Mafia Discussion

[Thehelmetguy1]

I will have to agree with Danny on this one, no one really thinks on who to vote, and I don't think it will change.

[Julia Pseudo]

I definitely like the current voting system, for the same reasons as Danny.

[Waddle]

<Waddle Derp> honestly the best way to vote is to allow everyone to vote for which games they would tolerate
<Max> @Waddle Derp Do you mean voting on multiple games with multiple votes?
<Waddle Derp> Yes

what about a system like this? The least amount of people (statistically speaking) will be unsatisfied in the end.

[Danny]

<Waddle Derp> honestly the best way to vote is to allow everyone to vote for which games they would tolerate
<Max> @Waddle Derp Do you mean voting on multiple games with multiple votes?
<Waddle Derp> Yes

what about a system like this? The least amount of people (statistically speaking) will be unsatisfied in the end.

But with that you have to employ a trust that everyone will vote truthfully or seriously, and I don't see that happening to be honest with you.

[Cedur]

Similarily to something that was suggested on Talkhaus for the MaGLX3 voting, can we maybe have the possibility to vote for three options and assigning three points for your favorite, two for your second and one for your third?

And whenever people voting jokingly is an issue, GMs can just strictly not approve games that shouldn't be played (see: a bit less lenience for the future).

[Waddle]

<Waddle Derp> honestly the best way to vote is to allow everyone to vote for which games they would tolerate
<Max> @Waddle Derp Do you mean voting on multiple games with multiple votes?
<Waddle Derp> Yes

what about a system like this? The least amount of people (statistically speaking) will be unsatisfied in the end.

But with that you have to employ a trust that everyone will vote truthfully or seriously, and I don't see that happening to be honest with you.

If everyone votes for every game it simply means that they would be fine with playing every game. Players more experienced in mafia can make the difference by leaving out the games that seem broken or unbalanced/unfun.

[Danny]

And whenever people voting jokingly is an issue, GMs can just strictly not approve games that shouldn't be played (see: a bit less lenience for the future).

But then people complain and stop submitting games or streamline their games and they get very boring. If this is in reference to Jacob's game, we *believe* that it's fairly balanced, but we don't exactly know for sure because of the writing style and lack of clarification. It's hit or miss, and it's all trial and error, and if the host turns out to be bad, that just gives them a reputation for being a bad host. We won't stop people from hosting games specifically (unless they're truly outrageous or offensive), I feel it's up to the judgment of the players on whether or not a game is worthy of being hosted or not, which is what the voting system is for anyway.

If people vote for the joke game purely out of spite, that's not something we can control. The sensible players won't vote for the joke game and pick something that isn't that one in particular. If you don't want a joke game, don't vote for it, nobody is forcing you to, and changing the process of voting isn't going to fix anything either (static votes or other different voting mechanisms as an example). While the quality control could do with a face lift, we aren't going to limit creativity just because a few jimmies get rustled.

If everyone votes for every game it simply means that they would be fine with playing every game. Players more experienced in mafia can make the difference by leaving out the games that seem broken or unbalanced/unfun.

I meant that people are going to take the voting seriously or not, not that they would vote for every game. I think the system we have now is perfectly fine as-is, changing it up won't fix anything. It's really simple though, if you don't want a joke game to win, don't vote for it.

[Thehelmetguy1]

Let me also add that it may end up in a total mess

[ElectriKong]

OK, let me bring this up.

Who voted for jacob's fucking game?
To the game masters, could you guys delete jacob's joke game from the poll? It has got three votes which I would rather see on serious games.

Calm down. It only has 3 votes so it's not like it'll win.

Except that wasn't what I am getting at. I don't really think joke games belong in an actual host signups thread. Granted, the three votes won't make any significant changes to the results here. (at most they would make the gap between pseudo and I smaller or bigger, but no matter what she would win anyway.) I would recommend the game masters to make a rule against joke games participating in the host signups because the votes used on a game made just to have a quick laugh are basically lost votes. I mean, assuming Jacob voted on his own game, two other people voted for him. If you look at the previous host signups there are some that end with very slight victories which could have turned out differently with two additional votes on the second place game. Only looking at the host signups for M30+ there are a total of three instances where two more votes would have made the poll tie (M30, 31 and 35). And Pseudo's "Christmas is a few Months Early" only beat Pixelpest's M33 entry with a single vote, so two more votes would have made Pixelpest host M33. Two or three votes really are a big deal and I am not cool with the fact that a joke game can participate and steal them from a serious game. I advocate for a rule to ban joke games from participating in the host signups because I think that people who take the time to make and balance a serious game deserve the votes more.

This is the reason we should disallow games that are obviously jokes. Really, wouldn't you be pissed off if you lost in the host sign-ups by 1 vote because a couple votes were put on a joke game that could of been for yours. This literally means that you could lose a host sign-up poll just because a joke game did exist.

I also think we should disallow self-voting because that basically says you are desperate to host, and maybe discount all votes on that game (though we would run into a similar problem that allowing joke games cause, in that those votes are lost if those particular voters don't bother changing votes, leading to the possibility of losing because someone chose to self-vote their game). I think it would be useful to implement a feature that allows poll creators to enable the viewing of who voted.

[Cedur]

Self-voting is nothing scummy, once you submit a game you also have the right to feel entitled that it should be played, at least in theory. It's also important to let the votes stay secret.

I completely agree with your part on joke games. No matter if it has a realistic chance of winning or not, no matter if it tips the scales in favor of one game or another, it's not really cool and logical to approve and allow it in the poll.

[Julia Pseudo]

The thing is, how do we distinguish between joke games and non-joke games? Nien's games, for example, have always been pretty silly and that's likely a major reason why they've been voted in, but they're also well-balanced and, I think, somewhat seriously designed games. As game masters, I don't think it's really up to us to decide what is a joke game and what isn't, only to determine what's sufficiently balanced, and Jacob's game does appear to be somewhat sufficiently balanced to appear on this poll.

[Cedur]

Nien's games had silly appearance but serious design, as you said yourself. Jacob's game doesn't, as he witnessed himself, and in terms of balance the tenor was something like "it's still too complex to just roughly estimate what would be going on".

[Witchking666]

The thing is, how do we distinguish between joke games and non-joke games? Nien's games, for example, have always been pretty silly and that's likely a major reason why they've been voted in, but they're also well-balanced and, I think, somewhat seriously designed games.

I think there is a major difference between a joke game and a serious game with jokes in in. Nien's games are good examples of funny games that are also well-designed and balanced. Jacob's game on the other hand is a complete mess and even Jacob himself stated several times he didn't mean it seriously. And I think that is the most important thing, the intent. Jacob only made the game as a joke and made several posts to clarify this. My point is, that games only meant to have a laugh do not belong in the poll. The game has managed to get four votes now and I am quite sure there are five other games in the poll which deserve these votes more.

As game masters, I don't think it's really up to us to decide what is a joke game and what isn't, only to determine what's sufficiently balanced, and Jacob's game does appear to be somewhat sufficiently balanced to appear on this poll.

Well, if you think that game is sufficiently balanced you really need to tone down on the alcohol and start thinking clearly again.
To begin with, the game is a complete clusterfuck. There are way too many roles that kill and protect making the game unfun for everyone playing it. If you are going to do a role madness game I am totally fine with this. But at least make sure all of your teams are equal in strength. Some roles have stupidly overpowered abilites that basically make their team immortal. If the emo survives until mid or late game he can basically win the game in a single night, and that is only one example. Team red and blue are far more powerful than team yellow, green and pink. To cut a long story short, the game is both unbalanced and a clusterfuck and yet you and Danny somehow decided it was good enough to be approved.

[underFlo]

Well, if you think that game is sufficiently balanced you really need to tone down on the alcohol and start thinking clearly again.

I'm not involved w/ Mafia at the moment so I only gave the game a quick skim but Pseudo explained her reasoning and acting like your opinion is oh so superior and she is clearly being drunk is just... not a good way to argue to be frank.

[Danny]

I like how people are blowing this out of proportion because we actually studied and discussed the slim potential the game had and let it pass in the end because we carefully reviewed it. I'm not sure what you're missing exactly, because we covered every aspect and have given not only Jacob but everyone else plenty of precautions when walking into this. The game itself didn't even get anywhere in the polls, yet people are complaining that "oh but what if you won by a slim margin", or something ridiculous like that.

So here's my challenge for you guys: Come up with a solution to these "joke games" that you keep complaining about without proposing a restriction on games people can submit. Can you come up with some sort of quality control method so we see less of the games you don't like?
The issue is that you can't, not without limiting people. So, as I keep saying, if you don't want to play the game, don't vote for it. I can't remember a point in time where a purely joke game was actually voted for and was being hosted.

[Waddle]

So how about that alternative voting system I've been trying to propose for quite a while now? Everyone has multiple votes and people vote for the games they tolerate. This still filters out the bad games/'joke'-games whilst satisfying the most people in the end. I really don't see any cons to be honest.

[Witchking666]

So how about that alternative voting system I've been trying to propose for quite a while now? Everyone has multiple votes and people vote for the games they tolerate. This still filters out the bad games/'joke'-games whilst satisfying the most people in the end. I really don't see any cons to be honest.

I approve of this, the only con I can think of is that it would require some effort from the staff. Your system would solve quite a few problems in the mafia forum.

[Danny]

So how about that alternative voting system I've been trying to propose for quite a while now? Everyone has multiple votes and people vote for the games they tolerate. This still filters out the bad games/'joke'-games whilst satisfying the most people in the end. I really don't see any cons to be honest.

The thing is, this is just the system we're running now, only adding in additional votes for users, and I've already stated why allowing multiple votes or static votes is a bad idea in general. There really aren't any cons with the voting system we have in place now, and quite frankly it doesn't need to be changed, as that isn't the issue.

So how about that alternative voting system I've been trying to propose for quite a while now? Everyone has multiple votes and people vote for the games they tolerate. This still filters out the bad games/'joke'-games whilst satisfying the most people in the end. I really don't see any cons to be honest.

I approve of this, the only con I can think of is that it would require some effort from the staff. Your system would solve quite a few problems in the mafia forum.

What problems would it solve and how would it require effort from the staff? Explain, please.

[Waddle]

How it would require staff effort beats me, but it still solves the issue of votes being "thrown away" (see all votes for Nanaya's game). By letting people vote for games they tolerate rather than having to pick one absolute winner you filter out the "joke" games whilst also ending up with the game the most people want to play. An argument you brought up previously is that people wouldn't take the voting seriously, but there is no voting system which could stop people from voting for games like Nanaya's. I still think this system could help filter out these types of dumb jokes whilst also ending up with the most wanted game overall, rather than the favorite game of a potentially small majority. I also think your argument stating "we already have a system that works" doesn't really add much since I truly believe what I am proposing works better than the current system.
I'd like this idea to be taken into serious consideration and not just written off as 'useless.'

[Danny]

How it would require staff effort beats me, but it still solves the issue of votes being "thrown away" (see all votes for Nanaya's game). By letting people vote for games they tolerate rather than having to pick one absolute winner you filter out the "joke" games whilst also ending up with the game the most people want to play. An argument you brought up previously is that people wouldn't take the voting seriously, but there is no voting system which could stop people from voting for games like Nanaya's. I still think this system could help filter out these types of dumb jokes whilst also ending up with the most wanted game overall, rather than the favorite game of a potentially small majority.
I'd like this idea to be taken into serious consideration and not just written off as 'useless.'

But this just proposes a vote for filtering out games, which is essentially what the system does now, just in a more direct approach. How would hosts and the winner be picked is my main question.

Another thing I have to bring up is that votes really aren't "thrown away", if people want to vote for a joke game, they have the power to. I don't think adding extra steps in a rugged effort to get rid of the "joke" games and creating filter is going to do much more than just adding additional steps, because all of the arguments against the current system can be applied to the one you've proposed. I definitely wouldn't consider the idea useless, but it doesn't seem to deviate from what we have now and it wouldn't make much of an impact.

One idea I did see floating around that I do want to touch upon a bit more though is the use of some sort of anonymous voting, where someone that wants to submit their game to vote would PM it to the gamemasters, who would then review it and anonymously put it up onto the thread for public viewing before voting period, that way the game hosts are never given away. The only con I see to this is that people may pull their own games from the game concept thread and it will just make the entire system useless. One thing I can see this eliminating however is the slight essence of negativity that comes when certain people are presented with the ability to host, one glaring example of this I can give is Mechdragon. While his games certainly are authentic and familiar to him, I've noticed that they're all fairly balanced for the most part, it's just that no one wants to vote for him as a host.
While this can lead to undesirable hosts, I think we need to give everyone the potential before we can start making assumptions. If there are undesirable or bad hosts, I think we should implement some form of restriction or penalty (punishment is too strong of a word and doesn't fit really) if the majority agrees that the host wasn't all that good, though this is just based off of pure judgment and hoping that people are honest.

I don't think any proposals are going to inherently fix whatever issue people have decided to come up with this time around, but if people are seeking more quality control, I'm sure Pseudo and I can discuss how to "tighten up" on that sort of thing. I'm still under the strong impression that this is just an issue that everyone tends to blow out of proportion, and it really isn't an issue at all, that's where I stand.