Mafiascum.net

In post 49, Skelda wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to there being reward items which tell someone if it's an F2 or F3 if it isn't going to be announced the whole game. It could be a cool advantage.

Definitely a cool idea. Actually, a game where reward challenges gave more and more information about the game's structure would kind of be an interesting game.

In post 47, Skelda wrote:What are the benefits of giving each Juror a thread at FTC vs giving each finalist a thread vs having all of FTC in one thread? Assuming that we don't want to divide Social/Strategic/Structural (or along any other lines), which do we find most useful?

As a finalist, I like having my own thread I think, but as a Juror, I also like having my own thread. But I could see how having separate threads for each Juror could make it harder for some people to follow what is happening.

I like having all the FTC in one thread if I'm honest. I like that players can respond to each other in a more organic way, and I think it makes it MUCH more likely that at least part of people's responses to other jurors gets read.

In post 51, zoraster wrote:

In post 47, Skelda wrote:What are the benefits of giving each Juror a thread at FTC vs giving each finalist a thread vs having all of FTC in one thread? Assuming that we don't want to divide Social/Strategic/Structural (or along any other lines), which do we find most useful?

As a finalist, I like having my own thread I think, but as a Juror, I also like having my own thread. But I could see how having separate threads for each Juror could make it harder for some people to follow what is happening.

I like having all the FTC in one thread if I'm honest. I like that players can respond to each other in a more organic way, and I think it makes it MUCH more likely that at least part of people's responses to other jurors gets read.

It worked well in KYE, but I think an important part of that is that jurors were limited on the number of posts they can make. Early games on this website had a one-thread anything-goes atmosphere and it was kind of unwieldy.

I do think the WORST format is the one where each player gets their own thread. Inevitably players will start addressing points the other finalists raised and now we have one conversation split between two or three threads.

In post 52, Haschel Cedricson wrote:

In post 51, zoraster wrote:

In post 47, Skelda wrote:What are the benefits of giving each Juror a thread at FTC vs giving each finalist a thread vs having all of FTC in one thread? Assuming that we don't want to divide Social/Strategic/Structural (or along any other lines), which do we find most useful?

As a finalist, I like having my own thread I think, but as a Juror, I also like having my own thread. But I could see how having separate threads for each Juror could make it harder for some people to follow what is happening.

I like having all the FTC in one thread if I'm honest. I like that players can respond to each other in a more organic way, and I think it makes it MUCH more likely that at least part of people's responses to other jurors gets read.

It worked well in KYE, but I think an important part of that is that jurors were limited on the number of posts they can make. Early games on this website had a one-thread anything-goes atmosphere and it was kind of unwieldy.

I do think the WORST format is the one where each player gets their own thread. Inevitably players will start addressing points the other finalists raised and now we have one conversation split between two or three threads.

But it's so funnnnnn as Juror to have your own thread

No, I'm referring to the FINALISTS having their own thread.

Oh that's always worked well from what I've seen. But I guess there being crosstalk is a valid criticism.

Definitely as a finalist that's easiest since all questions you need to answer are in one place.

In post 52, Haschel Cedricson wrote:I do think the WORST format is the one where each player gets their own thread. Inevitably players will start addressing points the other finalists raised and now we have one conversation split between two or three threads.

It's pretty easy to make this argument the other way, though, since you could pretty easily end up with finalists addressing things that the other finalists said. You'd also end up with the problem of one juror asking the same question of all three finalists and needing three threads to do so.

I honestly really dislike there being just one thread since everything being together can be chaotic and hard to follow, so kind of surprised with the support it seems to be getting

When do we just say screw it and do a live FTC, anonymity be damned

We should let FTC winner be determined by the spectators. Let AMERICA decide who wins.

In post 57, D3f3nd3r wrote:It's pretty easy to make this argument the other way, though, since you could pretty easily end up with finalists addressing things that the other finalists said

True, and this is partially why I prefer to pick neither option.

In post 42, Drench wrote:my solution is that we shouldn't post any threads at all. jurors get free rein to do whatever. i will take no questions

how bad could it be. let the jurors figure out what they want from their ftc and let them do it

In post 60, Fluminator wrote:We should let FTC winner be determined by the spectators. Let AMERICA decide who wins.

where was this idea when RTC was happening

In post 62, Drench wrote:

In post 42, Drench wrote:my solution is that we shouldn't post any threads at all. jurors get free rein to do whatever. i will take no questions

how bad could it be. let the jurors figure out what they want from their ftc and let them do it

i honestly like this idea, it could be a mess but it would also be v cool

In post 62, Drench wrote:

In post 42, Drench wrote:my solution is that we shouldn't post any threads at all. jurors get free rein to do whatever. i will take no questions

how bad could it be. let the jurors figure out what they want from their ftc and let them do it

I don't hate it tbh

i do think it has a better than even chance of being terrible but—crucially—it would also be fun

We should give them free reign to create whatever threads they want, but provide them with a single structural thread to get things started, yanno, just to really get them thinking about how each finalist utilized the structure of the game

I would like to see a live FTC happen at some stage.

Everything was live in my off site survivor games, so it made sense for live there. It was done with all jurors readying their question in advance, and mods posting it if the jurors were unavailable. Jurors that were there were allowed one follow up question.
I think it took like 4 hours though, which is a big time commitment for the finalists themselves.

In post 67, Cheery Dog wrote:I would like to see a live FTC happen at some stage.

Everything was live in my off site survivor games, so it made sense for live there. It was done with all jurors readying their question in advance, and mods posting it if the jurors were unavailable. Jurors that were there were allowed one follow up question.
I think it took like 4 hours though, which is a big time commitment for the finalists themselves.

Honestly FTC is super stressful as a finalist though, so it might be better for them to get it over with in 4 hours rather than 4 days. It can feel painful how long our FTCs last.

Yeah but I think one of the things that differentiate our games (not always but often) is that our games allow some asynchronous play over a long time period. You generally want to be able to be around before vote deadline is over, but even if you're not you can manage okay. You don't generally have to do challenges. Etc.

Live TCs and Live FTCs would be great (KYE had some fun pseudo-live TCs that could have been fun as real live ones), but I think it may be harder for our general population to justify signing up for a lot of games that require them be on at certain times. That stands in contrast to a lot of ORGs out there that really can't be competed in without essentially being on for hours to live video chat every night.

So maybe you could try to get FTC to be more live, but it's a lot to ask 7-10 jurors and 2-3 finalists to all be on at the same time.

Instead maybe you could do pseudo-live: organize a time that all finalists can be on. Everyone does an opening statement and every juror then gets a chance to make a post with questions, etc. All those are posted at the same time at the start of a "Live" FTC where there's maybe 3 hours to ask follow up questions and such. That still would take quite a bit of time (opening statement then question deadline then ftc) but it would keep it from beinga 24-72 hour slog through having to deal with back and forth questions and such.