|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 9, 2013 11:55:02 GMT -5
KidV, my zero-rule for rules is that a rule's enforcement should require the least amount of interpretation as possible. That is, the game should never depend on a subjective decision by the moderator. I could allow edits that only changed formatting and trust that players not abuse it. But unlike out-of-channel communication that cannot be enforced without the cheaters' cooperation, edits are more complicated. What should we do if a player accuses another player of editing for content? No matter what the call is, I consider even coming to that situation a failure of game design. No edits avoids any interpretation of what edits are legal or not. Of course, I'm from the old-school of internet billboards and usenet, where editing is not possible, so I don't miss it. I like the elegance of having a permanent record of the game. One that does not change, depending when one looks at it. (Allowing edits also violates the non-realtime principle of online mafia.) But if there's enough support, I can switch the rules to allowing all edits. Players, please state any opinions on whether you'd prefer to allow editing of posts, or not.Also, I thought penalty votes as a mechanism for dealing with inactive players was shown to be faulty in the last iteration of Conspiracy. Which is why I'm not using penalty votes. Will we have the honor of you playing with us, sach?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jan 9, 2013 13:24:40 GMT -5
Which is why I'm not using penalty votes. Will we have the honor of you playing with us, sach? I'm obviously skimming! I could not possibly play, I skim everything now. Vacation or mafia? Vacation or mafia? I think I'm going with Vacation.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 9, 2013 14:47:30 GMT -5
While I agree that rulebreakers will be rulebreakers, it's hard to enforce editing only for x or only until y. One of the last games Special Ed played in (one of the Batman series?), he edited a post, if I recall, to give information, because editing was allowed in the game or because he was posting while drinking . I don't in any way think that Ed was a rulebreaker; he would never have PM'd someone the information. He just saw a loophole in the rule that he could take advantage. And IIRC, we lynched him for it. TL;DR I vote for no loopholes in the rules for editing that might give someone an opportunity to give information or whisk away a booboo.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 10, 2013 3:09:14 GMT -5
KidV, my zero-rule for rules is that a rule's enforcement should require the least amount of interpretation as possible. That is, the game should never depend on a subjective decision by the moderator. I could allow edits that only changed formatting and trust that players not abuse it. But unlike out-of-channel communication that cannot be enforced without the cheaters' cooperation, edits are more complicated. What should we do if a player accuses another player of editing for content? No matter what the call is, I consider even coming to that situation a failure of game design. No edits avoids any interpretation of what edits are legal or not. Of course, I'm from the old-school of internet billboards and usenet, where editing is not possible, so I don't miss it. I like the elegance of having a permanent record of the game. One that does not change, depending when one looks at it. (Allowing edits also violates the non-realtime principle of online mafia.) But if there's enough support, I can switch the rules to allowing all edits. Players, please state any opinions on whether you'd prefer to allow editing of posts, or not.Also, I thought penalty votes as a mechanism for dealing with inactive players was shown to be faulty in the last iteration of Conspiracy. Which is why I'm not using penalty votes. Will we have the honor of you playing with us, sach? We've been allowing edits on the Geeb for a while now with no evidence of hijinks or shenanigans. I vote to allow edits here as well. I generally include something in my rules about putting players on their honor not to edit their posts for content, and it's been working great. Up to you though, you're the mod. I'll play either way .
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 10, 2013 7:00:21 GMT -5
/IN Will dead players' roles be revealed upon death, absent interfering powers?
Are there more than two factions?Also, I thought penalty votes as a mechanism for dealing with inactive players was shown to be faulty in the last iteration of Conspiracy. Which is why I'm not using penalty votes. What's the actual difference? In conspiracy some players were left to be mod-killed due to penalty votes earned by inactivity - there was no pressing need to lynch or even pay much attention to them. Here, if a player has earned 3 penalties for ending 3 Days without a vote, why wouldn't we wait and let them get the 4th penalty and be mod-killed and use the lynch on someone else? I love the idea of dead players being required to stay around and continue playing in order for their team to win - it requires a greater commitment to the game but should prevent the game from going really quiet after D3 or D4 as the number of live players shrinks. I'm very curious about how it will work and what mechanism is in place to prevent dead scum from spamming the thread - who wants to hear anything a proven scum or 3rd party has to say?
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 10, 2013 7:51:09 GMT -5
in.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 10, 2013 12:28:44 GMT -5
Will dead players' roles be revealed upon death, absent interfering powers? Are there more than two factions? No comment to either question. Which is why I'm not using penalty votes. What's the actual difference? In conspiracy some players were left to be mod-killed due to penalty votes earned by inactivity - there was no pressing need to lynch or even pay much attention to them. Here, if a player has earned 3 penalties for ending 3 Days without a vote, why wouldn't we wait and let them get the 4th penalty and be mod-killed and use the lynch on someone else? The difference is that penalty votes affect the lynch outcome. Penalties are simply a slow way to get mod-killed, without biasing the lynch. No comment. Don't you love closed games?
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 10, 2013 13:18:07 GMT -5
The difference is that penalty votes affect the lynch outcome. Penalties are simply a slow way to get mod-killed, without biasing the lynch. I like this much better!
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 10, 2013 15:02:16 GMT -5
Uh-oh. *Shudders...* I have no opinion on editing posts, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 10, 2013 15:19:33 GMT -5
I agree with the total ban on editing.
It makes the mod's job easier by eliminating the possibility of needing a judgement call. It eliminates the possibility of someone getting lynched due to an 'innocent' edit. It eliminates the possibility of having the game derailed for half a Day while people argue about whether or not someone's edit was 'innocent' or not.
On the other hand, it makes the game trivially more difficult for the players because they have to proofread their posts. Or not, since they can always add a 'NETA' post like we always have.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 10, 2013 16:20:44 GMT -5
I agree with the total ban on editing. It makes the mod's job easier by eliminating the possibility of needing a judgement call. It eliminates the possibility of someone getting lynched due to an 'innocent' edit. It eliminates the possibility of having the game derailed for half a Day while people argue about whether or not someone's edit was 'innocent' or not. On the other hand, it makes the game trivially more difficult for the players because they have to proofread their posts. Or not, since they can always add a 'NETA' post like we always have. Ok, I change my mind based on factor #3. I'm anti-edit. There are enough things that can derail the game without having to worry about edits as well.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 10, 2013 17:51:29 GMT -5
It makes the mod's job easier by eliminating the possibility of needing a judgement call. It eliminates the possibility of someone getting lynched due to an 'innocent' edit. It eliminates the possibility of having the game derailed for half a Day while people argue about whether or not someone's edit was 'innocent' or not. On the other hand, it makes the game trivially more difficult for the players because they have to proofread their posts. Or not, since they can always add a 'NETA' post like we always have. Out of curiosity.. Has this ever happened? I find having to read the thread with vote fixes to be annoying, and I honestly don't care if people are trying to cheat by adding a message then deleting it. I think editing tags and typos within 5 minutes after posting is a very simple rule. Maybe it is because I don't see what advantage editing brings to the one trying to cheat. As has already been mentioned, it is just as easy to cheat via PM, Skype, mail et al.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 10, 2013 17:54:02 GMT -5
NETA Actually, it hugely easier to cheat via skype. In order to cheat via editing, you'd have to agree a time when the ones you want to see your secret message should cheat the board, but how would they communicate this message - via edits? I'm not talking about editing a post hours after you posted. Just a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 14, 2013 18:57:06 GMT -5
I am moderately anti-editing but as KidV said, we've done it on the geeb fairly successfully.
Nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 14, 2013 18:57:25 GMT -5
NETA Different boards, different cultures.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jan 15, 2013 20:54:25 GMT -5
/in if you still have room!
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 16, 2013 10:56:04 GMT -5
/in if you still have room! Yes, and we still need 5 more.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 16, 2013 15:22:22 GMT -5
Six more: Colby is having trouble accessing the board on his ipad again and feels he should bow out. He asked me to let you know.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 18, 2013 12:42:10 GMT -5
If it's not too late, I would love to play.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 18, 2013 13:22:24 GMT -5
Not too late. We still need 5 more players now.
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Jan 18, 2013 14:44:17 GMT -5
Haven't played in a while, last time RL played havoc with me. Let's rock! I am in.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 18, 2013 14:58:55 GMT -5
Thanks Pleo, only 4 to go now.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 19, 2013 11:46:38 GMT -5
Ok, you convinced me. I'll try to play better this time.
/in
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Jan 20, 2013 11:35:04 GMT -5
In if you still need players
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 20, 2013 12:47:05 GMT -5
Against my better judgment,
/in.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 21, 2013 11:15:46 GMT -5
Excellent! We just need one more player.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 22, 2013 5:42:40 GMT -5
Okay, sign me up.
A game hasn't had an entire Day dedicated to Idle Thought's actions for awhile *grumble grumbe*
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 22, 2013 5:51:52 GMT -5
Vote: Idle Thoughts [/color]
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Jan 22, 2013 8:14:59 GMT -5
Awww you edited! I am telling
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 22, 2013 10:56:41 GMT -5
Yay! We are good to go. I need to some final book-keeping and set-up, but we'll start soon. Maybe later this week, if it's okay to start before the other game ends. Thoughts?
|
|