webdiplomacy.net

Here is our present list. Unless I missed something.
Not sure TomBomb is still interested. I'll find out.

M 63 Chaqa (+President Eden)
M 64 Tom Bombadil
M 65 Jamiet99uk
M 66 ND (+darg)
M 67 Hellenic Riot
M 68 fluminator
M 69 Chaqa + emc

I’m interested if I have a willing co-GM. In particular one who can be available to process the occasional phase change. I will be changing the phase change time a bit to accommodate me hopefully for every phase change but my work causes me to occasionally have evening hours during typical phase change.

Tom Bombadil wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:00 pm

I’m interested if I have a willing co-GM. In particular one who can be available to process the occasional phase change. I will be changing the phase change time a bit to accommodate me hopefully for every phase change but my work causes me to occasionally have evening hours during typical phase change.

sure we gmed together once! tom bomb and brainbomb

tomwomb
beancomb

wasnt it that cannibal game where we both wrote flavour lol?

A possible setup I will maybe run some day.



Dance Party Mafia

All standard webDiplomacy Mafia rules are incorporated into this setup, except where otherwise stated.

Dance Party Mafia is a themed setup for an even number of players.

Rule Deviations:
For narrative purposes only, day and night are flipped. The 48-hour discussion phases (“day” normally) are a series of secret nighttime dance parties, and the 24-hour action phases (“night” normally) are the summer days in-between. The peterbot may not properly label the phases (something I need to investigate).
“Night” (24-hr action phase) discussion is forbidden. When the GM calls end of day, posting should cease; crossposting will be forgiven until the flip.

Setup Information

During pregame, each player optionally may DM the GM the names of players with whom that player would or would not want to be paired as “Dance Partners.” Public discussion of this information is strictly forbidden. The GM will generate pairs of Dance Partners before randomly selecting approximately one-quarter of the players to be mafia. No pair of Dance Partners can both be mafia.

When each player receives a role PM telling them if they are a “Cool Kid” (town) or “Fink” (mafia), the player will also receive a QuickTopic thread link pairing them with a Dance Partner. The list of Dance Partners is public knowledge. QuickTopic threads can be used at any time. The mafia, as usual, have their own QT in addition to the QTs with their respective Dance Partners.

Normal win conditions apply: town wins by removing all mafia, mafia wins once they comprise 50% of the total players.

ghug wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:58 pm

I'd be happy to chip in to run it on the cloud (or to get it a certificate my browser trusts). Thanks for the effort, Peter.

If some group of people would take the time to get the bot to run in the cloud, I would be happy help out with installation and configuration of the bot software on that Linux/unix machine. I would also continue to help out with bug fixes and also with possible new features in the future.

Btw, the bot code is open source for anyone to download, use and modify, so this is also possible without my involvement. (The link to the github project is found on the bottom of the bot front page.)

In this case that group would administer the funding of the cloud machine, domain name costs and other costs. This group would also configure the cloud WM and make it ready for the bot software to be installed and take care of possible future maintenance.

Otherwise I will continue to run the bot at home in the current configuration.

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:03 pm

Tom Bombadil wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:00 pm

I’m interested if I have a willing co-GM. In particular one who can be available to process the occasional phase change. I will be changing the phase change time a bit to accommodate me hopefully for every phase change but my work causes me to occasionally have evening hours during typical phase change.

sure we gmed together once! tom bomb and brainbomb

tomwomb
beancomb

wasnt it that cannibal game where we both wrote flavour lol?

It was! That was a fun game, and some spicy flavor.

This go around I’m really wanting to GM explicitly to write flavor, so I’ve got the covered. I’m happy to have you GM anyway though (and open to flavor collaboration again in the future)

I was planning a mostly vanilla game - only PRs being godfather, hooker, doc, cop.

Was also planning on phase changes being a couple hours later than our normal time (sorry Europeans)

Tom Bombadil (and his elves) are hard at work preparing our next Mafia setup. It should be up (and a sign up) very, very, very soon.

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:03 pm

Tom Bombadil (and his elves) are hard at work preparing our next Mafia setup. It should be up (and a sign up) very, very, very soon.

I object to being referred to as an elf. However I am reviewing Tom's absolutely madcap setup proposal now, and will respond to him (and to you) shortly.

Everybody is encouraged to go and sign up for Tom Bombadil's game. It will be a vanilla-flavoured feast.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:39 am

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:03 pm

Tom Bombadil (and his elves) are hard at work preparing our next Mafia setup. It should be up (and a sign up) very, very, very soon.

I object to being referred to as an elf. However I am reviewing Tom's absolutely madcap setup proposal now, and will respond to him (and to you) shortly.

I will stop referring to you in my mind as "Jami-elf99uk."

Ripping this from a separate thread, but:

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:51 pm

I think whatever happened in that game is well beyond hope of salvaging relationships and not worth their effort, but I endorse implementing rules to stop toxicity for future games so these situations don't happen again.

I am 100% onboard with this and think many agree, though require our resident Kouncil members to come up with a way to express this via rules.

I think making a rule against personal attacks would be an easy catch all to accomplish this.

For my part, I intend to weigh in on this once M63 is finished.

I don't fault us for starting M63 when we did, but I was hoping to address the issues that cropped up in M62 during a lull between games to minimize potential overflow of drama into/out of an active game. I've been thinking a lot about what I could have done better as a GM to prevent the issues that happened there, and what could change to give future GMs an easier hand in preventing them from happening again.

However, I think the course of the "Unhide Mafia" thread clearly illustrates the pitfalls of trying to address these things midgame.

So, I'm gonna hold off until then.

I think Eden and I are going to run a pair of simultaneous Among Us mini-mafia games after M63 finishes. They will be highly experimental and a bit different from normal mafia. How much oversight will the council want on something like that?

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:48 pm

I think Eden and I are going to run a pair of simultaneous Among Us mini-mafia games after M63 finishes. They will be highly experimental and a bit different from normal mafia. How much oversight will the council want on something like that?

The usual amount.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:02 am

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:48 pm

I think Eden and I are going to run a pair of simultaneous Among Us mini-mafia games after M63 finishes. They will be highly experimental and a bit different from normal mafia. How much oversight will the council want on something like that?

The usual amount.

Maybe 2% less

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:20 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:02 am

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:48 pm

I think Eden and I are going to run a pair of simultaneous Among Us mini-mafia games after M63 finishes. They will be highly experimental and a bit different from normal mafia. How much oversight will the council want on something like that?

The usual amount.

Maybe 2% less

Fine. I will omit the stage of the review process where I check that all of the punctuation marks use the same font size.

I'm not in the current game, and not reading the game, for reasons that (on seeing this thread) now seem fairly justifiable. I like mafia, and have good feelings for most of the community that plays it here. Here's some grist, ideas to get started with a rule to defend it:

"In the course of investigative, deceptive, and persuasive play, players have often used appeals to emotion, intentional fallacies, and/or behavior to elicit reactions from others. Such rhetorical tools have proven to be harmful to the community as a whole when used, not to determine/mask in-game alignments, but to attack the character of other players. Ad hominem, however useful it may seem in advancing a player's win conditions, is not a tactic that is "in bounds" for playing mafia. Since the use of rhetoric admits degrees of harm, and since tempers often compromise a player's ability to judge the effects of their own speech, the GM may privately solicit input from other players, and yet retains sole discretion on both what speech qualifies as ad hominem, and also the extent to which outside-of-game personality differences affect in-game play. Questions of free speech in the public square are to be left for the public square - this thread is a game, for the purpose of advancing specific conditions."


Anyone have thoughts on this? Could you make that second-to-last sentence more readable?

I want to make it okay to call someone "scum" in the game, but not call them scum in real life. If we want to do that, there are different threads.

teacon7 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:56 pm

I'm not in the current game, and not reading the game, for reasons that (on seeing this thread) now seem fairly justifiable. I like mafia, and have good feelings for most of the community that plays it here. Here's some grist, ideas to get started with a rule to defend it:

"In the course of investigative, deceptive, and persuasive play, players have often used appeals to emotion, intentional fallacies, and/or behavior to elicit reactions from others. Such rhetorical tools have proven to be harmful to the community as a whole when used, not to determine/mask in-game alignments, but to attack the character of other players. Ad hominem, however useful it may seem in advancing a player's win conditions, is not a tactic that is "in bounds" for playing mafia. Since the use of rhetoric admits degrees of harm, and since tempers often compromise a player's ability to judge the effects of their own speech, the GM may privately solicit input from other players, and yet retains sole discretion on both what speech qualifies as ad hominem, and also the extent to which outside-of-game personality differences affect in-game play. Questions of free speech in the public square are to be left for the public square - this thread is a game, for the purpose of advancing specific conditions."


Anyone have thoughts on this? Could you make that second-to-last sentence more readable?

I want to make it okay to call someone "scum" in the game, but not call them scum in real life. If we want to do that, there are different threads.

I like it - it gives bounds and is explicit that you shouldn't attack a person directly.

This is exactly why I requested other input - I would say something like "Don't be an asshole" and not come remotely close to how eloquent this is.

I am also ALSO interested in finding a phraseology that encourages us to not only avoid the above kinds of comments... but to not escalate when such comments are uttered.

@worcej - thanks


@darg - Agree. Though the broader issue you bring up has to do with character and elements of self-moderation. That's difficult for everyone - myself included. People don't take getting attacked sitting down... "turning the other cheek" isn't in vogue ever, especially not at present. Anyway, I don't expect that a "digital community" like this to maintain an enforceable rule about escalation without getting way too specific on what people are allowed to say or think. That's not good.

That said, within the constraints of the paragraph above, the GM could easily notice if parties escalate an ad-hom conflict by responding in kind, and then give warning1/warning2/modkills out to everyone. If the attacked party doesn't respond with an ad-hominem, then they're not really escalating, are they? The GM has the authority to deal with the situation, and is responsible for doing so justly. Everyone might be less likely to escalate a conflict if the authority figures stayed on top of the "no ad hominem" rule early on. Then there's the possibility to trust that "I don't need to escalate in kind, because the GM will deal with it dispassionately."