Newbie Setup (Matrix6 implemented)

[Zachrulez]

There's so much for them to learn just in breaking down your play after it's over and you explaining your play as necessary when it's over.

Crux of the issue, IMO. Some ICs bail after a game is over without providing feedback.

That's going to be a problem regardless of whether we make this kind of change or not.

[StrangerCoug]

I would personally not ever IC. I appreciate those who do, but I simply do not feel that I would be any good at it, and would be doing the newbies a disservice by ICing. I would SE if we didn't have a million billion already. *shrug*

This is essentially why my active involvement in the Newbie queue post-2008 had been modding. I simply don't see myself as a good enough player for the job despite my fifth scumday being Monday.

[Mr. Flay]

It's the politics problem. Many people who are perfectly well-qualified to IC are not signing up, so much of the pool is mediocre. Much of it is good too, of course, but many people don't do it for silly "not good enough" reasons when they would do just fine playing as they normally do, and doing a more extensive past-mortem. (me, I don't do it right now for time restrictions, I can't keep up with even one game at a time some weeks)

[Human Destroyer]

It's the politics problem. Many people who are perfectly well-qualified to IC are not signing up, so much of the pool is mediocre. Much of it is good too, of course, but many people don't do it for silly "not good enough" reasons when they would do just fine playing as they normally do, and doing a more extensive past-mortem.

I think the major thing that keeps people from wanting to IC is that it puts unwanted pressure on them to do better than they normally could, when really that's not the case.
I IC'ed a game just fine playing normally and only stopping to answer questions that came up.
Then after the game, show the newer players where they went right, where they went wrong, and what they can improve on. Some people might simply have difficulty doing that, possibly because they aren't confident enough in their own play to feel that they can make such a "judgement" (putting it in quotes because I don't really think it's a judgement, but moreso a constructive critique). Others may just not know what to say.
IC'ing isn't a job for everyone though, and that should really be acknowledged.

[Zachrulez]

It's the politics problem. Many people who are perfectly well-qualified to IC are not signing up, so much of the pool is mediocre. Much of it is good too, of course, but many people don't do it for silly "not good enough" reasons when they would do just fine playing as they normally do, and doing a more extensive past-mortem. (me, I don't do it right now for time restrictions, I can't keep up with even one game at a time some weeks)

Yeah, if it takes me saying there's really not that much to it in order to get more people to be willing to do it, then I'll say it.

[quadz08]

Some people might simply have difficulty doing that, possibly because they aren't confident enough in their own play to feel that they can make such a "judgement" (putting it in quotes because I don't really think it's a judgement, but moreso a constructive critique). Others may just not know what to say.

This is my problem, sort of. I just can't hold critiques of 8 players in my brain over the course of a month and a half. (There's a reason I'm much better at face-to-face/chat mafia than forum mafia.)

[Cheery Dog]

There's so much for them to learn just in breaking down your play after it's over and you explaining your play as necessary when it's over.

I think this should be added to the being an good IC guide, I don't recall actually seeing it in there.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Arguably you have no business in the newbie queue if you have IC status and aren't willing to IC?

No? That's why we have the SE roles, people who are demonstrating what 'typical' play is in MS. Very few people bother to explain things to newbies in games outside RtR, so why should we make sure that

everyone will explain everything in RtR

? I understand it would be kind, and goodness knows there are ICs who don't really explain a lot by default (and SEs who are fine with explaining a lot by default), but it could end up with newbies being overly coddled and unable to take the plunge if you ensure that every experienced player in RtR will be willing to explain every little bit of mafia theory.

EDIT: Adding to this that many SEs really have little clue about site meta outside the Newbie queue to begin with; the current SE queue is majorly composed by mid-2012-onward players, iirc. There is nothing wrong with that, obviously, but I remember that the SEs (and the IC!) in my first newbie game were little more than newbies themselves. Letting a few experienced SEs play without forcing a teaching position on them seems like a much wiser choice than imposing an IC position on them should they dare to sign up to SE (in which case several people would probably not sign up to SE-IC at all).

We don't really ever run out of ICs. When the queue runs low, people sign up. It's just that they don't do it all that often on a regular basis, but since November 2011 I have yet to see a game pending to start because a starting IC has not been found.

From my understanding SEs were never meant to have any teaching function whatsoever. They were for newbies who played more than a set number of games so they wouldn't keep taking up newbie slots and for players with IC status who didn't want to IC.

Which gets to another point I want to make about the perception of what it takes to be an IC. I think the role is overly glorified on the site. I've ICed several games, and I never really played any of the newbie games I ICed any differently than I would have a regular game. All you really need to do is answer questions for players when they have them or if they're not sure what to do, but aside from that the best thing you can do as an IC is teach by example by simply playing the game. You will teach newbies far more than you think by just playing. There's so much for them to learn just in breaking down your play after it's over and you explaining your play as necessary when it's over.

As far as I know I've never received any complaints for the way I've ICed and I've never had to go out of my way to put an IC hat on all the time, so basically I'm saying it's not a big deal to make people IC.

This is how ICs

should

go about the job. Just play the way you normally do, but realize that you're there to help guide the new players, especially when it comes to the inevitable "we should no lynch day 1" type things that seem to crop up all the time.

I don't think anyone ever intended for the IC to hold everyone's hand and make sure they're all perfect. That's just far too much pressure. I like Cheery's suggestion about updating the IC section on the wiki, I can look into doing that if we can nail down something concrete.

As an aside with the new requirements for the Queue, this was posted on page 3 of the Newbie Queue:

Ummm i think that's a carry over, and that is a concern i just thought of, what if a new player only plays newbie games (technically could just stay a newb forever )

Great point! My gut reaction is to say too bad, you've played your two games and now you MUST go somewhere else for your last game, you can no longer sign up to be a Newbie (because really, if you've finished two games, you've got the basics, you don't need to be occupying a Newbie slot anymore).

Thoughts on either point?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Some people might simply have difficulty doing that, possibly because they aren't confident enough in their own play to feel that they can make such a "judgement" (putting it in quotes because I don't really think it's a judgement, but moreso a constructive critique). Others may just not know what to say.

This is my problem, sort of. I just can't hold critiques of 8 players in my brain over the course of a month and a half. (There's a reason I'm much better at face-to-face/chat mafia than forum mafia.)

Do what I do: start a Word document and make quick notes about each player (I also note the post that I'm commenting on). Takes maybe 5 minutes, and then you can almost just cut and paste the notes and put it into your final game analysis post.

[StrangerCoug]

It's the politics problem. Many people who are perfectly well-qualified to IC are not signing up, so much of the pool is mediocre. Much of it is good too, of course, but many people don't do it for silly "not good enough" reasons when they would do just fine playing as they normally do, and doing a more extensive past-mortem. (me, I don't do it right now for time restrictions, I can't keep up with even one game at a time some weeks)

I know the intent of this post is not to force me to IC (even so, you have the argument that I have five years' experience), but I'm honestly not much of a strategist and most things I know about strategy in any particular game I learned from a book. And I'm not of the opinion that you can learn too much about scumhunting from a book—a shame since I tend to lump together newb mistakes with scum tells.

[singersigner]

So I think I would go with VRK on this one--gut says newbie should be comfortable enough to venture out at that point. The problem was that with the old SE requirements, they

could

stay in the newbie queue forever (first as newbies, then as SEs). I didn't think about the fact that it's not an official rule that after two games, it's not that you're not a newbie anymore, it's that you

become

an SE.

I'm thinking that I'll officially put a 2-game limit on newbie games, unless there's a significant backlash to that.

[Mr. Flay]

I agree with letting currently-signed-up SEs continue foss for one more game even if they don't meet the new requirements, though I think this entire thing is making a mountain out of a molehill. Semi-Experienced was originally created just to have

some

sort of name for those who were neither Newbies nor ICs. I worry that we've inadvertently created a class of players who think they need permission to move on. And move on they should...

Coug: how did you get that out of what I wrote? Any competent player with a modicum of patience should be able to IC.

[StrangerCoug]

I thought you were complaining about my post.

[JasonWazza]

So I think I would go with VRK on this one--gut says newbie should be comfortable enough to venture out at that point. The problem was that with the old SE requirements, they

could

stay in the newbie queue forever (first as newbies, then as SEs). I didn't think about the fact that it's not an official rule that after two games, it's not that you're not a newbie anymore, it's that you

become

an SE.

I'm thinking that I'll officially put a 2-game limit on newbie games, unless there's a significant backlash to that.

I honestly think this is a bad move, i myself didn't really feel comfortable moving out of the newbie queue till i had 9-10 games (from memory, though i think i would have just bit the bullet if this were the rule)

I don't think it is fair to lock someone out of the queue till they signup and play out a game outside the newbie queue.

[Zachrulez]

I utterly fail to understand why people feel a need to force people to move OUT of the newbie queue if they enjoy playing mafia just fine there. There probably does exist a segment of people who do like to play nothing but newbie games. We created the SE slot to address these people staying in the queue as "newbies" but beyond that I don't see the problem.

If what you really want is for people to move on, get rid of the SE slot and don't allow people who don't IC to play newbie games at all.

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

[StrangerCoug]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

No one's forcing you to be an IC. It's just saying you can't in to a newbie game without being one.

If you're not a newbie and you've played 5 or more games, why should you be allowed to in to a newbie game without being an IC? I'd like to see a single legitimate argument made for this actually.

[Human Destroyer]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

No one's forcing you to be an IC. It's just saying you can't in to a newbie game without being one.

If you're not a newbie and you've played 5 or more games, why should you be allowed to in to a newbie game without being an IC? I'd like to see a single legitimate argument made for this actually.

I can give you 2:

-Some people lack confidence in their play even at 5 or more games (JasonWazza for example) and don't want to leave the newbie queue (or apply to IC) before they're satisfied with their play.
-Some people want to just play with newbies without the pressure of having to keep up an image of a model player.

[Cheery Dog]

I thought the 3 games and the 3 SEs weren't both going to happen at the same time anyway.

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

No one's forcing you to be an IC. It's just saying you can't in to a newbie game without being one.

If you're not a newbie and you've played 5 or more games, why should you be allowed to in to a newbie game without being an IC? I'd like to see a single legitimate argument made for this actually.

I can give you 2:

-Some people lack confidence in their play even at 5 or more games (JasonWazza for example) and don't want to leave the newbie queue (or apply to IC) before they're satisfied with their play.
-Some people want to just play with newbies without the pressure of having to keep up an image of a model player.

Well part of what I'd like to see with automatically putting IC experienced players into newbie games is having it be less of a huge deal to IC. Some people have really really HIGH expectations of what an IC needs to do, when all that really matters is giving the newbies a good experience and teaching them well. That's nowhere near as hard as people make it out to be.

Also your arguments are towards why players shouldn't IC, but none of them justify allowing those players to continue playing in the newbie queue.

I thought the 3 games and the 3 SEs weren't both going to happen at the same time anyway.

Certainly took me by surprise. I don't really care for either change, but I've made that pretty obvious at this point.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I utterly fail to understand why people feel a need to force people to move OUT of the newbie queue if they enjoy playing mafia just fine there. There probably does exist a segment of people who do like to play nothing but newbie games. We created the SE slot to address these people staying in the queue as "newbies" but beyond that I don't see the problem.

If what you really want is for people to move on, get rid of the SE slot and don't allow people who don't IC to play newbie games at all.

Because we get a LOT of Newbie players, and people don't need to stay in that queue until the end of time. If you want a short game, we have Micros now. And as Flay said, the SE slot was just something we started to allow more experienced players to be able to play Newbie games without taking up a spot a Newbie should rightfully have. The only issue I see with getting rid of the SE slot is that we don't historically have a plethora of ICs willing to play. If people will get over the "I'm not good enough" syndrome, we could do this - it would probably be the way to go to be honest. The Micro queue can handle all the "I want a short game" people that typically sign up to SE, and we can go back to a 7 Newbie, 2 IC setup.

The Newbies need

something

to help them out, and right now the SEs are sort of unofficially filling that role. I would love to see a 7-2 setup for Newbie games. Then you're guaranteed to have an IC through at least Day 2, AND you've doubled your chances of having one of the ICs post a "here's what went right, here's what went wrong" type analysis at the end of the game.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Well part of what I'd like to see with automatically putting IC experienced players into newbie games is having it be less of a huge deal to IC. Some people have really really HIGH expectations of what an IC needs to do, when all that really matters is giving the newbies a good experience and teaching them well. That's nowhere near as hard as people make it out to be.

I agree with this completely. The high expectations we hold for ICs is an unfortunate site meta that has grown up around the position. No one ever

meant

for ICs to be omnipotent demigods of Mafia, but unfortunately that's what the role has evolved towards, and it's frankly quite ridiculous. By 5 games, you know the rules and strategies well enough to be able to make a call as to whether a play is going to be sub optimal (no lynch day 1, for example), and really that's all that matters. The IC role is there to help the Newbies from making really dumb mistakes, not keep them from losing the game, not make them perfect players in two games, and introduce them to how we play Mafia on this site (slower pace, longer days, etc.). That's all. Someone who expects the IC to be a demigod needs to be talked to privately to correct their PoV

[Vi]

Off-topic: I ICd once and I think I chased my players away.

I'm noticing "you only need experience and a little bit of patience to be an IC" is clashing with "you need to break down everyone's play and your own and explain it all for the benefit of the class". The latter is certainly not a BAD thing, but most people would never do that outside a Newbie game - it's an example of the kind of instructional weight that gets placed on the role. I do agree that an IC should be willing to stick around for postgame and answer questions, but it's easy to want them to turn them into Pro Analysts.

Somewhat farther off-topic:

4. town jailkeeper, mafia roleblocker, town 1-shot bulletproof

[JasonWazza]

Somewhat farther off-topic:

4. town jailkeeper, mafia roleblocker, town 1-shot bulletproof

That'd be a fun game, soon as JK claims he is worthless (RB acts before JK) and BP is the only thing that can be slightly worthwhile from that point on.