I was not complaining about any NRG member for the record. I certainly don't agree with the call out. I'm just saying that there's more than one female member on the NRG.
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
In post 100, RadiantCowbells wrote:I was not complaining about any NRG member for the record. I certainly don't agree with the call out. I'm just saying that there's more than one female member on the NRG.
I know. I was generally just saying as a response because I should have dealt with it earlier, and it felt easiest to do it as one post.
In post 101, Mathdino wrote:and i'm saying that calling out fferyllt isn't even applicable because she's not in the NRG lol
Okay. Thank you for that informative post, except for the fact that she is/was in the NRG at that point. I should know.
In post 75, mastina wrote:You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?
In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:
He was complaining about ffery, I'm fairly sure
Yeah this is a super productive conversation to be having.
Please do not insult other people. At no point were concerns raised about any Normal Review Group members. When you signed up for reviews you never asked specifically not be to put with anyone else. If you had a problem, you should have told me before now. Publicly calling people out is not the right way to do things.
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
In post 91, northsidegal wrote:I don't think I should be forced to run an otherwise normal game in the theme queue if I want to use just one of some kind of slight variant role.
Yeah, there are a lot of cute slight variants that make games more interesting, a lot of which are not mainstream on MS. If I want to see how one of those runs here, I'd have to make all the vastly different theme games wait as I took up a slot. Plus, players interested in theme games might be disappointed to play in something that's almost a normal.
The changes in general are good, but greylist removal is a big mistake.
I don't have anything to put here because my normal signature is images. Weeeeee.
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
In post 91, northsidegal wrote:I don't think I should be forced to run an otherwise normal game in the theme queue if I want to use just one of some kind of slight variant role.
And I don’t see doing that as a hardship on the Mod at all. I’ve yet to see a good arguement made why using the Theme queue for nonstandized games is a problem. There are tons of things I’m not a fan of on MS and over the years the simplest way I have found to deal with them is to calibrate my behavior to avoid said personal problems.
Your mileage may vary ...
"I am a leaf on the wind ... watch how I soar!"
Pretty much Geriatric game restricted at this point ... unless there are players I REALLY want to play with.
In post 47, Mathdino wrote:My favourite theme games have essentially been Normals with flavour wrapped on.
This makes me smile because I haven't really done much in the way of fancy flavor mechanics in any games yet, and it's nice to know someone enjoys those. I definitely intend to buck that trend sometime though.
<Embrace The Void>
“A flipped coin doesn't always land heads or tails. Sometimes it may never land at all...”
In post 61, northsidegal wrote:If people are taking too long for making their own changes to move forward, isn't that their problem and not the NRG's?
in my experiences with game review, all of my delays came because of the reviewers taking too long to come back and check the thread. they also are very nitpicky about things. All of my role PMs have been copied from previously approved role pms yet I get asked to make changes for some reason. My last game took around 5 weeks to be approved and it was nearly identical to a game I had previously ran on another account except I made minor changes. That time frame is completely unacceptable especially since there was a lack of approved games.
we need to replace the current reviewers and bring in new blood. Especially one reviewer who I won't name by name, she approves way to many unbalanced games imo
I agree that reviews stall frequently due to non-presence of reviewers, in all departments. I think we should make it an unspoken rule that reviewers should constantly check threads for reviews they are a part of (once a day minimum)
<Embrace The Void>
“A flipped coin doesn't always land heads or tails. Sometimes it may never land at all...”
In post 112, Gamma Emerald wrote:I agree that reviews stall frequently due to non-presence of reviewers, in all departments. I think we should make it an unspoken rule that reviewers should constantly check threads for reviews they are a part of (once a day minimum)
Quite a few do especially since a relatively recent change was Nexus making it mandatory and sending out review-prods to people inactive for 48 hours.
I think that Alisae is responsible for the failings of the normal queue and I advocate promptly permabanning him to restore the normal queue to its former glory.
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
i don't want to seem like i'm plugging something but maybe the solution to this deficit of reviews is (reviewer-supervised) automated setup review?
if in a thread like this one we can specify a sort of formal process by which games are reviewed or even just for summarizing the relevant factors that must be subjectively considered during a review, then it should be straightforward to code something that does that work automatically
This came up and I already wrote a program to test the EV of setups and am working on adding more PR functionality, but I don't think people were enthusiastic about it
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
Well, I really really think it deserves serious discussion if the review process is what everyone seems to think is wrong with the normal queue. If there were some limitations to the EV program that put anyone off, they might be straightforwardly improved on.
And even if automating the process is shot down, I do think this sort of highlights how much of a black box game reviewing is, at least officially speaking. In all the queues, reviews are often mentioned or even required, but I can't find much discussion of what reviews are supposed to do or filter out. Shouldn't moderators know the underlying quality objectives going in? Might not providing this knowhow help speed up the review process?
The problem, though, is that it'd make town setup speculation orders of magnitude more accurate, as town could just run all the known power roles through the reviewer to check for fakeclaims / hidden scum PRs.
In post 114, RadiantCowbells wrote:I think that Alisae is responsible for the failings of the normal queue and I advocate promptly permabanning him to restore the normal queue to its former glory.
In post 33, implosion wrote:Informed: You know (some information about the setup). This information may be related to the setup, or to other players. It must be objective and accurate. For instance, an informed townie (or informed mafia) could be given any of the following:
You know that this setup has 10 town members and 3 mafia members.
You know that there is a rolecop in this game.
You know that there is a mafia rolecop in this game.
You know that (player) is a tracker.
You know that (player) is a town doctor.
You know that (player) is town. NOTE: if something like this is used, it must be non-random what player-slot is referred to. For example, if an informed townie is told that someone is town, it should be part of the setup specification that the player they are told is town is a randomly chosen vanilla townie, rather than a completely randomly chosen town player. Or it should be part of the setup specification that they are told that a specific power role is town.
What are the guidelines for how this stuff flips in a dead role pm?
I'd like it if there were guidelines for things like this
Is it normal if an informative role says someone is town and that gets revealed on their death when they didn't know it would reveal beforehand, for instance?