Survivor Review Board: Discussion

[Jal]

Summertime's fashion thingy at least

Rats, there goes my

Renly's Wardrobe

challenge idea!

Arkham's story challenge dealio had 24 people involved, so two non-submissions I don't think it's that big of a deal. As I said, not a fan of judging things in general, but I don't know if the activity factor is the main issue concerning those type of challenges.

[Cephrir]

Personally, I didn't submit for the Summertime fashion challenge solely because I didn't need to win.

It didn't help that submissions were public, though, so I could see how good the first one was and immediately gave up.

[CuddlyCaucasian]

I only submitted on the Summertime one because I felt like posting a selfie, I didn't expect to win at all. Also Marquis was still unable to compete in any challenges, and I think that's who the vote was supposed to be that round.

I like the idea of one person reviewing any future games (and obviously not just a specific person; if anyone wants to review, they can privately approach the mod). While I agree with Nya, I do think we should have a list somewhere of common challenges or twists that do work most of the time, along with challenges or twists that people generally don't like as much.

This is probably completely out of the question, but it would be totally cool to have a public poll consisting of every sort of challenge done in the past 5 or so Survivors, and everyone votes for however many they want to see done again. Probably too much trouble, but it would give us the most objective look at the public opinion, especially if everyone in the Survivor community voted.

[Crazy]

I think this is a decent idea, although it would have probably been much more useful a couple years ago than it is today, because now, nearly all games are running fairly smoothly without any major issues. I suppose this thread is in reaction to the "meh" reception that Bahamas got, but the game still ran from start to finish without any twist that was obscenely unfair (afaik) and also finished within a couple months' time. Not every game is going to be a gold standard, and that's probably just something we have to accept - review board or not.

I don't believe this review board should stifle any creativity from the mods. I don't think its goal should be to separate the "meh" games from the awesome games; I think all prospective mods

already

want their games to be awesome, and IMO that is enough incentive to drive people to try to create innovative, exciting games. So I don't agree with creating a list of challenges or twists that worked well or poorly, or entirely prohibiting that some challenges be done. That just makes the whole process far too mechanical.

I think the purpose of this should be to make sure that no drastic, extreme problems exist in any game. For instance:

-The mods should have enough time on their hands to mod the game to the full extent. I'd consider a requirement to prohibit a single person from running a large game. I'm not thinking of any game in particular, but the more mods there are, the less likely flaking will be an issue.

-No challenge should take an obscene amount of time. No Battleship or UNO challenges that go on for weeks. I think 72 hours is a reasonable upper limit for pretty much any challenge, with exception given only if the challenge is especially great and important to the game as a whole. Apart from this, I don't think any rule on challenges is necessary. While repeat challenges are annoying, they do not single-handedly kill games, and most mods will avoid doing too many of them, anyway. Also, twists can be implemented on overused challenges to at least make them fresher.

I could also see a rule that would prohibit obscenely painful time-based challenges, such as the first challenge in Mass Effect (which I admit I didn't anticipate it playing out as intensely as it did). I don't think posting challenges are necessarily a bad thing, but they can be done poorly. However, I think brutal endurance challenges can have a place when it comes to FIC or other pivotal moments.

-Twists should be left alone as much as possible. Everyone has different opinions on what is good or bad in terms of twists, and I don't think the review group should prohibit anything unless it is completely mind-numbingly awful or unfair.

Is this even much of an issue, anyway? Apart from Arkham (which shouldn't count, IMO, but that's another discussion), the last majorly controversial twist that I know of was the Legendary Box in Seafoam.

[animorpherv1]

Admittedly, it's the legendary box that makes me

want

to check twists for annoyingness and/or brokenness. That's all I'd want to check it for. If the players perceive it as annoying, or it's broken, then we've got a bad twist that should've been looked at. Similar deal for challenges - check to see if it's annoying or broken. That's it.

[KingdomAces]

Yeah I'm skimming. Sorry, but I really don't think I'm exactly qualified to be in this discussion in the first place.

I pretty much completely agree with Crazy, except for that I think Shipwreck was at least a little controversial, but it still was done well enough.

The absolute main thing that I'd want to see before a game is made, is a text describing all of the major twists on either the forum or a QT dated before the game starts, so that there is proof that everything was planned out, and that it's impossible to argue that something was unfair to specific players.

[Crazy]

Another thought came to be - after a game is long over, the stuff players remember is not the challenges; rather, it's the other players, and the alliances and drama, etc. Just like Mafia, a cast of players creates a Survivor game far more than a mod does. Well-designed challenges and twists are a great thing, but they're more the icing on the cake than anything else.

I recall Bahamas had trouble getting enough players to join. I joined to help the game fill when I really did not have enough time or motivation to play. I was probably not the only one. Bahamas also had other games to compete with, and IMO nobody can play to their full capacity in two games at once; at any given point, one game will be a player's "favorite" and the other will suffer as a result, even if only slightly.

Perhaps Bahamas' biggest problem was not the design or the modding; it was simply that the player group was spread too thin. Some were playing two games when they should have been playing one, and some didn't have the time or energy to play at all. I would also speculate that in general, players give more time to anonymous games than non-anonymous games.

Is there any way to fix this without causing bigger problems, though? Probably not. Allowing only one game at a time would probably make the modding queue far too long. I would say, though, that a game that has significant trouble filling up should probably wait a couple weeks rather than trying to pick up players that really shouldn't be playing a(nother) game, though.

[kloud1516]

Admittedly, it's the legendary box that makes me

want

to check twists for annoyingness and/or brokenness. That's all I'd want to check it for. If the players perceive it as annoying, or it's broken, then we've got a bad twist that should've been looked at. Similar deal for challenges - check to see if it's annoying or broken. That's it.

If a twist we implemented (and have since learned from) nearly two years ago is the driving force for you wanting to scrutinize twists then I'm pretty sure Survivor games are in the clear It was controversial then, and if I had to go back and do that game over I don't think either of us would have approved it, but that said there was mixed opinions of it even after the game concluded. That's my two cents on the matter, and I apologize if the first sentence comes across as snarky.

Do I think reviewers should be able to comment on twists and provide constructive feedback? Yeah — if the mod(s) in question are having their game reviewed it wouldn't be a bad thing to get a fresh pair of eyes on twists and adjust as they see fit.

I'd also like to point out that annoying =/= broken. What's annoying to one player might be intriguing to another, but I think it's the moderating team's call to determine whether or not a twist is acceptable in that regard. If a twist is indeed broken then that's a different story entirely, and I trust a moderator would correct that after concerns were raised.

[Nyalite]

Admittedly, it's the legendary box that makes me

want

to check twists for annoyingness and/or brokenness. That's all I'd want to check it for. If the players perceive it as annoying, or it's broken, then we've got a bad twist that should've been looked at. Similar deal for challenges - check to see if it's annoying or broken. That's it.

I get that this is coming from a good place, you want to make sure there aren't any bumps in the otherwise great game. But the problem is the only way to accomplish this to the level you are talking about is by having you scrutinise every challenge and twist in the game. That's just not something I want as a mod personally, nor do I think it is a very effective way to screen "annoying" challenges. Just too subjective.

I think we need a system that verifies you can trust mods to be doing the best they can. We

need

to trust that mods are doing their best. The only reason this review idea came up is that the trust between mod and player was eroded. I think my ideal system would have the mods give the reviewer a representative presentation on what their game has to offer. It should prove to the reviewer that their game is meeting the standards this review board sets. The exact nature of the presentation is up to the mods. Maybe they just let the reviewer see their planning material/threads. Maybe they make the reviewer an account on their forum and throw up a couple of the challenge post. It should be a sizeable amount of material, it needs to be enough to clearly prove the mods are making a damn hard effort to make their game as best as it can be. I think the reviewer and mods can find a way to make it work. Followed by a questionnaire. "Do you have a backup of all game material?" "Do you feel your challenges have been overused?" "Do you think your game is bringing something new to the table?" If they can answer those questions in a satisfactory way, they have made a promise. A promise that they are endeavouring to make sure their game is fresh, fun and fair. And that it will run smoothly. Once a reviewer has been brought up to speed with a game, the mod and reviewer can look at other things as they see fit. There are assuredly things a mod would like advice on once they have someone they can bounce it off of. But I think the mod should ultimately decide how much to share.

I think that's as far as this system needs to go. I think it should be used to reaffirm the trust between mod and player that they've worked hard on to make their game as fun as possible.

|04| We have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

|04| I have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

04 We have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

The only thing this review group should be doing is ensuring the mod has proof to back up those statements.

[pickemgenius]

(also re challenges, if you let me just smoke this cigarette and go all sotto voce on you all while sitting on a stool with one leg going over the other, i think it's time for the scopey timed challenge renaissance we've all been waiting for)

Drench, I love you and I think you're the only one on this crusade so please stop it.

Drench isn't the only person.

<3

[Xalxe]

Okay so this went boom overnight and I think a lot of my issues maybe aren't issues anymore, which is nice. I'm going to sit tight for a bit I think, but I feel that this can be solved without going against the mandate that I've been operating under for the past however long I've had my job.

[Drench]

digression I'm so thrilled to have etched out a place in ms history with the leg box
sorry continue

[Espeonage]

Well this looks like a fun conversation.

I'm probably not very qualified to have much of an impact in this discussion, but I'm going to leave an egopost here.

Okay then here's a question to a "layman," as it were: If a game had a review board stamp on it, would you care? If a game didn't have it, would you care?

(anybody can answer this btw)

(hello the koopa is playing the bad guy here what fun)

No.

[Chevre]

This is a fun thread! I'm not sure how welcome I am here, seeing how many issues are things I've done, but I do have a few things to say:

First, I think a major thing is that designing a Survivor and running a Survivor are two different monsters, two different battles. I get wonderful, innovative ideas for Survivors all the time, and I personally think I design a good game. I also think Blackberry falls into this category, where we can design a really neat experience. But then, we've both fallen short on moderating. It breaks my heart, but I know I can never be expected to moderate again because I just can't do it. I guess what I'm saying essentially is that what we consider a "moderator" is the combination of two roles: the "moderator" insinuated by the title but also the "designer" who makes the game, and, as these moderators, we do it to get a new sort of enjoyment from the game. I love the designing aspect because I can put things into place and think about all the scenarios that could follow afterward. I guess, honestly, I don't like that long term commitment as things don't unfold perfectly and I have to deal with all the little scrutinies I couldn't envision. So what's all this mean? I think we should maybe split the process more, which I guess would definitely happen with the advent of a Survivor Review Committee (or whatever, tbh I was kind of skiimming). But, we must also remember that a good setup doesn't guarantee good moderation. I had planned out Summertime completely, and it probably would've passed a review, but I still abandoned it (thankfully Shiidaji took up the reins, forever my thanks.)

As for innovation in challenges...well, let's be honest, Survivors have been running on MafiaScum for almost if not ten years. Even the real show is repeating challenges, and we are just a simulation without the physicality. Looking at Summertime, I think the most innovative challenge was the worldoftext shelter build, which was really just another twist on the category of shelter-building challenges. I think that is really the best we can do; of course, the challenge ideas still left to be discovered...are to be discovered! But (and note I am obviously fairly removed from recent Survivors), I think the use of basic challenges such as RAF, without any sort of twisting to the mechanics, is lazy and should be used sparingly if at all. And as has been mentioned, there also seems to be an apprehension from players toward more creative challenges; Summertime is definitely not the first time I've seen a fashion or other post-a-picture challenge go sour and unsubmitted.

[Blackberry]

I'd be more than happy to volunteer to review games if people would like me to. More specifically, I would focus on making sure things are "fair" and can give honest feedback on challenge ideas. ^_^

[kdowns]

Another thought came to be - after a game is long over, the stuff players remember is not the challenges; rather, it's the other players, and the alliances and drama, etc. Just like Mafia, a cast of players creates a Survivor game far more than a mod does. Well-designed challenges and twists are a great thing, but they're more the icing on the cake than anything else.

I recall Bahamas had trouble getting enough players to join. I joined to help the game fill when I really did not have enough time or motivation to play. I was probably not the only one. Bahamas also had other games to compete with, and IMO nobody can play to their full capacity in two games at once; at any given point, one game will be a player's "favorite" and the other will suffer as a result, even if only slightly.

Perhaps Bahamas' biggest problem was not the design or the modding; it was simply that the player group was spread too thin. Some were playing two games when they should have been playing one, and some didn't have the time or energy to play at all. I would also speculate that in general, players give more time to anonymous games than non-anonymous games.

Is there any way to fix this without causing bigger problems, though? Probably not. Allowing only one game at a time would probably make the modding queue far too long. I would say, though, that a game that has significant trouble filling up should probably wait a couple weeks rather than trying to pick up players that really shouldn't be playing a(nother) game, though.

This Very Much This.

I think we need to actively try to avoid running an Anon and Non-Anon game at the same time. My problem also in Bahamas is, I really didn't care that much as I was more focused on Greece at the time. Ironically I was Voted out the Second Time in Greece at almost the same exact time I was voted out in Greece. It's just really hard to stay focused on two games at once.

And Also Since, I am officially retired from playing in Survivor Games, I'll review them if people want.

[Nyalite]

This Very Much This.

I think we need to actively try to avoid running an Anon and Non-Anon game at the same time. My problem also in Bahamas is, I really didn't care that much as I was more focused on Greece at the time. Ironically I was Voted out the Second Time in Greece at almost the same exact time I was voted out in Greece. It's just really hard to stay focused on two games at once.

Crazy and Kdowns have a very good point. I was still finishing up MES when Arkham started and my beginning in Arkham suffered greatly for it. I am clearly going to prioritize my FTC over the begining game, and that just means Arkham had to suffer.

[Xalxe]

Alright, this has gone quiet so I'm going to put the Koopamod hat back on and propose a really simple solution: from now on, any large game, whether it be Survivor, Big Brother, or a new format must be either reviewed by somebody who is not playing or should have a co-moderator. Reviewers should be listed in the OP of any game threads as having signed off on the final version of the game. I think that if that policy is put into place, it'll help alleviate concerns that people have.

Topics for discussion:
- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Discuss.

[D3f3nd3r]

- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Idea is pretty good.

1. Yeah, I'd say you're clear to after running two games to completion without them being terrible.
2. Nah, doesn't need.
3. I'd say anyone who has modded one game is clear. We don't want crappy reviews.
4. If a game isn't reviewed because the mod refuses to get a review, yeah, shut it down.
5. Nah.

Also, we should have a rule that anybody running their first large game must have a co-mod.

[RichardGHP]

If there isn't already a rule to this effect, mods who have been known to flake should require a co-mod for any new games. However, I think that's where the regulation should end.

[Xalxe]

If there isn't already a rule to this effect, mods who have been known to flake should require a co-mod for any new games. However, I think that's where the regulation should end.

While that may not be a rule I think it's something the community tries to enforce (which is really how I'd like things to be run)

[kdowns]

Alright, this has gone quiet so I'm going to put the Koopamod hat back on and propose a really simple solution: from now on, any large game, whether it be Survivor, Big Brother, or a new format must be either reviewed by somebody who is not playing or should have a co-moderator. Reviewers should be listed in the OP of any game threads as having signed off on the final version of the game. I think that if that policy is put into place, it'll help alleviate concerns that people have.

Topics for discussion:
- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Discuss.

1. Situational, Depending on the Person and probably should be put to a vote between the selected group of reviewers.
2. No
3. Yes, I think we should have an approved group of people to review the games. Preferably people that Have Modded and Played in a lot of games.
4. Situational, It really depends on who it is.
5. Yes.

[kdowns]

Alright, this has gone quiet so I'm going to put the Koopamod hat back on and propose a really simple solution: from now on, any large game, whether it be Survivor, Big Brother, or a new format must be either reviewed by somebody who is not playing or should have a co-moderator. Reviewers should be listed in the OP of any game threads as having signed off on the final version of the game. I think that if that policy is put into place, it'll help alleviate concerns that people have.

Topics for discussion:
- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Discuss.

1. Situational, Depending on the Person and probably should be put to a vote between the selected group of reviewers.
2. No
3. Yes, I think we should have an approved group of people to review the games. Preferably people that Have Modded and Played in a lot of games.
4. Situational, It really depends on who it is.
5. Yes.

[animorpherv1]

Pretty much what kdowns said, but I'd change 5 to a no and just require a co-mod or a backup in all games, because then it alleviates all those concerns, and co/backup mods are good ideas.

[Drench]

Alright, this has gone quiet so I'm going to put the Koopamod hat back on and propose a really simple solution: from now on, any large game, whether it be Survivor, Big Brother, or a new format must be either reviewed by somebody who is not playing or should have a co-moderator. Reviewers should be listed in the OP of any game threads as having signed off on the final version of the game. I think that if that policy is put into place, it'll help alleviate concerns that people have.

Topics for discussion:
- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Discuss.

- no, everyone is fallible and getting just one review isn't that hard
- draw a line based on number of people likely to be affected
- similar to how the mafia half does it? people who've run things to completion before can review similar stuff
- don't prevent it but more emphasis is needed to highlight that reviews are very very encouraged
- no that's a great idea believe in yourself alex