Apart from that, that was a really fun game.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I am analyzing the game's events to deal with rule-breaking. Please address any concerns privately, but rest assured, I will be transparent in the decisions involving the rule breaking.
I just don't have time in the next 4 or so hours to read the game and come to a proper conclusion.
For quick access, you may reach me on discord.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I really mostly read D1, but wondered the exact same thing. I guess people couldn't stand the town takeover.
GG guys,-vote Auwtfor MVP, you did pretty good for a replacement in your first game in a scum slot and in a bad position, really. And Magoroth comes close for correctly reevaluating his reads on Noz and for catching Aamirus' slot since D1. Good job to SJ, too, you played a pretty good scum game.
As for the "hyperactivity" of some games, it is an issue. I'm encouraging everyone not to activity-shame while remaining active themselves. Our games are getting even more active than MafiaUniverse games of the same lenght, and MU is known for being an high activity site... The issue isn't really that people post too much, but that they demand expect way too much activity from everyone else. If you expect every other player to post 100 times per day, in a 13 players game, you will have 1300 posts on the first day. That's a lot, and you cannot ask people who are busy in real life to do that much.
I dont think anyone is demanding 100 posts per game
What upset me this game was a player actively lurking, and being smug about their lurker status. They had 1 post about the game (out of about 8 total). And there were other players that would come along, drop a nonsense post or two, and then disappear. And another player disappeared for 48+ hours completely at one point.
One thing is to lurk but at least play when around, another is avoiding the game completely
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I'm talking in a purely general way here, since the activity issue has been brought up several times in multiple games. 100 posts per day obviously was an exaggeration, though.
I dont think its unreasonable to ask people to engage with others and at least try to play the game. You can tell when someone is just posting to meet a quota and when they actually want to play.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
i think 10 post min is good enough. some ppl may like to just read. whehter they're town or sucum.
i don't like setting post cap tho uMu
SuperJack brought up this point in discord:
Town-replacements make it hard for scum because now they have to scumpaint two slots. I don't know how to solve this, but the first solution that comes to mind is for hosts to be more liberal with modkilling. Unfortunately, game was kinda broke on D2 since 3 of 10 players were afk; however, if Gyrlander chosen to modkill, game would have ended. So I don't know. A dilemma.
I'm okay with lurking, because that can be read as scummy. I'm not okay with inactivity, because that cannot be read. I think the current post restrictions most hosts have of at least 5 is fine.
The real problem I think is with some of the playerbase.
Unpopular opinion: I think it's okay to activity shame. Shaming is a part of the game.
But I don't think it's okay to really expect such high post quantities. We are often given 48 hour days, and people get busy with their lives. I think should be accepted that someone may post 26 hours in. I think that's okay. (and would allow me to sign for more games ) I think players should also be fine with a player that only posts 10 posts in a given day. As Banana said, there are posts to meet a quota, and posts that show someone wants to play, therefore, we can simply allow the human element aka. the host to determine what is acceptable activity. If players find it unacceptable but the host does, that should be a policy lynch.
Really, we don't all need ceko level of posting, that's an unreasonable expectation. A couple good posts is sufficient.
For example, If I was a host, I would only find Noz, aamirus' D2, and SuperJack's D2 insufficient. Every other player had an acceptable amount of activity.
I say make a reasonable minimum and a reasonable post cap for competitive games. Lift it before EOD. Might encourage less shitposting D1.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
100 % agreed in most contexts.
I misspoke, sorry. Activity shaming someone for having 10 not so meaningful posts is ok. Activity shaming someone who posted 40 times because you'd want them to post 75 times is what makes people lose motivation, and idk, it's just not nice or fun as a site meta. I'm obviously not saying it should be forbidden, but it should be less common that it currently is.
A post cap for games like the ones on the MU champs, where culture clashes are very common, is an understandable and arguably good thing. However, in all other cases, restricting the freedom of high effort players who post a lot is bad. If they spam meaningless posts, that's up to the Host to bring them back on track. If they're just prolific posters with a lot of content, it's alright. They just shouldn't expect others to post 100 posts per day because they do it, and that was my point earlier.
i try not to flood the thread w spam. i did "spam" some on day 4 to just lighten the mood.
i mean,two of our scum were low activity posters. owo. i don't wanna give lurkers a pass like that uMu. the only people i'd a problem with were nozbug and aami. nozbug bc she rarely gave posts w content, and aami just cuz she afk'ed uVu. superjack didn't post a lot, but his posts had content owo
also, i think there was only one person who didn't like being pushed for more activity? just wanted to point that out...
(i'm not trying to be mean to that person since i legit don't care what they did at this point.)
Last edited by theoneceko; June 6th, 2020 at 06:21 PM.
im surprised no one pointed this out, but Nightless is brutal. I get that there are no nightkills, but people will be burned out if there are no breaks in between days.
@Gyrlander
Thanks for hosting. It was an enjoyable game and you handled the issues this game well. Thanks for helping with the avatar too, kinda funny once ceko commented on it.
It indeed didn’t.... I’m not sure what MM is referring to here.
Thank you Anonymous Donor
For Aamirus
This person is a leader in our community and such an offense was unexpected, as well as disappointing to see. This is however a first offense. Aamirus will be disqualifed from the ladder as well as not receive any ladder points for this game.
For BananaCucho
They will not be receiving ladder points for this game, nor be able to participate in the following game, Standoff.
For everyone
It's time consuming, as well as difficult to moderate this sort of thing, and it's not something I relish or enjoy doing. It however, must be done as to affirm the belief that you can find quality forum games here on sc2mafia.com.
If we see anyone that participated in this game do this type of ragequit/angleshooting again, harsher punishments than ladder point withholding and single game bans will be given. You've seen it happen here. You've been warned. Don't do it.
My note:
If you ever find yourself being frustrated with a game, remember that policy votes are something you can utilize. You aren't going to win every game. Make your 5 good posts, set your vote, and come back when the start of the next day starts. Give your mind a break from whatever is the cause of the frustration. And then in the post game say "I told you so!".
Here are the quoted apology posts.
Last edited by Voss; June 7th, 2020 at 01:18 PM.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I've been victim of it before :P. That includes when people say "Oooo you haven't addressed this after 24 hours, SCUM AVOIDING QUESTIONS!", which is almost always wrong anyway, outside of specific circumstances (like the player posting about other things but not about what you asked him to reply to with a ping).
And thanks, Voss.
We could just pretend that someone shamed and just say it's not really okay.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
That isn’t activity shaming. I don’t think the intent of it is toxic, either, although I can understand why people would take it to be. Whether it’s a reasonable thing to scumread someone for, you can’t deny that scum often do that, and you can’t simply dismiss all such arguments as being wrong a priori. The context matters. It can be either scummy or towny. Not all seemingly identical arguments are equal.
The thing is, when people argue about something there is often an idea at the core of what they’re trying to put forward, and much of that core remains unstated clearly - because it’s very difficult to fully and clearly explain your ideas in their entirety. I would honestly argue that the game of Mafia is more about trying to figure out your beliefs about the game state and articulating them, not about convincing others.
If we could all explain our reasonings scum would win much less frequently. But human beings are imperfect.
To go back to what I was saying, there’s usually lots of different ideas floating about in ones head when making the argument that inactive = scum. For instance, when I say that you, MM, are scum and use activity to prove it, i look at your scum meta and note that you are a lot more careful about your activity as scum. What I also know is what I do as scum, random wolfy pop-ins.
They cannot simply be dismissed altogether because such arguments do sometimes work.