Mafia 47 - The Sixth Mass Extinction, Sign Ups

[Chaqa]

Out of principle. Playing in that game would implicitly say I am okay with the situation where Chippe is excluded from this game.

Chippe should play in the main game. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

[Durga]

You can't force the GM's to deal with someone they don't want to deal with. How ridiculous. They aren't getting paid to run this game.

[TrPrado]

We're not getting paid?

[e.m.c^42]

We're not getting paid?

+1's, my dear green GM

I've heard they do wonders

[Percy Williams]

We're not getting paid?

+1's, my dear green GM

I've heard they do wonders

[Click-Click]

[rdrivera2005]

Out of principle. Playing in that game would implicitly say I am okay with the situation where Chippe is excluded from this game.

Chippe should play in the main game. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Just help me to understand something. If the GMs ask you to state in the main thread that you won't try any tactic that is considered invalid, would you refuse to do this? This is the point, they are not excluding him because of the other game. I can't see a reason for a player to not accept to post this agreement unless he doesn't want to accept the GMs rulings in that matter and on this case I think GMs have the right to exclude the player.

[Nephthys]

Just gonna put up my personal thoughts. This is more just so that players, and now non-players can have an understanding of how and why I/we went about everything how we did.

The timeline
- Last game Chippe engaged in a tactic which upset many people as affecting the quality of the game. This tactic had been discussed with the GMs of that game and was deemed acceptable.
- Moving forward to this game there was, well, uncertainty about what would happen
- In discussion with Trp we looked at 3 options
1. Excluding Chippe
2. Allowing Chippe
3. Conditionally including Chippe
We opted for 3.
- We approached Chippe asking that he publicly state he would not engage in such tactics as in this game they would be considered against the rules. I personally think this is the most important point in this discussion. Our approach to Chippe was because he had engaged in a tactic we would not allow. We decided not to allow this as we saw the negative impact it had last game and wanted to involve as many people as possible, especially considering the optimistic 28 player set-up.
- Chippe returned saying he would not do it again as it would give him no advantage, he refused to publicly state it. We've already discussed the concerns this created and I think them very important.

This then left us in the position that Chippe had not complied with our request and we had concerns with his lack of appreciation for the enjoyment of others participating.

When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.

I think what is getting so blown out of proportion here is that this is Chippe, who solely has caused a game to be abandoned in the past. This meant that many people were cautious of him, regardless of him having served the punishment for the offence. This is my understanding having not been around for the original incident and participating in the last game. It may be wrong. We did not engage in this action pathway because it was Chippe but because a tactic that compromised the enjoyment of other players was used and we, and many other players were concerned it would happen again.

Did we do this perfectly? No. I will be the first to admit this. I think it would have been better to delay the publishing of the sign-up thread until we had a community wide discussion of how to deal with this in a position were no-one "had power". I also think that approaching Chippe stating we would rule such behaviours to be unacceptable and then posting to inform all players of this could have been a less confrontational approach and therefore could not be (falsely) interpreted as an attempt to publicly humiliate a player.

Regardless, what has been done has been done and we will be progressing with this game.

[Nephthys]

On a game related note, PMs will be going out in the next 24 hours and then the game will start on the 17th at 0700 GMT+12 (0200 PST) and the 16th @ 15:00 EDT/19:00 UTC

Some roles have been modified.

Tree Stump lasts until the end of the next night

Power thief will need to activate their power with a ##steal command sent to the GMs via PM during the day. Assuming all conditions (first two voters, that person dies). There is no flip for both the power thief and their victim.

All flavour posts are flavour only and any species/people mentioned are purely for flavour purposes and are not influenced at all by the game state.

[Chaqa]

Out of principle. Playing in that game would implicitly say I am okay with the situation where Chippe is excluded from this game.

Chippe should play in the main game. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Just help me to understand something. If the GMs ask you to state in the main thread that you won't try any tactic that is considered invalid, would you refuse to do this? This is the point, they are not excluding him because of the other game. I can't see a reason for a player to not accept to post this agreement unless he doesn't want to accept the GMs rulings in that matter and on this case I think GMs have the right to exclude the player.

It singles out Chippe. If they wanted to do this, then EVERYONE should have to post that as part of their confirmation. Chippe said privately he wouldn't do it again, and it's been said that it's against the rules, so if he did do anything, then there would be a valid reason to punish him this time. Making him state, publicly, that he won't break a rule, before the game starts, is frankly ridiculous, when he hasn't broken a rule previously. Sure, he may have played in a way previously which is now deemed illegal, but by that logic, a LOT of us who played before some of the current rules should be forced to say they won't do something.

I could, for example, be forced to promise not to throw a game or something.

[ChippeRock]

When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.

Based on that statement, it sure sounds like other players' dislike for me was a factor in your decision...

What's scary is that you're indicating that only when your decision causes more people to leave the game than new players join it - than, and only than, would you let me into the game; this seems to suggest that a major factor in your decision was whether or not it would cause more people to join.

But because my removal from the game has caused a "net positive player shift", you're standing by your decision; only when it's results in a "net negative player shift" will you change your decision to get those that left the game to re-join.

Pretty shallow reason to boot me from the game...

[Nephthys]

When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.

Based on that statement, it sure sounds like other players' dislike for me was a factor in your decision...

What's scary is that you're indicating that only when your decision causes more people to leave the game than new players join it - than, and only than, would you let me into the game; this seems to suggest that a major factor in your decision was whether or not it would cause more people to join.

But because my removal from the game has caused a "net positive player shift", you're standing by your decision; only when it's results in a "net negative player shift" will you change your decision to get those that left the game to re-join.

Pretty shallow reason to boot me from the game...

You are mis-representing my point. Other players actively did not enjoy how you participated because it is against the spirit of the game. Big difference to not liking you.

It is not perfect but pretty much the best outcome measure I can think of. At that stage in which it was very clear I made a bad decision I would probably consider stepping down as a GM for the game rather than just let you back in. Before you get upset, the step down would be as I would not have shown myself to have good judgement rather than not wanting to GM a game with you.

As you may remember I have stated before, at no stage did I enter this looking to exclude you, I honestly expected you to just post and then we could move on with life. The exclusion was based upon the response which you gave.

[Nephthys]

Finalised player list

Players
1. Durga - CONFIRMED
2. foodcoats - CONFIRMED
3. EspressoPatronum - CONFIRMED
4. Vaporwave - CONFIRMED
5. Percy Williams - CONFIRMED
6. damo - CONFIRMED
7. Vecna - CONFIRMED
8. rdrivera2005 - CONFIRMED
9. xorxes - CONFIRMED
10. bozo - CONFIRMED
11. FlaviusAetius - CONFIRMED
12. Flash2015 - CONFIRMED
13. bo_sox48 - CONFIRMED
14. Dargorygel - CONFIRMED
15. Foxcastle - CONFIRMED
16. EMC - CONFIRMED
17. Mike213 - CONFIRMED
18. Fluminator - CONFIRMED
19. brainbomb CONFIRMED
20. Tom Bomb - CONFIRMED

Substitutes:
1. MoscowFleet
2. ItsHosuke

[brainbomb]

Chippee is the only person in webdip historys 47 games to ever cause a full game, to suddenly get aborted because he had to be a dick smasher.

I rest my case.

[Nephthys]

Set up notes

15 Town
5 Mafia (with fake claim roles)

Mafia QT only active at night
Mason QT active at all times

[Chaqa]

Well, brain, that's not technically true, as the original M3 I GM'd had to be restarted due to an issue with flavor names being given out.

[brainbomb]

actually. I dont hate chippe but I had jamies ass nailed to a wall that game and was gonna be a fully cleared town with soul stone.

[brainbomb]

Well, brain, that's not technically true, as the original M3 I GM'd had to be restarted due to an issue with flavor names being given out.

not the same as deadposting info from dvc tho lol

[worcej]

Just gonna put up my personal thoughts. This is more just so that players, and now non-players can have an understanding of how and why I/we went about everything how we did.

The timeline
- Last game Chippe engaged in a tactic which upset many people as affecting the quality of the game. This tactic had been discussed with the GMs of that game and was deemed acceptable.
- Moving forward to this game there was, well, uncertainty about what would happen
- In discussion with Trp we looked at 3 options
1. Excluding Chippe
2. Allowing Chippe
3. Conditionally including Chippe
We opted for 3.
- We approached Chippe asking that he publicly state he would not engage in such tactics as in this game they would be considered against the rules. I personally think this is the most important point in this discussion. Our approach to Chippe was because he had engaged in a tactic we would not allow. We decided not to allow this as we saw the negative impact it had last game and wanted to involve as many people as possible, especially considering the optimistic 28 player set-up.
- Chippe returned saying he would not do it again as it would give him no advantage, he refused to publicly state it. We've already discussed the concerns this created and I think them very important.

This then left us in the position that Chippe had not complied with our request and we had concerns with his lack of appreciation for the enjoyment of others participating.

When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.

I think what is getting so blown out of proportion here is that this is Chippe, who solely has caused a game to be abandoned in the past. This meant that many people were cautious of him, regardless of him having served the punishment for the offence. This is my understanding having not been around for the original incident and participating in the last game. It may be wrong. We did not engage in this action pathway because it was Chippe but because a tactic that compromised the enjoyment of other players was used and we, and many other players were concerned it would happen again.

Did we do this perfectly? No. I will be the first to admit this. I think it would have been better to delay the publishing of the sign-up thread until we had a community wide discussion of how to deal with this in a position were no-one "had power". I also think that approaching Chippe stating we would rule such behaviours to be unacceptable and then posting to inform all players of this could have been a less confrontational approach and therefore could not be (falsely) interpreted as an attempt to publicly humiliate a player.

Regardless, what has been done has been done and we will be progressing with this game.

I understood your perspective for quite some time. The issues I have raised, and gotten some responses, and some of my comments on your position are the following:

1. Chippe stated he would not do this tactic and indicated he would comply. Why are you hung up on the fact that he added it wouldn't being advantage to him?
2. Why did you need him to publicly state he would not do it when you addressed it behind the scenes?
3. Totality of the player base is not being represented or benefiting from your decision. If that was your intent, inclusion would be the only choice. I may be nitpicking, but it's important because really you're choosing the majority at the cost of a minority.
4. Maybe I am struggling to understand the 'net positive player shift' you're seeing, but I am one of 5 players who dropped out in protest to this action. This game would have 6 more players in it if this wouldn't have happened. There have also been numerous opinions from people other than the protestors indicating this is a poor choice to intentionally exclude in a public game.
5. You're downplaying the significance of this by saying we're blowing this our of proportion because it's Chippe. To be crystal clear, I would have the same reaction to this if any other player was excluded from a game when they are not serving a rules punishment. Chaqa has said it best, but this whole situation can only be seen as ostracizing and not promoting a good gaming culture.

You can choose to ignore me and move on, that's well within your right, but it is also within my right to stand up for principals of inclusion and good gaming culture.

[worcej]

You are mis-representing my point. Other players actively did not enjoy how you participated because it is against the spirit of the game. Big difference to not liking you.

It is not perfect but pretty much the best outcome measure I can think of. At that stage in which it was very clear I made a bad decision I would probably consider stepping down as a GM for the game rather than just let you back in. Before you get upset, the step down would be as I would not have shown myself to have good judgement rather than not wanting to GM a game with you.

As you may remember I have stated before, at no stage did I enter this looking to exclude you, I honestly expected you to just post and then we could move on with life. The exclusion was based upon the response which you gave.

No, it wasn't Neph. You made a choice to exclude him, he didn't make it for you.

[brainbomb]

sigh