wD Mafia Master Post

[dargorygel]

I'm fine with them all but 4... ambivalent about 5. ThanksBrain.

Also... Kouncil paid vacation trips.

[damo666]

New Business

Proposal 1
The Mafia Council returns to a 3 member board whose primary role is to govern complicated rules issues, adjudicate bans when necessary, regular upkeep of the bot, and approval of GMs and setups ahead of new games.

Proposal 2
The third position after ghug and darg be a community voted upon decision yearly where volunteers may be elected into that role, and serve a term of one year.

Proposal 3
Changing the community standard that games that are 48 hour day phases be an option for GMs, but that the official community standard be Undefined regarding phase lengths, and if night chats are open chat or not.

Proposal 4
The Council consider post minimums being raised to 15 posts per day phase, and capped at 100 posts per day phase.

Proposal 5
The community adopts an official scoring system and MVP system, and all MVP awards are declared by the GM of each game. In addition a player of the year award be created, and awarded by the council each year in January.

Proposal 6
Henceforth, any community decisions, including new council members, champs representatives, rules changes by voted on by the community for all who are interested in voting for said changes.

Firstly I assume this has not been authorised by Kouncil so I hope they don't mind it being commented on.

1. Fine
2. Fine but needs fleshing out - i.e. a process [nominations/seconding[?]/vote period/vote method/etc]
3. Not required, no harm having a standard if GMs can deviate therefrom
4. Absolutely not
5. No opinion
6. No, if voting to Kouncil, leave it to Kouncil.

[damo666]

I'm fine with them all but 4... ambivalent about 5. ThanksBrain.

Also... Kouncil paid vacation trips.

I volunteer then.

[dargorygel]

I'm fine with them all but 4... ambivalent about 5. ThanksBrain.

Also... Kouncil paid vacation trips.

I volunteer then.

Planning to camp in your back yard
. If you have a back yard.

[ghug]

New Business

Proposal 1
The Mafia Council returns to a 3 member board whose primary role is to govern complicated rules issues, adjudicate bans when necessary, regular upkeep of the bot, and approval of GMs and setups ahead of new games.

Proposal 2
The third position after ghug and darg be a community voted upon decision yearly where volunteers may be elected into that role, and serve a term of one year.

Proposal 3
Changing the community standard that games that are 48 hour day phases be an option for GMs, but that the official community standard be Undefined regarding phase lengths, and if night chats are open chat or not.

Proposal 4
The Council consider post minimums being raised to 15 posts per day phase, and capped at 100 posts per day phase.

Proposal 5
The community adopts an official scoring system and MVP system, and all MVP awards are declared by the GM of each game. In addition a player of the year award be created, and awarded by the council each year in January.

Proposal 6
Henceforth, any community decisions, including new council members, champs representatives, rules changes by voted on by the community for all who are interested in voting for said changes.

OFFICIAL KOUNCIL RESPONSES

Proposal 1: Approved. We've been chewing on this issue for a while. It's definitely subliminal, and this is a good shove to make us just do it.

Proposal 2: We will hold yearly elections for Kouncil seats, starting now. Historically, one member of the Kouncil has been affiliated with the team that runs the site in some form. This is currently darg's position, and as such his seat is not up for reelection.

Candidates must have the following qualifications:

• At least six months' involvement in the community.

• At least five games played or one game played and one game GMed/co-GMed.

• No prior punishment for rule infractions (pardons can be granted at the discretion of the Kouncil.

• A candidate must self-nominate (i.e. we're not electing anyone who doesn't want to be here.

Notably, there will be no term limits. The issue has typically been having enough people willing to be involved, not with having too many, but this can always be revisited.

Method of voting is currently TBD. If anyone has strong opinions on this subject feel free to share them. In the meantime, feel free to volunteer yourselves for candidacy.

Current candidates:
ghug
Chaqa

Proposal 3: The Kouncil takes no prescriptive stance on this matter. I personally have advocated against changes here, but that's as a community member, not a Kouncilor. Chaqa will be running the next game without town night chat, and we've had games with other phase lengths and nonstandard rules. We will continue to encourage GMs that want to try anything especially experimental or nonstandard to trial in a smaller minigame to limit time investment if it goes poorly, but our intent is not to force play to go a certain way.

Proposal 4: The Kouncil's involvement here is to set the default rules. GMs have always been empowered to override them for their own games within reason. We've just discussed at length in this thread the practical difficulties of a post cap, but if a GM wants to take it upon themself to enforce one manually, we won't stop them.

Proposal 5: The Kouncil takes no prescriptive stance on this matter. If someone wants to maintain statistics, they are welcome to do so, but it's outside the purview of the Kouncil. It is my personal opinion that this sort of tracking leads to frustration and resentment, so I'm not a fan of it, but that's not me speaking as a Kouncilor.

Proposal 6: The Kouncil reaffirms its commitment to bringing any major changes or questions to community discussion, but we believe formalizing a requirement for elections on every decision is overkill. We're always happy to have a vote on a specific issue if people want it, and going forward we will allow anything to be put to a vote, including overriding a Kouncil decision or impeaching a Kouncilor, if ten members of the community request it.

[Chaqa]

Ghug/Chaqa 2024 - A High Standard

[ghug]

#makeghugghugagain

[Chaqa]

I will say I also do not like MVP statistics and find them very arbitrary.

I’m generally on the “empower GMs to do fun stuff” side so I think we can mess with post mins/maxes and phase lengths within reason.

[Hamilton Brian]

I want to propose a game; do I just send a PM to the Kouncil? What info do they need?

[dargorygel]

I want to propose a game; do I just send a PM to the Kouncil? What info do they need?

Yes... our present pattern is to set up a discord channel/room, that we have invited others to purview. Write to ghug and/or me. My name is dargorygel. Ghug's name is ghug.

[ghug]

I want to propose a game; do I just send a PM to the Kouncil? What info do they need?

Yes... our present pattern is to set up a discord channel/room, that we have invited others to purview. Write to ghug and/or me. My name is dargorygel. Ghug's name is ghug.

What the fuck did you just call me?

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

##VOTE GHUG

[sweetandcool]

I think on the whole the proposals are good.

However, I'm only going to comment on the MVP proposal because I feel strongly about it.

I don't think it's a good idea to formally make a system for MVP. As others have said it has the potential to breed resentment or feelings of being left out. And it can be frustrating because it would make it competitive while still being a subjective award.

Personally, I like to try to point out my favorite moments of the game, and praise as many players I can think of, in recognition of their high moments from the game. I think it's a nice way of breeding comradery in the community.

If that all sounded contradictory, the main take away here is that formalizing MVP awards would focus the community on a competition that due to its subjective nature would be likely to breed bad feelings. Whereas just informally talking about highlights of a game and making an effort to praise players is much more likely to breed feelings of comradery and positivity.

[dargorygel]

I want to propose a game; do I just send a PM to the Kouncil? What info do they need?

Yes... our present pattern is to set up a discord channel/room, that we have invited others to purview. Write to ghug and/or me. My name is dargorygel. Ghug's name is ghug.

What the fuck did you just call me?

I redacted the real name I called you. Children might be present.

[Chaqa]

I think on the whole the proposals are good.

However, I'm only going to comment on the MVP proposal because I feel strongly about it.

I don't think it's a good idea to formally make a system for MVP. As others have said it has the potential to breed resentment or feelings of being left out. And it can be frustrating because it would make it competitive while still being a subjective award.

Personally, I like to try to point out my favorite moments of the game, and praise as many players I can think of, in recognition of their high moments from the game. I think it's a nice way of breeding comradery in the community.

If that all sounded contradictory, the main take away here is that formalizing MVP awards would focus the community on a competition that due to its subjective nature would be likely to breed bad feelings. Whereas just informally talking about highlights of a game and making an effort to praise players is much more likely to breed feelings of comradery and positivity.

Maybe a "Hall of Fame moment" nomination from the GM that is worth a point. A player can have as many as they earn in the game, and as many can happen as the GM decides.

[sweetandcool]

What do you mean by a point?

I'm just saying it would be nice if the GM and the players make a point of taking time to mention great moments and great play, after the game ends.

This would fulfill the primary motivation for an MVP award, without actually formalizing it. Then everybody gets to feel the post game love without being left out.

[sweetandcool]

I think on the whole the proposals are good.

However, I'm only going to comment on the MVP proposal because I feel strongly about it.

I don't think it's a good idea to formally make a system for MVP. As others have said it has the potential to breed resentment or feelings of being left out. And it can be frustrating because it would make it competitive while still being a subjective award.

Personally, I like to try to point out my favorite moments of the game, and praise as many players I can think of, in recognition of their high moments from the game. I think it's a nice way of breeding comradery in the community.

If that all sounded contradictory, the main take away here is that formalizing MVP awards would focus the community on a competition that due to its subjective nature would be likely to breed bad feelings. Whereas just informally talking about highlights of a game and making an effort to praise players is much more likely to breed feelings of comradery and positivity.

Maybe a "Hall of Fame moment" nomination from the GM that is worth a point. A player can have as many as they earn in the game, and as many can happen as the GM decides.

(Continued from my last post)

But yeah, I could see it working if the focus was less on the player and more on the moment.

Like if multiple people really appreciated a moment of a game, then maybe at the end of the year their could be a collation of great moments that could be posted.

So essentially like MVP awards, but for moments rather than players.

Is that what you are saying, Chaqa?

[worcej]

I volunteer for the Kouncil election so that it isn't defaulted.

[sweetandcool]

I volunteer for the Kouncil election so that it isn't defaulted.

Kouncil could also consider having up to 5 members. Probably too big after that.

But maybe shoot for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5?

[ghug]

I volunteer for the Kouncil election so that it isn't defaulted.

Kouncil could also consider having up to 5 members. Probably too big after that.

But maybe shoot for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5?

We did that when I joined and everyone stopped giving a shit. I think small with a minimal mandate is the call and if anyone wants to be active in setup review or whatever we do that separately.