Mafia: Information, Announcements, and Discussion
- Thread starter Zack
- Start date
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Edit: Removed, comment not needed
Zack
99% hot gas
@classical_hero: If you're looking to open sign ups for your game, and you want 50 like you said, you should probably start sign ups now.
Also, I have updated some information for the medieval fantasy game.
Also, I have updated some information for the medieval fantasy game.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I will do that on the weekend, when I have a bit more time.
Zack
99% hot gas
Darth Caesar
Might be a Wizard
I am making an announcement! I am starting work on "Blazing Tommy Guns" and will have it ready to go in a couple of weeks!
Zack
99% hot gas
2011 Mafia/NOTW Awards
Procedure
1. Once I open the thread, anyone who is eligible (eligible = anyone who is on the list of 2011 Mafia/NOTW Players, contained below) has one week to nominate candidates for all awards. You may not nominate yourself or a game you hosted.
2. Each award will be accompanied by a description of the award and a list of nominated players, games, etc. (along with any details included when they were nominated) that you can vote for to win each award.
3. Voting is only for a group of awards at a time, then progress to the next group and vote, and so on (all at once - too hectic; one at a time - too long).
4. Voting procedure for Player Awards:
- Vote one player for first and another for second
- A vote for first is worth two points, and a vote for second is worth one point
- Whoever receives the most points wins the award
- You cannot vote for yourself
- You are allowed to vote for as many nominated games as you want, as long as you played in them
- You cannot vote for games you hosted
- To vote, PM me a value 1 - 10, with 1 being abysmal, 5 being average, and 10 being perfect
- Whichever game receives the highest average wins the award
List of Awards
Spoiler :
List of 2011 Mafia/NOTW Games - All games after SpongeBob Mafia, as that was the last game included in the 2010 awards. As such, some of the following games will have started in December.
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
mgsmuhammad
Resident Stalker
You mean there's no Small game up? 
Huh.
Guess I could throw in mine.
Huh.
Guess I could throw in mine.
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
So I'm not going to lie. Remember how I've said like 20 times I'd write up my game fully?
Weeeelllllllllll this makes a 21rst!
But tbh, I can probably write it quickly whenever there is a need. Just someone shoot me up a PM or otherwise and bug me about it.
Weeeelllllllllll this makes a 21rst!
But tbh, I can probably write it quickly whenever there is a need. Just someone shoot me up a PM or otherwise and bug me about it.
Zack
99% hot gas
mgsmuhammad
Resident Stalker
We only run one game of each size at a time to avoid spreading the player base too thin.
Sorry. Just the way we've always done it.
Still, there's only 8 players left in that game, with 2 deaths a phase, so it can't last more than a week now.
Once it gets closer to the end, the next small game will open sign-ups.
Maybe 2 or 3 days from now?
Sorry. Just the way we've always done it.
Still, there's only 8 players left in that game, with 2 deaths a phase, so it can't last more than a week now.
Once it gets closer to the end, the next small game will open sign-ups.
Maybe 2 or 3 days from now?
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
I think we should have some discussion (this is the discussion thread as well!) about "what we should expect of other players" in a game.
For instance, I really do expect:
1) players to be up to date on the thread; I know people are busy sometimes and can't stay up to date, but I think it is fair game to criticise people for that. Even if you make a long wordy post, it is fair to expect people to read it enough to get the jist of it.
2) 15 minutes of "mental effort" beyond being up to date in the thread per day: They don't have to be PMing people, but they should make a relevant post in the thread each 36 hours or so and should be thinking about the game as well. it does no good to be up to date in reading the thread (see 1) and just bandwagon/give no thought to it. I expect everyone to read and have thoughts over what they read.
Note just sending in orders is not "mental effort". I expect everyone to always be sending in their nightly orders/voting and such, but I also expect them to have a reason behind it. I think it is fair to criticise people for "not trying" if they don't have any reasoning whatsoever, even if they have been voting/sending in orders on time to the GM.
3) respond to PMs in a reasonable amount of time: now, I don't actually use read receipts (While some people do), but I assume if I PM someone and they have no response within, say, 30 hours for day phase or by the end of the night phase if done early on in the night phase (20 hours let's say), it is fair game to say they are "ignoring my PM".
Basically, I can accuse them of trying to hide/lurk at that point. Sure, maybe they were too busy IRL to actually give decent responses to PMs they got from me/other people, but it's fair game to criticise them for it.
4) be available after the game ends to make some comments/answer some questions. People lie and be scummy in mafia games; it's what they do. If someone knowingly lied (whether they were the mafia, neutral, innocent, w/e) I expect them to be able to acknowledge that after the game ends. I also expect people to be able to explain any decisions they made during the course of the game if asked (in an appropriate manner): they don't have to be spectacular reasons, they could have been flat out wrong guesses, but they should know why they did something. This goes with (2)
5) Not make any personal attacks on people until after the game is over and questions were answered sufficiently. Sure, it can be frustrating to have someone flat out lie about PMs and such, but you shouldn't attack them personally until after the game.
It is also important to not use personal attacks as evidence of anything; personal attacks, although they could turn out to be completely true, do not add/take away any credit to an ingame argument. If I read someone making a personal attack on someone, I have to automatically discredit it for game purposes. And yes, obviously many of us will have biases towards certain players based on past games experience (whether you assume them to be wrong, smart, liar, scum, truthful, always inactive, etc) but if I post "player X is always inactive and should always be WOG'd" or "player X always lies in games" or "player X is a terrible player and is always wrong" that's not actually a valid statement for the game at hand; it should be ignored.
For instance, I really do expect:
1) players to be up to date on the thread; I know people are busy sometimes and can't stay up to date, but I think it is fair game to criticise people for that. Even if you make a long wordy post, it is fair to expect people to read it enough to get the jist of it.
2) 15 minutes of "mental effort" beyond being up to date in the thread per day: They don't have to be PMing people, but they should make a relevant post in the thread each 36 hours or so and should be thinking about the game as well. it does no good to be up to date in reading the thread (see 1) and just bandwagon/give no thought to it. I expect everyone to read and have thoughts over what they read.
Note just sending in orders is not "mental effort". I expect everyone to always be sending in their nightly orders/voting and such, but I also expect them to have a reason behind it. I think it is fair to criticise people for "not trying" if they don't have any reasoning whatsoever, even if they have been voting/sending in orders on time to the GM.
3) respond to PMs in a reasonable amount of time: now, I don't actually use read receipts (While some people do), but I assume if I PM someone and they have no response within, say, 30 hours for day phase or by the end of the night phase if done early on in the night phase (20 hours let's say), it is fair game to say they are "ignoring my PM".
Basically, I can accuse them of trying to hide/lurk at that point. Sure, maybe they were too busy IRL to actually give decent responses to PMs they got from me/other people, but it's fair game to criticise them for it.
4) be available after the game ends to make some comments/answer some questions. People lie and be scummy in mafia games; it's what they do. If someone knowingly lied (whether they were the mafia, neutral, innocent, w/e) I expect them to be able to acknowledge that after the game ends. I also expect people to be able to explain any decisions they made during the course of the game if asked (in an appropriate manner): they don't have to be spectacular reasons, they could have been flat out wrong guesses, but they should know why they did something. This goes with (2)
5) Not make any personal attacks on people until after the game is over and questions were answered sufficiently. Sure, it can be frustrating to have someone flat out lie about PMs and such, but you shouldn't attack them personally until after the game.
It is also important to not use personal attacks as evidence of anything; personal attacks, although they could turn out to be completely true, do not add/take away any credit to an ingame argument. If I read someone making a personal attack on someone, I have to automatically discredit it for game purposes. And yes, obviously many of us will have biases towards certain players based on past games experience (whether you assume them to be wrong, smart, liar, scum, truthful, always inactive, etc) but if I post "player X is always inactive and should always be WOG'd" or "player X always lies in games" or "player X is a terrible player and is always wrong" that's not actually a valid statement for the game at hand; it should be ignored.
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
Well I guess. But I'm fine with people who "lurk" in the thread and don't post; sure, I'll post publically that they need to post more, etc, but there is a difference between not posting and not reading/being up to date in the thread. And this blurs the line between what is a valid argument and what is not.
I also am assuming some etiquette things. A person could show up to post 1 time a day phase in a thread (to vote) but has 50 PMs in private communication over that day phase. Even in private communication, some game etiquette should be followed; most players hesitate from saying "player X is a terrible player/liar/whatever" in the public thread, but if that same sentiment is expressed in private it really should be dismissed too.
And I also want people to discuss what is fair game to criticise people for doing; imagine this scenario:
player X is "Active" and has voted and posted in the thread multiple times, and presumably gets his orders to the GM on in time.
Kennigit thinks player X, although technically active, has demonstrated nothing except simple bandwagoning and apparently no rationale behind posts.
Kennigit posts "player X has done nothing to contribute to the thread at all"
player X says "yeah I have. I've posted many times!"
In this scenario, Kennigit can have a perfectly valid claim. I expect people to be more active in the game mentally than just going-through-the-motions of the mechanics of the game. And if I criticise them for that, it's not a personal attack trying to say they are stupid; it's a legitimate claim.
erm, different way to word it:
1) activity requires thinking about the game
2) you can in essence call someone inactive/stupid, even if they are posting in the thread & voting, and be correct. You can also expect people to read your stuff and respond to you to a certain extent; if someone does not respond to you when you are asking them to, them saying "I was too busy" is not a valid in-game reason. It is fair to criticise them for it, but it should be done tastefully. However, you cannot assume that a person will respond to everything you propose; I'm assuming about 15 minutes of mental thought a day. If someone is getting 50 PMs then you should recognise that and not criticise them for not responding to everything you ask; if you are the only person PMing someone you can blame them for not reading what you write.
I also am assuming some etiquette things. A person could show up to post 1 time a day phase in a thread (to vote) but has 50 PMs in private communication over that day phase. Even in private communication, some game etiquette should be followed; most players hesitate from saying "player X is a terrible player/liar/whatever" in the public thread, but if that same sentiment is expressed in private it really should be dismissed too.
And I also want people to discuss what is fair game to criticise people for doing; imagine this scenario:
player X is "Active" and has voted and posted in the thread multiple times, and presumably gets his orders to the GM on in time.
Kennigit thinks player X, although technically active, has demonstrated nothing except simple bandwagoning and apparently no rationale behind posts.
Kennigit posts "player X has done nothing to contribute to the thread at all"
player X says "yeah I have. I've posted many times!"
In this scenario, Kennigit can have a perfectly valid claim. I expect people to be more active in the game mentally than just going-through-the-motions of the mechanics of the game. And if I criticise them for that, it's not a personal attack trying to say they are stupid; it's a legitimate claim.
erm, different way to word it:
1) activity requires thinking about the game
2) you can in essence call someone inactive/stupid, even if they are posting in the thread & voting, and be correct. You can also expect people to read your stuff and respond to you to a certain extent; if someone does not respond to you when you are asking them to, them saying "I was too busy" is not a valid in-game reason. It is fair to criticise them for it, but it should be done tastefully. However, you cannot assume that a person will respond to everything you propose; I'm assuming about 15 minutes of mental thought a day. If someone is getting 50 PMs then you should recognise that and not criticise them for not responding to everything you ask; if you are the only person PMing someone you can blame them for not reading what you write.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
What we should expect of other players is that they turn up once in a while, but otherwise nothing seeing as how this is a game on the Internet for the purposes of Fun.
The PM time limit for instance is a silliness; if some chancer sends me a PM such as 'what is ur ability? Tell me or I'll vote for you!' then I reserve the right to flick V-signs at my screen and ignore the PM entirely without a million gnats taking the shape of a person and swarming me as some angry whining miasma because of this limit.
Calling someone a liar is acceptable in a game based around lying.
Perhaps people are not available after the game ends because they are not willing to reveal their own scumtells or the techniques they used as an innocent, if effective.
Similar threads
