Magic Market Index for October 12th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 28th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 21st, 2018
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Quote from vezokpiraka »
    I've played mafia for so long I forgot why rules are so important.


    Yeah right?

    I've played so long I look at these rules and I can clearly say "X = modkill Y = warning".

    But the rules don't really explain any of that.

    -------------------------------------

    Silver let me explain in totality.

    I hate things like this. There is nothing more in the world that I hate than double standards. I just hate it. I can always give a myriad of examples, but the one that always rings true comes from law enforcement.
    I've seen police officers damn a person for a simple crime. Yet at the same time see another officer do the same thing and rally behind him and say "Hes a good guy". That's bull*****. You either give both people the same benefit of the doubt or you give nobody the benefit of the doubt.
    How does this relate to mafia.
    To me its the way that the rules is twofold for these games. I think you guys did a great job at giving the teams an even game. The balance in the games seemed fine. At that point you have to wash your hands clean of the balance aspect and look at player behavior.
    So what are the double standards.
    First, you treated players that broke the rules early different from those that broke the rules later. Nancy is my example. You can't setup a system that will gladly replace players early game, but then sort of fudge the rules later in the game because you don't have replacements. That's not fair. Maybe those earlier players deserved the same opportunity, or maybe those later players didn't. But you didn't treat them equally and for me that's a big deal. Its worse than that to me though because the system as I see it rewards you for later rule breaking and tells players that as well.
    You've done your balancing right? The games were balanced, you gotta at some point let players make their own plays as they see fit and if the rules say you're out you're out.
    Secondly, there was some focus on the player comments in this game. I don't have a problem with that really in the sense of maybe how that sounds. My problem is that if you are going to interpret a rule as strict as you can one way, and be active about promoting it. Its strange that another rule is then going to be interpreted as loosely as it was here.

    That's my issue. Eco thinks a good game is nobody being mean or using swear words. I think good game might include that but really it should be about player enjoyment. I objectively think Arkham was a failure because of this. Games rules and design should promote memorable games. I think Azreal's disheritance is an example of that. You replace any amount of players with others and I still think I would remember that game. Certainly there is some luck involved with some of the elements sort of brewing together.

    And I'm angry about it. I'm angry that my time wasn't respected in this game. I'm angry that I feel cheated even though I left early by that loss in the game. I'm angry that I have to fight so god damn hard to say hey the rules are not fair.

    I want rules that tell players what to expect. Clearly that didn't happen here. My point with all of the rules being drafted as they are is that there isn't a Vadar situation. That the rules are so vague players don't know what to expect. We all have a sense of what's fair, what we think we should expect. But clearly some of us have different standards.
    I want moderation going forward to be more clear. I think a lot of issues are caused that way. And if a moderator says "I can't explain it right now, but please believe me this is the best decision and we can talk about it later" I think that's fine too because a moderator might not be able to reveal all information. But with these games that wasn't there. You made rules about prodding people a mod kills and replacements and nobody knew what was going on or why you got there.

    What I think needs to happen is for rules to clearly state their remedies.
    Modkill, replacement, warning. With intent being factored in.
    I've seen players take screenshots of things post them and be surprised when they get automodkilled. And its because they thought it wasn't that bad, or didn't understand why it was against the rules. I remember when you had to paraphrase your pm's instead of copt pasting within reason. I'm glad we are past that.

    I think the rules need to be rewritten. Even the loosest of interpretations requires us to come to the conclusion that the prods had NINE days before you could be replaced. Nobody intended that. In my mind its actually 12 since repeated implies more than three to me.

    I'm going to try and write some new rules with all of this in mind. I'm open to suggestions on what should be included. I just want to respect players. The goals should follow to basic guidelines to me.
    First, to remove negatively impact player actions.
    Second, be clear.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Actually I'm going to make a second part to just break this up.

    But now that I'm really reading these rules with a critical eye I'm left with even more questions.

    Rules
    Follow MTGS Rules. In particular, no flaming. Please report posts you believe break the forum rules rather than arguing in thread.
    These games will have a very low tolerance for rudeness and toxicity. Please think carefully before you post and try to foster a pleasant playing environment for everyone.
    The Spirit of the Rules is more important than the letter: if you think you have found a mistake or loophole, talk to the mod about it before you post.
    Questions, Comments, or Complaints for the mod should be addressed to them in private. Do not bring accusations of cheating or rule breaking to the thread
    Please try to avoid angleshooting. This includes things like discussing the real-world reasons behind replacements or activity.
    DO NOT edit or delete your posts.
    DO NOT post if you are dead (not even "bah" posts).
    DO NOT post in the thread during Night.
    DO NOT directly quote or screenshot your role PM or any communication from the mod or any other private communication. You may paraphrase this information. Check with the mod if you even the slightest bit unsure.
    DO NOT attempt to use the wording, structure, or content of any roles PMs to try and deduce alignment.
    Do not "Thank" posts.
    As long as the game is ongoing, do not talk to anyone about the game outside of the game unless your role PM explicitly allows you to.
    No funny stuff, like cryptographic claims, tiny/invisible text, trust tells etc.


    Deadlines and Activity
    Each Day last two (2) weeks. This may decrease as the playcount does. These deadlines are unlikely to be flexible.
    Night will last 72 hours.
    A lynch requires a simple majority. Once this is reached, the Day will end after a short Twilight (in which players may continue to post)
    If the Deadline is reached, I will pretend everyone not voting does not exist: if there is a majority vote, that player will be lynched. If not, the Day will end in a No Lynch.
    Each player is expected to post content at least once every 72 hours. Saying "Catching up" is not content. Failure to do so will result in being prodded. Repeated prodded will lead to replacement or modkill without warning - at a penalty to your team.
    Please do not monopolise or spam the thread. Players used to a significantly faster pace of play are requested to play with patience and the consolidation of thought that our deadlines allow.
    Players are allowed to post less if they let the mod know that they are unavailable beforehand.


    Alright now this gets weird. You want to talk about rules and pulling a Vader let's do this.

    If you notice in the rules section there is nothing that says any of that is punishable, or what the punishment is.
    I only see two rules there that I know were broken. First, Angleshooting was done by Gemma. The result was a modkill. So, I guess the punishment for breaking any of these rules is modkill? Yet, you said to me and I quote.
    I hear your complaint re: the team event but I don't know what you expected us to do instead. Modkill Nancy for breaking the "spirit" of the prod rule by having extended V/LA that was further delayed due to travel?

    Yet nancy clearly broke the spirit of the rules. And the rules say clearly that has consequences. This was before Gemma dropped the bomb shell that she did as well. Clearly these rules can be enforced in many ways.

    Furthermore, since there is no punishment indicated on the second part of this I'm once again left with questions.

    You've explicitly expressed that modkills are available for not posting in the 72 hour rule. Yet there seems to be no other such warning anywhere else in the rules. Strange yes? Seems to me that the rules indicate that not posting is the most egregious crime you can commit. Nothing else gives a remedy or a solution to any of the other rule breaking. But we can infer that none of the other rules are as important as the posting requirement because the posting requirement has a remedy, and allows itself the maximum punishment but none of the other rules even suggest that they will modkill for breaking the rules.

    Furthermore we have rules such as
    Please do not monopolise or spam the thread. Players used to a significantly faster pace of play are requested to play with patience and the consolidation of thought that our deadlines allow.

    Which were also not enforced at all. Kanji being a prime example of this.

    Its strange no? Clearly there are some things different, but my point is thus. If someone posted during night(And they did) the punishment clearly isn't to modkill that player. But why would a player expect angleshooting to equal a modkill. Maybe we are going to argue its some sort of intention qualifier and with intention the punishments ramp up.

    We have trust tells banned too. What? That's just WIFOM. That seems a little extreme.

    So, there you have it. I could go in a lot more into detail about why these rules are poorly drafted and why if a player was reading them they might come to conclusions that clearly were not implied, but you know I get why they are drafted this way.
    Just don't argue to me that the "Rules said X". When clearly the rules don't say much and even when they do its clearly up to the moderators.

    Edit: Another thing that occurred to me is the angleshooting rule.
    Someone attacks player X for lurking. I respond, yeah but I know they are having a hard IRL time so I'm not willing to use that as a reason to scum read them.
    Is that angelshooting? In the strict way the rules are written it is. But I don't think under my understanding of what we are trying to prevent that it is. It's hard right?
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Dude that's not what I'm arguing for at all.

    There were 2 slots in that game that did not produce content. Get off your high horse and accept that.

    You guys chose to make the prod lengths that long. You chose to make the extra replacements. The rules never stated that you needed to do so. So just stop lying man. You keep talking about the rules. But the rules were so god damn vague that they could have been enforced anyway you wanted to. You made them enforced in one of the weakest ways possible.

    I'm not arguing for removing players for posting not adequately enough. If I was I'd argue for a lot more players to be removed. So get off your high horse and stop saying that's what I'm saying cause it just ain't so.

    Fundamentally there were two slots not playing by the end of day one. You keep dodging this fact and saying it was "Low content" not it was no content. Nobody else will take the position it was content. I'm not arguing for altering the deal. I'm saying that you guys enforced it in the weakest way possible. You could have made prods 48 hours, prod length is not noted in the rules. Neither is what "Repeated prods are".

    This isn't altering the rules mate. What the **** are you talking about.

    Edit: I mean **** man, you've even said that the way I interpreted the rules is a viable option so you know that this is a possibility. Like I just don't get why you're even saying this. Take ownership for these mistakes and stop trying to blame it on the rules or on the players. This was a moderation decision to interpret them in that way.

    Like here is the rule as written.

    Each player is expected to post content at least once every 72 hours. Saying "Catching up" is not content. Failure to do so will result in being prodded. Repeated prodded will lead to replacement or modkill without warning - at a penalty to your team.


    So lets focus on the word repeated. That seems pretty key to understanding this rule. To repeat something means to do twice, for something to be repeated its several times. So, by the rules as written and understood in the most textual way possible, you get prodded ever 72 hours, you get additional prods possibly every 72 hours but that's not as clear. But you need to be prodded multiple times for it to be repeated.

    Also, the rules are not clear. Is saying catching up the result in an additional prod? Or does it equate to a players post not counting? It says .... "Saying "Catching up" is not content. Failure to do so will result in being prodded." ... Failure to do what? Saying catching up is not content? I'm uncertain what failure to do so is even referring to as should anyone else with a basic understanding of English grammar rules.

    So, but your understanding of the rules its 9 days of no content before you are forced to be replaced. And if you come back in those 9 days you can post ONCE and then not post again for 8 days and do it all over again. That's how the rules read. Clearly in no realm of reality should that be the case, and I doubt anyone thought that was what the rules were saying.

    Clearly, the modkill or replacement is at the discretion of the moderators. There is nothing that says when either triggers. So, what I am asking for wasn't changing the rules. In fact its whats fair to the players playing that game. I'm not really sure what else there is to say. A myopic textual reading of the rules clearly shows that it allows for situations that the drafters didn't intend for, a holistic approach clearly lands where I want it to land. And you're arguing that somehow it changes the rules when clearly it doesn't.

    What I can say is this the rule as drafted clearly shows a preference and the intention for the rules to be punishing to lurkers. The rule clearly allows for moderators to say something is egregious and modkill.

    So, now I'm going to ask some questions.

    What is game health?

    What did you mean when it was said that the players were not being mod killed due to game health?

    Why is it fair to reward the mafia for such decisions(and if you want to argue it doesn't reward the mafia feel free to do so)?

    Why were the moderators providing replacements at all? The rules clearly state teams are responsible for their own replacements.

    Why did Osie have to fight so hard to have his own team replace him when they were dead in their game? That seems like one of the easiest yes's I've ever seen.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    I'd love to deal with short post counts too.

    I concede these rules can't deal with them in a way that I'd like them to.

    However, this is why I suggested rolling replacements. Osie's right if you can't contact me in three day's my sympathy is pretty low. I think I'd say 5 days is reasonable total. Three days with no posts, two more to contact me but during those two days I'm looking for a replacement with one waiting and ready to go by the end of those two days optimally. Then replace that player.

    At day six the player is just out period. I might not modkill the slot, but their ass it out. If that player comes back during the 5 days then they get to play again, but its the DV special. You get one time for that. After that its three days and you're out. If you can't get on disc or PM me on forums in three days then my sympathy is gone.
    If someone has issues I don't mind working with them. This might change in extreme lylo situations, but on the whole I think that's reasonable.

    Maybe Osie's way works too, but I think 48 might be a little too aggressive for the first requirement. Not the second prod though.

    If a player can't remember a game exists for three days then... Yeah prods are sort of a strange thing.

    I think the rules are antiquated is part of the problem. These are remnants from much longer day phases. We keep upping our day timers nowadays, and our prods now need to keep up with that.

    It sucks because my system proposed still has a slot not playing the game for half a day phase in a two week phase. Its even worse if they disappear after three days.
    I think at that point depending in the situation and the amount of players that might need replacing extensions are in order. And we had that discussion and I understand why you didn't want to have discussions.
    Here's the rub though. We had roughly 25% of our player base not there. Nacho, Cantrip and Beeboy were gone. Prods were slow, and on top of that Nacho was allowed to disappear for 5 or 6 days. On top of that communication with players was incredibly bad, and the only reason you guys mentioned that Beeboy might be modkilled was because I replaced out and others were also showing some disgruntlement. You seem to be glossing over the fact that mods really made this situation bad with communication and how it was treated. You also seem to be twisting events into being as favorable as they were for the moderators. Moderators decisions really hurt the town in this game, and you seem to be unwilling to admit that. I don't know why.

    A different situation with one player, I don't know if I'd have nearly the outcry I did. But with zero communication coming from moderators. The moderators telling me multiple times that modkills would be ignored at all costs.

    Primarily, I don't think moderators should find replacements at all in this game type. I think teams should be responsible. Its a hey you have 48 hours to find a replacement for your teammate that you vouched for. Otherwise its going to cost you. Which is really how the rules read anyways. And that's my last complaint. You keep saying that the rules were not made to deal with this, but they were. Somewhere the moderator team made the decision to not enforce them that way. You enforced them in the loosest way possible(Which was my whole complaint about the flame rules since I felt you enforced them the strictest way possible). Which I still feel is slightly the case, just it was a lot more even then I thought. And that's the problem to me. The rules could have worked had they been enforced in a reasonable manner. But moderators decided to take the most interpretive reading of the rules and used the grey area to make it even more extensive.
    Which is why I'm on a campaign to remove some of that. Its silly that this happened at all.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Alright, I'm going to pull back a little on the anger. I had someone talk to me out of thread and it sort of disproved some of what I thought happened thses games.

    A quick explanation of what I saw, I knew that a few players specifically had been getting warnings in this game for things that I didn't feel crossed the line or were anywhere close. It felt to me as though Eco was specifically targeting those players, because other players were making far worse comments and not getting warnings. I saw a couple posts that I felt were cruel specifically the post Tom said about Shinichi and him laughing and making fun of him in team chat. That's just wrong.
    I felt as though Eco let it slide because he doesn't think highly of Shinichi. Someone else that I don't think Eco dislikes also told me that they got a few warnings for silly reasons too. So, I guess the posts I saw got missed. It still feels a little strange to me, that those posts could be missed, but hey I guess I'm wrong.
    This compounded to me with this lurking issue for me. Since it seemed pretty bad to me to be so focused on player behavior, but not player lurking. I still feel like there is a little too much focus on that, but not nearly as egregious as I thought it was.
    That's what I get for going off half cocked. Oh well, not like it changes anyone's opinion of me anyways, just reinforcing my *****ty behavior. 10/10

    So, I'm somewhat sorry Eco, not fully because I still think you're trying to scapegoat and minimize poor mod decisions. But, I took it too far.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Silver, that's really misrepresenting my point.

    You said that the reason you didn't force a replacement of Nancy was because you knew you didn't have replacements so it would result in a modkill.

    I'm not saying that the slot should have been modkilled immediately on the V/LA. I'm saying that the moderators didn't push it because you knew that if you started the proceedings they would end up in a modkill. And you guys viewed that as being "Bad Game Health". I'm saying that's cheap. That's why I take such an issue with Eco's post blaming Nancy. You guys knew. You ******* knew. And the only reason you didn't do it was because of some sort of dumb idea of game health.

    That's not fair.

    Shadow's probabally right on some of what he said for me to really explain what I mean I need to think of what way is the clearest way to explain my problem with the overall moderation and why I feel that it doesn't really take into consideration the players.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Alright, I've put some more thought into it and its hard for me to say exactly what the exact rule should look like.

    Principally, I don't think the 3 day rule should really be changed. Unless the games were of shorter day length then I might require more activity. Part of me wants to combine a post minimum with the day rule. You can post every three days, but you need a minimum of X posts. But then that runs into short day phases etc as problems. Should a player be punished for posting and the day ending within 1 IRL day because everyone agreed to lynch one player? Probably not.
    Its hard. Maybe it needs to be prorated.

    I think the one easy fix is that I think that the 3 days + 3 day prods needs to be changed. I think 3 days then prodded but then only 2 days, then replaced. If a replacement can't be found then mod kill. I think we should start looking for replacements on the prod time not on the 2 days out from the original prod.
    Look, I get that people get busy. I'm more than willing to work with someone that pops into the thread and says "I can't post for 5 days". That's fine. But making players responsible is key here. If you can't be bothered to pop in once in 5 days and say "Something came up" then I don't see why we shouldn't be replacing.

    Additionally, I think mods just need to come to terms to with the fact that mod kills might happen, and that's that. As I said a player might be really bad at the game and cost their team the win, this is the same thing. Its player interaction. Its not fair to the team to have either of these situations. Yet, it needs to be done.

    One of the things that I realized I forgot to mention and part of the reason why I'm so bitter about the Nancy decision is that the reasoning given to me was that you guys didn't want to force the replacement because you knew you had no replacements so you would have to modkill.
    This is at its core unacceptable to me.

    A. You are not treating players equally.
    Basically, if Nancy was to do this behavior early you would have replaced immediately because you would have had replacements. However, she did it later so you let her walk over you and the rules. This isn't acceptable. The message is to players "Don't break rules early, but if you break them late we are so weak willed we will let you do this." This isn't fair nor is it equal.

    B. "Game Health"
    This is other part of the disagreement.
    The entire premise of the moderators decision is that modkills would have unfairly burdened one team. To which I reply and?
    You guys wouldn't have hesitated for a moment to modkill someone for toxic behavior. I or hope you wouldn't have. Why? Because that directly impacts peoples enjoyment of the game.
    This is the exact same thing. It isn't fun to play with empty seats. Specifically in a game where I need to be able to figure out if they are friend or foe. These decisions heavily benefit the mafia team for the following reasons.
    1. Mafia already know who is friend and foe.
    2. Mafia benefit from the town having to spend lynches/kills on these empty chairs.
    3. Mafia benefit from less voices/less interaction in the game.

    Frankly I can't believe I have to educate a moderation team on why lurkers benefit mafia, and on why these decisions benefit the mafia. It baffles me that silver keeps saying that we lynched one of the lurkers anyways. Because the town had to.
    A modkill for the beeboy slot, while on the table, is trying to be avoided at all costs. It will come no later than start of Day 2.

    That's the literal quote from Gan. Before that this was the following.

    Quote from 864 »
    A modkill for the beeboy slot, while on the table, is trying to be avoided at all costs. It will come no later than start of Day 2.

    Quote from 935 »
    7hawk77 is replacing Cantripmancer. Let's give them a warm welcome!

    Nachomamma8, after discussing it with the other mods, will not be force replaced at this point, for the health of the game.

    beeboy's post is being considered a prod dodge, and the search for a replacement is ongoing.

    At this point, no extensions are in order.


    Its clear you guys never had any intention of mod killing the slot. I find it ******* offensive that you claim otherwise. Silver you and I had a longer conversation in which you told me that while it might have been discussed closed doors the decision was made for god knows what reason to keep the players in the dark. There is no way that players possibly thought or expected the modkill to happen with this behavior from the moderation staff. So, they correctly started shooting these players down by lynching them. I don't understand why anyone would think this is acceptable, there is a reason I call this moderation a joke. Its not hard to communicate with players about what is going on.

    Nothing about this was complicated. Nothing that happened in this game was particularly difficult to handle. Nothing about running this game was hard. And if you can't figure out about why I'm hitting this. Its because it was insinuated to me that this was hard and I don't know what I'm talking about. I do know. I've dealt with these decisions in a game that's complexity make this game look like a kitty pool to me. All you guys had to do was run Vote Counts and deal with player behavior. You fundamentally managed to fail in one of those aspects at least partially. You didn't communicate with players, in that aspect either and it forced them into making a bad decision that you are now lording over their heads.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Stop saying modkill on the slot was imminent. From a player perspective it appeared that he was going to be replaced again. Go read the thread instead of just looking at the VC and saying he got lynched.

    I'm running off, but yeah I agree those solutions are hard too.

    Its just don't ******* feed me the line "Game health" when we had slots with only 8 posts by the end of day 2. That isn't fair and that isn't fun. And Eco saying that he doesn't agree with me on that but providing no reasons is my point. Its just insulting to the players. You don't value or time or effort and he's right I won't play in a game of his again, because he truthfully doesn't care about the players.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    And I get making mistakes as modding.

    In Arkham I god damn missed prodding Dota for like over a week. I just didn't notice he hadn't posted. That was pretty god damn abysmal modding. However that's a bad mistake on my end. A really bad mistake. However, I didn't make an active decision I just ****ed up.

    Its why I'm not harming on the beeboy prod thing. Its bad. But mistakes happen. Clarity would have been key there. Knowing that X happened and Y was going to happen would have helped.

    However, allowing a player to V/LA for an entire day phase(And prior to that hadn't posted for like half a day phase). That's a joke. You made an active decision to do so. Like you want me to be nice and call that bad or a poor decision. But its way worse than that. And I'm sorry you're offended on some regard, but at the same time it was a joke. You ****ed up. You ****ed up bad. Really bad.
    You made a bad mistake, and I feel that you tried to minimize it by placing blame on Nancy. Was nancy's behavior terrible? Yes. But you are the mod. Coward might not have been the right word. But maybe meek is. It was a meek decision. Instead of enforcing game health, you just let her do that. Something is wrong when that happens. Really really wrong, because I can't imagine any other mod allowing that to happen.
    Silver said you guys allowed it because you didn't have a replacement for her. That's really wrong man. Just wrong.

    In the true essence of clarity I looked, eco and I didn't discuss nancy at all. So my memory is just wrong on that. Or if we did I never actually used nancy's name.

    My issue is this Eco, you say that the problems are not as bad as I construe them to be. But offer nothing in support of that statement.

    My data to prove myself being right is the following.
    Cantripmancer/7hawk77 slot played in the game for two game days, had a total of 8 posts.
    Transcend/Beeboy played in the game for one game day had a total of 7 posts.

    If you are really going to tell me how that is fair, or good game health please explain. I'd love an explanation. Tell me how I'm wrong on this.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Quote from Ecophagy »
    DV, I am not engaging with you because I don't think it is productive. I've listened to enough of your complaints and tried to have a reasonable dialogue over the past few months and I'm frankly sick of it. I don't think the issues with lurking and moderation were nearly as bad as you're making out, nor that it was significantly worse than a regular game. Obviously it wasn't perfect and with the benefit of hindsight different, better decisions could have been made. I know I need to be clearer about what is and is not acceptable for V/LA, both in terms of length and expected level of communication during. I know I need to know more about off-site players before I let them take part in these games in case they are habitual flakers. I know that the current prod/replace/modkill system we have in place doesn't appear to be fulfilling its purpose and requires some kind of overhaul. I know that maybe I need to be less lenient on players who are usually valuable members of a game but also have a habit of disappearing, and to be more assertive rather than permissive when someone isn't sure they can continue but also doesn't want to explicitly ask to replace out. I know a lot more about running a team mafia event than I did a few months ago, and I also know that this was the only way to gain that knowledge.

    There are lots of lessons to be learnt, but I'm just not interested in discussing them with someone who thinks that repeatedly dismissing my and my moderating team's efforts as a "joke" or calling me a "coward" counts as "constructive criticism". If you don't agree with my moderating style you are more than welcome to not play in my games, and if you want you can run your own team event or something if you'd like to know how easy it is.

    Personally, this is what I was looking for. As long as you recognize that things need to change, then I'm happy. Really.
    It hasn't appeared to me that you have been interested in changing things, I'm glad to be wrong about that.

    As to the rest of this. You don't like me I get that. But don't represent us as having talked for the past months. We haven't spoken to each other in over two months. We talked about this issue for very little before that. Most of our conversation involved an entirely different situation which the rest of the council took an entirely different approach than you did. And, you and I both know that equality is now key. Glad to see I was right on that part.

    I've run more complicated games than you have. Nothing about this is complicated at all. Please don't act like this was hard. You made 3 basic games sent role pms out and then monitored three games. But you didn't do it alone you had two other mods moderating as well. So please. Don't go "This was hard".

    You're right I'm rude. However there is plenty of great points in there that you refuse to engage with because you're offended. Pretty petty if you ask me.

    I'm glad to see change is coming.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    To clarify really what I mean by objective behavior. Since it just occurred to me.

    I feel that the moderation was going. "Wow" this really hurts the mafia. Which it did, but this is player behavior not game mechanics. I don't really know any other way to explain that.
    If a player is being toxic, you don't go "Wow modkilling them will hurt X team" you just get rid of them.

    My point is thus. You've done your best to balance the game. If you feel game things are unbalanced maybe change them. But the rest of this is a result of player actions. You can't make a bad player good. And yeah having a lurker on your team modkilled sucks. But having a bad player on there also sucks.

    I think you have to distance yourself and say "Is this players play being egregious." Nothing should be factored into the players alignment. I get the whole argument about what do when not that bad.

    But at the bare minimum as in the case of both cantrips slot and beeboys slot at the end of the day neither player had played day one. And that should just be a get the **** out of here moment.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    @Shadow you're right. I think that was cheap shot by me. I just have a lot of disdain for that players behavior. I'd categorize it as cheating and screwing their team over at the same time.

    Silver, I think you're right to an extent. My problem and my primary concern is that Eco doesn't seem concerned at all with how this turned out. You know I've ignored the whole Nachomama disappearing for 5 days too, and the whole "Game health not replaced" argument just offends me.

    My point is this. Game 2 had three mafia all of which who lurked. Nacho posted significant content, I'm willing to let it slide. But, when you have another slot that literally never posted, and the manasi slot was pretty lurky too it starts unfair. Mafia is a game of deduction and when I'm rating people based on scuminess and then I have slots that are not giving me anything to work with it feels cheap. I didn't finish the game, but if I had I'd feel cheated. I don't think the mafia deserved that win. I think a lot of the moderator decisions heavily favored them. You keep saying game balance, but what you're fundamentally avoiding is that you ****ed the town over. You made it way harder for the town to win. I understand some of what you are saying on strict plus minus system when comparing roles.

    But mafia isn't just that. Its player skill. We don't average teams out, because that's some of the fun. Sometimes a player makes a *****ty decision that costs their team the game. I don't really see lurking as being that much different. I understand that real life takes over and accommodations should be made. I get that. I agree with that. I don't agree with allowing for a slot to basically go through limbo, because each replacement doesn't play. At some point, enough should be enough. I think the whole Beeboy thing would be different to me, if the slot was replaced it made content for half the day, then it needed to be replaced again. That seems reasonable. It seems unreasonable to require players to play with a slot that simply isn't playing. Its rude to require me to play with that. That isn't fun.

    I think Transparency needed to be had. There was a lot of waiting around. I had made comments about the lurking in my game. I was told they were being addressed but not how. Then with the result that was given I was just totally unhappy. I don't think the way that it was moderated was fair. I think Eco spent time being myopic on posts that only the strictest readings of the rules would be infringing. For example, I was told not to call players bad, when I made a comment about me thinking newcomb wasn't good, but seeing that I was wrong. Under no thought should this have been read as being an insult, but Eco wanted to take a stand. Meanwhile, Tom quite literally bullied Shinichi and he didn't say anything about it until I brought it to his attention.
    Because that's what Eco thinks a good game is, **** the people he doesn't like and let others do what they want.
    Also who cares about players time and investment, that doesn't matter.
    For what ever my faults are I think moderators should look at things objectively. I think I succeed in doing that. I don't feel that Eco's and the moderation staff was objective. I don't think that it promoted a "Fun" game. And it bothers me that Eco asked for this thread when he clearly has no intention of changing anything about anything. It makes me question how I can have faith in his moderation going further.
    To go further, Eco made this comment.
    take a lot of responsibility for it escalating to that - she should have been immediately replaced after requesting so long a V/La period, but I also think that if you know you're going to be totally unable to play for a long period of time you should voluntarily replace out instead of just ghosting.

    This comment bothers me. Yes, the player is not being responsible for their actions. But this is what moderators do. They moderate. With no objective other than to apply the rules that they have written as fairly as they can. You shouldn't be trying to use the harshest interpretation on some players and the least on others. The end result should always be the same.
    With these games, I think the end result might have been the same. But the problem is that one side benefited from it and the other side didn't. The lurking hurt the town. Its not my fault that those players chose to do so, yet I am not put at a disadvantage because they chose to do so. That isn't good game health. That isn't good moderation.
    Essentially what was done wasn't fair. Eco's response to that? "I disagree". He can't even articulate more than that as a council member, as the game host of this game. Simply put I don't feel like any change will happen.

    Silver I think you've raised great points. I think transparency is key first and foremost. I also think there should be a "Ramping up" mechanic. For example, I think its fair to prod a player, give them three days and prod again for like another two. If that player comes back the prod range reduces to two and one etc. Something like that. People get busy, I understand that. I just think that with what happened specifically my game is unacceptable. Mods make mistakes, I get that. Essentially what I'm looking for is ownership of those mistakes and discussion on how this shouldn't happen in future games. Or at least how we can help prevent it in future games.

    TL,DR
    It bothers me that we are talking about game balance in strictly terms of point structure. Mafia is a game that involves players as well, and those players heavily dictate the game. Game health should include how fun a game is. Which would include a game with multiple lurkers making it unfun.

    I feel like Ego is largely waiving away these concerns and is unwilling to even consider he is wrong. Nancy is a prime example since I campaigned pretty heavily against that and was ignored. Only after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar did he admit wrong doing.

    Fundamentally I'm unsure of what the correct answer is to this problem. I think that the current solution is bad. Mafia is a social game at its core.
    If this was a co-op game I don't think this would be nearly as big of a deal. But it isn't its a versus game, and having players not playing that I am playing against, and specifically need to figure out if I am playing against makes it unfun.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Silver you are horribly misrepresenting what was said and why Beeboy was lynched.

    We lynched him because it was made clear that he only might be lynched if ANOTHER replacement couldn't be found. Players felt forced into lynching him go back and read the thread, or I can provide quotes if you need me to. This moderation put players in a position where they had to lynch into the 50/50 and for you to deny so seems questionable to me.

    Also please don't insult me with saying that the beeboy slot posted some content and that it might not have been much.

    Trancends two posts were

    A prod dodge and a "My team said vote here"

    Beeboy posted like two content pieces and they were pretty pathetic.

    Its like you're trying to minimize how bad this actually was. Fact, it was bad. Fact, players lynched him because we were told a modkill might or might not happen. Fact, this shouldn't happen.

    And for anyone wondering where my vitriol comes from its because I told Cantrip this stuff, and his response was "I don't give a **** if you are having fun." Yet you all want to talk about fun games. I told Cantrip "hey that Nancy thing shouldn't happen." I was ignored. I plead the case furthers to others. I was ignored. Then when you guys get your hand caught in the god damn cookie jar. Suddenly its like "Oh our bad".

    Also silver, I can provide screen shots of you telling me that it was unilaterally cantrip making some of these decisions. I'm not sure where that's coming from now that it wasn't unilateral cantrip.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Quote from shadowlancerx »
    I’m just gonna throw this out here, modkills should be a rare last resort solution. Lurking sucks, but it’s our job as players to deal with it when it falls within the rules. Should the rules be more stringent? Maybe. But they weren’t, and they were pretty standard fare for mtgs games. Day 1 should virtually never have a modkill of any slot; exceptions being game breaking play or something similar that damages the slot and requires it to be removed.

    Continuing to insist that modkills should be more prevalent will ultimately lead to games that aren’t fun and don’t actually count as Mafia. I call bull crap on the idea that you guys are okay with a day one LyLo, and if you truly prefer that, I’m thankful that you seem to be in the minority, because that doesn’t sound fun and would deincentivize joining games here. Game health does matter, it directly impacts how fun a game is.

    I don’t agree that everything done by the mods was done to perfection, but Silver and eco have adequately hilighted the shortcomings; they are aware of mistakes made and timing that could have been better.

    That's fundamentally what we are arguing though. You've skipped past the hard point that Eco and Silver are ignoring.

    How is it fun to have a game that doesn't have people playing in it? Answer: It isn't.

    That's my issue here. We had multiple slots in my game not playing the game. We were largely forced into a blind 50/50 because we correctly deduced that at least one of the scum was in the two lurker slots, and we didn't want to save them for later in the game. Which is the only correct play here. It sucks that we got the 50/50 wrong. It sucks that there were slots that had zero content posts.
    It further sucks that the moderation team and you seem to think that is fun to play with.

    I don't disagree that it shouldn't be a last resort. I think that replacing the slots once was fine. I still think that this was a team game and that any attempt to congratulate winners, specifically when the team benefited from this is highly questionable. Like you were scum in your game and you heavily benefited from someone who I would say was cheating. My game got ruined day one by the lurking, its why I left. I wasn't having fun, and the moderation wasn't going to do anything to make it fun. You're skipping past my entire point.
    It isn't fun to play with lurkers. It isn't fun to have to wait till day 3 of content posting for a scum lurker to finally start posting. It isn't fair either. This is directly against game balance.
    I fundamentally agree with the last resort comment. Modkills should always be last resort. I understand mod making mistakes about not prodding, **** I've done that. What I don't understand, is how in a game like this moderation thinks its OK for multiple players to have not PLAYED A WHOLE DAY OF THE GAME. That's a modkill period. I don't see any way for someone to argue against that at all. That isn't game balanced, it isn't fair, and it isn't fun to play with.

    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Team Mafia 2018 - Rules & Post Game Discussion
    Quote from Ecophagy »
    Quote from D_V »

    You can not moderate games in terms of balance. Doing so is poor modding.


    I frankly do not agree, although you are welcome to your opinion. I would prefer if you didn't present them with so much vitriol.

    I'd prefer it if you respected players time and energy in ways to not make them feel as though their efforts were not in vain. What you have essentially done is made it clear that when ever you moderate players should game the replacements of the game because they will be done with balance in mind and not with individual player behavior in mind. In essence you are encouraging players gaming the moderation.

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that not having a slot post for entire day phase due to replacements is inherently bad makes me question my very sanity. I do not understand how you can come to such a conclusion. The fact that you will not even back up this questionable at best moderation decision is troubling to me. It represents that you know I am right, or are unable to back up your own thoughts yet will stick to this form of moderation just because.

    Player enjoyment in a game should come first, and I do not understand how you can justify player enjoyment when there are slots with essentially less than the advertised amount of players due to your own cowardice from taking the responsible approach and mod killing them.

    You asked for suggestions, and yet really what you wanted was nothing of the kind since you are not interested in discussing it further. What you essentially wanted with that comment is how you moderate games. You want everyone to curtail to each other while nothing gets done.

    So congratulations on the games concluding, I can't imagine anything that could have possibly improved them or the player experience.

    Edit:
    To explain this even further, in game 2 there were two slots that hadn't posted more than 5 posts each by the end of day two and none of the posts from either spot accounted for any content. Because of the moderation we were forced into lynching one of the slots blindly because they hadn't posted content. We guessed wrong, and consequently lost the game because of it. This moderation decision heavily favored the mafia team and I am baffled to how a moderator and a member of the council could think that this is acceptable. Add on to that what I see as the moderator knowing that this is wrong and refusing to back it up and dodging any discussion about it instead resorting to Ad Hom attacks is just embarrassing to me.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.