Mafiascum.net

Nice guidelines, Korts!

In post 146, Korts wrote:

1. Don't push the pace when it doesn't need to be pushed.
   If you don't let off the gas, you'll drive the game off the cliff.
   
2. Don't forget: you're always speaking to everyone.
   Every personal conflict you resolve is observed by a chorus of silent judgment, each waiting for their turn to let it out.
   
3. Let them let it out.
   Give people room to speak, and you'll get so much more out of them than if you strangle each other with words.
   
4. Make your point.
   You're trying to get your message in the mix. It doesn't have to be an illegible wallpost - cutting, editing and formatting go a long way. Practice them.

You know the funniest/saddest thing is, this works wonderfully as good theory advice even outside of plans for a geriatric game. Legit, someone using this strategy (especially as scum) is on the fast-path to victory.

(btw Korts, lemme know when you're setting this up too <3)

In post 151, mastina wrote:. Legit, someone using this strategy (especially as scum) is on the fast-path to victory

I'm never like this as scum

You should try it as both alignments, maybe you'll be able to win more.

In post 154, Ellibereth wrote:You should try it as both alignments, maybe you'll be able to win more.

I have like an 80% win rate on this site

In post 146, Korts wrote:This is the first draft of a guideline I'm thinking of appending.

1. Don't push the pace when it doesn't need to be pushed.
   If you don't let off the gas, you'll drive the game off the cliff.
   
2. Don't forget: you're always speaking to everyone.
   Every personal conflict you resolve is observed by a chorus of silent judgment, each waiting for their turn to let it out.
   
3. Let them let it out.
   Give people room to speak, and you'll get so much more out of them than if you strangle each other with words.
   
4. Make your point.
   You're trying to get your message in the mix. It doesn't have to be an illegible wallpost - cutting, editing and formatting go a long way. Practice them.

1. What if you don't know the line where the pace must stop? What's a good 'stopping' point?
2. I don't get what this means. Do you mean that when you speak to one player you should assume you'll be judged on it in the future and therefore be mindful of what you say or otherwise it'll eventually be taken advantage of??
3. How much room?
4. Fair enough.

In post 148, Korts wrote:The point is something like - don't say something just because you can. Keep some cards to your vest. Think your engagements over with a strategic mind.

Sounds interesting. One day I'd like to try out your geriatric game, so that I may challenge myself. I promise I'd be not active, if you'd have me. (Not now, though, I'm on break, I have had mafia burn out)

In post 156, Ranmaru wrote:2. I don't get what this means. Do you mean that when you speak to one player you should assume you'll be judged on it in the future and therefore be mindful of what you say or otherwise it'll eventually be taken advantage of??

Partly that, sure. But also just don't get lost in extended one-on-one arguments, because the whole town is watching, and most probably nobody is interested in five pages of back-and-forth.

As for 1 and 3, it's a personal judgment thing I guess. There is no clear universal stopping point, but the point is not to respond to everything immediately, and to let everyone reflect on current issues before moving on to the next.

Fair enough, thank you. I'll keep that in mind.

In post 155, Mulch wrote:

In post 154, Ellibereth wrote:You should try it as both alignments, maybe you'll be able to win more.

I have like an 80% win rate on this site

This seemed like a bold claim, so I checked it out a bit because I was curious. It's closer to true than not true.

Mulch has 8 completed non-newbie games on the site and has won 6 of them. If we're quibbling, thats 75% not 80, but I'm not quibbling.

What I would like to point out, however, is that a sample size that small is pretty noisy, and claiming results off of something like that is pretty much meaningless. For instance, we were talking about scum games. You have 2 completed scum games, which, yes, you won both, but thats not a sample you can draw any conclusions from.

One thing I'd like to note is that you've been lynched day 1 as town 3 times. In 6 town games. For comparison I don't think I have ever been lynched day 1 as town. In like over 100 completed games (though I could be misremembering, I've played a lot of mafia. But its a small enough number that a 50% day 1 mislynch rate is just staggering to me). You have only survived to engame 1 time as town. It's hard for you to claim credit for victories which you didn't really participate in, and given as not being misslynched is one of the fundamental skills of a town mafia player, I'm willing to bet you're not as good as that 75% would indicate, so maybe you should listen to the feedback?

One of those victories he can definitely claim for himself, he pretty much named the team at the end of his time in the game

I'm not saying he hasn't had good games. I'm saying that there is more to his statement that he has an 80% win rate than meets the eye.

Specifically, scum hunting and not getting mislynched are separate but complimentary skills.

Stats don't define how good a player is.

I dont understand the relevance of your statement. If you are responding to me, thats literally the argument I was making...

Just signed up for a normal if any reasonable mafia players want to join me.

Geriatric Rules

This game is played under a Geriatric ruleset. This means that posting frequency is restricted as follows:

1. Every player is allowed a maximum of 10 posts in a 24 hour period. In the 24 hour period immediately preceding a deadline, players are allowed a maximum of 15 posts. The definition of a 24 hour period must be provided by the moderator.
   
2. Every player starts with a reserve of 20 additional posts. Any posts above the daily limit are subtracted from this reserve.
   
3. Players who deplete their reserve will receive a warning. Any further infractions after that will incur a modkill.
   
4. If a player has hit the daily limit and depleted their reserve, they are allowed
   one
   naked vote change per in-game Day.

Posting Guidelines

The following are guidelines for playing within the restrictions of a Geriatric ruleset (and generally), and are designed to reduce the pace and improve comprehensibility.

• Know how to let off the gas. Momentum is important, but this is not a race. This is a game of cooperation - make sure you don't leave anyone behind.
  
• Don't forget you're always speaking to everyone. One-on-one conflicts have their place, but they can quickly take over a thread - and nobody is interested in spectating five pages of others arguing. You don't need to have the last word - if you're stuck making the same arguments to the same people, let the thread breathe and give others a chance to weigh in.
  
• Compose your thoughts. Before submitting a post, reread yourself and cut, edit, and format your message. Make sure your point is clear, and highlight any arguments you make. For example, distinguish separate subjects with expandable spoilers or area tags.
  
• As an overly general rule, any post that is shorter than three sentences is too short, and any post that doesn't fit on a single computer screen is too long.

General Rules

/in

You need to define what 24 hours is.

Defining it by a "replenishment votecount" once every 24-ish hours has the advantage of being easiest to maintain for the mod and check for everyone else. It has the disadvantage of not being 24 hours exactly. It also requires the moderator to be able to post a VC around the same time every day. Defining it by a consistent time makes it easiest to remember and means that the bank can be retroactively calculated even if the mod is truant for a bit. But doing the VC is harder because you need to finish out the tally in the middle of the VC. It's even worse if you fall multiple days behind. There's also defining it by day start every day, which lets you ensure the first 24 hours of gametime follow the rules but makes it a bit harder to remember when "midnight" is because it keeps changing.

Having run this myself, I think the first one is the best option personally, because it really does make the VC's easier. But it does mean that the game freezes and dies if the mod is lazy.

I also do still think some allowance should be made <24 hours from deadline, whether it's eliminating the limit or just giving more posts.

In post 168, hitogoroshi wrote:I also do still think some allowance should be made <24 hours from deadline, whether it's eliminating the limit or just giving more posts.

This is definitely spmething to consider. I mean, ideally we can figure out our shit well before deadline but eod stuff can happen.

Also, is there an allowance for vote changes even if the post limit is exceeded for a period?

Fair question, Ari, but considering the post restriction is only a daily limit, I don't think there should be a lot of allowance. It's not that hard to just wait it out until next morning.

Then again, I guess there can be quick momentum shifts when it would be important, so maybe something like "If a player has hit the daily limit and depleted their reserve, they are allowed one naked vote change per in-game Day."

In post 168, hitogoroshi wrote:You need to define what 24 hours is.

Defining it by a "replenishment votecount" once every 24-ish hours has the advantage of being easiest to maintain for the mod and check for everyone else. It has the disadvantage of not being 24 hours exactly. It also requires the moderator to be able to post a VC around the same time every day. Defining it by a consistent time makes it easiest to remember and means that the bank can be retroactively calculated even if the mod is truant for a bit. But doing the VC is harder because you need to finish out the tally in the middle of the VC. It's even worse if you fall multiple days behind. There's also defining it by day start every day, which lets you ensure the first 24 hours of gametime follow the rules but makes it a bit harder to remember when "midnight" is because it keeps changing.

Having run this myself, I think the first one is the best option personally, because it really does make the VC's easier. But it does mean that the game freezes and dies if the mod is lazy.

I also do still think some allowance should be made <24 hours from deadline, whether it's eliminating the limit or just giving more posts.

These are good points, hito, thanks. I amended the rule to include a raised pre-deadline 15 post limit. As for the definition of a 24-hour period, I would probably go with the first option as well, just because of the maintenance benefits, but I don't want the ruleset to micromanage the moderation, so I added the following instead: "The definition of a 24 hour period must be provided by the moderator."

Hmmm.

It looks like RC has left the site.

Is there anyone else who would like to help run these games? Alisae and I will most likely be running a Micro and Mini, respectively, with the current player list split between them as pre-ins, and I would like to have someone co-mod both games (or two people co-mod one each).

I kinda think modkill is a bit too strict but at the same time I think that won't be happening with this group of players

In post 171, Korts wrote:Is there anyone else who would like to help run these games? Alisae and I will most likely be running a Micro and Mini, respectively, with the current player list split between them as pre-ins, and I would like to have someone co-mod both games (or two people co-mod one each).

sup

I can always help mod one