AbsolutBro
Member
For the new page*:
*new page for 50ppp
*new page for 50ppp
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NeoGAF Mafia |OT9| Rick and Morty Mafia now taking Sign Ups!
- Thread starter RetroMG
- Start date
The moderator can't make the hard choices? Who does then?
I also have to agree with Sophia that the heavy handed "let's start modkilling to make an example" isn't a viable route. All that does it ruin individual games which is more negative when people are putting in a month of work at a time on these games. Low activity isn't reason for modkill, someone quoting their PM or telling another player in private what their role is are the level of things deserving of a modkill. Essentially, if the role is still a mystery and not "broken" in terms of extra info being disseminated outside the bounds of the game then it shouldn't be removed by the mod. Yes, other communities modkill for less but other communities also have much faster turnaround on games so not really viable when we are putting 7 days into a full set of one day and one night phase.
In my opinion the 10 post limit should be dropped for main games and in mid season games enough replacements should be seeked in order to just replaced those that have not met the limit for the second time. This should however be made very clear from the getgo that it will be a game where a certain amount of activitiy ( 10 posts minimum) is needed.
Modkilling someone should also be in the cards. It's up to the moderator to do it or not.
Modkilling someone should also be in the cards. It's up to the moderator to do it or not.
I don't like the post requirement rule. Here's why:
1) It's an arbitrary number. - What changes from post 9 to 10, in terms of game participation? Some people write very long, thought-out posts with a lot of content - and they might not make the threshold. Others treat the Submit Reply button as punctuation. "10 posts" sum up differently to different players. There is enough ambiguity in this requirement that it becomes unclear what the standard of fairness is. What is even the behavior you're trying to get, exactly?
2) It makes game threads longer - By its nature, modkilling players for post reqs is like holding a fire under them with a quota. So you're promoting people just postingpostingposting. Even if it's a low quota, the pressure is there. Despite the complaints about low activity, games OFTEN get comments about how long they are / so much reading / etc. Especially if you're modkilling or subbing players in.
3) It is more work for the moderator. - One of the things Crab taught MattyG and I when he handed us the reigns of GAFIA for Season 2 was this: minimize how much work you do as a moderator. Maybe Crab is just lazy, but it makes sense from the perspective of a gamerunner facing uncertain outcomes, player issues and unseen blindspots in the game design. The less you're juggling the better. So having to monitor this post count stuff and weigh modkilling decisions every day is extra upkeep.
I think I would maybe ask people why they go inactive and see if we could figure out a less punitive solution, or at least something less ambiguous.
Less punitive - make the day phases shorter and encourage people to be more pro-active about getting something done in a shorter timeframe. While you can make an argument that a passive player works against their team's interest, it seems to matter less the longer the day phases run (because other people have picked up the slack).
Less ambiguous - require that players vote, rather than reach a post count. It's more clear as a rule (you either voted, or you didn't), it's the most important function of the day phase, and it's clearer for players in the game to attack.
1) It's an arbitrary number. - What changes from post 9 to 10, in terms of game participation? Some people write very long, thought-out posts with a lot of content - and they might not make the threshold. Others treat the Submit Reply button as punctuation. "10 posts" sum up differently to different players. There is enough ambiguity in this requirement that it becomes unclear what the standard of fairness is. What is even the behavior you're trying to get, exactly?
2) It makes game threads longer - By its nature, modkilling players for post reqs is like holding a fire under them with a quota. So you're promoting people just postingpostingposting. Even if it's a low quota, the pressure is there. Despite the complaints about low activity, games OFTEN get comments about how long they are / so much reading / etc. Especially if you're modkilling or subbing players in.
3) It is more work for the moderator. - One of the things Crab taught MattyG and I when he handed us the reigns of GAFIA for Season 2 was this: minimize how much work you do as a moderator. Maybe Crab is just lazy, but it makes sense from the perspective of a gamerunner facing uncertain outcomes, player issues and unseen blindspots in the game design. The less you're juggling the better. So having to monitor this post count stuff and weigh modkilling decisions every day is extra upkeep.
I think I would maybe ask people why they go inactive and see if we could figure out a less punitive solution, or at least something less ambiguous.
Less punitive - make the day phases shorter and encourage people to be more pro-active about getting something done in a shorter timeframe. While you can make an argument that a passive player works against their team's interest, it seems to matter less the longer the day phases run (because other people have picked up the slack).
Less ambiguous - require that players vote, rather than reach a post count. It's more clear as a rule (you either voted, or you didn't), it's the most important function of the day phase, and it's clearer for players in the game to attack.
My main problem with having a very strict 10 post limit is that it kinda misses the point imo. We don't actually want people to post an arbitrary number of posts, what we really want is everyone to put effort and contributions in. And post counts are not always a correct reflection of that. Someone that posts 8 times but those are huge posts with detailed reads on everyone contributes a lot more then someone that posts 20 times but all are gifs/memes/one sentences etc. If we then warn/replace the player that is putting in work purely because of post counts that feels unfair and we are punishing players that aren't doing anything wrong.
if someone cared enough to make such giant posts, they would of cared enough to follow the rules and at least post the minimum amount of times
flatearthpandas
Member
Agree here.
I agree here
Here is the thing though: if that person only made 8 posts but everyone in the game feels like they are contributing more then enough, is there really a problem? I don't think there is. I am more in favor of putting more responsibility on the other players in the game to notify the mod if they think a person is not active enough, since regardless of the level of activity someone has, if nobody has a problem with it there is not really an issue.
As an (obvious) side note, post requirements should of course never be used when day phases are cut short by turbo or something like that. Thats just unfair.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Following from all of your feedback thus far, would it be a worthwhile thing to try to give players a tool or an in-game command to alert gamerunner that they are lodging an official alert/complaint against another player whose contributions they feel are lacking? And should there be additional other players who take up similar issue with the same player, then that player will be contacted or warned ( to be replaced if level of contributions is not picked up?)
For example Day 2 at 24 hours mark, and Player A has only posted once for the entire game without prior notification that they were going to be away or anything. Player B then posted the in-game command, say, Inactive Alert: Player A... Then Player C and Z also agreed with Player A being lacking in contributions and then at the count of three* lodged complaints, mod will acknowledge in-game that the player is causing the game grief and contacted Player A to check if they are still wanting to play and start readying replacement players.
Is this a worthwhile idea to try? Put the power, so to speak, into the players' hands and enable the game to deal with in-game issues through the players' own determinations?
*arbitrary count, can be adjusted to follow the wisdom of the people
For example Day 2 at 24 hours mark, and Player A has only posted once for the entire game without prior notification that they were going to be away or anything. Player B then posted the in-game command, say, Inactive Alert: Player A... Then Player C and Z also agreed with Player A being lacking in contributions and then at the count of three* lodged complaints, mod will acknowledge in-game that the player is causing the game grief and contacted Player A to check if they are still wanting to play and start readying replacement players.
Is this a worthwhile idea to try? Put the power, so to speak, into the players' hands and enable the game to deal with in-game issues through the players' own determinations?
*arbitrary count, can be adjusted to follow the wisdom of the people
CrimsonFist
Member
I think something this public has the potential to interfere too much with the game itself (would scum inactive alert their own team mate ect).
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Ahhhh yes... The grand dream of lynching inactive players... *nods sagely* yes indeed.
How's that working for us so far?
@crimi, good point :thinking emoji:
I think it's be better to handle it privately. Having a command could lead to it interfering with the game.
Ahhhh yes... The grand dream of lynching inactive players... *nods sagely* yes indeed.
How's that working for us so far?
@crimi, good point :thinking emoji:
Good, I think? Did that raised any trouble so far?
I just don't think the mods should be hand-holding the players. If players don't like the contribution of one of them they can deal with it by themselves without the need of a mod taking care of it.
Muffin1611
Banned
Being entirely inactive is in this case NAI and a wasted lynch, thus impairing the game. I don't see how this solves the problem.
CrimsonFist
Member
I don't have a problem with players shitposting to reach the limit, because "solving" isn't even the goal of a portion of the players. As long as you're posting something that can be read into rather than being completely absent.
They are not inactives. They are withing the 10 posts rule. If they are inactives they should be proded and replaced. Regarding that I believe that the rule isn't applied strickly enought.
Coasting is a valid strategy. LP did the same in Arkham and he was scum. Should I have replaced him there? I don't think so. The players had all the tools to deal with him.
hey_monkey
Banned
Not saying this is LP at all, because I've barely played with him and would like to separate him from the abstract discussion, but if someone does it in every game, is it coasting as strategy or is it just less active play?
And if we lynch the less actives in some games, it's game over, because it's like a third of the player base. it just depends.
I like the idea of alternate game types/day phase lengths to try to combat it another way. I told Ynny I had another idea so I will put my money where my mouth is there and do some structural considerations.
And if we lynch the less actives in some games, it's game over, because it's like a third of the player base. it just depends.
I like the idea of alternate game types/day phase lengths to try to combat it another way. I told Ynny I had another idea so I will put my money where my mouth is there and do some structural considerations.
I already said this the previous time this topic was brought up, but low-activity players won't suddently turn into fast-talkers because a post requirement was put on them.
I think modkilling for low activity is too harsh of a solution, and having a specific command to publicly call out players like that is even worse.
A moderator shouldn't need other players to come to them and say "Player X is inactive", they could just read the thread, see that for themselves, and decide on an action. This promotes negativity and only puts more pressure on people.
Having just a "vote requirement" like kark said is simpler, less aggressive and easier to manage.
---
@crimson the post req rule has all the same issues but it's arbitrary and more punishing; that's why I think a voting rule would be better. Sadly, I can't think of another way to deal with this problem that is better than all of the proposed.
I think modkilling for low activity is too harsh of a solution, and having a specific command to publicly call out players like that is even worse.
A moderator shouldn't need other players to come to them and say "Player X is inactive", they could just read the thread, see that for themselves, and decide on an action. This promotes negativity and only puts more pressure on people.
Having just a "vote requirement" like kark said is simpler, less aggressive and easier to manage.
---
@crimson the post req rule has all the same issues but it's arbitrary and more punishing; that's why I think a voting rule would be better. Sadly, I can't think of another way to deal with this problem that is better than all of the proposed.
CrimsonFist
Member
Non-voting is a valid play in some circumstances, and placing a vote is just as easy as fluff posting to reach the post limit.
And potentially more harmful to town if you have inattentive town forced to place a vote to meet a requirement (see: Batman).
I don't really see a perfect solution that doesn't alienate low activity posters. Keep the 10 post guideline then leave it up to mod digression.
And potentially more harmful to town if you have inattentive town forced to place a vote to meet a requirement (see: Batman).
I don't really see a perfect solution that doesn't alienate low activity posters. Keep the 10 post guideline then leave it up to mod digression.
hey_monkey
Banned
I agree that people need to vote. I think they should also post; when the same things come up again and again in a game (should we lynch inactives or not; where do we draw the line; how do we handle it; is it alignment indicative; scum hides there) then there's a larger issue. But there isn't a good way to solve it.
I don't think 10 is an arbitrary number. If you're not posting at least a little throughout the day phase you're not a presence. The question really is does the rule do anything. I don't have the experience with the community before the rule, so it's hard for me to say.
I don't think 10 is an arbitrary number. If you're not posting at least a little throughout the day phase you're not a presence. The question really is does the rule do anything. I don't have the experience with the community before the rule, so it's hard for me to say.
My statement has nothing to do with the quality of the posts, and everything to do with the rules of the game.
If someone is invested enough into the game to post in such a way, why would they arbitrarily decided to not follow the rules of the game. In such a case they should consider leaving the game.
From what I've seen some games have game-specific rules instigated by the game runner. If someone followed every single rule and made nothing but quality, long ass posts, and yet decided to not follow one of those game specific rules because they thought it 'arbitrarily', should they not be considered for replacement or reprimand?
I think the limit works in that the people who sign up without realizing the commitment involved and are clearly not going to play to anything resembling significance are weeded out and replaced. That's the value for me. If that needs to be adjusted, I'm fine, but I trust our gamerunners to use their judgement in "nine essays in a day" cases or whatever.
I don't know how you'd go further in preventing coasting, and I don't know if it's worth doing. Something like a minimum word count would sort out ten oneliners, but it's still open to abuse in other ways. I wouldn't trust players or gamerunners to make calls on intentional coasting, frankly.
I don't know how you'd go further in preventing coasting, and I don't know if it's worth doing. Something like a minimum word count would sort out ten oneliners, but it's still open to abuse in other ways. I wouldn't trust players or gamerunners to make calls on intentional coasting, frankly.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
And now we're back at the beginning of all this, where I posted "10" to make the requirement.
We need a scientifically crafted number for post numbers. Like seven.
Sign me up. I'll prove the value of 100ppp
I'm being facetious. Honestly don't really mind the current rule nor do I mind the tenth post being "10".
The original issue were players making one or two tiny posts and nothing else. With a rule it's easier to replace them.
The original issue were players making one or two tiny posts and nothing else. With a rule it's easier to replace them.
Peasants.
Sign me up. I'll prove the value of 100ppp
You wil be modkilled or replaced if I don't have 10 audio diary entries by day end.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
@franco, not sure the metrics, but there has been some talks in some spec threads of the past where dead players groaned as they realised they should just have hunted within the people who hadn't meet the post quota limit (or who had barely done so). natiko, i think, was one of the people who had lamented that gafia never really followed through with lynching the inactive players since during game procession, it could be seen as going for the 'easy lynches' and not really 'scum hunting'. therefore the low activity players kept on.
the post requirement was first installed by batsnacks and timeaisis during mini mafia 1, and it seemed to work, at a degree, to at least compel players to generate some contents. the quality of those contents are ......variable.
i am not against doing away with the post count requirements in the future if the community sees it more like a 'chore' than a meaningful standard to meet!
as for future ideas of improvements, i .... guess we shall see how an invitational game will affect the community's experience. at this stage, at least :3
the post requirement was first installed by batsnacks and timeaisis during mini mafia 1, and it seemed to work, at a degree, to at least compel players to generate some contents. the quality of those contents are ......variable.
i am not against doing away with the post count requirements in the future if the community sees it more like a 'chore' than a meaningful standard to meet!
as for future ideas of improvements, i .... guess we shall see how an invitational game will affect the community's experience. at this stage, at least :3
But that's what I have been saying. Town had the means to made those lynches. They just decided not to. Town doesn't need help there, just need to start playing better (myself included). I think the problem is something I think we have disscused before: we are relying to much on meta. I was playing with the idea to make a game in OG where everyone plays with a new account and don't reveal who he really is until dying. But I still haven't work much on it.
hey_monkey
Banned
I SO agree we rely too much on meta, from all sides. It's become a shorthand. And I'd play that game! But on lynching the inactives: in some games, if that's what town does, town loses. So it can't JUST be that.
Zippedpinhead
Member
10 posts is fine, but i am also a 10-30 poster when I am playing. Focusing on quality over quantity.
Omg I love this idea! Reminds me of a minigame Burb ran years ago, where we were all dogs? Can't remember what that game was any more lol, just remember that the anonymity was super fun. This was back on quicktopic XD
I'm also curious about how an invitational game would run!
Lots of creative ideas here.
I think the 10 post requirement (or should I say strong suggestion) still works great for the regular games, as it gives new players an idea of the activity level expected. There are times in Infamous mafia when I didn't make the 10 post requirement, because I was too pooped from writing my other posts. I guess I could have split my posts into several, but that also seems arbitrary. Some people post as they are getting new info (kind of chatroom style) while others (like me) login once or twice a day to composé posts based on all the proceedings that have taken place so far. So, I think a 10 post "strong suggestion" is fair. No need to modkill over this.
Mandatory votes might be be an interesting rule to implement though! Including no lynch votes! Modkill if you don't vote.
Hi, everyone. Sorry I've been so absentee lately. School went on break six weeks ago, and I thought that would give me all kinds of free time to do things like run Mafia games and Fiascos and Jackbox and... none of that actually happened. Turns out WifeMG saw it as giving me time to do things like "lots and lots of laundry" and "repair that hole in the wall." Also, my babysitters left town for three weeks, and using a computer with BabyMG around is... difficult.
Anyway, school starts again tomorrow, and that will give me lots of time towork with the Mafia community do homework in my office, so expect to start seeing me more often again.
On the topic of the post limit. The original intention was that the ten posts would be ten *meaningful* posts. Posting "10" is not meaningful. On the other hand, I know that LP had real life issues, and we need to be mindful of that.
Honestly, Ouro has it right. It needs to be a single warning for lack of activity, and if it happens again, the player needs to be replaced. This is rough for the mods, because replacements have been so scarce lately, and honestly, we hate pulling people out of games against their will. It's no fun for anyone.
I think there's merit in trying different measurements of activity. I like the idea that someone MUST have a vote in place to be considered active, but I feel like it's too low of a bar. What if we split the difference? Each player must meet a minimum of five posts and have an active vote, even if that vote is No Lynch. That's just an idea, though.
Whatever the decisions are, (and I believe that the individual gamerunners should be allowed to make those decisions on a game-by-game basis,) I will talk with whoever runs games going forward, we'll work on setting a firm expectation, and see that it's followed within reason.
Few more things:
All I can say on this, is that's it's happening, and it's going to be a very wild ride. I apologize to anyone who doesn't get selected... although you might be glad you weren't, by the end.
Oh, and Ouro tells me that the player list will remain a secret until the very last minute. (Yes, I've seen the preliminary list. No, I'm not going to tell you if you are on it. Don't bother asking. I guarantee that I'm more frightened of Ouro than I am of you.)
Swamped is thinking of the Target game, or the Blargohunt. That was a super clever idea, and I'd love to see it re-implemented. Outer Gafia has the ability to do it. (That was one of my earliest experiments with the site.) I also love the idea of an anonymous game. Franco, if you're serious about running this, talk to me and we can make the arrangements on-site.
Anyway, school starts again tomorrow, and that will give me lots of time to
On the topic of the post limit. The original intention was that the ten posts would be ten *meaningful* posts. Posting "10" is not meaningful. On the other hand, I know that LP had real life issues, and we need to be mindful of that.
Honestly, Ouro has it right. It needs to be a single warning for lack of activity, and if it happens again, the player needs to be replaced. This is rough for the mods, because replacements have been so scarce lately, and honestly, we hate pulling people out of games against their will. It's no fun for anyone.
I think there's merit in trying different measurements of activity. I like the idea that someone MUST have a vote in place to be considered active, but I feel like it's too low of a bar. What if we split the difference? Each player must meet a minimum of five posts and have an active vote, even if that vote is No Lynch. That's just an idea, though.
Whatever the decisions are, (and I believe that the individual gamerunners should be allowed to make those decisions on a game-by-game basis,) I will talk with whoever runs games going forward, we'll work on setting a firm expectation, and see that it's followed within reason.
Few more things:
All I can say on this, is that's it's happening, and it's going to be a very wild ride. I apologize to anyone who doesn't get selected... although you might be glad you weren't, by the end.
Oh, and Ouro tells me that the player list will remain a secret until the very last minute. (Yes, I've seen the preliminary list. No, I'm not going to tell you if you are on it. Don't bother asking. I guarantee that I'm more frightened of Ouro than I am of you.)
Swamped is thinking of the Target game, or the Blargohunt. That was a super clever idea, and I'd love to see it re-implemented. Outer Gafia has the ability to do it. (That was one of my earliest experiments with the site.) I also love the idea of an anonymous game. Franco, if you're serious about running this, talk to me and we can make the arrangements on-site.
I'm still playing with the concept. I have only a couple of ideas so far. I think I could eventually run it. But I already have another game that's actually in development (except that it's just me in my OG board talking to myself and my reviewers seem MIA). And also I finally can take vacations next month so I won't be around during then. If anyone else is interested in making a game like that is free to do it. I can even help them design it or co-mod it. If not I will, most likely, run it some time in the future.
Thinking about it I don't think anything needs to be changed, at least outward facing. If someone posts a flurry of 10 posts or barely makes it then it can just be up to the gamerunner if they should send a message to them or not. The example with LP keeps getting brought up but it's not like they did that the whole game, it was mostly early on and they were scum anyway. It'd be worse if they were town doing it. I'd rather have someone barely make 10 posts during the day than post 10 fluff posts in a batch like in some previous games.
We don't need a rule about active votes either. It takes away a bit of freedom from the players and would just inevitably lead to more hasty lynchs when people feel forced to have a vote somewhere. They could just put it on no lynch but realistically people will pick someone. It also leads to having to create exceptions whenever there is a turbo or override.
We don't need a rule about active votes either. It takes away a bit of freedom from the players and would just inevitably lead to more hasty lynchs when people feel forced to have a vote somewhere. They could just put it on no lynch but realistically people will pick someone. It also leads to having to create exceptions whenever there is a turbo or override.
AbsolutBro
Member
hey_monkey
Banned
am not in favor of requiring an active vote because that's just such a delicate thing in my mind. would change the whole dynamic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but...
It can also just apply for D1 instead of the full game so confirmed scum and the like can be turbo'd in late game. This loosens up D1 a bit because votes can go flying and create wagons without any risk of ending the day.
Then I'm taking about the other peasantsI'm on 100ppp, but I know not everyone is.
Just need 9 more for R&M mafia!
I agree. Not voting is kinda a vote too.
I know LP keeps being brought up but I don't think this discussion is about him, the topic of 'barely meeting the post requirement' has been rumbling for the past few Seasons and it was only a matter of time before it got brought again here. Also, maybe I'm wrong to assume this, but I don't think the issue is specifically just with people who barely hit the 10 post count but it's with people who are Scum and barely hit the count. As a community we have a habit of only going for the talkative ones and not doing much to low posters, leading some Scum to hang out there whether intentionally or just because they don't talk much regardless. And, frankly in that regard, I agree with Fran:
They met the requirements, the Mods should have no reason to intervene in that instance. It's up to the Players to decided whether or not those posts were enough to not lynch a person. The alternative is alienating players who can't commit hours to these games and I don't believe that's fair to them at all.
Now, is a person skirting the line and posting arbitrary things to just barely hit the 10 post rule? That should be up to the Mods whether they give a warning in private or not since that's bending the rules and shouldn't be okay.
I believe another issue that came up ages ago is whether or not a Mod should do something if a person is active in a Secret Chat ( whether Scum Chat or otherwise ) but is barely posting anything in the Main Thread. I think in that instance a warning might be justified but I'm curious to know what others think.
They met the requirements, the Mods should have no reason to intervene in that instance. It's up to the Players to decided whether or not those posts were enough to not lynch a person. The alternative is alienating players who can't commit hours to these games and I don't believe that's fair to them at all.
Now, is a person skirting the line and posting arbitrary things to just barely hit the 10 post rule? That should be up to the Mods whether they give a warning in private or not since that's bending the rules and shouldn't be okay.
I believe another issue that came up ages ago is whether or not a Mod should do something if a person is active in a Secret Chat ( whether Scum Chat or otherwise ) but is barely posting anything in the Main Thread. I think in that instance a warning might be justified but I'm curious to know what others think.
I'm getting Gods day 2 flashbacks already just at the mere mention of this.
With Blarg and I there, who needs post minimums, amirite?
flatearthpandas
Member
No ragrets.