Survivor Review Board: Discussion


User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #25 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:50 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

I'm also here and willing to review, since KAces didn't read the full OP.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
Jal
Jal
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Jal
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2474
Joined: April 27, 2012

Post Post #26 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:56 pm

Post by Jal »

This is a community decision. The majority of this conversation and decision making on this issue
should not
be done in Skype calls, and especially no decisions of any kind should take place without it having been presented and discussed on these boards where everyone can see. Otherwise, we're going to be excluding the majority of the community who have a right as any other person to have a say in this. This community is already suffering from its own cliques.

Secondly, I don't believe any actual "review boarding" should officially be taking place until any idea has been given a green light, and a definition of what a review board is and what criteria they will be deciding upon is established. If we don't do this, then the reviewing of games are going to come down to one person's subjective opinion of how they believe they should review the games and in what way games should be judged, which is all too subjective. What you may think should qualify, might go against my own ideas and the majority of other people's opinions. It takes any meaning out of what is being discussed here.

Now onto the problem of Survivor games themselves. I don't see the problem Xof is highlighting in Survivor games. Not enough effort or caring put into the game? How so? What qualifies as effort and what qualifies as enough effort or giving up on caring? What games in particular are you talking about, or is it just Bahamas? Greece? Summertime? Arkham? I don't think "effort" or "caring" is what the problem is for most of these games. Bahamas itself I think mainly suffered from a game plan (2 tribes then to merge) which didn't give it as much of a competitive edge, a repeat of a challenge, and a community that went sour which then put an overcast on the rest of the game. I haven't been in or spectated a game where the issue came down to, "oh hey, they obviously had no challenge thought up here" or that anything was majorly delayed because some post wasn't already made, or the mods stopped caring. Neither did Bahamas.

Most issues stem from mod issues of not being on in time, not knowing how to work the boards properly, and either mod flaking or not having a co-mod or back-up mod available to pick up slack or help run the game more smoothly.
These are issues seen in Arkham, Summertime, and Greece.
The other set of issues which was highlighted in Arkham, is whether the integrity of Survivor games themselves are being upheld.
Arkham had a mod account which had a pre-determined time to be executed and at least one challenge where the outcome was decided beforehand. That stuff should not be allowed to exist in a Survivor game.

In general, I believe the main issues the community is having are games running smoothly, and on a lesser note, containing challenges some oomf put into them. Maybe it should be less of a review board, but putting down actual written standards about games themselves. Enforce a co-mod or two. A back-up mod. An active back-up mod. That is how you solve the issue of caring.

Regarding Xalxe's question, I think it would depend on the reviewer and mods themselves. I'd be more intrigued by a game from a new player reviewed by someone like Kloud, than a game ran by a regular mod reviewed by some old time regular. Nowadays, I'm more worried about getting into a game that will actually complete and in a timely manner though. For example, I would not have joined Amazing Race if it weren't both Xalxe and CC both running it. This is the area that needs the most attention.

Edited to refine my point.
User avatar
Nyalite
Nyalite
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Nyalite
Goon
Goon
Posts: 163
Joined: June 29, 2012

Post Post #27 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:29 pm

Post by Nyalite »

I share KA's concern about players actively disqualifying themselves from games. Also I feel having people publically declare that they are willing to review the game is a bad idea. It saying they won't be joining which actively harms the anonymous nature of most survivors. A better solution is for the mods to post and say "we are ready for a reviewer, please PM us if you are willing."

I also think Jal raises a good point:
Jal wrote:Not enough effort or caring put into the game? How so? What qualifies as effort and what qualifies as enough effort or giving up on caring?
We need to avoid subjective based decisions entirely.

I think the problem is we haven't even established the most basic goals of this review process.

This review process first and most important goal is to make sure mods are taking their commitment seriously, and that they understand what that commitment is. It's a commitment most importantly to the players who sign-up for their game, but also a commitment to the mish mash survivor community as a whole. The commitment isn't complicated. Just two things,
run the game from start to finish in a timely and smooth manner and make sure it is a fun, challenging and fair game.
Everything else stems from those two things. Co-mods? Back-up documents? Pre-prepared post? Faithful deadlines? Those are all under the first. New, exciting, fun challenges? New, exciting, fun twist? Those are all under the second.

I don't think this process should be conducted in the way Ani's quote laided out in the OP.
This should not be viewed as analogous to the Mafia game review board. A reviewers job should not be to scour over every challenge and twist. This review process must respect the right of the mod to create their own game. The way this process is heading it makes previously successful mods gatekeepers.
This process should only be used as the most cursory check to make sure the game creators understand and are willing to make good on their commitments. I think we must have faith in the mods themselves that once they understand their commitment they can execute on it.
Last edited by Nyalite on Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He might fascinate you. I despise him with every fiber of my being."
User avatar
Jal
Jal
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Jal
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2474
Joined: April 27, 2012

Post Post #28 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:54 pm

Post by Jal »

On the discussion of mods making a good commitment to their games, we must also assure that players are striving to reach the same level of commitment themselves. If the mod is putting the effort into their games and the players aren't, the community still suffers.

Many Mish Mash games have stalled or stopped altogether because players don't get back to pms in a timely manner, don't participate in game challenges, take long stretches of time absent, or flake from the game entirely. The mod ultimately is left there trying to pick up the pieces where the player-base has failed them, and by the time the problem has become apparent and a plan of action is put into motion to find a solution or a replacement, the game's momentum has crashed and its integrity possibly fallen. This results in a loss of interest from the other players and things just go downhill from there. Talking about Survivor games specifically, this was very notable in Survivor: Mass Effect which was plagued by people leaving, quitting, flaking, and not voting.

By helping formalize the commitments both between the players and the mods, it will help nurture a culture of upholding these commitments. Because of these two issues, it's feeding into a large atmosphere of negativity which has been increasingly damaging games and the community. By encouraging this process to be about a commitment from the mod and respect from the player, you're approaching it from a positive way.
User avatar
chesskid3
chesskid3
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
chesskid3
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 14658
Joined: August 9, 2010
Location: New Yawk

Post Post #29 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:10 pm

Post by chesskid3 »

hey but im good at RAF
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #30 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:16 pm

Post by Cephrir »

In post 27, Nyalite wrote:This process should only be used as the most cursory check to make sure the game creators understand and are willing to make good on their commitments. I think we must have faith in the mods themselves that once they understand their commitment they can execute on it.
This.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
Nicholas1024
Nicholas1024
The Ides of Mash
User avatar
User avatar
Nicholas1024
The Ides of Mash
The Ides of Mash
Posts: 0
Joined: December 30, 2011

Post Post #31 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:28 pm

Post by Nicholas1024 »

In post 26, Jal wrote:
The other set of issues which was highlighted in Arkham, is whether the integrity of Survivor games themselves are being upheld.
Arkham had a mod account which had a pre-determined time to be executed and at least one challenge where the outcome was decided beforehand. That stuff should not be allowed to exist in a Survivor game.
Just saying, but Arkham was advertised as the kind of crazy game where the normal rules are broken. The twists present in Arkham should not be considered standard in any way.
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #32 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:34 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 31, Nicholas1024 wrote:
In post 26, Jal wrote:
The other set of issues which was highlighted in Arkham, is whether the integrity of Survivor games themselves are being upheld.
Arkham had a mod account which had a pre-determined time to be executed and at least one challenge where the outcome was decided beforehand. That stuff should not be allowed to exist in a Survivor game.
Just saying, but Arkham was advertised as the kind of crazy game where the normal rules are broken. The twists present in Arkham should not be considered standard in any way.
It still shouldn't have happened.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
Jal
Jal
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Jal
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2474
Joined: April 27, 2012

Post Post #33 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm

Post by Jal »

There is a difference between crazy and bastard. You crossed the line.
User avatar
Nyalite
Nyalite
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Nyalite
Goon
Goon
Posts: 163
Joined: June 29, 2012

Post Post #34 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:41 pm

Post by Nyalite »

No where in the Arkham rules did it say that it was going to be a bastard game.


Edit: I think Ani and Jal beat me to condemning the Robin mechanic. But I want to say I think that issue is tangential to the review process.
"He might fascinate you. I despise him with every fiber of my being."
User avatar
DeasVail
DeasVail
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
DeasVail
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 13312
Joined: October 7, 2011
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Australia

Post Post #35 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:10 pm

Post by DeasVail »

In post 27, Nyalite wrote:I don't think this process should be conducted in the way Ani's quote laided out in the OP. This should not be viewed as analogous to the Mafia game review board. A reviewers job should not be to scour over every challenge and twist. This review process must respect the right of the mod to create their own game. The way this process is heading it makes previously successful mods gatekeepers. This process should only be used as the most cursory check to make sure the game creators understand and are willing to make good on their commitments. I think we must have faith in the mods themselves that once they understand their commitment they can execute on it.
While I agree that mods should create their own game, I don't think it would hurt for the reviewer to make recommendations regarding the clarity of challenges and things like that, if the reviewer is willing.

Regarding other things, I feel that it's fairly widely agreed upon that a reviewer should check a mod's commitment to the game through having another mod able to take over if need be, having back-ups, pre-prepared posts etc. I haven't noticed any disagreement with this (except limiting the player pool, which I'll post my thoughts on later), and I agree that it's a good idea myself. The more subjective side of things, whether the game is fun enough and brings enough that's new to the table, are things that I feel are too difficult to have an objective approach to. Different people have different ideas of what's fun. Different people are more aggressive with their opinions than others. Similar to what I've suggested earlier, I would like to see a reviewer make recommendations regarding challenges, but not the development of a 'Bend to my will or your game won't run!' attitude that I think others are worried about as well, because when it comes to things like fun, and even things like clarity, it's going to be subjective.

Regarding the limitation of the player pool, I don't think you need many people reviewing a particular game (I personally would be happy with one, but opinions may vary). I also think that the group of possible reviewers shouldn't be too small so that no one feels they must not play a game in order to be available to review. I would feel happy with anyone that's played a few survivor games reviewing but again, opinions may vary.

*Edited for clarity.
User avatar
Nyalite
Nyalite
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Nyalite
Goon
Goon
Posts: 163
Joined: June 29, 2012

Post Post #36 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:35 pm

Post by Nyalite »

In post 35, DeasVail wrote:While I agree that mods should create their own game, I don't think it would hurt for the reviewer to make recommendations regarding the clarity of challenges and things like that, if the reviewer is willing.
I don't have an issue with a mod allowing that, and once a reviewer has been "read in" they can become a resource for you.

But what I don't want is a reviewers going through every twist and challenge. I don't think that's what this should be about.
"He might fascinate you. I despise him with every fiber of my being."
User avatar
chesskid3
chesskid3
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
chesskid3
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 14658
Joined: August 9, 2010
Location: New Yawk

Post Post #37 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:35 pm

Post by chesskid3 »

What happened in arkham
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
User avatar
Nyalite
Nyalite
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Nyalite
Goon
Goon
Posts: 163
Joined: June 29, 2012

Post Post #38 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:40 pm

Post by Nyalite »

In post 37, chesskid3 wrote:What happened in arkham
The thing we are specifically talking about is one player who was a "mod character" who was played by one of the mods and a spectator.
"He might fascinate you. I despise him with every fiber of my being."
User avatar
chesskid3
chesskid3
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
chesskid3
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 14658
Joined: August 9, 2010
Location: New Yawk

Post Post #39 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:40 pm

Post by chesskid3 »

wait why not just vote him out at TC
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #40 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:41 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 39, chesskid3 wrote:wait why not just vote him out at TC
We weren't aware of it.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
chesskid3
chesskid3
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
chesskid3
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 14658
Joined: August 9, 2010
Location: New Yawk

Post Post #41 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:43 pm

Post by chesskid3 »

weren't aware of what exactly
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #42 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 38, Nyalite wrote:The thing we are specifically talking about is one player who was a "mod character" who was played by one of the mods and a spectator.

ANYWAYS, back on point. I disagree with the looking at the challenges and whatnot. There are multiple challenges which are used time and time again and practically no one enjoys them anymore. Things like that and apparently any challenge that requires creativity (because that results in no one submitting) should be looked at and removed.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #43 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:51 pm

Post by Cephrir »

In post 42, animorpherv1 wrote:
In post 38, Nyalite wrote:Things like that and apparently any challenge that requires creativity (because that results in no one submitting) should be looked at and removed.
This is the players' faults. I think they should continue to happen, and if you don't submit you really have nothing to complain about.

We should be leery about letting things become too standardized and removing creativity from the mod. If something is crazy and everyone knows it's crazy, that's probably okay.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #44 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:54 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 43, Cephrir wrote:This is the players' faults. I think they should continue to happen, and if you don't submit you really have nothing to complain about.
I agree, but it doesn't help the mood of the game when no one submits.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
User avatar
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
Best Social Game
Posts: 1367
Joined: March 25, 2012
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post Post #45 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Post by D3f3nd3r »

Then again Arkham did warn its players to expect insanity and bastard-mod stuff...

"Twists will be about as numerous and game-changing as all those Bat-gadgets on a certain utility belt. Think fast, or suffer a mild case of death."

"The moderating team is not responsible for any rage, violence, insanity, heart attacks, or jaywalking induced by this game. In the event that you start experiencing some of these symptoms, please begin praying to the God of your choice."

If you warn your players that the game is bastard/twist-heavy/rage-inducing, you have the freedom to go wild.
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #46 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:59 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 45, D3f3nd3r wrote:Then again Arkham did warn its players to expect insanity and bastard-mod stuff...

"Twists will be about as numerous and game-changing as all those Bat-gadgets on a certain utility belt. Think fast, or suffer a mild case of death."

"The moderating team is not responsible for any rage, violence, insanity, heart attacks, or jaywalking induced by this game. In the event that you start experiencing some of these symptoms, please begin praying to the God of your choice."

If you warn your players that the game is bastard/twist-heavy/rage-inducing, you have the freedom to go wild.
This is where clarity is a good thing - I
knew
it would be silly and twist-heavy, I just never expected bastard.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
User avatar
Nyalite
Nyalite
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Nyalite
Goon
Goon
Posts: 163
Joined: June 29, 2012

Post Post #47 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:00 pm

Post by Nyalite »

In post 42, animorpherv1 wrote:

ANYWAYS, back on point. I disagree with the looking at the challenges and whatnot. There are multiple challenges which are used time and time again and practically no one enjoys them anymore. Things like that and apparently any challenge that requires creativity (because that results in no one submitting) should be looked at and removed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are challenges that have been overplayed or weren't fun to begin with. But I don't think that means a reviewer should looking in depth at every challenge and twist. I don't know that a review process is the correct way to eliminate that from happening in games, nor should it be used in that manner. If there are challenges that are particularly bad, create a banned challenge list or something. What's more important is that we assess whether a mod is aware that she can't just go copy challenges from the last 4 survivors and call it a game.



Chesskid -
We all thought he was a regular player, but at the end of the game we found out he was played by a spectator/mod. This meant the whole time he was able to read confessionals and knew what people were thinking/doing.

D3f3nd3r - I certainly did not take those to mean there would be a mod character in the game or that it would be a bastard game. Further I think if you are going to run a bastard game, you better be pretty damn clear of that from the start. You also can't count it as a regular survivor. Twist heavy insanity =/= bastard
"He might fascinate you. I despise him with every fiber of my being."
User avatar
Jal
Jal
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Jal
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2474
Joined: April 27, 2012

Post Post #48 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:10 pm

Post by Jal »

What are the challenges that are being used time and time again that you find annoying? I don't care about creativity challenges, but more so because it requires judges of some sort and is very subjective. You can put a whole lot of effort into them and pretty much go no where. Like, seriously who would give green ship in Mass Effect 5/5 in functionality for their printer?!?! :P

Outside of the essay in Bahamas, can you note what other creativity challenges had people not submitting? I think that challenge mainly suffered from the mood falling in previous challenges than that challenge itself being the culprit for bringing the mood down in the game.

Also note, that some people just feel differently about the type of challenges. I think you mentioned you would like to do the essay challenge in Bahamas and Xof obviously did, but that is a challenge I wouldn't want to go near and hated every incarnation I've seen. Klick liked the challenge maker reward in Bahamas, but I don't like the look of it myself. This is why it's the mod's prerogative to judge what they want to add to their game. What I'm getting at here, is that if you reviewed a game, you would condemn certain challenges while another reviewer would take issue with different challenges based on the fun factor. That is why that if there is a reviewer, it shouldn't be focusing in on subjective judgement on challenges and twists and what makes them fun.
User avatar
animorpherv1
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
User avatar
User avatar
animorpherv1
Honey Trap
Honey Trap
Posts: 5763
Joined: April 12, 2008
Location: Untraveled Road
Contact:

Post Post #49 (ISO) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:13 pm

Post by animorpherv1 »

In post 48, Jal wrote:What are the challenges that are being used time and time again that you find annoying? I don't care about creativity challenges, but more so because it requires judges of some sort and is very subjective. You can put a whole lot of effort into them and pretty much go no where. Like, seriously who would give green ship in Mass Effect 5/5 in functionality for their printer?!?!
RAF and mastermind - I'm OK with the island hopping one for now, because someone always tends to reinvent new strategies for it.
Jal wrote:Outside of the essay in Bahamas, can you note what other creativity challenges had people not submitting? I think that challenge mainly suffered from the mood falling in previous challenges then that challenge itself being the culprit for bringing the mood down in the game.
Summertime's fashion thingy
at least
- Arkham's story challenge also had 2 non-submitters, but idk if that was related to AFKness or something else.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare

"Ani is right 100% of the time" - Alisae
Locked

Return to “Social Game Archive”