Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    Mafia Community Discussion
    • Mafia Community Discussion

      Hey everyone! So we've decided to utilize this thread (thanks Mike!) as the discussion point for issues and future ideas regarding the crazy game of Mafia. We're going to keep the Mafia Plaza as a place for submitting and voting games only, whereas this thread can be the place we bring topics of discussion. Since questions and concerns for Mafia games are ongoing, I'm hoping we can solve them all through discussion here. Feel free to post any concerns and we as a community can go over them together and try to keep this game interesting, fun, and agreed upon by the members of ZU. Thanks!

      -LS



      -------------------------------------------


      Mike's original OP discussion on Mafia Brides:

      Alright, so there seemed to be a bit of confusion with regards to the dissolution of the Brides and how the Mafia community is supposed to continue on after it.

      The Brides began as a structure that was formed by the grassroots: @Malia and later Stryder started vetting games in order to make sure that games could not be broken. That they were balanced. And that they were fun. Later @Foo and I joined in helping with that. None of us did this as moderators, though later some of the brides would join the moderation team or in my case vice versa. But over time the Brides stepped down or burned out and as a result of that the Mafia community stagnated. Part of the problem with this is that the Brides structure was too top-down. It got to a point where we had a say in *every* going on. That is not a bad thing on it's own, but when the people executing those duties bugger off, for whatever reason, that is a big problem. The community grinds to a halt.

      I dissolved the Brides with the intention of the community, everyone, having a say in how we go forward. Allow me to be clearer by what I did when I dissolved the Brides: the rules that existed previously to that dissolution still exist! For example, someone couldn't make a game on ZU without having played at least two games here. I did not want mafia to become a free-for-all.

      The intention was that the community would be making the decisions the Brides formerly made. Rather than having someone vet games previous to their submission, the community would vet them via the voting system. If a game couldn't convince the community it was worth playing or would be without problems it wouldn't be played. And if a game was voted on and passed that and still had problems, the community would look through what went wrong and would make corrections. Whether that was by not voting in that particular GM again or by ensuring something did not happen again by not allowing certain traits within games to recur, the community would crowd-solve the problem.

      Later I suggested that I was open to vetting games as an option so that the community would not be left completely rudderless. If someone did not want their game to be looked at, that was fine! If someone did, either because they were new or not confident that the community would vote them in otherwise, then that was fine too. But I did not want us to return to a top-down structure where things were dependent upon individuals to keep the community moving. I wanted the community to be moving itself and to be making its own decisions, at least in the short term, until it could recover from the blah patch it had been in with the brides burnout.


      TL;DR -
      tima.erb.of.erbz [4:37 PM] like the suggestion was

      -let people submit games
      -let people vote
      -people can send their games to be checked over if they wanna

      I've created this thread here so that the community can have a better understanding of this decision and so that people can ask questions about it and the community is part of the discussion around it.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lady Sunshine ().

    • Great idea Mike. You know I'm fairly -new- to mafia, so this was also a great side explanation to the organization of everything.

      I hope people will take advantage of this because I can see it'll be super beneficial- definitely to me at least, since one day I would like to co-run a game of my own.


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |

    • Subbing, but I'm not sure I comprehend how all of this is going to work. So, we don't have to have our games checked if we don't want to. But is the voting system still in place, or...? And if there's only one game currently in place, does it still have to be voted on or can it just be run, or...what?

      Celebrating 3 whole years of ZU membership -- 8/22/2015 - 8/22/2018
    • Linkle wrote:

      Subbing, but I'm not sure I comprehend how all of this is going to work. So, we don't have to have our games checked if we don't want to. But is the voting system still in place, or...? And if there's only one game currently in place, does it still have to be voted on or can it just be run, or...what?
      It sounds like we wouldn't vote until another game was avaialble to compete agaisnt it, and this is to prevent games from just being played because they're the only option available.

      Or, another suggestion is we can have a game presented when it's ready to play, but it will require a certain number of votes (or likes) to be added to a "game que" if you will, it gets put on a list in numerical order once it has received a particular number of approvals.

      Jehanne wrote:

      I don't think that it will run smoothly unless you have at least a single person (perhaps a volunteer at any given time, rather than the Bridez) that will be responsible or help facilitate the discussion.
      Can you elaborate? Facilitate what discussion? The community would respond to the thread and voice their opinions and concerns.
    • I mean, we'll still be doing what we did when we had brides, just as a community. We can write out the process more formally so that everyone understands it and then anyone and everyone can ensure that we're running on time.

      Example:

      A day or two after a mafia game ends, we have a week long period for new game submissions OR until a third submission is made. Then we will have voting for a week. Then we play the selected game. Repeat.

      We don't really need Foo or I to come in and kick things off when anyone, whether the person is Kae or Prada or Kay Faraday, posts in the plaza saying "So we have a week to find a new game? :)"


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • From how ID plays mafia, you'd think he was always PMSing. And that's where we should keep our over-emotional rants and essays - on the mafia field. This new structure will be about the community and for the community; everyone creating and selecting games based on what we deem fit. I think it'll help everyone gain more respect for one another because at the end of the day it's the community's decisions that will result in our biggest successes and opportunities to learn.



      I think the toxic phase is over. A new day is dawning. Day 1: The Mafia Community Dons Some New Whitey Tighties. We're done soiling ourselves.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kae ().

    • Hey community -

      When a game is sitting in sign-ups:
      • Do we want to have an expiration rule?
        (i.e., if 2 weeks pass without full sign-up, the next game gets played)
      • If yes, would the game just get put back in the que or completely dismissed?
      • If yes, we could give the GM the option for a 24-48 period to re-work the set-up numbers, based on the actual number of partcipating...or something.
      I ask just because people have availability based on when they sign-up / expect to play. After two weeks that availability can change and we could lose more players mid-game.
    • Voting should prevent a sign-up lull - but there's a chance it could happen to a game with interest.

      I just wanted to utilize this thread to show the community what the purpose of it is. To solicit opinions so we can decide as a whole what we want to do. We have a current situation where a game has been sitting in sign-ups for 11 days and I thought I would open up the discussion.

      I think it's being resolved though, on its own with a deadline for sign-ups and then a restructure of roles based on the number of participants...so it's all good.

      I hope people would be more responsive in the future though :)
    • Do you think it would help to have official number/player caps unless things get suuuuper active?

      For example, the mafia about to start had issues because it was meant to be really big and then Mike pointed out that we don't have that many mafia actives.

      What if he states in the rules not to make games over say, 13 or 15 or whatever people so that way even if sign ups are slow, the game is basically guaranteed to be filled.

      That way GMs aren't forced to change around their games to fit the new numbers and things could run smoother.

      If the games become more popular then we could always change or remove the hard cap at that time?


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |

    • I think this is a good idea going forward. We have what - around 10-15 truly active mafia players right now? I know it can get to be a higher number but it'll take some time to up the interest in the mafia community until we can expect steady results on bigger games.

      We don't have to put it in the rules but we can agree on it as a community so that anyone who is in the process of creating a game right now keeps it in mind going forward.

      Also - we will be voting in games, so even if someone proposes a game that is larger (18+), we can not vote it in because of concern over gathering that number of players.
    • Yeah, I don't think it needs a rule. It's just something people have to be conscious about when making a game. If you don't want to cater to what the community can sustain, then you don't get voted in OR you put that bigger setup on hold until we can more reasonably sustain it.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Mostly subbing, but what if for games that are the only one on the voting block they need a third of their players (rounded down) to go through? So a 15 player game needs 5 people willing to say 'I'm definitely playing this game.'

      Like I enjoy the idea of a game getting a certain number of likes or votes before it's added to the queue. If a game doesn't receive the number of likes/votes needed within a certain timeframe, the runner can pull the game and rework it to be more what the community wants. Then they would resubmit and votes go back to zero.

      :heart: Rinn “Arwyn” Nailo drawn by Liah :heart:
      Rakshael: if I know one thing about Ruki, it's that she'll prove you wrong just for the sake of saying she did it
      Characters | The Time Lost | The Rumors We Believe | Ruki's Reviews
    • I propose we revise the rule stating that GMs must wait three games to GM a new game to be a single game, as with a smaller community and thus a limited number of GMs, it seems it would be a tad restrictive to GMs that may be willing to GM multiple games but there aren't enough people with ready setups to give them the opportunity.

      I.E. Say Kae wanted to run a game right now and I didn't just submit a game, there currently are no other setups proposed but due to the current rules in place she wouldn't be allowed to host a game. Seems a bit silly.