Survivor Review Board: Discussion

[D3f3nd3r]

Then again Arkham did warn its players to expect insanity and bastard-mod stuff...

"Twists will be about as numerous and game-changing as all those Bat-gadgets on a certain utility belt. Think fast, or suffer a mild case of death."

"The moderating team is not responsible for any rage, violence, insanity, heart attacks, or jaywalking induced by this game. In the event that you start experiencing some of these symptoms, please begin praying to the God of your choice."

If you warn your players that the game is bastard/twist-heavy/rage-inducing, you have the freedom to go wild.

[D3f3nd3r]

- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Idea is pretty good.

1. Yeah, I'd say you're clear to after running two games to completion without them being terrible.
2. Nah, doesn't need.
3. I'd say anyone who has modded one game is clear. We don't want crappy reviews.
4. If a game isn't reviewed because the mod refuses to get a review, yeah, shut it down.
5. Nah.

Also, we should have a rule that anybody running their first large game must have a co-mod.