wD Mafia Master Post

[brainbomb]

Ive never rerolled or removed a sample because I felt the mafia team might fight with each other.

Ive never rerolled or altered something because a mafia team was too new, and frankly I think if you just went and looked at any game ive run, there are countless examples of where new players were PR or mafia.

Ive never adopted one of those hard and fast policies for a rand, but yes, there was a person who I knew from outside of webdip who had problems in other forums who actively wanted to play. and yes. I was not going to let them be a PR or Mafia. I was also not in a position to hop onto the forum and call someone out, and say they couldnt play, when there is a kouncil who could impose bans on players, who can tell players they must sit out.

I think if you sub out of a game you should probably sit out the next game regardless of WHY. but if a kouncil isnt willing to impose bans, then why should the GMs have to tell players who arent even sanctioned that they cant play. that will create a favoritism and cronyist culture that will make new people or casual observers see unecessary toxic drama happening.

The only player to my knowledge to ever try to sign up and be told No was chippeerock. Who is by far the most toxic and most extreme example.

Many veteran players, durga, jamie, myself, and many others have stated in signups that they would not play if some other person plays. And the GM usually tries to calm those fights down because the GM just wants players.
--
Im gonna keep replying to you repeating yourself until you finally actually address my statements. I feel like no matter what anyone says to you, youre just going to keep pushing this all automation agenda, regardless of if there are actually games that make alot of sense for the GM to handpick. theme games, role madness or item madness where balancing cannot possibly be limited to dice rolls. we run alot of games on here not just mostly vanilla.

people have already supplied tons of solutions to this and you arent doing anything other than just repeating the same argument over and over and over. We get it. you want to rally an army into strongarming the GMS into fully automating setups. most of the people you are pushing are kouncil members who have GMed since M1 or the early M10's. Whatever perceived impropriety you are striving to expose and denounce, we all have explained ourselves thoroughly. Situations you hadnt even begun to consider.

If you wanna create barriers for people to signup that rule already does exist. any gm for any reason can exclude any player they dont want in their game. This is already a thing. Nobody uses it because its pretty mean spirited and if we do this we will be doing harm to our image more than we would by just simply ensuring there isnt damage done.

In the case of Perplexity, I was a kouncil member. I had pushed for bans on alot of players as a kouncil member. Fights between durga, ghug, worcej back then I pushed for a ban on all of them for one game. The kouncil always rules against my stricter line of bans. When lfishcl got modkilled several times I called for a 6 game ban and it got voted down.

The kouncil wants players to PLAY
The GM needs players who want to PLAY
telling people no is going to drive away more people than just the people being told they cant play. its always been this way, and it leads to alot of negativity and toxicity.

[Chaqa]

I'd again like to stress this is a rare occurrence.

You can safely assume that any given game has not been randed for any special reason.

[brainbomb]

If you would like to sign up to play in a game where the rand will be a 1 shot 100% random and the roles chosen for the setup will also be random here you go:


https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5443

Baldurs Gate Mafia signups are posted.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Im gonna keep replying to you repeating yourself until you finally actually address my statements. I feel like no matter what anyone says to you, youre just going to keep pushing this all automation agenda, regardless of if there are actually games that make alot of sense for the GM to handpick. theme games, role madness or item madness where balancing cannot possibly be limited to dice rolls.

Is this directed at me?

[Balki Bartokomous]

I am not trying to single anyone out. I am not suggesting that anyone is cheating or lying or anything like that. I am also not advocating that anyone tell players not to play.

I was reacting to a couple of things. I heard this thing said in the Discord thread:

in the past I do things kinda strangely. I wont divulge too much but there is still RNG. and then I decide if the RNG is gonna be worth going with, and make an adjustment or two. or maybe I dont really do that and im just making things up

That surprised me, and I felt like there should be a rule that role assignments are random for the reasons I've said here.

I've heard a lot of extreme edge cases that some people say come up only every few years and some people may think come up more often. I'd say that is a different issue than having a GM, as a default, "make an adjustment or two." But because there is such a variety of perspectives on what the edge cases are, I think it's best to have a bright line rule: role allocations are random.

If there are extreme cases where somebody thinks a random role allocation won't work, I think that could be something for the Kouncil to look at, but honestly it's hard for me to imagine.

All that said, I've never GMed a game, and I have much respect and gratitude for everyone who has done that even once, let alone many times. I am not trying to discredit anyone who has engaged in the very generous act of GMing a game. I am just making a pitch for what I think would be the best rule on this subject.

[Balki Bartokomous]

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.

[foodcoats]

I think if you sub out of a game you should probably sit out the next game regardless of WHY.

Huh?

[foodcoats]

unecessary toxic drama happening.

That absolutely never happens here and least of all not almost every single game.

[sweetandcool]

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.

Thanks. I think it's a bit of a mess intertwining the discussions. I think to address your concern about this particular issue, we come up with a standard, like you've said.

Possible standards for player assignments:

1. Absolutely pure RNG, one random roll.

2. If the GM has concerns about the roll (the setup is somehow degenerate), then they are allowed one reroll of the random roll. This reroll has to be for the entire game's player assignment, not applied to particular players.

3. Same as (2) but GM gets N number of rerolls, where N>1 and can be infinite.

Others ideas?

What do you think, Balki?

[Kakarroto]

I think, there are two different things that are intertwined in this discussion, and I have different thoughts on each:

-) random assigning the chance of roles/items/etc. to be in the game (like, there is a list of 40 roles, but 20 player spots); I think, in that case, to roll and find out which game set-up will actually happen, it is fine and encouraged by me to reroll, if there is a balancing issue, or something like that. However, I think that needs to be happening BEFORE putting player into the set-up, like in a two staged system. First, define what the actual set-up will be, and if it looks fine and works, then roll the people random into the slots

-) randoming players into slots, and then 'tweaking' the result. (And as a disclaimer, this is not games, where you want to invite players and manually pick everyones role, that is fine too if communicated first.) But, looking at a set-up you thought works fine and then after player distributing thinking 'I don't like this' and fudging with it, feels so bad from a player side. Maybe the GM has the best intentions to do so, maybe it's to prevent a likely, but still only potential, break-down between two players ... still, this is a pretty big blow and shakes up trust in GM's.

Also, some arguments for doing a post-random change aren't good. Like "Oh, if we put those two together as mafia, they will fight" ... well, what happens if both are town? Wont they fight then too? This is, in my opinion, not a duty for the GM, but for the players in the game. We are all adults here, or at least have an adult enough mindset to play a fun game together. People can see the sign ups, they know who is in the game. It is the players duty to either make amends to the other players, at least enough to play together so everyone can have their fun, or, if they absolutely can't play together, just don't play in the same game. The GM isn't here to babysit, but to enforce the rules.

If there is someone that can't be trusted to play a certain role, maybe, just maybe, that is a hint that this someone can't be trusted to play any role. People might think that VT's or other similar roles are expendable, but they are not, right? Each set-up slot is there intentionally to present a balanced game. So redirecting roles is just not the solution for providing a balanced game. Or do people plan set-ups intentionally with the thought 'oh, so many people can drop out and the game is still balanced'? If game balance is that flexible, we don't need to focus that hard on it, I suppose?

And also, what is wrong with an all-team of new players as mafia? They don't know how it is done? Well, maybe they have an idea or unique approach to the game we never had seen. Who says that the experienced players know all there is to the game and no other way will work. Is there a potential that they mess up? Sure, but that potential is always present with every mafia team.


And from a personal point, there was a long period where I only drew VT or goon, nothing else. At least from my memory, and I haven't checked or made a special list, but it felt like a very, very long dry period, where only in full PR or full item set-ups, I got something more to do with the role. Until now, I thought I just had bad luck. With this all, I have to say, the thought that I was role fixed into those VT/goon spots came up. And I don't like it. I want to trust you, and I don't think any one had bad intentions, but it still feels bad. And I know I can't prove any one has done something like that, but then again, you can't prove to me you haven't done that. And I think that is a totally avoidable issue, to be in this mindset.



So yeah, I have no problems randoming set-ups and tweaking them for balancing, as long as it is just roles/items, and not players.
I do not have any problems with choosing a few set-ups manually, and then randomly rolling which set-up will be taken to put players into.
I do not have any problems with rerolling a player set-up, if there have been a mistake (not enough/too many slots, wrong role range, etc.).
I do not have any problems with a game where everyone is manually given a role, if it is communicated beforehand.

I do however think, that there is a problem, with rolling a random role assignment, and THEN manually changing something. I don't know what the solution for that is exactly, however. I think though, we should have a civil discussion about that, for the future, and let the past be the past, with the thought, that so far, everything went okay, but for the future possibility, it could go wrong, and we should be prepared.

[Balki Bartokomous]

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.

Thanks. I think it's a bit of a mess intertwining the discussions. I think to address your concern about this particular issue, we come up with a standard, like you've said.

Possible standards for player assignments:

1. Absolutely pure RNG, one random roll.

2. If the GM has concerns about the roll (the setup is somehow degenerate), then they are allowed one reroll of the random roll. This reroll has to be for the entire game's player assignment, not applied to particular players.

3. Same as (2) but GM gets N number of rerolls, where N>1 and can be infinite.

Others ideas?

What do you think, Balki?

I think the best rule for player assignments is the following:

Role allocation is completely random.

I'm not convinced that there are any edge cases that should change this clear rule, or for which it is worth muddying the clear rule.

Like anything else, I presume, if there is some role assignment that a GM thinks would break the game for some reason, they should just bring it up to the Kouncil and propose a solution, but these seem like issues that have more to do with player toxicity or inactivity, and I don't think that modifying roles is the best way to deal with them.

[FlaviusAetius]

To provide you an example of why what you are asking for is totally absurd. Im running a semi open setup and I ran a randomization to see what roles to put in play, not even what players get the roles but just to see what 4 roles it popped up. Discovering I had 36 roles and needed to cut it in half.

Under the rules being thrown out here I wouldnt as a gm even be allowed to run a test rand on my own setup to see what happens in a what if scenario.

I ended up cutting the setup in half in size and reranded what would be in play. Under sanctions you are proposing my testing my own setup would be called unethical and you would have me stuck with my original rand

1. Not every single Kouncil member(or representative of one) is going to be playing every single game, I'm sure one person can verify the randomization
2. If you have 36 roles and want to randomize to see which ones to cut, then that's fine, no one ever had a problem with that. The problem is when that happens to **people**

[FlaviusAetius]

These rules will not change a single thing if the GM just says ill just claim it was random. This is still an honor code system which is what we have now. The fact you would rather have a computer doing it all for you is loud and clear. i am certain we can make sure of that. And Im sure my games already had basically that same result as ive never once had a complaint; ive ran games that went fast and some took ages to finish. Both sides have won.

Again if you feel my system ive used has produced bastard games, flawed games, please have the results of them overturned and have them nullified. Have a judiciary panel made to review if I caused an unfair role distribution. Go get evidence and show your receipts

Put a Kouncil member on it to verify it, it doesn't have to be done by a bot if you don't want to use a bot. No one is saying your previous games were flawed, they weren't, but in the future they now will be. Outside considerations are now going to be in play, and that's a problem

[FlaviusAetius]

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

This is the problem though, because of this we now have outside considerations to take into account, that make the game less than, we know X & Y will never be mafia together, so if X is mafia, then Y is now a guaranteed safe person.
We know people who get modkilled for inactivity wont be mafia, well now look at that, we know their safe!

Also about this bad blood stuff, maybe just maybe they don't resolve this badblood because they don't go through a baptism of fire that is playing mafia together. Maybe being forced to work together is just the problem.

Also if two people can't play together then they just need to grow up I'm sorry but there is no scenario where that is acceptable.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

I have reconsidered my stance on this. I think that if we're not having Kouncil members check the randomization, there's no point in taking the precaution of having GMs reveal whether they modified the role randomization. However, having established rules, even if they're only a guideline that GMs can ignore, will be good so GMs know the boundaries of what they should be doing.

Proposal 14:
GMs must randomize role assignment.
GMs must only reroll random role assignment in extreme cases, such as the entire mafia team being new players. In such cases, GMs must completely reroll the randomization.

[brainbomb]

I think weve all moved on from this topic. It is clear that players think something unethical has been going on. People keep saying they dont think something unethical was happening, but that something now will be unethical.

I am quite sure the GMs would do whatever the players want to keep people playing, and keep the games fair the way the players want. Thank you for the feedback. now we can retire this topic and just assume that the message is received.

I would now ask all of you who listed repeatedly that you want 100% automation to now go back and read the offered solutions and exceptions, and please do respect that GMs should still be allowed to request anything they want and the kouncil can approve or decline it. and please respect that process we have in place. It already exists and if anyone was ever worried that something bad was happening, thats why we have a co gm, who can flag something they see that looks iffy.

Lets retire this dialogue now and move on to M89! a game where I am pledging to give you exactly what you want. a 100% fair rand with no tampering.

[Kakarroto]

I think I haven't moved on from this topic. I think we haven't had enough people talk about it and give their thoughts and inputs in. I think we haven't found a perfect solution yet.

Though I think no single person can call exactly what to do here, and given it has grown this big, I think the best idea is for the unified council to either give their final ruling on that matter, or let discussion/input still happen, or call for a "please be silent about it now, we heard you all but we need to figure this out so please just wait a bit".


And please, don't misinterpret this against you, or any of our usual GM's, personally I have no problem trusting you all and letting it go without a ruling if it's just our usual bunch. But, I'm sure there will be a time newer people and GM's will step up for a game, and I think it is best to plan for a framework for that time, so they have some guidance, and players at the time can also put easily trust into them. And we can't have a special ruling to include/exclude a certain group of people, so our solution should be steadfast and include everyone.

[sweetandcool]

I think I haven't moved on from this topic. I think we haven't had enough people talk about it and give their thoughts and inputs in. I think we haven't found a perfect solution yet.

Though I think no single person can call exactly what to do here, and given it has grown this big, I think the best idea is for the unified council to either give their final ruling on that matter, or let discussion/input still happen, or call for a "please be silent about it now, we heard you all but we need to figure this out so please just wait a bit".
And please, don't misinterpret this against you, or any of our usual GM's, personally I have no problem trusting you all and letting it go without a ruling if it's just our usual bunch. But, I'm sure there will be a time newer people and GM's will step up for a game, and I think it is best to plan for a framework for that time, so they have some guidance, and players at the time can also put easily trust into them. And we can't have a special ruling to include/exclude a certain group of people, so our solution should be steadfast and include everyone.

I heartily concur. This topic should be properly resolved. And the onus is on the Kouncil to provide a response. Only then can it be put to rest.

This will be a good challenge to test the mettle of our freshman Kouncil-hat, damo

[dargorygel]

Rest assured that the Kouncil, new and older, are considering, reading, discussing, pondering, and rolling random numbers: a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

[kingofthepirates]

a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

Nay, it must be thirdcoming, for three is the magic number! The number thou shalt count! the number of the counting! the third number! four shalt thou not count (and neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to three). Five is right out.
thus, I request that a response be thirdcoming, for that is the proper way...

attempting to inject some light hearted humor into this discussion, since it seems several people (NOT NAMING ANYONE) got a tad agitated. So enjoy a quote from peak comedy :).