Mafiascum.net


https://forum.mafiascum-staging.net/

Geriatric Players Club

https://forum.mafiascum-staging.net/viewtopic.php?t=72285

Page 11 of 30

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:09 pm
by Porkens
/out apologies

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:31 pm
by Aristophanes
In post 246, Alisae wrote:Korts put me down to spectate ur mini

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:07 pm
by Korts
I put you down for Gurgi.
Porkens wrote:/out apologies
Okay :(

Guys can you clarify this spectate thing? Do you want me to send you a link to the game when it's up, or is it something more official than that?

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:36 am
by Papa Zito
It's become traditional to create private spectator threads where people not in the game can comment on what's going on.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:39 am
by Alisae
In post 252, Korts wrote:Guys can you clarify this spectate thing? Do you want me to send you a link to the game when it's up, or is it something more official than that?
dead pt :]

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:13 am
by Thestatusquo
In post 253, Papa Zito wrote:It's become traditional to create private spectator threads where people not in the game can comment on what's going on.
Which is something I don't do because I've literally seen it break games before. I don't understand why we're lax about the "don't talk about ongoing games" rule in this particular instance.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:18 am
by Alisae
Talking in dead chat about the game associated with the dead chat is talking about ongoing games
guess I'm getting banned

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:21 am
by Thestatusquo
No, we're lenient with it. It's allowed under the rules. I think it ought not to be though, as I've literally seen players slip up, post in the game thread instead of the dead thread by mistake, and ruin games several times.

I'm not a huge fan, I think the risk is not worth it.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:24 am
by Korts
I will mull it over.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:31 am
by Aristophanes
In post 257, Thestatusquo wrote:No, we're lenient with it. It's allowed under the rules. I think it ought not to be though, as I've literally seen players slip up, post in the game thread instead of the dead thread by mistake, and ruin games several times.

I'm not a huge fan, I think the risk is not worth it.
I've seen this from dead players and mods too though, more often than from spectators.

The main argument against them I can see is that it takes away from your replacement base.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:35 am
by Thestatusquo
In post 259, Aristophanes wrote:
In post 257, Thestatusquo wrote:No, we're lenient with it. It's allowed under the rules. I think it ought not to be though, as I've literally seen players slip up, post in the game thread instead of the dead thread by mistake, and ruin games several times.

I'm not a huge fan, I think the risk is not worth it.
I've seen this from dead players and mods too though, more often than from spectators.

The main argument against them I can see is that it takes away from your replacement base.
No I'm against the concept of dead and spectator threads writ large. This is literally my point. Allowing people to talk about ongoing games creates slip up potential that can ruin games, from mods, from dead players and from spectators. I think the fact that we allow this thing is perplexing and dangerous.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:42 am
by Aristophanes
In post 260, Thestatusquo wrote:No I'm against the concept of dead and spectator threads writ large. This is literally my point. Allowing people to talk about ongoing games creates slip up potential that can ruin games, from mods, from dead players and from spectators. I think the fact that we allow this thing is perplexing and dangerous.
While I do see your point, deadthreads also get people watching the game and increase enthusiasm for it. They create a place for tips to be said while the game is progressing without ruining the game. They are a fun plave that creates a tighter knit site as we all have a place to come together, comment, and cheer on a game whether we are in it or not!

They do a lot for the site that i think you take for granted.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:50 am
by Thestatusquo
In post 261, Aristophanes wrote:
In post 260, Thestatusquo wrote:No I'm against the concept of dead and spectator threads writ large. This is literally my point. Allowing people to talk about ongoing games creates slip up potential that can ruin games, from mods, from dead players and from spectators. I think the fact that we allow this thing is perplexing and dangerous.
While I do see your point, deadthreads also get people watching the game and increase enthusiasm for it. They create a place for tips to be said while the game is progressing without ruining the game. They are a fun plave that creates a tighter knit site as we all have a place to come together, comment, and cheer on a game whether we are in it or not!

They do a lot for the site that i think you take for granted.
While I do see your point, talking about games with your friends gets people watching the game and increase enthusiasm for it. They create a place for tips to be said while the game is progressing without ruining the game. They are a fun ay to create a tighter knit site as we have a way to come together, comment and cheer on a game whether we are in it or not!

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:53 am
by Thestatusquo
Like I see the appeal. I also see the appeal of talking about ongoing games in all manner of situations, but we don't allow that because it creates a way for games to get ruined. I have personally been involved with two games that were ruined by people posting in the game thread accidentally. In general, as a site, we have made a decision that talking about ongoing games is not ok because the risks of ruining the game are too great for the benefits they provide. We don't make this decision about dead threads and its bizarre to me.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:53 am
by Thestatusquo
But this thread isn't really about that so I'll shut up. But I do not allow or create dead threads for my games.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:09 am
by Aristophanes
Thats cool, this is a good conversation! We should make an MD thread for it I think :)

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:14 am
by Thestatusquo
I suspect I'll just get buried by people attacking me because they really personally like dead/spectator threads so they wouldn't be willing to listen to the actual arguments against them.

Not really worth.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:35 am
by Kison
We gotta find a way to just block dead/spectators from posting in the game thread & all will be well.

Scum PTs are so much riskier IMO. I was constantly paranoid last time I used one.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:16 am
by Aristophanes
In post 267, Kison wrote:We gotta find a way to just block dead/spectators from posting in the game thread & all will be well.

Scum PTs are so much riskier IMO. I was constantly paranoid last time I used one.
If only game threads had to have approval to post in them!

It would eliminate hydra/alt slips and ongiong game slips!

Maybe something to start coding in :P

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:53 am
by Alisae
I only have 3 pre-ins friends :(

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:27 pm
by Lord Gurgi
There will not be a dead thread or spectator thread for my game. No hydras either.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:04 pm
by AxleGreaser
@Kison
: Yeah those proficiency claims below are probably not idle boasts.
In post 268, Aristophanes wrote:
In post 267, Kison wrote:We gotta find a way to just block dead/spectators from posting in the game thread & all will be well.

Scum PTs are so much riskier IMO. I was constantly paranoid last time I used one.
If only game threads had to have (end user controlled/configurable) approval to post in them! (no need to export that drudge work onto mods/list mods)

It would eliminate hydra/alt slips and ongiong(not when you were in both games? not sure what pattern (user story) ongoing game slips has.) game slips!


Maybe something to start coding in :P
needs a slightly tighter feature spec first.

FYI: Software engineering. Hat is On. Axle proficiency Status: walks on water without noticing. (well I used to, perhaps its time to see if I am actually senile yet.)
This is achievable at local level. (for Windows PCs, ... )
Spoiler: details schmetails
It is plausible, very plausible to build a local HTTP proxy server. Ok: so actually I know. I once did what is known as spike solution: AKA I threw away the code once it was done.

My spike did the following things as a proof of concept.
When the fetch requests from my browser went to fetch Avatar jpegs (annoying animated ones), my proxy first checked its local cache (a hard coded, (hence spike) directory on a hard drive G:\mafiatest). And replied with those as overrides if they existed (faked the reply)
I also dumped all actual http:get and http:put requests to log file so I could what was going on at the low level.

I am highly confident such proxy can know what state you are in in terms of which account you are logged into (my screen says logout(Axlegreaser) in the http somewhere)
On threads you don't want to be able to submit to, you simply excise the sumbit button from the web servers reply. (dynamically edit the http, ... on the fly)

Then its simply a matter of partnering that with say a java GUI that lets you control it.
OR as it is already a web proxy server... a clever bunny could lie a bit, (have the proxy actually serve some web pages of its own) and have "special" URL that returns a page that lets you configure the proxy, via a web interface.

OR a bloody clever bunny could um, "cheat" a bit, and slip some extra "buttons" in on game thread pages that let you locally (with persistence) lock them. (and it locally stored who you were logged in as when you did that)

I am thinking Enable[x] Disable [x] DfltDenyAll[x] I'd use it by disabling all (does all of one forum? GD/Games are separate (not quite sure yet) ), then specifically enabling that which is allowed. (good security protocol) (but still allow other people to do things the derpier less secure way, deny just some things)
A disabled game thread has NO submit button. You can still multiquote anything you like just not submit it.

The other user activity when slips can >>potentially<< happen is when you try and grab quote from a locked thread. The way to get it is to start to pm the other person then don't. But instead cutn paste that into a post wherever you mean to send it. Modifying that behavior if its the goal is a bit trickier but still quite doable with local code.

OF COURSE.
Such changes on the server end are potentially more robust. The above is basically a screen scraping solution. If the server changes, making CERTAIN the above would fail gracefully... (AKA simply fail to work) (with virtually zero chance of continuing to "work" but work wrong. Is an issue.)

Looks to mainly look like it would be very probably doable (Which is Axle speak for: obviously will to me) but it is not just a small tweak either way.


caveatTin foil hats required.
Spoiler: stuff I wont do : not negotiable or really discussable
This is not software engineering but something else
redacted
:
Skip proficiency Status in
redacted
: thinks walks on water without noticing is for babies. When skip walks on water, water notices skip.

Yeah I had an actual argument with myself. Deal with it.

Skip: Axle, So you may have noticed I nearly fucked up an entire large game wasting lots of peoples time. That would have been sad. I am not fucking this up at all. This is not sad its BIG.
Axle: WAT? Fuck what up? and besides i was playing you just mainly sat at the back of my head. Eating popcorn... IIRC.
Skip: shh (play along kk)(no-one will notice)(this is a way less obvious slip than the one you made) :roll:
Axle: <gags> <splutters> <slumps in chair>

Skip: Yes we discussed this when you(Axle) wanted to make the spike solution because you(axle) were curious. And I(skip) said it had risks. But you(axle) sooked/sulked, so I(Skip) let you try it then delete the code. And i(skip) explained rather patiently that while the feature spec of the thing you wanted to build was fine... This other thing that could exist was not so much.
Axle: <sighs>yeah I remember.
Skip: So no matter what you(Axle) are not building a part of the possibly bad thingstm, then releasing it into the wild. As that lowers the barrier to entry of some dick stuffing things up. kk.
Axle: Yes skip: <thinks> egads living with skip is real pain in the arse. Always thinking about the big picture. spoilsport. <sulks>
Skip: <thinks> Bloody hedonistic children wanting see if things go ping if you push them. I thought he grew out of that decades ago. Or maybe that was just when i took over?<hrmphs>>

TLDR: As I don't know certain things that dont exist wont if they do exist be bad for us. I wont build one of the tricksy bits of them. So there exist constraints on what I will and wont do that i wont explain. (Skip wont let me.)
Basically what I will build as a local server has limitations. As way of contrast. If someone wants some feature and thus the admins also want a feature that doesn't exist in the PHPB server software....
Um... yeah... I(Axle) am the kinda person that can fork the PHPB software, "This page was generated by phpBB, the free open-source bulletin board package."
and make it do whatever... yeah pretty much whatever i want. And skips just cool with that. Even if its more work. It stands near no edges. Its fine.
Also I had quick squiz... do blah via the PHPBB ACL lists, but do user level peronalised dynamic configurable conditional (Override)(deny self even when mods let you) accesses control per thread looks tricksy? Thread number looks like the right thing for access group ID, but maybe bleh? For a problem so rare?)

but yeah I believe i can make a windows+Linux binary proxyserver that would do the feature spec. And as a binary skip wouldn't object.


TLDR: Someone would have to want it.
So far my decision that I wont play a mafia game unless I build the proxy server first, is a nice barrier to entry for me playing.
So while it must be done for me before I play, why do i want to build a proxy again? Currently it is my 10 day cool off period on playing again.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:43 pm
by AxleGreaser
In post 266, Thestatusquo wrote:I suspect I'll just get buried by people attacking me because they really personally like dead/spectator threads so they wouldn't be willing to listen to the actual arguments against them.

Not really worth.
I really personally like them, but I regard your points as substantive.....

so
IMO it was worth it so far? but yeah you might still be right after this point.


I had considered (formally) observing some games now I suspect i wont.
That however leaves me with some problems.
Sometimes without being in dead thread i watch a game. (solo dead thread? observation deck. I am watching some now. On and off.)
As I have no one to talk to so I don't need to grab posts. (that means error rate of mistakenly posting in an ongoing game) is exceptionally low. Also I never watch game when I am still 95% asleep)
but ... sometimes I have thought I might want to say something to someone when the game ended. (and I get super paranoid and careful about what i do and how Igab any quote I do get and Pm it to myself.)
Sometimes in my own notes for a game Iam playing, i read an ongoing game and note specific things about the game/player...
yeah i cant post them in my game(until the other ends), but i am allowed to remind myself why i think X in my notes. Even when Y is from an ongoing game.
(in fact the top of every notes page i have has a note about an ongoing game... because that way its fact i am not allowed to paste my notes directly into any game thread. The game is >10years old... but it is still technically an ongoing game... LOL)
In post 270, Lord Gurgi wrote:There will not be a dead thread or spectator thread for my game. No hydras either.
Id like to point one thing out about dead threads for the dead.
It gives them place to vent, chillax, and then shoot the breeze. Reestablish social cohesion.
I am becoming ever more convinced totally unspoiled ones are best. Personal self reflective assessment and external observation suggests IQ drops by more than 10 points once spoiled. (and i am being kind BTW)
But dead threads even if they get bit ... ahem. Get it out, done and left behind in this game. Not carried over.
Same with post games.

My 2c.

If you would like a rule change .... I like this one.
Sig bets are against the rules as they set up tension between out of game outcomes and in game reads.
Umm... Can anyone explain why claiming in game that after the game people will be blacklisted is not way worse....
basically all discussion of anything after the game ought be out. All in game posts need to be based on the premise that once a player is dead they are dead forever there is no after life. There is no apology after the game. There is please for the love of god read this reads list when I flip, as the reads list is in the game.

That rule change also I think helps people keep it (their anger) in their pants and keep it about this game. Not interpersonal hate/frustration.
If you wanna black list someone.. .after the game. Esp after you see >>all<< the flips.
If you cant get by without raging about blacklisting in the game perhaps you do not belong in a game of mafia (any game?) at the present time.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:56 pm
by MathBlade
In post 268, Aristophanes wrote:
In post 267, Kison wrote:We gotta find a way to just block dead/spectators from posting in the game thread & all will be well.

Scum PTs are so much riskier IMO. I was constantly paranoid last time I used one.
If only game threads had to have approval to post in them!

It would eliminate hydra/alt slips and ongiong game slips!

Maybe something to start coding in :P
Gee...if only someone (cough me) would not have RL start up they could actually do things towards this.

*sighs*

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:09 pm
by Magister Ludi
/in gurgi.

Expected start date? Not too earlish december is best
All times are UTC-11:00
Page 11 of 30

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited