Mafiascum.net

In post 66, Apple Jack wrote:Especially one reviewer who I won't name by name, she approves way to many unbalanced games imo

You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?

In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:

In post 73, Alisae wrote:

In post 71, callforjudgement wrote:they might even ask you!

this happens?

I was invited to the NRG. I didn't apply. I'm not the only person who was invited to the NRG, either.

Can vouch for this; when we have someone we think has the skills, we're more than happy to scout them out.

Admittedly though, I've slacked off on suggestions, though that's been in part thanks to these changes being upcoming for quite some time and knowing that a new reviewer might not be accepted given that. (Otherwise I would have suggested both nsg and Mathdino among others.)

In post 57, Nexus wrote:Why don’t we see how it goes rather than tearing it down before it starts?

With respect, Nexus, and this is a problem with mafiascum as a whole that applies to every aspect of it: We this ("give it a chance"), and then later down the road when it's shown that the people who were raising concerns raised valid points (we give it a chance and it doesn't work)...nothing is done to change the system for various reasons and then nothing gets done.

This is a source of great discontent; I know for a fact this sentiment exists in a great number of active users because they've literally told me exactly this much before. They are upset, upset at essentially not being listened to and yes this is one of the reasons why there is an INCREDIBLE sentiment that there is a fundamental divide between mafiascum administration (the skittles team) and mafiascum users; they don't feel like their feedback is actually being welcomed. And I can understand why they feel that way.

A good way to address flaws in the system is to when we can see the flaws in the system immediately provide feedback (preferably in the form of constructive criticism with healthy dosages of positive reinforcement of the good while acknowledging the needs-work/not-so-good). There's a reason we have the saying "strike while the iron is hot" and slothfulness is considered a sin.

Just pushing the points aside on "let's give it a chance" has, time and time again, on site been shown to produce an environment where...

...It then never gets revisited in spite of everyone knowing on some level it needs to be. Why it doesn't get revisited, I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely, but the fact is it's undeniable that by and large it DOESN'T get revisited.

As an example of what I feel is good to do instead, there was a new Newbie setup proposed. "Why don't we see how it goes" would have led to hundreds of games using that setup in spite of people raising valid concerns about the setup in question. Instead, the newbie setup design team listened to the feedback and made a newer setup which by and large people happy with. And NOW, , we're in the "why don't we see how it goes" phase. (I mean, you can't please everyone, but the newer newbie setup pleases more people than the originally proposed one would have.)

I do agree with the sentiment; we can't dismiss ideas without trying them first. But we shouldn't refuse to make changes off of valid feedback because we're set on trying out a new system. Quite the opposite. When we are trying out a new system is the time to receive and implement that feedback.

In post 69, AnonymousGhost wrote:Would you consider the idea of taking "students" - people who want to become a normal reviewer or just get the experience of how to mod a balanced game without having to mod many game - who'd "job shadow" normal reviewers?

Maybe after a certain period of time has passed, the "students" could graduate into the position of a normal reviewer? Or maybe "graduate" into a "back up" reviewer and then graduate to "normal reviewer"?

This is actually something the new system is fairly conductive for and something to this nature would be a good way to get new blood in.

Were we to implement it, I imagine though that it'd be idea for the primary reviewer if they just instantly /pass the setup to have a rundown of the entire setup/game and explain it in detail and why they are passing it, so that the students can actually get a sense of the reasoning and logic behind the process. (Just an instant naked /pass doesn't tell the student anything other than "well guess the reviewer thought this setup was balanced, wonder why though?".)

In post 57, Nexus wrote:Why don’t we see how it goes rather than tearing it down before it starts?

Yeah we're not the problems with the site let's let it die.

Ya know what would be great
If the site was way more liberal then the Skittles team wants to be

Populism and Mafia don't mix. That already killed my homesite.

Removal of the graylist is wank. Standardization is fine.

Also-people shaping the rules isn't a good idea. The rules being shaped by the meta which is shaped by the people is good. Just have a graylist for each year and call it a day. Expecting roles to infect the site from every other queue just sounds like a good way to limit a role from ever being normal.

wow, i don't have to design setups anymore when i want to mod
i love that change

I think one of the important things about the Normal Queue is that a lot of people play them because they don't want to play heavily unbalanced themed games; in general, I believe the normal queue does a very good job of keeping games relatively balanced compared to the other queues (partially because it requires a reviewer). That aside though, I think it is important that people feel it is worthwhile to play normal games; in other words, that they are interesting and fun to play. While the normal queue has always (and should continue to) emphasize the dayplay over night play, I think the setup of a game goes a long way towards the enjoyability of a game. So, what I am basically getting at is that I think as a whole, the normal guidelines need to be a bit more lax in terms of setup design.

I think the other problem with the Normal Queue has been time between inning into the queue to mod (and sending in your setup) and actually getting your setup reviewed. Like, tbqh, I don't understand why it takes over a to find reviewers. I guess under the old system, finding three reviewers did take some time, but does it really take a week? Like, if that is the case, then yeah, the NRG seriously needs more reviewers. And, very few people are added to the NRG.

I /in March 8 so I can start before my vacation at the end of the month.
Finally had to /out

In post 33, implosion wrote:Informed: You know (some information about the setup). This information may be related to the setup, or to other players. It must be objective and accurate. For instance, an informed townie (or informed mafia) could be given any of the following:

You know that this setup has 10 town members and 3 mafia members.
You know that there is a rolecop in this game.
You know that there is a mafia rolecop in this game.
You know that (player) is a tracker.
You know that (player) is a town doctor.
You know that (player) is town. NOTE: if something like this is used, it must be non-random what player-slot is referred to. For example, if an informed townie is told that someone is town, it should be part of the setup specification that the player they are told is town is a randomly chosen vanilla townie, rather than a completely randomly chosen town player. Or it should be part of the setup specification that they are told that a specific power role is town.

What are the guidelines for how this stuff flips in a dead role pm?

As someone who hasn't modded a game in a while, these changes made me interested in modding a Normal again.

In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:

In post 73, Alisae wrote:

In post 71, callforjudgement wrote:they might even ask you!

this happens?

I was invited to the NRG. I didn't apply.

I'm not the only person who was invited to the NRG, either.

I think I got invited to make an application.
Although that was probably more because N was the listmod at the time and could bug me in person.

It’s easy to balance games. Put me in coach.

these are good changes

Not having SK is going to be sad.

In post 87, Gustavo wrote:Not having SK is going to be sad.

no this is a good change

Why?

I'm rather shocked there is this much pushback on these changes. I mean ... its the Normal game queue .. having things as normalized and standardized as possible seems to be a positive to me for that game type. I don't understand the need for flavor ... you can absolutely just run an otherwise normal setup as a Theme if you want that. Nothing about a Theme has to be "Bizarre lolsetups and no balance and crazy for crazy's sake".

I don't think I should be forced to run an otherwise normal game in the theme queue if I want to use just one of some kind of slight variant role.

Non-standardized role PMs and rules aren't "needed", but I enjoy them, I think other people enjoy them, and I don't see how it's "needed" for them to be standardized. It's just restriction of something for what I really have a hard time seeing as any sort of benefit.

I feel like this discussion has real life parallels.

In post 67, AnonymousGhost wrote:How does someone become a normal set up reviewer?

you pm the list mod and ask "Hey can I be a normal reviewer?"
then they go in some back alley and talk about how shitty you are at modding/reviewing and then they decide they need people so they let you in anyway.

but that's just my experience!

In post 90, MagnaofIllusion wrote:I'm rather shocked there is this much pushback on these changes. I mean ... its the Normal game queue .. having things as normalized and standardized as possible seems to be a positive to me for that game type. I don't understand the need for flavor ... you can absolutely just run an otherwise normal setup as a Theme if you want that. Nothing about a Theme has to be "Bizarre lolsetups and no balance and crazy for crazy's sake".

Finally someone else gets it. Maybe I'm not as crazy as I thought. Thanks MoI.

I mean there's some stuff I object to, like outright cutting serial killers, but the 'hey we need non-normal stuff in normal games' confuses me
when I /in to normal games I hope that there's no random non-normal shit that I won't like. but maybe I see normals differently than other people. idk.

In post 75, mastina wrote:You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?

In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:

He was complaining about ffery, I'm fairly sure

ffery doesn't appear to be in the NRG though

I think there are some people who really will be pushed out of the normal queue because of these changes (mods who were running abnormal normal games).
But I think other changes will bring people into the normal queue who'd otherwise be out (mods who want the details taken out of their hands)

In post 97, Mathdino wrote:ffery doesn't appear to be in the NRG though

In post 96, RadiantCowbells wrote:

In post 75, mastina wrote:You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?

In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:

He was complaining about ffery, I'm fairly sure

Yeah this is a super productive conversation to be having.

Please do not insult other people. At no point were concerns raised about any Normal Review Group members. When you signed up for reviews you never asked specifically not be to put with anyone else. If you had a problem, you should have told me before now. Publicly calling people out is not the right way to do things.

And thus ends the conversation.