Modding Best Practices: One Player's View

[Mr. Flay]

1. Yes, absolutely. I cannot imagine how confusing it would be to review a game that was done the other way (luckily, I've avoided playing under any of those mods so far).
   
2. Yes, with the caveat that as long as it is ALL explicitly laid out in the first post/death summary post, it can be shortened a bit in the actual death scene, sometimes. I dislike the usage of colors if those colors are not going to correspond to standards (red for scum, etc); Phoebus did this in some game without alignment-reveal and it drove me batty, even though I WAS one of the scum (and yes, I realize limited-reveal games will muck with this rule, but in that case I'd rather you didn't use colors at all!).
   
3. I'll gladly take credit for this idea, so yes. Every player with a choice should receive a confirmation from the mod that their choice was received, even if they don't get full/direct information about the result of their choice.
   
4. Yes to all, especially to putting it in the thread title (even if it means you have to shorten your flavor text).
   
5. This is the only one I disagree with. I'll usually acknowledge that I've seen a request for a prod, but it's between me and the player whether or not they're lurking or have disappeared. Even pro-town roles have reasons for doing this at times, so it's not playing favorites to the scum. I don't understand your second paragraph here; if the player doesn't post and I say that they've picked up their prod, then the player is 'outed' as lurking. I generally prod on MY schedule, not the players, so I may be misunderstanding your intention here.

To extend a few of your points... what do people think about the mod editting player posts ever, to answer questions in the special mod formatting, or fix obviously mistaken tags?

I do this sometimes, most often if I can edit it into their post quickly before anyone else has responded to the thread, so I'm 99% sure the answer won't be missed. If I see it later than that, I usually just answer in the same post as my next vote count.

[Mr. Flay]

Yeah...I don't like time-based deadline tiebreakers at all. I'm not sure how I'm going to deal with that issue in the next game I mod...perhaps "tie at deadline means no lynch" would be a good plan.

I've started doing this and it works pretty well (ties at/above the deadline threshold indicate lack of consensus, so No Lynch). It also punishes town further for having to go to deadline, which I support.

I prefer to use some shade of red to indicate the most lynchworthy; Adel's sigil is hard for me to discern.

I think that for deadlines it is a good practice to have a rule stating something to the effect of "Votes and unvotes that accur after the deadline will not be counted." that way if can't be there to lock the thread at the specific deadline time the players will realize that while they can still post since the thread is unlocked, who will be lynched has been determined.

(nods) That's a good idea. The alternate idea is just to state in your rules that the deadline dosn't actually happen until the mod comes into the thread and announces end-of-day, like "Deadline will be at some time after 8:00 PM tommorow, whenever the mod is avalable to lock the thread". The ambiguaty should be eliminated, though; having one or the other, and having everyone know which one, is probably best.

I always use the latter; otherwise it would be possible to deadline-lynch Player A, then have someone come in thread and throw an actual hammer down on Player B. Killing Player A not in keeping with the intent of game mechanics, in my view.

I still

write

"11:59:59 PM on Such-and-such-a-date", but deadline actually hits when I close the thread, just like Twilight.

[Mr. Flay]

Can someone explain to me why editing vote counts on the top of each page is considered bad? I do it all the time, and I think it´s more handy because you don´t have to search for the votecounts, and if it appears on every page there is also consistency. If you only want to see votecounts you just have to jump from page to page, and if you decide you want to see what happened after a certain vote count you can just scroll down. It also limits the amount of mod posts while it is ensured that what the mod says is read.

1. It makes it completely unambiguous that this is an 'official' vote count, not a player count.
   
2. If I only want to see Vote Counts, I can filter by the mod's posts. Nothing could be simpler (your way requires 100+ page loads for some games).
   
3. It ensures that no one misses the count because they are already reading farther down the page.
   
4. A multitude of mod posts has never been a problem for me in reading a game, as a player.

The only time I edit another player's posts to reply is when I see the thread VERY soon after their question, and can avoid a separate post for a 1-2 word reply.

[Mr. Flay]

I'm in favour of hardcore mods who prod everyone during night-phase and seek replacements before it is over, to rule out this kind of meta-gaming element.

Absolutely necessary to avoid just what you described. If they didn't post for 75% of my deadline threshold before nightfall (usually 48-72h), but don't have a nightchoice, I ask for a PM overnight just to make sure they're still around.

[Mr. Flay]

some mods (Guardian was the first person I noticed) state in their rule set that night moves that are not submitted will be randomized. To not make the move you have to pm the mod saying so. I like it: little mod effort and total transparency.

Why is this better than a valid choice from a real player? If you need a replacement, get it when you need it, not when the players notice you need it.

[Mr. Flay]

I must be exceedingly lucky. I have had maybe TWO players in my entire modding history miss a night choice... and that was before I started sending nighttime prods.