Mafia Hosting Rules

These are the rules and regulations that I proposed for hosting mafia games. Due to mixed reactions, I removed them and they are no longer in effect (as of now).

Anyways, these are the disputed rules, you can vote on them in the poll (coming).

Rule 1. To host a Speed Mafia game:

Rule 2. To host a Small game:

Rule 3. To host a Large game:

Rule 4. To host a Huge game

Rule 5. If it is your first time hosting a game, you must have someone look over said game for balance before you host it.

Rule 6. If a Huge Game is in play, no other games may be in play.

If you want to bring up something else, feel free to do so.

If you disagree with a rule, please suggest an alternative to the rule, or give some explanation for your argument. I made these up in the wee hours of the morning last night, so I'm not offended whatsoever by any comment you make. Don't hesitate to say something out of "respect"; my personal pride can take a backseat to this discussion.*

Poll closes in two weeks.

EDIT: *Unless you just want to flame or troll me (or call me a dictator ). None of that crap, stay civilized.

This is a Subcription post.

EDIT. Also I support Rule 3

You can't make such a statement. I understand your point, but on CFC anyone can start any thread they like.

If you don't think they will manage to run the game, don't waste your time and join. We get it in NESing all the time. A newb starts up, makes a load of noise.. week later the thing is dead after a lot of effort from others.

Eventually you just learn to avoid threads until the person has proved themselves elsewhere.

Abaddon said:

You can't make such a statement. Anyone can start any thread they like.

If you don't think they will manage to run the game, don't waste your time and join.

Click to expand...

Coming from Mr. "I'm Going to Troll Every Single NES Thread that bestrfcplayer starts" himself!

I disagree with all these rules. I belive in free enterprise of forum games; If a mod and game is good, it lives. If not, it dies. Simple as that.

Zack said:

Coming from Mr. "I'm Going to Troll Every Single NES Thread that bestrfcplayer starts" himself!

Click to expand...

I am unsure how that is relevant to this thread.. ho-hum :whistle:

He made his own name in NESing, nothing to do with me.

What are the problems these rules are meant to solve? Five of them seem to be geared towards stopping loads of new players making unbalanced games, and the sixth one tries to prevent players from signing up for too many games and then being inactive in them, but I haven't seen either of those being a problem. (There is inactivity, but I don't recall it being caused by game overloading.)

I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Abaddon here... these rules were already in place, sort of, but not as rules, as hints and advice to players. For example, if Newbie999 pops in now and says he wants to host a 90-player Digimon mafia game, we'd all say, 'Whoa nelly,' or things to that effect, and then we'd suggest that he plays in some games and perhaps hosts a smaller one first, before attempting to perfect his Digimagnum Opus.

Adding lots of byzantine rules full of arbitrary numbers feels too restrictive. Mafia needs to be inclusive. I mean, we are just playing a little game here.

(As such I disagree with all of these rules, except Rule #4, which should just be common sense really. )

EDIT: ps zacks a dictator, zack more like jack, as in jackboots amirite???????????

While I agree that you should play a few games before hosting one, and get help from more veteran hosts in balancing, the rules shouldn't be too rigid. Also, it's perfectly fine for there to simultaneously be a Huge Game and a Small Game, just not a Huge and Large Game.

choxorn said:

Also, it's perfectly fine for there to simultaneously be a Huge Game and a Small Game, just not a Huge and Large Game.

Click to expand...

RE: How many games run at the same time- let the free market decide! If people want to play another game whilst a huge game is ongoing, there's nothing wrong with that. Also, setting stringent and inflexible rules for GMing isn't the way to go. I would've been disqualified from running LotR mafia by those rules...maybe that would've been a good thing...but I don't really think it's a matter of "you've played 4 games and hosted 1 small one, no way you can run a huge game" and "you've played 5 games and hosted 1 small one, you'll be perfectly capable".

Plus what Catharsis said.

I don't really think there is a need for a list of rules, as such. A list of generalised guidelines to assist players and hosts be aware of etiquette, perhaps, but rules, no.

Also, say someone breaks these rules? What happens? It's really pointless having 'rules' rather than generalised and friendly guidelines if there is no enforcement.

After some feedback, how would these rules work?

Rule 1. To host a Speed Mafia game:

Rule 2. To host a Small game:

Rule 3. To host a Large game:

Rule 4. To host a Huge game

Guideline 1. If it is your first time hosting a game, it is highly recommended that you have someone look over said game for balance before you host it.

How about 2 to host a large and 3 to host a huge?

How about, one rule to unite them all.

You can't host until you have played.

I'd also just like to point out that ATPG had not played a mafia game here before he hosted one.

Should we have stopped him?

He hadn't played a mafia game here. He had played plenty of mafia games.

I assume the rules proposed would be referring to games played here. They'd be completely pointless otherwise.

Camikaze said:

They'd be completely pointless otherwise.

Click to expand...

Why is that?

"Did I ever tell you about how I played mafia before I came to CFC? It was even before I'd adopted this username..."

Now, what's to stop someone from saying that they were, oh, I don't know, Tsaeb XIII?

If there is a clear and easy way around the rules, then it makes much more sense to just have guidelines.

I have to agree with Catharsis that the prior proposal of "hard, set in stone rules" doesn't seem like it would solve either problem it's meant to - too many games at once, or inactivity. The first hasn't really been an actual problem as far as I've seen, for a very long time the whole forum has been quite consistent on the max number of games running. The second isn't solved at all, really because players would still go inactive or drop-out of games.

Also, if anything I would prefer a more lax rule on number of games hosted. There is no reason at all why two large games couldn't be hosted at the same time - especially useful would be if they are staggered. And more specifically - any rule on hosting Mafia games here should take into account Night of the Werewolves. We already have by tradition 1 large Mafia and 1 (large) NOTW at once, so the argument it's impossible to play in multiple games doesn't hold water.

Perhaps a host of a current large or huge game would have a tough time playing in another, that's true, and should be discouraged from doing so but that really just falls into good hosting/a host being able to do their part. But otherwise, we've got players who play both Mafia and NOTW, and plenty on top of that who may be in 2, 3, more other games on other forums. I don't see a fundamental difference between 2 Large games being hosted here, a Large "Mafia" and a large "NOTW" at the same time which people do anyway, or players simply playing in them elsewhere.

However, in practicality I would say: at the current time, there probably are not enough active players to have 2 large Mafia games at once. So yes, right now I don't think we could open up a ton of games, but I would expect this to not be the permanent situation, even a few months back there were more games going by faster. This could very easily change though, we have more than enough "total number of players" and it's just because there are consistent inactives/dropouts right now.

So rather than writing that into the rules permanently I don't see why in the future there couldn't be many multiple small games and at least 2 large games. There should just be of course recognition and guidelines to consider if there are enough active players. (And for instance, we have a HUGE number of "Academy-type" or "Empire" games running right getting signups and just concerning Mafia games again this wouldn't even address that. Ultimately the answer is just "be reasonable about hosting a game if you can get the right number of players" and of course be patient/take turns with everyone else.


As for guidelines on the hosts themselves rather than total # of games - I agree it is a good sentiment to have experience and commitment on the same forum, yes. Balance checking helps and there are often players who'd be willing to do it of course, and overall I think I like things as "guidelines."

Also:

Camikaze said:

I assume the rules proposed would be referring to games played here. They'd be completely pointless otherwise.

Click to expand...

This times 1000%. And actually a lot of people probably have played mafia elsewhere even if they showed up with 0 posts and new to CFC tomorrow, because it's done at tons of places. If there is a point that a player has to consistently contribute to the community before hosting, it should follow this.

However, I still prefer "guidelines" anyway.

Camikaze said:

"Did I ever tell you about how I played mafia before I came to CFC? It was even before I'd adopted this username..."

Now, what's to stop someone from saying that they were, oh, I don't know, Tsaeb XIII?

If there is a clear and easy way around the rules, then it makes much more sense to just have guidelines.

Click to expand...

It would only apply to TWC and .org, not some obscure writing forum.