Draco was super cool though.

Alright, so, to clear up the misunderstandings here:

Regarding the setup balancing - ND pointed out how we'd already helped him in M17, and this had happened on other setups too. This is merely making this into an official process that can happen every time; and so that hopefully between us problem roles or imbalanced setups can be screened out and fixed before going through. We will not be dictating what people can and cannot do. DO pointed out I hate mediums - which I do - but I'm not banning their use. This is just making the process where myself and Capt have both helped people in the past into a process that happens every game; where the GM's and the 'Council' can bounce ideas on making sure the game is how the GM wants it, AND fun and balanced for players. Ideally preventing, or at least minimising, particularly imbalanced setups that we've had in the past. There is nothing dictatorial about that.

As for the accusation that this is targeting individuals - this is not true. We identified each of the things that had caused issues in previous games, and tried to come up with a solution to make sure they don't happen again.

Finally, I'd like to point that because we're verifying the order of GM's, it's an obvious conflict of interest for us to be picking ourselves. So nobody on the GM Council will be lead GM'ing games anymore. We'll be available to co-GM for people (as Capt seems to do most games anyway), but this was a big reason on why I approached Fluminator originally - he has years of Mafia experience from another site, but was not a regular lead GM. If you guys really want somebody on instead of Flum, whoever that person was would therefore also have to forgo GM'ing games in future.

Meme is the co gm. if thats not a conflict of interest what types of in depth structural improvements to the signup sheet are to take place.

question 1: If Jamie is refused to run M21 because of his setup then how does that reflect on meme as being both a co gm and a council member. If HR looks at the setup and says no then how is it a council at all.

question 2: If Jamie is approved to do M21 is it simply because meme is the co gm?

Those are questions we need to consider when speaking of transparency and governing bodies. We wanna know what changes are being demamded and why the GM here has significantly less power than his co gm who by the look of it has the authority to take a hacksaw to every and any detail he wants.

You answred all my concerns HR. well said. +1 for u man

So to clarify: will the General Motors Council be able to veto a setup or role, even if a GM is adamant about it being in?

Can we send Chaqa on a quest to find the golden fleece?

The next three games are already awarded. M21 will be Jamie's, and he has Capt as his co-GM. M22 will be ghug's, and M23 will be ND's (if he still wishes to play/GM). There is no point ripping up the old order, as that would just upset people in the process.

Balancing is for the finer details and happens AFTER approval, not before, so long as drastic changes aren't made from the initial proposal. So if someone was approved on a vanilla setup and then suddenly decided to do a semi-open reverse mafia setup then that'd obviously be an issue. But when someone is approved on a vanilla setup and then minor changes are made to help balance it out... that isn't then needing re-approval. When it comes to setup balancing, we're here to lend expertise and advise, not to dictate.

Yes I am fine with this. It took me a day or so to get behind it. I'll be doing 23 and Chaqa is co-gm on it. I'll be working with Chaqa over the next few weeks and will send you and Captain the setup when we have it.

Will you offer that advice unsolicited if you see a potential issue?

I'd imagine if they see an issue that could cause a break in the game, they'd give the advice unsolicited.

ND and I will design the most balanced, broken, amazing, awful, game ever.

Indeed :)

I'm happy with this. Let's get a m21 signup thread going!

@HR - do you have a google doc of the finalized guidelines? I.e., your first post + your second post ...?

@HR **you** don't think something like a game with two scum teams can ever be balanced, does that mean it just isn't allowed?

That's not mafia. Why would it be allowed?

It is more mafia than role madness is.

We need democracy. It is time the people stood together as one voice and demand that the Serial Killer be brought back. We will not go silently into the night, we will not give up without a fight. the SK is our god given right.

lol I read parts of M4 and M6 and the SK seemed like a god-awful role. A tie is such an unsatisfactory result.

a multi-mafia game is a mafia game.

a game with 12 amnesiacs and 4 tree stumps would be interesting

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and conscientiously object to this. With all due respect to the mods, this is a solution in search of a problem. I've enjoyed the mafia games. I hope everyone who plays the games going forward has fun.

In closing, with HR's dictation in place, what is the meaning of a GM at this point? Also, how long will it be before there are constraints on which role specific players can and cannot be assigned?

I'm glad we could mend that which was not broken.

OB please don't quit. I want you to play in Mafia 21.

Those of you offering violent (or "conscientious," to use OB's term) objection to this plan are overreacting. This new committee is not changing the foundations on which mafia exists on this site, nor is it eliminating the platform for mafia to be played on this site, which has come to be under consideration before for a number of reasons. This new committee is also not eliminating the role of the GM, restricting any particular role or setup types, or involving itself in the actual game play at all. The committee isn't serving in any capacity that minimizes mafia on this site nor is it threatening the existence of mafia on this site - quite the opposite, really.

I don't necessarily agree with its implementation in full, but where is this idea coming from that the committee is going to bar certain people from GMing, prevent GMs from creating a fun game, or otherwise change the nature of mafia on this site? What HR presented is a mechanism for organizing the list of people in line to GM, a group of three highly regarded and experienced individuals providing assistance and constructive commentary **before** the game begins (seriously, that's fucking important), and, if necessary, take steps to keep mafia on our site from growing into a shit-throwing contest. No, that hasn't happened yet, and now it never could.

Is the primary issue with this committee idea the fact that the people on it were chosen instead of nominated? If that's the case, then make that argument, understanding all the while that there is no democratic election in choosing other positions on this site - aka moderators - nor is there any regard for public opinion when it comes to work behind the scenes. There doesn't need to be, because what happens behind the scenes is inherently not always visible and not always transparent. If this is somehow a shock to any of you, then your continued acceptance of the system in place for Diplomacy on this website while speaking out so vehemently against a similar proposal for mafia is a little bit concerning.

(I hereby absolve myself of all responsibility for any militaristic coup or overthrow of the webDiplomacy moderator team in the near future.)

Perhaps the presentation of this committee was a bit dramatic and maybe even shocking to some of you. That's okay, I get that. Perhaps you feel strongly about upholding the existing ebb-and-flow of mafia on this site, wherein someone signs up to GM, they informally allow players to sign up, and generally, the GM and the players are on the same page about when the game begins and what sort of game it is going to be. This isn't changing. This is not the creation of some supreme court. It is simply a barricade against a runaway train.

If you're a GM, you do not have to approach this committee with everything perfectly planned out. It's not that complicated. You tell them all the same things that you would make clear to a player who asked or even a co-GM. Questions such as whether there is a player limit, whether there are there any major deviations in the setup from what we're used to, and when the game is projected to start come to mind. Are these not things that a GM doesn't think about anyway?

Long story short, I get the opposition simply for the sake of opposing something new. I don't like how the committee was so abruptly and forcefully presented, but I also don't see any major underlying issues with the existence of this committee. It doesn't change much.

https://soundcloud.com/mothlion/webdip

sorry I actually love xorxes lol and bo. dont be mad

Lol people got so fucking offended about regulation of a forum game on a niche board game site. I love you guys.

Has anyone consulted President Eden? Didn't he bring the game to webdip?

For my own part I agree with OB that the committee is a solution looking for a problem. I know there were some issues prior to this game, but they were resolved by the group and last game went well. The problem I see happening is that all mods/GMs take criticism/abuse even when they are being helpful. This can lead to reactions and bans or sanctions and suddenly before we know it the player pool is reduced and games don't fill up. We're all grown-ups I'm sure that we can resolve any issues without a committee (we managed to get to 20 without one).

That said, if it's a choice between having a committee or Mods stopping us playing I'd go for the committee and if we're going to have one then the names suggested so far are all good candidates.

I had reserved M25 as a vanilla game with a presentational twist prior to regime change. I hope that would still be honoured.

Also can we clarify how we communicate with committee. Is it email or PMs?

@ Maniac: You must attend the Committee's hearings in person, accompanied by your solicitor.