Open setups and mountainous setups (which, if you think about it, are open setups too) don't need to be reviewed because players know exactly what they're getting themselves into and therefore won't have to worry about any nasty surprises.
On behalf of the MTGS Mafia Council, I'd like to welcome everyone to the new MTGS Mafia Subforum!
Pleasantries aside, there seems to be a serious problem with the threaded PM system, and until this is addressed, the integrity of ongoing games may be compromised. Please direct all concerns regarding this issue to MTGS staff. I'll update everyone once I know more.
Edghyatt was banned from MTGS, so he doesn't need to be on the Mafia blacklist. He was in my first-ever game. Jedcaj was in my third game and got put on the probation list for quoting his PM in that game. This takes me way back.
I feel like sometimes things like "I think X is scum because of our ongoing game." is a reasonable thing to say. Obviously you can't go into detail, but it can explain your current mindset sometimes. It isn't like people can keep ongoing games from influencing their own opinions.
"Gut read" would be an acceptable euphemism. Allowing any ongoing game discussion is a slippery slope.
I think allowing users to set their PPP preference should be our top priority. I also highly value multi-quote. I haven't had a chance to read ER's extensive list of features we can expect to see, but I'm glad to see that there seems to be some ongoing dialogue regarding these important issues.
Why not a soft limit of 12 and a hard limit of say, 15? Encourage players to stay towards 12, but allow them to ask for permission to increase it by a small amount.
I think a majority of players would try to design larger games rather than stay within the 12-player guideline. We want Basics and Minis small so they wrap up fairly quickly. This allows the queues to progress at a decent rate and players to move on to different games.