for giving the go-ahead on games running.
That's what I would do. Seek a second opinion, and preferably from the reviewer.
Actually, agreed, although the bolded wasn't in the post when I quoted it.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
I believe the reviewer? Though I don't think there's an actual rule on that. Is there?
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Either this or just increasing the number of basics that run at a time I think are necessary. Basics are popular for the reasons Iso's provided, imo.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
You don't have to be mean about it.
From what I understand, there was discussion ITT about this. I missed said discussion as I was busy/out of town for it, but it was there.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
If the first available game to come up is not a game the player is interested in playing, then they can decline that game and wait for the next. Being on that list does not demand that they play in the next game to run.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
As this mod, this is your call. I'm assuming you do not want her listed as a replacement?
Wait, can we do that? I mean, I suppose we can cause we're the mod and such.
I MAY have a new rule in my next game. My theory is, if it's in the rules that I won't be replacing people, only modkilling them if they desire to not play anymore, then they'll think twice about joining my game.
Sure, I have no problem with that.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
This is quite true, I have to agree.
The problem then becomes that players LOVE to analyze, "Oh, hay, why that mod did say dat? He must bee scum."
Which is ridiculous. I know. But, it happens. Anytime a mod says something in-game, everyone starts trying to break the game open based on mod-statements.
While I very much appreciate your willingness to help (and, just know, this will make you a GREAT secretary!), I think this is a bit of unnecessary work. We're here, primarily, to serve the Council. Game mods, if they want to know who in their game is a chronic replacer, can look it up.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Also, last I checked, 60-70 WPM.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!