webdiplomacy.net

Thanks to all who took part in this inaugural Kouncil Election. 20 voted. And the final tally is:
Ghug 17
Chaqa 8
damo666 8
Hamilton Brian 7
After some consideration, the present Kouncil has decided to alter our original plan. Rather than have an expensive and tumultuous run-off election, perhaps ending in a duel or tiddley-wink contest, the Kouncil numbers will be increased to a total of four.

We will re-consider this in a year.

Thanks to Ancient Greece for imagining democracy, brainbomb for suggesting we follow their advice, and particularly to all the candidates and voters.

And thanks to all who play mafia here.

The Kouncil of 2024
Chaqa
damo666
ghug
dargorygel

huzzah! congrats to all those who were elected, and here's to hoping you lead us into a brighter future, filled with many murders in the night, fun games, and an acceptable amount of trolling :3

Good race, all! I probably should have made some sort of campaign pitch at some point, but tbh I just assumed everyone knew my history on the Council and running games.

I have some ideas to propose pretty soon and I thank Brain for bringing this idea back to us. We had declined it a few years back, but the community has changed a bit and I think this can help us keep relevant as we move forward.

Welcome Damo!

Now it's up to we dipizens to keep our Kouncil akkountable. We need to clean up all these D1 shitposts and reduce the tax on mech-heavy setups. Our peterbot infrastructure is crumbling before our very eyes&ears. Ask not what you can do for your Kouncil, but what your Kouncil can do for you.

Nice to see the Elektion is finished. Time for a bit of roleplaying...
*walks into the bar*
"A toast to the new Kouncil!"

Diplomacy&Warfare wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 9:09 pm

Nice to see the Elektion is finished. Time for a bit of roleplaying...
*walks into the bar*
"A toast to the new Kouncil!"

English muffins instead of toast, please.

I will take some shakshuka

All of these “cays” are starting to cill me.

Damo's hat is ascending....

Thanks to my campaign manager, those that voted (particularly for me) and our returning officer, darg.

Congratulations to ghug for garnering 85% support and commiserations to Brain on missing out by just one vote.

https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/?p=8090879#post8090879

Games starting

Wish me luck lmao

Good luck scumbo

maybe its time for me to come back >.>

JustAGuyNamedWill wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 3:37 am

https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/?p=8090879#post8090879

Games starting

Wish me luck lmao

Game’s over! I did alright I hope…

Who is hungry for more?

Just a quick rule clarification coming out of a post-game discussion from M88:

I think it is important that role assignment be 100% random. There should be zero room for any GM to have any input at all, including re-randomizing roles after they've been randomized once.

Curious to know if there are any alternative views on this point.

As was stated in discord, I think the following opinions reflect responsible GMing standards that are intended to provide the least amount of handpicking or tampering.

I support where a GM gets either 1-2 adjustments, or up to 3 rng rolls

-brainbomb

I will admit i have fully rerolled setups in very rare cases if I find it would be detrimental to a solid game. But I think randomness in role assignment is a cornerstone in mafia and if it isn't officially a rule it should probably be
for example when all mafia and PRs are very new players

-Chaqa

It's going to be a bit of a trade secret for each person

-Chaqa

I've re-rolled when 3/4 members of a scum team were all new players because I didn't think the game quality would be good. Otherwise I stick to my dice rolls

-Worcej

I would never reroll
I think the GM is providing the game. The scum provide the hunt. And rerolling adds a mess of a guess

-Bunnygo

I don't, but if I did, I'd lie about it. Lol

-Eden

Officially, you shouldn't be rerolling if you see something wrong and the assumption is that most GMs aren't, but obviously nobody knows what you're doing, so just keep it that way
What we don't want is a situation where someone can say "well, ghug is GM, so I know that the whole scumteam isn't new/inactive/his lovers/whatever"

- ghug


I think the consensus is, its impossible to police this because the GM can just claim everything is random. I think there is a justifiable methodology not in rerolling but in giving yourself up to three roles, then rnging which one of those three occurs. or allowing a GM to make an adjustment where they see fit for either what roles ended up in the setup or for which players end up as which. But it is just unspoken and never revealed if this happened or not.

Overall, this is a non issue until someone thinks this was an issue. And there is again never going to be a way to verify someone did something unethical.

the only way to enforce this would be that a kouncil member must always be the one to randomize the setup for the GM and take the GM entirely out of it. Then you would need a kouncil member to oversee the kouncil member who rolls it to ensure they also didnt alter anything.

Seems unecessary right? just set a standard of dont ask dont tell

Proposal 11:
All setups must be randomized by a kouncil member to avoid GM involvement in the setups distribution and rng. That kouncil member must not be a player or co gm, or gm in the game, and will not be a sub either.


(if you feel inclined to enforce this standard here is a proposal)

Officially, I would vote nay on this.

It does seem like an issue to me. And the fact that there are so many GMs who have said that they think it's okay to influence role assignments based on GM preference suggests to me that we should have a strict rule against it.

And to me it seems easy to "police," and not impossible.If GMs will not agree that all role assignment should be 100% random, then have a council member or anyone else who will buy into the rule do role assignments, or they should be assigned using an app or website live where someone can oversee it.

Honestly, I'm surprised to see that other people are fine with having role assignment be non-random.

I don't think that any part of the game should be "Would this GM allow this to be the role distribution?" And if it's okay for GMs to influence role assignments, then that's part of the game here.