Necessary Changes to FM

[DarknessB]

DarknessB logic:

"I am really versed in what makes a good host even though I've never hosted a game before"

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

Also, your point is flawed in terms of real world examples. Most top movie critics have never directed a film themselves. Same with art critics (painting), food critics (being chefs), etc. To the same end, I wasn't aware that I needed to have flown a plane before to provide comments on my in-flight experience flying commercial. In fact, this is literally an Appeal to Accomplishment in terms of a logical fallacy yourself.

[BananaCucho]

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

Also, your point is flawed in terms of real world examples. Most top movie critics have never directed a film themselves. Same with art critics (painting), food critics (being chefs), etc. To the same end, I wasn't aware that I needed to have flown a plane before to provide comments on my in-flight experience flying commercial. In fact, this is literally an Appeal to Accomplishment in terms of a logical fallacy yourself.

This is certainly an apples and oranges comparison. Hosting is not a profession that only skilled professionals or talented individuals can do. Most players eventually host games.

Secondly mafia is not a product. There are no consumers - we're a community playing a game and the game happens to need a host for it to work.

With the exception of one individual, most hosts that make mistakes learn from them and try to better themselves. All hosts eventually mess up, even the best ones, whether it comes to messing up feedback, balance, you name it. I just think you're in a bad spot cause you're quick to be critical of almost every single game and the way its hosted but you don't even get what it feels like to mess up.

Seriously everyone like Crypt said in the other thread this is a game. Every one spends so much time trying to fix everything that its a turn off when it comes to wanting to host - if you make one mistake you'll get shit on. I'd rather not discourage people from trying new or fun ideas.

[SuperJack]

I have to say, I completely agree with @BananaCucho on this topic, their opinion and suggestions are right on point.

[RLVG]

So these are the thoughts I am thinking in which to IMPROVE the system:
1) We need every setup not only approved on a surface level of balance, but an actual role list of balance.
This is a major cause for concern, players will sign up for game often without looking at setup, they are often looked at as to blame for the game they signed up for being bad "You should have known", "you could have questioned it", Like, what game developer blames its players for the issues?

Extreme logical fallacy. The 100% faulth is on the player. This is the equivilent of a parent buying their kid GTA5 even though the game either says 18+ or AO in rating, the parents blame the game for the violence and sexual theme rather than blame themselves.

When players sign up for a game, they are knowledging themselves to have at least looked at the setup first. If they sign up for a game without having looked at the game, them blaming the host should instead be countered by an infraction on the player because they're the one being toxic.

You play GTA5, you get what you expect - a "fun" game of driving, gangsters, mafia plotline, shooting.
Then you play WoW, you get what you expect - a MMO experience with thousands of players and boring daily quests.
You play Nier, you play an Action RPG as expected, but with Bullet Hell mixed into it, which is not what you expected at all.

See what I did there? Just because you buy something and have expectations, doesn't mean it has to meet your expectations.
Some developers like to change the formula, add their unique gimicks or try new stuff out.

We should have the host select a role list and another FM staff member tells them whether it is acceptable or not and this goes on until staff member gives go ahead. If players voice concern, it is on the staff member not the host for role list in game.
2) If FM staff approve bad setup after bad setup, they should be removed from approving setups. This can either be from just the setup itself or the role list in the game. Which I think should be separate duties, but obviously this might be hard since lots of FM staff play in the games as well.

Approved roles ruin innovation. Several roles has a synergy to a game rather than being a role of its own. Look at how MattZed does his Illuminati, how Espozito did his Terrorist Bomber, etc.

Don't forget that there's a literal thousand variants of blackmailers. A can silence, B can fuck up speech patterns, C can not allow others to interact, etc.
Are we just going to approve 1, or are we going to approve a list of 100 of the same role?

As for approving bad setup after bad setup, it's also a mixed bad of the hosts. Currently, we're bottlenecked with amount of hosts willing to host the game and a queue with it, and the hosts make a game which won't get checked on until when it's near their turn to host.
This is one thing I am kind of critical on and would prefer if they proof-readed and fixed the setup when it was made, so the host still has the "idea" in their mind and not half-forget it like 2-3 months later.

Anyway, I'm going back to what I said : Having a forced list ruins innovation.

3) We need fucking competition in the queue.
You know what competition does? It makes it so the consumer ultimately decides what has the most value and gives them power. The power right now is centered in hosts making bad games and theres no incentive for them to improve. While on a surface level you care about your customer, if you can fuck over your customer and they have no alternatives, guess what? They either quit or keep playing.

While the argument is correct, it's also wrong in the context.
Players will indeed do one of two : Sign up, or not sign up.

The interest is based on the host and the setup, but from what I've seen - it's heavily implicated on the host itself. If the host can host a good game (regardless of setup) a bias will have them sign for whatever setup they offer, while the opposite is true - a bad host with a good setup might not get as much signups.

As for the competition, why?
To give the consumer power?
That's just bullshit.

Competition forces a situation in which a player will ultimately sign regardless of the game and will often lead to them being reckless in the games.
They just sign up to play a game and that's it, they might not even read the game.

Worst of all? Remember when there was 4-5 games at a time? Competitive players signed for all of them, and end up slipping all over the fucking place by mixing Game A with Game D, and C with B?

5) Host need a stick to stop making bad games.
A bad game either poorly modded with mod errors, or setups or w/e should have SOME, it doesn't have to be severe but should have some weight.
Continuous problem hosts should carry heavier weights. This isn't to say ban from site, this is to say penalties in games.

For instance, you can make it so the host needs a back up host for their games to ensure everything goes smoothly.
Or post game sign up rules needing a specific number of presigns before their game can really go into sign ups.
Or suspension from hosting a game for specific length of time.

What makes a good setup and what makes a bad minset of a player?

If Player sees setup as shitty, they will ultimately ruin the game (like you did) spite it not being as shitty as they previously thought and the other players certainly did not have this view at all. (Alright, some might have seen as shitty - but not freaking gamethrowing in protest).

I agree on backup hosts though, it should certainly be a thing.

You shouldn't punish a host by suspending them for a specific length of time, we already have a queue system in it to systematically decide hosts in a cycle, with newer hosts being a preference. Hosts get literal experience and will improve themselves.
If there's several issues with a host though as stated, such as Hypersniper (lol unfinished games), they should just not host at all and their Reputation is damaged to the point players will just not sign for their games.

[RLVG]

But if they don't get played that means they saw a better alternative and that you should make improvements to your game.

Let's ignore holidays, busy work weekends, moving, real life stuff and et cetera, that massively influences players into not signing a game.
AND THE MAIN FM!

I attempted to host a game and it got 1 signup.

I attempted to host that same game 3 weeks later and I got a full game.

Regulars

1. MattZed
2. Gyrlander
3. Sino (as of late)
4. Mesk
5. Unknown
6. ika
7. SW
8. RLVG (as of late)
9. Secondpassing
10. Yzb
11. Frozen Angel
12. DW (as of late)
13. SJ (as of late)
14. Banana

Occasional

1. Crypt
2. Orpz
3. Darkness (very infrequently now)
4. Calix (seems to have site quit again)
5. Firebringer
6. Arrow
7. PTB (seems to have site quit)
8. Quick
9. Stereo
10. Iced
11. Yuki
12. ThePaladin

"As of late"? I've been busy, so obviously I haven't signed for every possible game. Heck, one of the games I was lurkish based on me being legitimately busy. I'm known to be quite regular.

Calix "Seems to have site quit again", just lol? Is that even confirmed?
PTB themselves quit for real life reasons, and you just say "seems to have site quit" rather than making it confirmed because of a farewell thread.
This just proves something.

YZB is more Occasional than Yuki who's more Regular, so how do you make up these lists really?

Also, Archons are quite ignored.

Go with different color schemes. Not everyone enjoys a black/dark grey background, try medium grey/light grey, light blue/light grey, medium pink/light grey.

Seriously? That's a concern?
There's even options to change the color layout in the settings.

[SilverWolf]

Regarding co-hosting, I will co-host with ika for a few games before doing my own. ika has a ton of experience hosting and balancing setups. So he will help me with several. Then I'll do my own. A possible thing that could happen for new hosts is we could have a queue similar to the reserve queue where people can say they would be willing to co-host. If you want one, go there and try to get one. It can be used if the host gets sick or has an emergency and needs someone to fill in also.

If you make mistakes any mod can make, that's one thing. If you make mistakes that affect the outcome of the game in a serious way, then just get a co-host for the next one or however many you need until you feel confident you won't make major errors again. Minor ones are understandable.

Regarding attracting new players, MafiaUniverse has a place on their site you can advertise games on other sites. Whoever wants to run a game, can advertise it there and see if anyone comes over. It also can help people check out the site and see what it's all about.

This site is better than ms in the fact that there are more unique roles and setups and the reviewers are less strict in what they will allow and the fact that the days/nights are shorter makes for less lurking which was a major problem with the two week deadlines. One of the things I've seen on other sites is minimum posting requirements. People can decide when they sign up if they can meet that or not before the game starts. Another thing that is interesting I wouldn't mind trying is having night chat open even if you can't vote and to counter that, having daychat for scum open 24/7. I'd like to see how that would work and if people would like it or not.

[Firebringer]

@RLVG
I am going to take on your points since nobody has, I was going to also argue secondpassings points, but others have already done so and I don't feel need to do.

Lets go!

Extreme logical fallacy. The 100% faulth is on the player. This is the equivilent of a parent buying their kid GTA5 even though the game either says 18+ or AO in rating, the parents blame the game for the violence and sexual theme rather than blame themselves.

When players sign up for a game, they are knowledging themselves to have at least looked at the setup first. If they sign up for a game without having looked at the game, them blaming the host should instead be countered by an infraction on the player because they're the one being toxic.

You play GTA5, you get what you expect - a "fun" game of driving, gangsters, mafia plotline, shooting.
Then you play WoW, you get what you expect - a MMO experience with thousands of players and boring daily quests.
You play Nier, you play an Action RPG as expected, but with Bullet Hell mixed into it, which is not what you expected at all.

See what I did there? Just because you buy something and have expectations, doesn't mean it has to meet your expectations.
Some developers like to change the formula, add their unique gimicks or try new stuff out.

Can you point out the logical fallacy I made?
I think maybe I phrased that wrong in saying that the player isn't to blame at all, but my point along with that was theres no incentive for players to look at setup because they don't have any options. Like your example for GTA5, if GTA5 is the only game on the market, and people want to play a game, do you think they would examine the details of the game in very explicit details.

And yes, if a product is misleading enough from what was explicitly advertised than it is called fraud. Now, that will be taken out of context here, I am not saying anyone is committing a fraud, but people buy products that they want to meet their expectations and when they don't that looks bad on the developer regardless if it was too the extreme or if it was just not up to hype or w/e.

If there is only 1 game in sign ups.
Players don't care what the setup says, they don't have choices in games. Its either play or not play, and if they play they have to hope the game is reasonably balanced. Which, yes they should look at setup, but to blame them for the game they signed up is still silly.

Approved roles ruin innovation. Several roles has a synergy to a game rather than being a role of its own. Look at how MattZed does his Illuminati, how Espozito did his Terrorist Bomber, etc.

Don't forget that there's a literal thousand variants of blackmailers. A can silence, B can fuck up speech patterns, C can not allow others to interact, etc.
Are we just going to approve 1, or are we going to approve a list of 100 of the same role?

As for approving bad setup after bad setup, it's also a mixed bad of the hosts. Currently, we're bottlenecked with amount of hosts willing to host the game and a queue with it, and the hosts make a game which won't get checked on until when it's near their turn to host.
This is one thing I am kind of critical on and would prefer if they proof-readed and fixed the setup when it was made, so the host still has the "idea" in their mind and not half-forget it like 2-3 months later.

Anyway, I'm going back to what I said : Having a forced list ruins innovation.

If the setup in itself is approved, then the host/fm staff needs to examine actual role list and say "is this okay?" or "is this not?"
Many people pointed out MW3 as an example of a setup that could probably be balanced with its role list but the mod explicitly hates setup spec so much that he makes a setup imbalanced to the nth degree so you can't guess the setup and people get pissed because its not a fair game.

But if innovation is what you want I have suggestion for that as Ika said somewhere else:
Have a different kind of game in setups that are explicitly not expected to be balanced.
"Bastard" or as I would say add a "Disclaimer that this game doesn't follow expectations of balance and you play this game at your own risk"

Any game approved by role list and setup can have a simple "Reasonably assurance of balance by our (FM reviewer), this doesn't entail perfect balance, but all factions have a decent chance of accomplishing their win condition"

While the argument is correct, it's also wrong in the context.
Players will indeed do one of two : Sign up, or not sign up.

The interest is based on the host and the setup, but from what I've seen - it's heavily implicated on the host itself. If the host can host a good game (regardless of setup) a bias will have them sign for whatever setup they offer, while the opposite is true - a bad host with a good setup might not get as much signups.

So you agree but say setup has little to matter. Okay?

As for the competition, why?
To give the consumer power?
That's just bullshit.

Competition forces a situation in which a player will ultimately sign regardless of the game and will often lead to them being reckless in the games.
They just sign up to play a game and that's it, they might not even read the game.

Worst of all? Remember when there was 4-5 games at a time? Competitive players signed for all of them, and end up slipping all over the fucking place by mixing Game A with Game D, and C with B?

I think we had at most 3 games at a time?
Not sure I remember this time at all your referring to.

You didn't really argue why consumer power is a bad thing or bullshit.
Just saying the consumer is more likely to play in more games, which is somehow bad because some didn't know their limits? I get that, but I think many of the casuals will be able to pick the game they really want to play, over EVERYTHING OFFERED.

What makes a good setup and what makes a bad minset of a player?

If Player sees setup as shitty, they will ultimately ruin the game (like you did) spite it not being as shitty as they previously thought and the other players certainly did not have this view at all. (Alright, some might have seen as shitty - but not freaking gamethrowing in protest).

I don't get what you mean by line one.

If your argument here is that players seeing a bad setup and ruin the game as a counter balance for hosts to not make balance setups, that seems a weird after thought. Like when you have consumer complain to manufacturer that the product they purchased doesn't work.

And yes, that game was shitty. The whole game could have ended Day 2.
That is a poorly made game by anyone standard.

Night 1 both Luciano are killed by Kidnapper
Day 2 the FBI is lynched.

Like I am not innocent of making poorly made setups here, I have made about 3 setups that I don't think ever should have run.

I agree on backup hosts though, it should certainly be a thing.

You shouldn't punish a host by suspending them for a specific length of time, we already have a queue system in it to systematically decide hosts in a cycle, with newer hosts being a preference. Hosts get literal experience and will improve themselves.
If there's several issues with a host though as stated, such as Hypersniper (lol unfinished games), they should just not host at all and their Reputation is damaged to the point players will just not sign for their games.

Yeah, only a hypersniper case would cause a suspension and I think people (not many but still people) wouldn't care and still sign for his games if they were only ones offered, but regardless why not suspend them if they have made THAT MANY mistakes.

[DarknessB]

This is certainly an apples and oranges comparison. Hosting is not a profession that only skilled professionals or talented individuals can do. Most players eventually host games.

Secondly mafia is not a product. There are no consumers - we're a community playing a game and the game happens to need a host for it to work.

With the exception of one individual, most hosts that make mistakes learn from them and try to better themselves. All hosts eventually mess up, even the best ones, whether it comes to messing up feedback, balance, you name it. I just think you're in a bad spot cause you're quick to be critical of almost every single game and the way its hosted but you don't even get what it feels like to mess up.

Seriously everyone like Crypt said in the other thread this is a game. Every one spends so much time trying to fix everything that its a turn off when it comes to wanting to host - if you make one mistake you'll get shit on. I'd rather not discourage people from trying new or fun ideas.

It seems like the crux of your argument comes down to empathy and that's perfectly fine and laudable as a goal. The flip side of that is accountability, both for hosts and for players. Players get criticized when they mega lurk, don't contribute, dick around and end up throwing the game, etc. That's in large part because hosts and the other players put a lot of effort and energy into the game and it's inconsiderate to do those things.

Same is true of hosts and providing players with a good game environment -- if that's continually not the case because of errors or balance, we shouldn't just ignore that problem because it might hurt the host's feelings. The ultimate idea is to do a better job next time anyway and you can't do that without understanding what went wrong.

Obviously, making host errors isn't intentional (as pointed out by SP), but at what point do we think "maybe this person needs someone to check their work"? Three big errors in a game? Big errors in three straight games? No one wants to shame or discourage hosts, but there's a lot of frustration which occurs when the same mistakes keep getting made and people don't seem to take any further precautions re: balance or accuracy.

Yes, this is a game, but we should be emphasizing improvement or at least baseline standards. No one likes a game riddled with errors or a game that ends by Day 3 because of setup imbalance. People need to understand that it's not a moral failing to have made mistakes. The point isn't to shame these people, but encourage them to clean up these problems next time. In contrast, I just don't think sweeping them under the rug will change anything and clearly a lot of the playerbase is frustrated with them.

Yes, hosting is time consuming, hard, and some errors / unbalanced games are bound to happen despite anyone's best efforts. Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

[Stealthbomber16]

Okay.
I know that I am a completely shitty host and so I've stopped hosting games (and playing them)
But as an ex-host and an ex-regular I'd like to chime in my old fashioned opinion.

I've been responsible for some pretty damn terrible setups. For instance, wraith night, fableblood tavern... everything else I put in the setup workshop... I feel like my only setup that was moderately successful was Glitch_44, and even that one ended in a completely townsided victory. I do want to say a few things that hosts should be doing based off of experience and mistakes, not sure if anyone else can relate to this or not.

1. Hosts should be submitting their predetermined role list to an S-FM admin for balance and appr.oval, especially new hosts. This is something I did not do for Glitch_44 that could've made the game much better. And its really simple, too. Just send your proposed role list to an admin with a paragraph about what each role could or should serve in the game.

2. More players should be leaving feedback in the setup workshop. In S-FM Empire, Gyrlander had conflicting statements about the Emporer, and this resulted in an issue in the game. Yet nobody saw this, even though it was there, on the setup page. Or even worse, it was seen and ignored in hopes it would break the game, which brings me to

3. If you find a way to break the game it is your duty to let the host know so that the host can fix it. It is not fun as the host or as another player to watch someone completely destroy the way the game was meant to be played. It fills me with sorrow to watch a perfectly fine setup get destroyed because someone failed to follow an instruction. As a player, if you are signing up for a game, it should be mandatory that you post a comment on the setup workshop page saying that you have read the setup, and that you see no probable issues with the setup.

If the game breaks, it is the hosts fault, but the game should be reviewed to see if any fault could or should be placed on the players who broke it.

[Stealthbomber16]

Yeah, only a hypersniper case would cause a suspension and I think people (not many but still people) wouldn't care and still sign for his games if they were only ones offered

Except, they didn't.

[BananaCucho]

It seems like the crux of your argument comes down to empathy and that's perfectly fine and laudable as a goal. The flip side of that is accountability, both for hosts and for players. Players get criticized when they mega lurk, don't contribute, dick around and end up throwing the game, etc. That's in large part because hosts and the other players put a lot of effort and energy into the game and it's inconsiderate to do those things.

Same is true of hosts and providing players with a good game environment -- if that's continually not the case because of errors or balance, we shouldn't just ignore that problem because it might hurt the host's feelings. The ultimate idea is to do a better job next time anyway and you can't do that without undestandinwhat went wrong.

Obviously, making host errors isn't intentional (as pointed out by SP), but at what point do we think "maybe this person needs someone to check their work"? Three big errors in a game? Big errors in three straight games? No one wants to shame or discourage hosts, but there's a lot of frustration which occurs when the same mistakes keep getting made and people don't seem to take any further precautions re: balance or accuracy.

Yes, this is a game, but we should be emphasizing improvement or at least baseline standards. No one likes a game riddled with errors or a game that ends by Day 3 because of setup imbalance. People need to understand that it's not a moral failing to have made mistakes. The point isn't to shame these people, but encourage them to clean up these problems next time. In contrast, I just don't think sweeping them under the rug will change anything and clearly a lot of the playerbase is frustrated with them.

Yes, hosting is time consuming, hard, and some errors / unbalanced games are bound to happen despite anyone's best efforts. Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

Do you even enjoy playing mafia?

[DarknessB]

Do you even enjoy playing mafia?

This thread isn't about me so I'd appreciate if you stick to the arguments instead of the person. And, yes, I do.

[BananaCucho]

This thread isn't about me so I'd appreciate if you stick to the arguments instead of the person. And, yes, I do.

This wasn't an argument it was legit curiosity.

I have no desire to continue to debate what is debated after every game to death over and over again. I've said my piece and I'm sticking to it.

[Stealthbomber16]

Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

?

[Cryptonic]

Tentatively, this is where FM Staff is standing:
Note that none of this is set in stone, and is being presented for discussion. Not all FM Staff agree with the below, this are mostly my thoughts.






Point One:

We need every setup not only approved on a surface level of balance, but an actual role list of balance.
This is a major cause for concern, players will sign up for game often without looking at setup, they are often looked at as to blame for the game they signed up for being bad "You should have known", "you could have questioned it", Like, what game developer blames its players for the issues?

We should have the host select a role list and another FM staff member tells them whether it is acceptable or not and this goes on until staff member gives go ahead. If players voice concern, it is on the staff member not the host for role list in game.

I think this is actually an acceptable idea, now that we have 4 members. Previously, it was hard with so few Moderators. Especially if a Mod wanted to play in the setup, or if the Mod was hosting. But, now that we have the numbers, I think this is a fair thing. Before approving roles with hidden setups, I think that it would be appropriate for us to inquire about the setup (hidden roles).

A draw back to this would be that the Staff member can no longer sign up for the game, or reserve. However, we can decide who will review based on who wants to play in the game.

However, I do agree that everyone playing in a game should be reviewing the setup first and clarifying things. It's extremely hard to participate in any game without knowing the setup, so I don't understand why people would do that to begin with. I understand if something is ambiguous and can be taken multiple ways; someone might think they understand it, so it's not questioned; those types of scenarios are on us to be asking for clarification on.





Point Two:

If FM staff approve bad setup after bad setup, they should be removed from approving setups. This can either be from just the setup itself or the role list in the game. Which I think should be separate duties, but obviously this might be hard since lots of FM staff play in the games as well.

I think that this is a fair request, and it helps hold us accountable for things. We need to understand that we do have the power to decline setups from the queue if we do not find them balanced. Obviously, this is only possible if we are actually reviewing the role list; as it currently is, it's near impossible for us to know if a setup is going to be near balanced or not. Some setups have over a trillion possibilities, and yes some are always going to be unbalanced.

I'd be OK with something like this; maybe not removing a staff member from approving setups, but at least having a discussion about why the setup wasn't balanced for us to learn for the future. Especially if a setup is more complex, multiple FM Staff should be participating in approvals.






Point Three:

We need fucking competition in the queue.
You know what competition does? It makes it so the consumer ultimately decides what has the most value and gives them power. The power right now is centered in hosts making bad games and theres no incentive for them to improve. While on a surface level you care about your customer, if you can fuck over your customer and they have no alternatives, guess what? They either quit or keep playing.

Allow multiple games to sign up at same time.
Games are in sign ups for a selected period of time. Perhaps 10-12 days.
If they don't fill, they are removed.

Players decide the games.
Hosts have to make games appealing to players.

I've always agreed with this, and I've actually always been against the queue. Although it definitely does give Hosts a fair chance to Host, I have always felt it forced players to play games they might not want to play. This is why I was thinking of introducing a method for players to "vote" on a group of setups which would be the next 3 games that play on the site + a fourth game where the FM Staff chooses based on whatever reason (New Host, good theme, ect). When that group is almost done, another small poll would be done to decide the games and which order.

I don't agree with allowing multiple signups at once. Because they will fill up, and players will be playing in 2-4 games at once and the quality of individual games will suffer because of it. It definitely does happen, and rules were made to stop it from happening (ie players posting 100+ times in one game, and then posting 2-3 times in a day in another game at the same time).

However, there is already a rule about removing games that don't fill up fast enough. However, sometimes it's unfair like around now when people are busy with holidays or finals, a Host shouldn't have to remove their signups because everyone is busy. These types of things are look at on a case-by-case basis.





Point Four:

Some carrot rewards for good hosts.
Best host of SFM gets to host the MFM or FM or something. Some sort of way for us to have more competition in order for the Hosts to actually really really want to perform well.
Maybe preferred queue status.
Maybe giving them simple awards.

I would put in official surveys post game to rate the job the host did on metrics like timing, accuracy and setup design.

I don't know if rewarding a host is something that needs to be done. If we DO proceed with the Scummies, then we can reward good hosts at that point. I don't agree with allowing that person to host the next MFM or FM, but I think if they were proven to be a good host that I would consider allowing them to host something bigger on the site.

I also like the idea that we have an "official survey". I think we should 100% develop something in regards to this and PM it to all the players in a game and they can reply or not. With this information, we can keep track of stuff regarding hosts, issues with players, information for Scummies, and even supply this information anonymously to the Host to allow them to better themselves in the future; or, give them a pat on the back.






Point Five:

Host need a stick to stop making bad games.
A bad game either poorly modded with mod errors, or setups or w/e should have SOME, it doesn't have to be severe but should have some weight.
Continuous problem hosts should carry heavier weights. This isn't to say ban from site, this is to say penalties in games.

For instance, you can make it so the host needs a back up host for their games to ensure everything goes smoothly.
Or post game sign up rules needing a specific number of presigns before their game can really go into sign ups.
Or suspension from hosting a game for specific length of time.

I'm not sure if I can agree with punishing Hosts for making mistakes, shit happens. It's not like Hosts are purposefully and maliciously making mistakes in a game. I can understand us saying they require a co-host for games (this has been done before, as conditions of hosting) via information gathered from Surveys. But I don't think someone should be specifically punished for not living up to certain standards. That would only discourage them, and we are not a large enough community to think we are entitled to act like elitists.

[Never Unlucky]

Concretely, Cryptonic, what will be implemented?

[Cryptonic]

Depends on the responses & questions I get regarding the post I made.

[SuperJack]

Aka review the setup better.

Look Ma, No wall post.

[Cryptonic]

Aka review the setup better.

Look Ma, No wall post.

What lol a lot more than that was said

[SuperJack]

What lol a lot more than that was said

That's just icing on the cake. Cake is the important stuff.

[Klingoncelt]

LOL

SW, Pepe Frog is the AltRight mascot. Not something you want on a board that isn't all white.

[Klingoncelt]

who are you?

Klingoncelt at MS, Grandma at USMB (Wake's old forum.)

[Klingoncelt]

im tired but tomorrow or Sunday i will have a post about the issues i think that need to be adressed and yes some of it may be repeats

i think our biigest issue at hand right now that i would liekt o see dicussed is how we are going to get new players and retain them

What about picking up those that have been banned from their usual haunts?

[BananaCucho]

SW, Pepe Frog is the AltRight mascot. Not something you want on a board that isn't all white.

Pepe is not an alt right figure. They are using him lately but Pepe has been around for a long time before they started using him.

[Stealthbomber16]

What about picking up those that have been banned from their usual haunts?

I'd think that the majority of those people were banned for a reason. That comes with being banned.

[Klingoncelt]

Seriously? That's a concern?
There's even options to change the color layout in the settings.

Hey, I worked retail, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff that grabs/keeps consumers.

And the color is still black with dark grey, no matter what "color" is chosen. The choice only affects the little fedoras in forum categories.


You don't want to go nuts with colors, just some minor stuff.

[Gyrlander]

Hey, I worked retail, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff that grabs/keeps consumers.

And the color is still black with dark grey, no matter what "color" is chosen. The choice only affects the little fedoras in forum categories.


You don't want to go nuts with colors, just some minor stuff.

There is an option with is "Bulletin Bla bla" which is white & blue. (Although it is fucking horrible and I prefer this one)

[Klingoncelt]

Pepe is not an alt right figure. They are using him lately but Pepe has been around for a long time before they started using him.

And they've done for Pepe what Hitler did for the swastika.

[Klingoncelt]

I'd think that the majority of those people were banned for a reason. That comes with being banned.

A lot of sites require a level of interaction that can best be described as walking on eggshells.

Players have to be very nice to each other, which is impossible, everyone has rough days.

Normal behavior here could get one banned elsewhere.

[Klingoncelt]

There is an option with is "Bulletin Bla bla" which is white & blue. (Although it is fucking horrible and I prefer this one)

Oh yes, the default glare that comes with every message board. Meh. I suppose they could go with that, it's definitely familiar.

[Klingoncelt]

Voting on games adds a layer of wasted time.

Why not just stagger the start of games to every 7-10 days?

By then, more than half the players in a 13p game will be dead and ready for a new game.

[BananaCucho]

And they've done for Pepe what Hitler did for the swastika.

You're joking right? I can't tell if you're joking or not

[Cryptonic]

You're joking right? I can't tell if you're joking or not

Pepe being labeled by ADL is literally a reason to use the meme. The irony is amazing.

[Cryptonic]

Voting on games adds a layer of wasted time.

Why not just stagger the start of games to every 7-10 days?

By then, more than half the players in a 13p game will be dead and ready for a new game.

It wouldnt, because voting would only last a few days while the last batch of games is ongoing. If no one votes, then we would just go in the order of the queue, as usual.

[Klingoncelt]

Pepe being labeled by ADL is literally a reason to use the meme. The irony is amazing.

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

[BananaCucho]

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

No, that's just silly.

and are not offensive. They're ways to say you Feel Good Man or you Feel Bad Man.

[Cryptonic]

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

No, that's not why it was labeled as anti-semetic by the ADL. It was labelled as anti-semetic because people were jokingly making Pepe have a Hitler mustache, just like basically every single other thing on the internet.

You should really do some research before spewing out CNN and Hillary Clinton talking points.

No, that's just silly.

and are not offensive. They're ways to say you Feel Goof Man or you Feel Bad Man.

Exactly. If you throw Hitler 'stache on them, then yes... they're offensive... but everything is offensive if you put a Hitler 'stache on it.

[BananaCucho]

Even Charlie Chaplin

[Gerik]

Most of this post seems geared toward S-FMs, which I don't play very often, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

I think most of the ideas are good, but I disagree with the carrot/stick approach for hosts. Having played/hosted several games myself of every size (SFM, MFM, FM) I don't think there is any reason to further incentivize good hosting. When someone hosts a game on this site, they are volunteering their free time to something that can be very time consuming and stressful for no pay or compensation of any kind- they're not doing it for external incentives. They're doing it for the intrinsic value it has to them- they love the game and want to give a good game to their fellow FM players. When a host makes a mistake during a game (which, as Elixir said, happens to the best of us) they don't have an ulterior motive- they just fucked up. Because they're human and that's what humans do every now and then.

I wouldn't mind if we had some kind of host-appreciation mechanism because as I just said, hosting can be very demanding work and while people obviously do it for the love of the game, everyone likes it when they get praise for a job well done, so it's a nice way to thank the people who took time out of their busy schedules to give the rest of us a fun excuse to yell at people on the internet. But I don't think it's needed to encourage good hosting. I just think it's nice.

I also understand that FM hosts, just like players, are not created equal. I find that playing and hosting ability tend to go hand in hand. But just because someone is not the best player doesn't necessarily mean they should be prevented from hosting, so I think giving them an experienced co-host would be a good solution to this problem, as it allows them to host while providing a safety net to ensure the game will run smoothly. I can also see some edge cases where this could become a problem- if for example someone went through all the steps to host a game, found a co-host, etc. and then bailed and left the co-host to do everything (assuming no extenuating circumstances). In that case, I would say some kind of punishment (perhaps a timeout/ban from hosting) is warranted because that is a pretty crappy thing to do. But for simple hosting mistakes I don't think any punishment is needed, and I think adding co-hosts helps mitigate mistakes by providing a second set of eyes to look over things and correct errors before everything is finalized.

On an unrelated note, it was bugging me that there was a whole discussion about the Pepe meme being offensive/labeled Anti-Semetic by the ADL. This article should clear things up. It's from the ADL's site itself. TL;DR- They know the Pepe meme isn't inherently bigoted, but slap a Hitler 'stache on it and a "kill the jews" text bubble and now it's hate speech. And as to KlingonCelt's argument that the Trump supporters use it, therefore it's white supremacist- no. Trump and his supporters are fucking morons, and many of them are also bigots, but that's no reflection on Pepe- it's just a stupid meme which they happen to like. Now if Trump creates his own secret police force, starts a world war (a legit possibility tbh), puts minorities/political enemies in torture/death camps, and uses fucking Pepe as his insignia while he does it, THEN you can compare Pepe to the Swastika.

[Firebringer]

I don't have any major disagreements with anything Cryptonic has said.
The biggest thing seems to be a rolling vote might be tedious to see what game is next.

But can easily be done.
Also gets rid of problem of people over gamming themselves.

[Cryptonic]

I don't have any major disagreements with anything Cryptonic has said.
The biggest thing seems to be a rolling vote might be tedious to see what game is next.

But can easily be done.
Also gets rid of problem of people over gamming themselves.

The vote/poll will be easy.

This is my idea so far:

- People submit complete setup to the queue.
- Around the start of the 3rd game of the 4-game series, a poll will be created with all the setups on the Queue.
- The poll will be a multi-vote poll where you get to choose your game 1 choice, your game 2 choice, and your game 3 choice.*
- After a few days (not too long), the poll will close and those 3 games will run.
- A fourth game will be selected from the queue by the FM Staff to run after those 3 games. The reasons for selection can be anything: It received a lot of votes, New Host, Interesting Theme, Interest Mechanics, Someone who hasn't hosted in long time, literally anything. We might even random it, but we won't reveal how we chose it.
- Around the start of the 3rd game, a new poll will open. Anyone who hosted a game in the previous 4 games will not be allowed to put a setup on the poll unless there are less than 4 setups.

*Depending on the site status, we might break the poll into a category of 2 small/1 large, or 2 large/1 small.


This encourages hosts who lose a poll to refine their setup for next time, or completely change it to try to win people over. The poll should be short and scarce enough that there should be no need to campaign.

This can change if there is more discussion on it, but so far no one really has anything to add/critique.

[Cryptonic]

Also, I feel like no one really read my post. I included some stuff in there that I really thought people would question lmao

[Cryptonic]

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

FYI this is retarded. You stop caring about the hosts, and there will be no games for players to play.

[Firebringer]

The vote/poll will be easy.

This is my idea so far:

- People submit complete setup to the queue.
- Around the start of the 3rd game of the 4-game series, a poll will be created with all the setups on the Queue.
- The poll will be a multi-vote poll where you get to choose your game 1 choice, your game 2 choice, and your game 3 choice.*
- After a few days (not too long), the poll will close and those 3 games will run.
- A fourth game will be selected from the queue by the FM Staff to run after those 3 games. The reasons for selection can be anything: It received a lot of votes, New Host, Interesting Theme, Interest Mechanics, Someone who hasn't hosted in long time, literally anything. We might even random it, but we won't reveal how we chose it.
- Around the start of the 3rd game, a new poll will open. Anyone who hosted a game in the previous 4 games will not be allowed to put a setup on the poll unless there are less than 4 setups.

*Depending on the site status, we might break the poll into a category of 2 small/1 large, or 2 large/1 small.


This encourages hosts who lose a poll to refine their setup for next time, or completely change it to try to win people over. The poll should be short and scarce enough that there should be no need to campaign.

This can change if there is more discussion on it, but so far no one really has anything to add/critique.

Slightly confused on how many games are submitted to this before poll starts.
It sounds like this is just deciding order, not if a game is actually worthy to play.

[Cryptonic]

Slightly confused on how many games are submitted to this before poll starts.
It sounds like this is just deciding order, not if a game is actually worthy to play.

If a game isn't worthy to play, then don't vote for it.

If there aren't enough setups in the queue, then you play what you get lol



To expand on this, we have 8 unique hosts currently.
Half of those would be ran this poll. During that time, someone else has the ability to make a setup and put it in the queue. There may only be 5-6 in the next one, but people have that chance. Then a few people might make more, and the 4 who hosted from the original queue might put setups back in.

This is all open to discussion, though. Maybe a host can put setups in back to back?

I mean, I still want to give people fair chance and ability to host, but I do want people to put their best setups forward.

[BananaCucho]

Dat censorship tho

[Thdow]

experienced host and a co host is a must.

[Fury]

THE BUMP THO

[Noz_Bugz]

DAT BUMP DOE

[Scvmurderer]

Bumppity Bump lets all do the hump.