Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
It became clear while refereeing Mafia 68 that we need to clarify some rules. These are just to get a general idea, and if someone has any suggestions to improve any of them, or if there's something I forgot, I'm all ears.
The rules say that a night can only last 12 hours. The rules also say that mafia/inspector have 36 hours to submit a whack or guess. These two rules are contradictory.
Because we recently switched the night rule to 12 hours, for purposes of keeping the game shorter, the time for submitting a whack or guess should correspond and also be 12 hours.
With respect to the disqualification rule for players that miss 2 votes, I think it should be 2 missed votes including runoff. Given the 36 hour rule, a player has 72 hours of non-voting before they are disqualified. That's 3 days - more than enough time to check in.
If we make the rule 2 missed "days" of voting, that can extend far beyond 72 hours if there are multiple runoffs. There is no reason why someone should be allowed to miss voting for as long as a week.
This one is more subjective though, I think. But that's just my opinion.
Because we recently switched the night rule to 12 hours, for purposes of keeping the game shorter, the time for submitting a whack or guess should correspond and also be 12 hours.
This one is pretty simple IMO.
I do think it's only fair to give the mafia and the inspector/detective the exact same amount of time. I'm not sure if that difference was intentional, or if Viking forgot to amend it when he changed the rules.
Personally though, I think 12 hours is an unreasonably short period of time. What if someone's at work, or has a night out, or whatever? What if the bulk of those 12 hours fall during normal sleeping hours? The Mafia are three (or more) people who have to play tag online and then reach a consensus in a very short period of time, and I just don't think that's always feasible.
With respect to the disqualification rule for players that miss 2 votes, I think it should be 2 missed votes including runoff. Given the 36 hour rule, a player has 72 hours of non-voting before they are disqualified. That's 3 days - more than enough time to check in.
If we make the rule 2 missed "days" of voting, that can extend far beyond 72 hours if there are multiple runoffs. There is no reason why someone should be allowed to miss voting for as long as a week.
This one is more subjective though, I think. But that's just my opinion.
. This is pretty much everything I was going to say.
the discrepancy was a result of my missing it while editing the rules. 12 hours was the intent. As far as mafia playing tag, you can start discussing the whack earlier in the day. You should not be starting discussions right after the day closes.
Also, the intent on the 2 missed votes is two missed votes period, inclusive of runoffs. If you miss any two votes, you are done.
As far as the content piece, I have always been a proponent of what gets said in thread is fair game. Do not bring things in game you do not want used against you. It seems too often a mafia member uses a sob story to get an emotional vote and it is an effective tool. So the choice is really to adopt a persona that does not include any personal information and the game becomes much more civil, or allow outside stories in and the game continues to have brutal personal attacks. Thats the real choice.
Just for clarification, does a null vote count against you as missing a vote? I think a couple of games ago their was a situation where I nulled a vote for some reason. And I was warned that one more missed vote would disqualify me.
You're just too young to grasp how stylin' I really was. All the boys wanted to do me when I was 5. Actually the girls did too. My haircut was confusing.
AS far as I am concerned, a null vote is a vote. There is not universal agreement among refs on this though. I would say it is a vote. You have to post to make it. You are technically participating. If you choose not to move it, it is your choice. But I would open that up for debate. It should be codified though.
I don't want to start seeing null votes left out there when rounds close. This could be exploited. I feel like null votes are useful when conversation is heavy. Just as a placeholder to give you more time to think things through, without being scrutinized for your previous vote. This is an area where it's going to be very much situational, and perhaps fluctuate game to game, depending on the ref.
I feel the bottom line is that booting players for missing votes, boils down to participating in the game. You sleep on the game for too long, your out. If someone goes null, then disappears for the rest of the round, give them a strike. If they go null, and continue to openly discuss, I'm a lite more ok with it, but it should be encouraged to place your vote on someone before the end of the round.
I don't want to start seeing null votes left out there when rounds close. This could be exploited. I feel like null votes are useful when conversation is heavy. Just as a placeholder to give you more time to think things through, without being scrutinized for your previous vote. This is an area where it's going to be very much situational, and perhaps fluctuate game to game, depending on the ref.
I feel the bottom line is that booting players for missing votes, boils down to participating in the game. You sleep on the game for too long, your out. If someone goes null, then disappears for the rest of the round, give them a strike. If they go null, and continue to openly discuss, I'm a lite more ok with it, but it should be encouraged to place your vote on someone before the end of the round.
My 2 cents.
Agree with you 100%. I would hate for people to start nulling votes left and right. At the same time, I think a null vote could have some strategy behind it. I believe when I nulled my vote it was because I was the last person to vote and the runoff was already set. Unless I voted for someone who was in the runoff my vote would essentially do nothing. In that situation, I would rather vote a null then throw a meaningless vote behind someone, and then later on have that vote used against me.
Either way I just wanted some clarification for future games.
You're just too young to grasp how stylin' I really was. All the boys wanted to do me when I was 5. Actually the girls did too. My haircut was confusing.
But a null vote is a vote. If you want clarity, you cant have it both ways. Either a null vote has to count or it does not count as a vote. If left up to the ref, it will continue to cause conflict. IMO, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the game to count it, and I feel it should count as a vote.
But a null vote is a vote. If you want clarity, you cant have it both ways. Either a null vote has to count or it does not count as a vote. If left up to the ref, it will continue to cause conflict. IMO, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the game to count it, and I feel it should count as a vote.
I see what you're saying. And I see about the wrinkle too. I like the idea, but just do t want to see it over used. I like that were forced to, in some seance, condemn another player and give reason to back it up. Voting null, will be followed by a generic "I can't decide, let's see what happens". And you can only make an argument against that so many times before it's going to get old. After that game, I don't want to give any an easy way to coast through the game.
But a null vote is a vote. If you want clarity, you cant have it both ways. Either a null vote has to count or it does not count as a vote. If left up to the ref, it will continue to cause conflict. IMO, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the game to count it, and I feel it should count as a vote.
My only issue is with people who don't check in at all. If you want to vote null (I.e. abstain) then you can deal with whatever fallout that brings.
12 hours isn't always enough time, I think 24 is better and hopefully keeps the pace going. 36 just dragged on too often.
I think the ref should give some type of deadline, I didn't agree with the way that round just ended in the last game, but we have been so used to "round closes in XX hours" recently that any change like that will be a bigger deal. The flip side of that though, I was glad to see a round close on the weekend, there didn't appear to be too much discussion going on and everyone had voted, no need to drag out an extra day or two just because it is a weekend. I personally with that would happen more often.
A runoff vote is a vote, that's the way I see it. Voting closes, votes reset, you have to meet time guidelines, why wouldn't it count?
As for language ect, I don't think we need special behavior rules for mafia in addition to our board guidelines. There will always be folks who try to belittle others or get them riled up, just as there are in most every other part of this board. I probably would support a "2 strikes and you're out" per game, giving a player 1 warning, but what I have seen in recent games is candy canes and flowers compared to how a lot of folks used to act. You want to call someone names and look like a silly playground bully, be my guest. It was not the case in this most recent game, but more often than not when tempers flare there is likely a mafia member involved from my experience. On a side note, there have only been 4 players booted from a game for conduct related issues that I can recall (2 players in two different games). I don't think a single comment should warrant the boot, but if it continues/get's out of hand, that's a different story. Think of it this way, if a questionable post is reported to the mods of the board, how do you think they would see it? That is what I would base my decision on.
Oh, and the null vote thing . . . Personally, I think it's a total BS excuse and should be considered a non-vote by the ref. You aren't voting for anyone, why should you get a pass? You are playing a game based on voting, why the hell should we let someone play and not vote?? Now, we all know a player gets one free missed vote, I think a null at the end of a vote should count the same as a missed vote. You want to play the round and not vote, you know the consequences.
12 hours isn't always enough time, I think 24 is better and hopefully keeps the pace going. 36 just dragged on too often.
I think the ref should give some type of deadline, I didn't agree with the way that round just ended in the last game, but we have been so used to "round closes in XX hours" recently that any change like that will be a bigger deal. The flip side of that though, I was glad to see a round close on the weekend, there didn't appear to be too much discussion going on and everyone had voted, no need to drag out an extra day or two just because it is a weekend. I personally with that would happen more often.
A runoff vote is a vote, that's the way I see it. Voting closes, votes reset, you have to meet time guidelines, why wouldn't it count?
As for language ect, I don't think we need special behavior rules for mafia in addition to our board guidelines. There will always be folks who try to belittle others or get them riled up, just as there are in most every other part of this board. I probably would support a "2 strikes and you're out" per game, giving a player 1 warning, but what I have seen in recent games is candy canes and flowers compared to how a lot of folks used to act. You want to call someone names and look like a silly playground bully, be my guest. It was not the case in this most recent game, but more often than not when tempers flare there is likely a mafia member involved from my experience. On a side note, there have only been 4 players booted from a game for conduct related issues that I can recall (2 players in two different games). I don't think a single comment should warrant the boot, but if it continues/get's out of hand, that's a different story. Think of it this way, if a questionable post is reported to the mods of the board, how do you think they would see it? That is what I would base my decision on.
Why not make a null vote limit? Allow one per game. Then the risk of abuse is less and makes a person think before using it. You'd just have to decide when that null counts. When it's used for a placeholder during discussions or at the end of the day?
Why not make a null vote limit? Allow one per game. Then the risk of abuse is less and makes a person think before using it. You'd just have to decide when that null counts. When it's used for a placeholder during discussions or at the end of the day?
Sent from my SM-P600 using proboards
That could be an interpretation of a rule that's already in place. Miss 2 votes and you're out.
12 hours isn't always enough time, I think 24 is better and hopefully keeps the pace going. 36 just dragged on too often.
I think the ref should give some type of deadline, I didn't agree with the way that round just ended in the last game, but we have been so used to "round closes in XX hours" recently that any change like that will be a bigger deal. The flip side of that though, I was glad to see a round close on the weekend, there didn't appear to be too much discussion going on and everyone had voted, no need to drag out an extra day or two just because it is a weekend. I personally with that would happen more often.
A runoff vote is a vote, that's the way I see it. Voting closes, votes reset, you have to meet time guidelines, why wouldn't it count?
As for language ect, I don't think we need special behavior rules for mafia in addition to our board guidelines. There will always be folks who try to belittle others or get them riled up, just as there are in most every other part of this board. I probably would support a "2 strikes and you're out" per game, giving a player 1 warning, but what I have seen in recent games is candy canes and flowers compared to how a lot of folks used to act. You want to call someone names and look like a silly playground bully, be my guest. It was not the case in this most recent game, but more often than not when tempers flare there is likely a mafia member involved from my experience. On a side note, there have only been 4 players booted from a game for conduct related issues that I can recall (2 players in two different games). I don't think a single comment should warrant the boot, but if it continues/get's out of hand, that's a different story. Think of it this way, if a questionable post is reported to the mods of the board, how do you think they would see it? That is what I would base my decision on.
12 hours definitely isn't enough time in my opinion. Say, if voting closes at 9pm, and someone's gotta go to bed early-ish to get up for work at 9am, it doesn't really give them time to check in - much less when people need to do a bit of back and forth to reach a consensus. Or if it's 9am to 9pm, and maybe they have work and then dinner plans in the evening. This gets especially problematic in games with more than the standard three mafia, as in the Commissioner's Invitational, so it might need to be extended for bigger games.
Do you/anyone/everyone think it should be 24 hours for both the town & the mob? I agree 36 hours can too often drag into two full days - say from Monday morning to Tuesday night. I say aim for 24 for both, and let referees grant a little bit of leeway at their discretion if need be. I think runoffs should be 24 hours as well.
A null vote IMO does not count as a vote. Voting serves two main purposes - partly to get rid of the player you think poses the the biggest threat, but just as much to let other people figure out where you stand. Waiting out a round with a null vote skirts that last purpose, and so I think that should count as a missed vote.
Language is a tricky one. On the one hand, sometimes people could do with a reminder now and then that we're all here to have fun, and that since we're all *mostly* civil to each other in other threads, Mafia should be no different. The Arcade in particular has always been a bit of a no-arsehole safe haven, and I don't want to see that change. On the other hand, sometimes prodding people a bit can really help to suss out their motives and allegiances. So it's a mixed bag.
Apologies for occasionally fubar-ing the closing last game. I will admit the time difference can make things a bit tricky for checking in during the daytime. I'm between 14 to 16 hours ahead of East Coast time (14 ATM), so I'm not on much from late morning to mid-evening. I promise to give more notice of estimated closing times in the future, if you'll be so kind as to let me ref again sometime.
For the mafia whack, I feel 12 hours should be the standard, but an additional 6 hours be added upon request, giving 18 hours. If after 18 hours, mafia can't muster a whack, they forgot the whack. That's how I would do it if it was up to me. It's a compromise on both sides of the argument.
- 24 hours - ref should give ample notice of round ending - missing a runoff counts as missing a vote
I don't know what to say on the penalizing issue, because what's the basis on how far you let shit slide before someone gets penalized? And what are the penalties for doing some negative action?
I'd also count having a null vote at the end of the round/runoff count as a missed vote.
I'm not sure who actually has authority to make these changes. I'm not going to pretend like its me. But we should probably have a decision made soon, no?
I'm not sure who actually has authority to make these changes. I'm not going to pretend like its me. But we should probably have a decision made soon, no?
I was just going to go with the most popular responses (democracy FTW), so: A. 24-hour nights B. refs must give ample notice before closing rounds (6 hours? 12? Thoughts?) C. main vote and runoff counts as two votes D. no restrictions on speech beyond general forum rules.
