Magic Market Index for Aug 17th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Aug 10, 2018
 
Treasure Cruisin' Modern Big Red
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Quote from Bur »
    Quote from D_V »
    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?

    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    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.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Quote from Ecophoagy »
    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.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    I'd like to /barn shadow.

    Also I think maybe the FTQ is a little restrictive / time consuming and maybe we should just move back to having the specialty queue instead; we're having trouble keeping the other queues filled but the FTQ threads usually get like 6-7 submissions and rejecting all but three of them seems silly in light of that. It's possible we have a population of players that prefers specialty level games (me, Az to some extent, etc.) that is mostly untapped because we only fire two FTQ games a year or so. This year we've fired Arkham and we'll maaaybe get to another one once the current FTQ submissions are over? But basically we could fire extra specialties in place of normals or minis when those queues are empty if we had a specialty queue, which we can't do when there's only three games in the FTQ because the process of adding games to it takes so long.

    We could just make the FTQ process the process for getting added to the Specialty queue if we wanted, and just have rolling FTQ submissions instead of waiting for all of the FTQ games to end before opening submissions again too. Just kind of spit balling because I'd like to see more specialty-level games, I guess, considering they're my preferred game type and they're what mostly sets us apart from the other sites.

    Which is why I'm proposing we start hosting one at least every 3 months. If we move to this system basically one should be starting when another one is close to ending. We have plenty of dead players just waiting for another game to start. This is why I find the "We are gauging player interest" comment to be such a big problem. Because we are not. I'm very very sure that most player interest interest is in specialty games. We should be firing more of these not less. However we still need some sort of quality control for these games.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    A sweet spot of what though? We don't use our two weeks at all. Most of the mid game is just a lull right now. Can we point to ANY game recently that has used the two weeks efficiently? Most of the time it seems that our games are > Flurry of activity during opening days > A long lull in activity where very little is actually done or said > flurry of activity around deadline.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    I mean, yeah, we leave maj/hard lynch on and just have a deadline plurality lynch instead of no lynch, I meant. We could also do soft/hard lynch like they do at Dark Lord Potter with a reduced deadline lynch threshold, maybe?

    I don't think shortening deadlines is a good answer here. If people are spamming the thread or trying to post too much maybe we do need post limits like MU does for their light games. That would extend the early day discussion into the middle of the day and create less catch up work for people who can't live in the thread.

    You yourself have said it too though. This isn't strictly to combat spam. Its to incentivize more active play. If people are not using the day phase during the middle then whats the point?
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from D_V »
    I mean, having a list of players that know we exist and what types of games they're seeking is one way of gauging interest. I'm not really sure how else you *could* gauge interest without conducting some kind of poll, which would really just produce the same data but as an aggregate data set instead of individual data points.

    Our retention rate for new players does seem to be rather poor overall, but really we don't see new players that often I don't think. We get one or two new faces when an FTQ game fires and they stick around for a few games before vanishing.

    I'm not sure whether that's due to some of the apparent increase in toxicity/grossness/aggressiveness or lurking or just that they don't like our phase lengths, etc. or what. If we had email addresses and such we could possibly contact them to ask why they didn't sign up for another game, I suppose, but they'd have to volunteer those of course.

    Yeah I'd say our phases are too long. I'm really warming up to one week or week and a half phases.

    In regards to the toxicity and the lurking problem, this is why I'm a fan of standardized rules that would be applied equally to players. There seems to be a lot of games recently where we are applying standards wildly differently to players. This is unacceptable and is partially to blame for the issue. Things like this worry me, and with them largely being against MTGS guidelines and what I assume or players expect.


    I see where you are coming from, but if I didn't have the power to make my own decisions on warnings and modkills as a host to a point of any standard lower than my own, I wouldn't host here. I have a low tolerance for toxicity in my games. If I'm told I have to give someone a warning rather than a forced replacement or modkill who, say, calls another player a racist slur, there's no way in hell I am going along with that.

    I mean most of those are flame warnings on MTGS as well. I'm not saying that a scale system for everything is needed. But it is sorely needed to deal with the "Gray area" that exists. If we want to draw lines in the sand and say you do X, you get modkilled or replaced I'm totally fine with that. As long as when ANY player crosses that line they all get the same treatment it seems totally fine to me.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    I mean, having a list of players that know we exist and what types of games they're seeking is one way of gauging interest. I'm not really sure how else you *could* gauge interest without conducting some kind of poll, which would really just produce the same data but as an aggregate data set instead of individual data points.

    Our retention rate for new players does seem to be rather poor overall, but really we don't see new players that often I don't think. We get one or two new faces when an FTQ game fires and they stick around for a few games before vanishing.

    I'm not sure whether that's due to some of the apparent increase in toxicity/grossness/aggressiveness or lurking or just that they don't like our phase lengths, etc. or what. If we had email addresses and such we could possibly contact them to ask why they didn't sign up for another game, I suppose, but they'd have to volunteer those of course.

    Yeah I'd say our phases are too long. I'm really warming up to one week or week and a half phases.

    In regards to the toxicity and the lurking problem, this is why I'm a fan of standardized rules that would be applied equally to players. There seems to be a lot of games recently where we are applying standards wildly differently to players. This is unacceptable and is partially to blame for the issue. Things like this worry me, and with them largely being against MTGS guidelines and what I assume or players expect.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Quote from D_V »
    How are we using the PCL to signal interest at all? Currently its who is interested in hosting games signs up and then hosts the game and we wait till it fills. That isn't signaling interest at all other than hosts interesting in hosting. If we want it to signal interest then it should have some set time where sign ups just end and we move on.
    He means this thread:

    https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/mafia/731287-player-contact-list-all-game-types-and-new-player

    The way it was supposed to work is people tell us what kinds of games they're looking for in that thread and we can gauge interest that way / fire basics when there's demand for them, but no one ever posts there lol.

    Right but its really just a "Contact me when game is being hosted". That's it. Its not gauging interest.

    We need to gauge interest of our active player base along with new players. We are not doing this at all.

    It seems really silly to say we are gauging interest when we seem to not be doing that at all.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    The other thing that needs to be asked is what is our retention rate of newly joining players is. Shadow mentions that we have a lot of new players on this site, but I've seen a lot of new players in pretty much every specialty game we have run, and I think our retention of those players is abysmal.

    I think some of our problems have to due player lurking which needs to be addressed. MTGS is currently developing the similar problems to other sites. We are starting to have some players have MU levels of content per day phase and others barely posting at all. Some of these players are then deterred from posting from the sheer amount of posts in game. This is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed. Additionally we have been too lax with replacing those that are not posting on MTGS. I think some of this becomes that we burn through our replacements and then are hesitant to modkill/replace others when we run out of replacements. However this has developed into a "Don't be a problem first" sort of mentality. Additionally, there are some players that are habitually a problem in game.

    My solution to this problem is to put a strike system into our prod system and just forcibly replace someone or mod kill after a certain amount of prods. I'd say three is a good number.

    Overall, I'd also encourage us to have standardized hosting rules as well since we sorely need them on this site.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    I also don't think we are condemning a game to death if it doesn't fire that host could easily put it up again later. But really there should be two separate ques one for micros/minis and one for normal games.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Quote from Ecophagy »
    I really don't think this is a good idea. Fundamentally, I don't think the solution to "our sign ups take too long" is "ok, let's make the sign up period longer". While it'd be nice to know when a game will fire when you sign up, I think it is impractical to ask people to commit X months in advance, and you will have many problems with people forgetting/no longer being available but not outing/mods not being ready or falling through leaving people effectively signed up for a game they don't want to play, or even people waiting months and months only to get randomed out. The significantly simply solution to knowing when a game would start would just be a hard cap on sign up length.

    LOL what you mean like how our current FTQ system works?

    I think part of the problem is that nobody is interested in playing a mini right now.

    Clearly I don't think that this is the only problem. But our FTQ/Specialty system to me would optimally run with a game opening around January then another one opening 3 months later, then another 3 months later and so on and so forth. If we want to have rolling ques for both mini's and normals this seems fine to me, but it shouldn't be limited to just one game type being rolled out.


    Quote from Ecophagy »
    But ultimately that's just taking our current system and leaving sign ups open for even longer, albeit with a hard cut off date. We already have the PCL for signalling interest far in advance, and it sees very little usage. I also definitely don't think it gives us more flexibility - we have to commit to a game X months before it runs, as opposed to the current system which allows us to essentially pick whatever game we think would work best (at the cost of less notice).

    We also don't want it to make it more difficult to host games (e.g. requiring backup mods and setups finished fat in advance), as we have few enough games to run as it is.

    How are we using the PCL to signal interest at all? Currently its who is interested in hosting games signs up and then hosts the game and we wait till it fills. That isn't signaling interest at all other than hosts interesting in hosting. If we want it to signal interest then it should have some set time where sign ups just end and we move on.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    We don't really have new players that are "New players" from what I've seen recently.

    I've probabally got some more thoughts on some of our problems. It'll take a while to figure it out. However, I think Azreal's proposed signup solves some of it.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia Game 2 - Giant Robot Battle Royale II (Night 4: Mars in Retrograde)
    I'll Unvote
    Since my team found a replacement GL to them, but I'm pretty sure you guys will lynch this slot either way. Its Town BTW
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia Game 2 - Giant Robot Battle Royale II (Night 4: Mars in Retrograde)
    Oh yeah you guys can just lynch me.

    Vote DV

    There someone hammer, I'm going to flip vanilla town.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.