Policy Discussion: Invitationals

[Mr. Flay]

Public voting? That's had objections for reasons of rejection/ill will on the part of those who don't get in.

Secret voting? Subject to throw-away accounts/ballot-stuffing.

[IH]

I agree with Shea. Voting is the way to go.

[Thok]

Public voting? That's had objections for reasons of rejection/ill will on the part of those who don't get in.

Secret voting? Subject to throw-away accounts/ballot-stuffing.

Voting by PM takes away the issues of Secret voting: the mods can reject PM's from throw away accounts. I don't really care about ballot stuffing issues for the most part.

I also assume that anybody running the invitational would have common sense; "HotRussianLover12038" shouldn't be getting into an invitational no matter how many votes or nominations she gets.

[Seol]

"HotRussianLover12038" shouldn't be getting into an invitational no matter how many votes or nominations she gets.

I've got a Minivitational planned for her.

It's not a very big game.

[Mr. Flay]

*snort* I don't know why not, she's invited over 100 friends to the site already...

Anyway, Thok's suggestion of voting by PM takes away my own personal objections to any sort of secret ballotting. Dunno what it does for other people...

[Fiasco]

Doesn't take away my objections:

* People will pester their friends into voting for them
* The game will be filled with the most active friend-pesterers and with players who are highly visible for the wrong reasons
* More potential for "ill will on the part of those who don't get in"; votes won't stay completely secret (personally I don't really care if I get to participate; I just would like to see games with exceptional-quality play)
* No potential to match a set of players to each other for playing style or whatever
* Voting and counting votes means unnecessary effort
* The average voter isn't as good at picking an interesting set of players as the average Anonymous Trusted Veteran

[Fiasco]

If our population was more invested in each of their games, I'd support the idea of an open-sized game. Problem is, I fear that it would do one of two things:
a) the game would be so large and unwieldy that it would suck the life out of many other games on the site;
b) no one would want to get in a game so large and unwieldy, and it would lose the specialness you're looking for because only 12-15 people would sign up.

As I suggested earlier, if you define twelve "players" based on join month or first letter of username, then let everyone participate on behalf of their respective "player", everyone can play without the game getting too big. Call it "Hydra Mafia"; people grow new heads all the time.

Err, yeah, I've been wondering about this, but we could attempt to set up a cross-site Invitational. Not just GL and this site, but also from other sites with good Mafia players.

QFT

[Mr Stoofer]

As I suggested earlier, if you define twelve "players" based on join month or first letter of username, then let everyone participate on behalf of their respective "player", everyone can play without the game getting too big. Call it "Hydra Mafia"; people grow new heads all the time.

I like this idea!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

But sending out role PMs'd be a whole lot of work.

[Fiasco]

Not really; you'd only send someone a role PM as soon as they first posted in the thread. If that's still too much work for the mod, ask active players to pass along their team's PM to any newcomers.

I guess assigning team membership completely at random would work just as well as basing it on month/letter, BTW.

[mikehart]

Am I the only person who thinks that if someone feels slighted for not getting picked they need to suck it up and deal with it? If you have personal worth issues thats your problem and not ours.

[Zindaras]

Am I the only person who thinks that if someone feels slighted for not getting picked they need to suck it up and deal with it? If you have personal worth issues thats your problem and not ours.

I would agree with this.

Anyway, more opinions on the cross-site Invitational idea?

[Thestatusquo]

It sounds too much like something wifom.net is already doing, to me.

[Fiasco]

That's not an invitational, though, and it has broken scoring rules.

[Thestatusquo]

They changed them. But it seems like essentially the same thing.

[Fiasco]

Just because there are players in it from different sites?

[Thestatusquo]

Because the intent is for the 'best of the best' from all different mafia sites to come together and compete.

[Seol]

Because the intent is for the 'best of the best' from all different mafia sites to come together and compete.

Although that's not really what happened, there was no selection process, the players in it are fairly arbitrarily chosen.

[AniX]

Doesn't take away my objections:

* People will pester their friends into voting for them
* The game will be filled with the most active friend-pesterers

and with players who are highly visible for the wrong reasons

* More potential for "ill will on the part of those who don't get in"; votes won't stay completely secret (personally I don't really care if I get to participate; I just would like to see games with exceptional-quality play)
* No potential to match a set of players to each other for playing style or whatever
* Voting and counting votes means unnecessary effort
* The average voter isn't as good at picking an interesting set of players as the average Anonymous Trusted Veteran

He is totally talking about me.

[AniX]

Also, Shea, are in that WIFOM.net game?

[Fiasco]

He is totally talking about me.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Thok]

Just a reminder that invitationals don't have to mean "best of the best". For example, I have sort of a morbid attraction to a "Golden Raspberry" invitational where invitees were selected from those who made spectacular mistakes in mafia games over the past year.

(I don't expect such a gme will ever happen, but hey it could be cathartic/amusing.)

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

omg... i'm getting flashbacks... of something zin and glork might know about...

[Mr Stoofer]

I guess what I'm saying is, why are invitationals by permission only?

I think this discussion has moved over into the subject area of Policy Discussion: Invitationals. Although I accept there is an overlap.

I always understood that there was a difference between:

1

. An Invitational -- which operates outside the List system, and requires permission

2

. A game within the List system, which the Mod notifies to some people before general sign-ups open -- which I always assumed was permissible -- it certainly happens a lot and there has been no attempt by authority to ban it.

I understood that this thread was talking about, amongst other things, Type 1 and that Policy Discussion: Invitationals is the place to discuss Type 2.

[Yamahako]

A relatively fair way to do a voting invitational without spamming votes would be this:

Everyone who would like to be included signs up in the thread. Once signups are locked, each participant gets a certain number of votes to vote for people they would like to play with (perhaps the number of roles for example). The top vote getters of those votes get in. You can't be too pushy with who to vote for - and you get to vote for most of the people you want to play with. And its the people who actualy have to play with the participants who get to choose.

Sorry if this is a necro - I followed the link here from another thread.