mini normal modding

[N]

I didn't want to clog up the queue thread, so I thought I'd better make a thread in here.

Please take note: The process for applying

as a moderator

for the Mini Normal queue has changed.

You are expected to have a setup ready for review when you join this queue.

When you sign up to mod a Mini Normal, I will send you a private message requesting the following setup information:

1. Number of players;
   
2. Your opening posts (rules, flavor, and a copy of your Vanilla Townie role);
   
3. The complete text of all role PMs;
   
4. Any hidden moderator information;
   
5. Whether you would like the setup reviewed for normalcy only, or normalcy and balance.

Prospective mods who do not provide all of the necessary information within

seven days

will be removed from the queue.

Allowances will be made for the moderators who are currently in the queue and have not yet sent in their setups.

Why is the option to only have a setup reviewed for normalcy an option? I know it's always been there (as long as I've been a member, anyway) and it's always confused me. I assume it's the same for large normals.

Why would anyone want their setup only reviewed for normalcy? And why would anyone want to play a Normal game that is not reviewed for balance?

[SleepyKrew]

In case someone wanted a role madness Normal.

[Eddard Stark]

And why would anyone want to play a Normal game that is not reviewed for balance?

What happens if you disagree with the normal review people on what's "balanced". (And say 2 other people you know/respect agree too). Is there definition of balance more "correct"*


*Realistically I don't see a scenario where this happens but it seems technically possible.

[Tamuz]

Alternatively you don't want to waste the Normal Review Board's time because your cabal has already reviewed the set-up to death.

[Tierce]

Why would anyone want their setup only reviewed for normalcy? And why would anyone want to play a Normal game that is not reviewed for balance?

The former exists, though speaking personally, I do not understand how someone would not want their setup triple-checked. As for the latter, the queue has a key on setups reviewed for normalcy alone, so prospective players know what they might be getting into.

The system exists not only to give moderators the option, but theoretically to relieve some of the pressure placed on the Normal Review Group. Reviews for normalcy alone are faster than complete balance reviews.

In case someone wanted a role madness Normal.

This doesn't really happen, because there is a line on Normalcy; setups that may technically be Normal may still be vetoed by the NRG, regardless of the moderator's wish for a Normalcy-only review. The Mini Normal queue seeks to provide a certain type of Mafia experience, and deviating too far from that norm makes games more appropriate to other queues.

[N]

And why would anyone want to play a Normal game that is not reviewed for balance?

What happens if you disagree with the normal review people on what's "balanced". (And say 2 other people you know/respect agree too). Is there definition of balance more "correct"*


*Realistically I don't see a scenario where this happens but it seems technically possible.

How is this any different than disagreeing about balance for a theme game?

[Vi]

And why would anyone want to play a Normal game that is not reviewed for balance?

What happens if you disagree with the normal review people on what's "balanced". (And say 2 other people you know/respect agree too). Is there definition of balance more "correct"*


*Realistically I don't see a scenario where this happens but it seems technically possible.

How is this any different than disagreeing about balance for a theme game?

Theme games don't have an organized group of people attesting that the setup is balanced.

I think the answer is more what people are expecting but too polite to say - that the option to only have the game reviewed for Normalcy is for people who don't care about balance (or the time it takes to balance a game to three peoples' specifications, as that tends to take much longer than checking for Normalcy).

[N]

It really doesn't take that long for the Normal Review Group do do their thing. For my completed game, it took about three days and that was with changing about half the power roles.

[Mr. Flay]

It only takes forever if someone is not paying attention (usually the prospective mod, but occasionally a reviewer).

[Eddard Stark]

It really doesn't take that long for the Normal Review Group do do their thing. For my completed game, it took about three days and that was with changing about half the power roles.

Your initial setup was probably decently balanced. I'm assuming you're going to get some mods who will be more stubborn about changing stuff, or who may start with a setup that is basically no where near balanced -- this is obviously going to take longer. You'll have to try and find out what pieces they want to keep, etc.

[Eddard Stark]

Has anyone said NO to balance in the history of the mini normal queue?

[Tierce]

Has anyone said NO to balance in the history of the mini normal queue?

Yes.

[N]

I HAVE SLAIN THE BEAST

[Zachrulez]

I'll just mention again how glad I am that I never have to run a normal game again due to the experience I've already accumulated.

I think it's ridiculous to require balance reviews from groups of people that I've never seen completely agree on WHAT is balanced.

[callforjudgement]

In most of the reviews I've been in, the reviewers end up agreeing that the setup is as close to balanced as it will reasonably go, and that's when it gets passed for balance. Basically, it counts as balanced if you can no longer balance it better. The moderator often has a choice between several versions of the setup that are close balance-wise.

Note that it's not always the case that reviewers agree on

why

the setup is balanced. There's a sort-of balancing act where reviewer 1 thinks the setup is townsided and reviewer 2 thinks the setup is scumsided so you change the setup in a way that reviewer 1 thinks makes scum more likely to win and reviewr 2 thinks makes town more likely to win. The reviewers typically identify such changes spontaneously without the mods having to think of them.

[mykonian]

I'll just mention again how glad I am that I never have to run a normal game again due to the experience I've already accumulated.

I think it's ridiculous to require balance reviews from groups of people that I've never seen completely agree on WHAT is balanced.

4 people know more than one. Esspecially when it comes to something that is mostly a judgement call like balance. The average opinion

will

be better than that of a single person.

[Zachrulez]

The fact that it's a judgment call is exactly why I don't think it should be required to be reviewed.

Also based on my last few experiences running normals, the reviews are far from timely.

[Ircher]

The fact that it's a judgment call is exactly why I don't think it should be required to be reviewed.

Also based on my last few experiences running normals, the reviews are far from timely.

Yeah, reviewers aren't very attentive.....