Re: wD Mafia Master Post
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:34 pm
That's what I have
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=272
I do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?DemonRHK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 amI would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.
For reference, I am open to running either:
- Astraight vanilla game
OR
- A 'RHK Special'
with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)
I think the idea is that town players have "partial" PRs that they can combine with dead townies to form an active PR. So if you're the empty gun townie, and I'm the bullet townie, and you die, I can inherit your gun and become the Vig and then I get a shot.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:40 pmI do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?DemonRHK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 amI would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.
For reference, I am open to running either:
- Astraight vanilla game
OR
- A 'RHK Special'
with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)
Those were abilities.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:40 pmI do not understand the RHK special. Are "UNITY" and "NEW WORLD" the names of the Town and Mafia teams?DemonRHK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 amI would like to request a chance to GM/Run a setup at the next available opening.
For reference, I am open to running either:
- Astraight vanilla game
OR
- A 'RHK Special'
with the gimmick this time being 'Formable PRs' based on the concept of forming nations from many Paradox grand strategy games (You can "take" the lands/tags from dead players. Ex: England, Scotland, and Ireland can all form GB/UK if the other 2 are dead), with dynamic player choice to determine their route to advancing (Ex: England can choose either UNITY or NEW WORLD. UNITY gives extra power if they form GB, but NEW WORLD allows them to resurrect as the US if they die)
For those who are somewhat new to forum Mafia, a semi-open setup is one where a variety of Power Roles are described in the setup, but only some, and not all, of these are present in the game. So for example, the setup might contain role descriptions for a (traditional) Cop, and a Vanilla Cop, and an Item Cop, but not all three of these would actually be in the game.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:05 pmI am starting to develop the M58 setup.
Draft flavour: The witch-hunts of Matthew Hopkins, "Witch-finder General".
(If you'd like some early hype for this, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98gzk6VSzfU)
Draft setup: Semi-open, 20 to 22 players.
Food has brought this up again in the M55 sign up thread.foodcoats wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:07 pmHello, webDip Mafia players!
I would like to propose that wD Mafia adopt a Player Code of Conduct into the rules. Nothing fancy, just something like:
"All webDip Mafia participants agree to treat other players with respect, play with good sportsmanship, and refrain from making personal attacks."
The purpose of such a Code is not to give admins, mods or GMs a tool to ban or otherwise punish players. The goal is to have an aspirational vision for how we expect players and the community at large to conduct itself during the game, making it a more fun, inclusive and competitive place as a result.
I've been mulling this over for several months not least because I have acted at times contrary to the spirit of this Code. In the most recent game of mini-mafia, I made a rude and inappropriate remark to another player. I think that the entire player pool should've felt comfortable in saying something to the effect of, "Hey, foodcoats, you need to cool it." I immediately knew what I said was wrong and I don't doubt others felt the same way. Similarly, I've found myself in situations where I was surprised or upset at the behaviour of other players and wondered why we permitted things to get so out of control.
Mafia is a game that naturally leads to hot heads, and this is undoubtedly exacerbated on the Internet with the effects of anonymity and a lack of body language. But much as in academia, politics, or any other arena of competitive debate, ground rules create a better experience for all. Furthermore, this should not be a burden that GMs have to carry on their own: as a community, we need to know the kind of game space we want to foster.
Finally, there are two oft-heard laments here: a lack of new players, and a "toxic" environment. I think this might address both.
My 2
Is it therefore your view that the current Rule 7 should be removed, on the basis that it is impossible to enforce?
I think we're in complete agreement on this.Foxcastle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:14 pmInvoking the GM for game purposes should be against the rules, and GMs should be more active to intervene and wave off players who are going down that road. If Bo claims he's going to ask to be replaced or if Brainbomb is going to talk about PMs or about how the game is some kind of secret-closed-setup outside the stated setup, then GMs should tell them to knock it off. That's not about a code of conduct, it's about GMs being willing to step in.
Where is the line here, and who is to draw it?Foxcastle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:14 pm---What foodcoats and damo are actually talking about is abusive language. "Coming across as an asshole" and "salty" are not a problem. Devolving into abusive, vicious attacks on other players is a problem. Jamiet, you are one of the worst offenders on that front, particularly when it comes to Brainbomb. It takes away from the game, it makes people want to stop reading the thread. It probably drives away new players who don't to get involved in a community with so much toxicity, it certainly seems to have driven away veteran players who are tired of it.
I am absolutely not trying to do that. I am contributing to a debate.
I don't think it particularly matters. GMs need to have a basis to deal with players who are doing things against the spirit of the game. I think there are plenty of provisions that give them that cover elsewhere in the rules. But it's not like any of these rules helped us deal with a recent episode where a player refused to acknowledge the authority of the GMs and had to be dealt with by the mods. I like to think that the community would accept a GM's decision, but it's really up to the GM of the next game, and we're a bunch of softies, because if we start making people sit games out for minor stuff that's not really a problem, then nobody will manage to fill a large game.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:26 pmIs it therefore your view that the current Rule 7 should be removed, on the basis that it is impossible to enforce?
The line is where other people feel uncomfortable, including those who are on the sidelines of the exchange. I have often felt uncomfortable with some of the worse attacks that have been lobbed (both by you, Jamiet, and at you). But I haven't felt like wading into the thread to try to get the players involved to stop would do anything or be helpful.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:26 pmWhere is the line here, and who is to draw it?Foxcastle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:14 pm---What foodcoats and damo are actually talking about is abusive language. "Coming across as an asshole" and "salty" are not a problem. Devolving into abusive, vicious attacks on other players is a problem. Jamiet, you are one of the worst offenders on that front, particularly when it comes to Brainbomb. It takes away from the game, it makes people want to stop reading the thread. It probably drives away new players who don't to get involved in a community with so much toxicity, it certainly seems to have driven away veteran players who are tired of it.
While I have at times regretted my words, I have on multiple occasions been on the receiving end of personal abuse from Vecna, Bo_Sox, Ghug, Brainbomb and others, and I remember a time not that long ago when RagingIke wanted to stop playing a game I was GM-ing because he felt Durga was being deeply personally abusive towards him.
I agree there may be an issue here and I am happy for this discussion to be taking place. But asking who is to police this "code of conduct" is a serious question because I guarantee that there will be people who will test its limits.
Sent: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:17 pm
From: Jamiet99uk
Recipient: brainbomb
What? That you're not allowed to end the phase on "unvote"?
That's been a rule for at least the last 20 games.
You have played in multiple games with that rule.
It's in the text of the standard "must vote" rule. Rule 1. That's why "no lynch" is allowed, but ending on "unvote" is not permitted.
Seriously this has been a well established rule for several years. It predates the new forum.
I don't know what is wrong with you.