The IC and SE System

[Mina]

Hi, everyone!

I'd like to hear input on a few things:

1) Do you think the current IC and SE system is working?
2) Are there any changes to the structure of the SE/IC system you think we should make?
3) Should the requirements for being an SE and/or IC be more relaxed or more stringent--either quantitatively or qualitatively? (The former is the number of games played, and the latter the subjective skill level of the IC, which is something I often have to make judgement calls on and which I HATE HATE HATE doing.)

(Re: 3), they should 100% be simpler, but I have trouble deciding what to simplify them

to

.)

It seems everyone has a different pet opinion on the newbie queue, but all these opinions conflict. I've heard ideas ranging from making newbies mandatory, to scrapping SEs, to boosting the IC requirements to ten games, to having a committee to evaluate ICs, to only letting the best players onsite IC, to letting almost anyone in, to making ICs invite-only, etc.

Since too many cooks spoil the broth, I eventually want to take applications for a newbie committee to decide stuff like this, the set-up, the format of newbie surveys, etc. (I've wanted to do that for months, so I don't want to put a timeline on it in case it doesn't happen.) But it'd be nice to get a general idea of the site's consensus on this first.

[Mina]

ATTN: By decree of Her Royal Highness, List Mod Mina, henceforth, no one is allowed to mod newbie games anymore.

[Mina]

So far, which "class" of sign-up most in demand fluctuates all the time. For awhile, we had lots of SEs and ICs sitting around waiting for newbies to teach. (Lately, it seems as though new player sign-ups have picked up.) I can also tweak around the ratio of ICs to SEs to newbies if necessary. It seems as though the queue is carried by a small pool of ICs who selflessly volunteer whenever we're in danger of falling short, though.

I'll give a more thorough answer to your question when I have time tomorrow evening, Iecerint. Most of the problems can be solved with relatively minor tweaks. Part of why I made this thread is to get feedback on whether there

are

problems in the first place, though. This system is an artifact from when there weren't enough ICs to fill the old 2 IC/5 newbies setups, forcing us to resort to less experienced people. So it's possible it doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

(I used to be in favour of abolishing SEs, but now I like how they 1) enforce a healthy ratio of new players to experienced players, and 2) create a difference between "people who just like playing newbies" and "veterans willing to take on the responsibility of teaching people the game." But I'm open to restructuring it if someone finds a more optimal solution.)

[Mina]

You say this, then half an hour later you issue me a newbie game to mod

You're safe under the grandfather clause!

[Mina]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. I haven't yet had time to weigh in on all the ideas in here (some of which I really like), but I feel like I'm less sure of the best path than when I started this thread! Most of the responses are contradictory.

[Mina]

I'm opposed to having special deadlines ONLY in the newbie queue--I agree with Prozac and quadz that newbie games should be an introduction to the site, and we shouldn't presume short-deadlines are a newbies-only thing. However, I started this thread.

(I'm tempted by the "no SEs, just reserved spots for true newbies" idea, except it's functionally just a rename. It does streamline some of the more convoluted rules, though. I would be in favour of returning to two ICs per game if there were enough ICs to keep up with the influx of newbies.)

The PT idea for ICs is good, except I feel like that's more something that an IC COULD do rather than mandatory, like writing critiques of each person's play. I really think much of an IC's job is showing people the conventions of Mafia by

doing

, not just dumping theory on them (there's already a wiki fo that), and games need experienced players to drive them. However, I had a thought that there could also be designated spectators who read newbie games and then post their thoughts in PTs--like any graveyard, but it's their job, almost like the NRG. I personally would not enjoy a job like that, but maybe the people who volunteer to judge the Scummies or read games they're not in would like it.

(Private coaches for every player just aren't feasible, but someone shoot me for seriously considering one IC treestump who can't vote and dies after D2 or D3 and one behind-the-scenes Mafia treestump who only posts in the scum PT but can't send in actions. This seems simultaneously great and awful.)

(My problem is I tend to go around in circles between all the options. )

[Mina]

The second one, completely. I would go back to two ICs if it seemed even slightly feasible.

[Mina]

Bumping this to advertise that ICs may now request a confessional PT from me where they can post private thoughts (anything from their motivations behind a certain gambit to reads that might undermine their goals if revealed publicly to ranting off the top of their head) that will be made public after the game ends so newbies can learn from them. It's completely optional, but maybe it'll catch on if there's a demand for it.

(Quoting the confessional PT = as bad as quoting mod communications or a mason/neighbour PT, though.)

[Mina]

Because I thought about it and realized we can't have nice things:

*IC is run up to L-1*

"Wait, stop! Don't lynch me! I can prove my innocence."

*quotes all 300 posts of the confessional PT, with time stamps*

Yes, I guess Mafia can waste energy writing fake confessional posts from the PoV of town, but that defeats the whole purpose of making it a zone for complete transparency. I suppose I could say it's fine if you don't reveal it's from the confessional, because I don't want to force mods to crack down on someone reusing a turn of phrase or saving a wall-post in there before posting it. I just really don't want it to be metagamed.