Mafiascum.net

Thank you to chamber who worked very hard to get us these Private Topics. I can say from testing these out in my own game as well as elsewhere, these are a superior way to approach threads. It makes sure that your players will see new posts in private threads, it makes it so that you can review Role PMs in the formatting they receive (albeit with puke green background). It has been an altogether much more pleasant experience than using QTs.

I'll answer policy-side questions (or at least go back to the listmod team and get you an answer to those questions). I don't have all the technological understanding to answer coding questions, but I can try to answer to the best of my ability. Here are a few FAQs:



It is allowed only if Xalxe allows it, which he will do on a case-by-case basis. Contact him.


One large concern we have with these private topics being within MS is that those with scum threads may accidentally post in the game thread causing irreparable harm to the game. To solve this, chamber has given Private Topics a different appearance.


It's functional. I wouldn't be surprised if we get one implemented that isn't quite so ugly in the future, but that's not something I have much familiarity with.

That looks cool. Can't wait to try em.

When can you make the Private Topic Skin a skin for the whole site?

i think the answer is never.

also, if you have been using PTs and now don't see the green skin, refresh your page.

In post 0, zoraster wrote:6. Private threads will show up in both ego searches ("Show My Posts") and bookmarks/subscriptions.

Do they appear in View New Posts if you have access to them?

In post 5, Cheery Dog wrote:

In post 0, zoraster wrote:6. Private threads will show up in both ego searches ("Show My Posts") and bookmarks/subscriptions.

Do they appear in View New Posts if you have access to them?

No, just tested.

In post 6, Xalxe wrote:

In post 5, Cheery Dog wrote:

In post 0, zoraster wrote:6. Private threads will show up in both ego searches ("Show My Posts") and bookmarks/subscriptions.

Do they appear in View New Posts if you have access to them?

No, just tested.

Passed on.

In post 4, zoraster wrote:i think the answer is never.

But it's such a nice, calming green!

i'm just upset that my name is basically camouflaged.

In post 0, zoraster wrote:
Conduct in Private Topics will be held to the same standard as other MS topics. If asked, the moderator of a private topic MUST give access to the topic to listmods and discussion moderators.

Can you explain why a discussion mod or a listmod would want to force me to give them access to a private topic? If I'm using it for a scum topic/mason/ect you can understand why I'd be reluctant to grant access to those topics to anyone beyond the players necessary. (Especially given that some listmods actually do play.)

If I have to allow a site mod to look at private topics whenever they want, what's the advantage of switching from quicktopics? I still have complete control over who has access there.

In post 10, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 0, zoraster wrote:
Conduct in Private Topics will be held to the same standard as other MS topics. If asked, the moderator of a private topic MUST give access to the topic to listmods and discussion moderators.

Can you explain why a discussion mod or a listmod would want to force me to give them access to a private topic? If I'm using it for a scum topic/mason/ect you can understand why I'd be reluctant to grant access to those topics to anyone beyond the players necessary. (Especially given that some listmods actually do play.)

If I have to allow a site mod to look at private topics whenever they want, what's the advantage of switching from quicktopics? I still have complete control over who has access there.

If someone complains about rulebreaking is the only reason I foresee that we'd ask for access. The report functionality can't be implemented in PTs without giving someone access to every single PT, meaning they could never play mafia.

Generally speaking, listmods can get reports on posts and PMs and the like. Not so with Private Topics, where we purposefully didn't so that we don't spoil games. Basically we'll never ask you to give us access unless (1) we aren't in the game and (2) we have reason to believe something we need to act on is going on (usually being reported by someone).

Listmods could ALWAYS do this with QTs. If someone wanted to report activity in a QT, they simply linked a listmod to the thread. Given the restricted access with PTs, just linking won't work. You actually have considerably more control over knowing who has access to your thread now.

If I had to guess, it'll mostly be game moderators asking for listmod help in these threads anyway -- that's how it's been in the past with QTs. So it's only on rare occasions that we might be forced to ask a game mod to give us access.

We aren't going to start asking for this stuff willy-nilly or anything, and you can be assured we take game integrity very seriously. The listmod who gains access will never be one who is in the game.

EDIT: quadz ninja

I don't want to sound rude here but I can handle anything related to cheating and abuse as a mod of my own game, and I don't really want to be forced to give others access under any circumstances.

Regardless of commitment to game integrity, it makes me nervous even introducing an avenue of temptation.

Which is kind of a shame because I do like the idea of site based private topics otherwise, I just don't think I can use them with that clause there.

Pedit:

Listmods could ALWAYS do this with QTs. If someone wanted to report activity in a QT, they simply linked a listmod to the thread. Given the restricted access with PTs, just linking won't work. You actually have considerably more control over knowing who has access to your thread now.

I can't see how I wouldn't punish one of my players for doing that. (Not reporting me, but linking the QT without my approval.)

First, using QTs does absolutely nothing to stop what you see as potential abuse on our parts. A player reporting abuse can simply link us to the thread. This happens somewhat regularly. With PTs, at least you're aware when a listmod needs access.

Second, if a listmod asks for permission and it's someone in the game, you're going to (rightly) make a stink afterwards. Listmods don't want that, and any listmod that used that to abuse his position would be removed as a listmod. Again, you know exactly who has access.

Frankly, PTs should alleviate this concern -- not strengthen it.

This isn't some power grab. This is just to make sure that we don't get abuse where people say "neener neener" behind a Private Topic. That said, if you still feel more comfortable with QTs, we aren't going to make you use PTs.

In post 13, Zachrulez wrote:I can't see how I wouldn't punish one of my players for doing that. (Not reporting me, but linking the QT without my approval.)

I understand you are concerned with this, and I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh here, but if you punished a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention (unless that listmod was a player, obviously), I am fairly confident we would not allow you to moderate again.

In post 14, zoraster wrote:First, using QTs does absolutely nothing to stop what you see as potential abuse on our parts. A player reporting abuse can simply link us to the thread. This happens somewhat regularly. With PTs, at least you're aware when a listmod needs access.

They can, but if I get contacted by a listmod over the contents of anything in a QT and have a good idea who did it. That player is going to be reprimanded because they are in violation of game rules regarding giving out private QT links.

In post 14, zoraster wrote:Second, if a listmod asks for permission and it's someone in the game, you're going to (rightly) make a stink afterwards. Listmods don't want that, and any listmod that used that to abuse his position would be removed as a listmod. Again, you know exactly who has access.

My concern isn't a list mod transparently attempting to cheat in a game. I'm worried about alts in this instance. Yes, it's probably mostly a theoretical concern.

In post 14, zoraster wrote:Frankly, PTs should alleviate this concern -- not strengthen it.

I'm having trouble seeing it.

In post 14, zoraster wrote:This isn't some power grab. This is just to make sure that we don't get abuse where people say "neener neener" behind a Private Topic. That said, if you still feel more comfortable with QTs, we aren't going to make you use PTs.

I'm not accusing you guys of a power grab here. I just find the clause concerning for the reasons I laid out.

Edit:

In post 15, zoraster wrote:

In post 13, Zachrulez wrote:I can't see how I wouldn't punish one of my players for doing that. (Not reporting me, but linking the QT without my approval.)

I understand you are concerned with this, and I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh here, but if you punished a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention (unless that listmod was a player, obviously), I am fairly confident we would not allow you to moderate again.

I do see that it's a very thin line, but the example we're talking about is a situation that indicates that the player is making no effort to go through me to resolve the problem. (Given that I'm describing acting on learning that the quicktopic was given out without my knowledge, it's safe to assume I wasn't aware there was even a problem in the first place.) If the list mod can't see my concern in that instance that a player is acting in a way that threatens game integrity, I don't think I'd want to mod again anyway.

In post 16, Zachrulez wrote:They can, but if I get contacted by a listmod over the contents of anything in a QT and have a good idea who did it. That player is going to be reprimanded because they are in violation of game rules regarding giving out private QT links.

Someone reporting something to the listmod is breaking the rules?

In post 17, Faraday wrote:

In post 16, Zachrulez wrote:They can, but if I get contacted by a listmod over the contents of anything in a QT and have a good idea who did it. That player is going to be reprimanded because they are in violation of game rules regarding giving out private QT links.

Someone reporting something to the listmod is breaking the rules?

I hope someone understands the point I'm trying to make here.

The player does not need to give a link to a private topic to the listmod without my permission or knowledge in order to report something to the listmods. They should be reporting it to me anyways. If they feel I'm not acting they can make the list mod aware of abusive action or moderating and I can discuss the situation with the listmod. Through the discussion I may find that it's worthwhile to share the QT with the list mod. Following that process is important to me, the former process neuters my ability to mod the game myself.

Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked. I don't mean to be mean about it, but I don't want anyone to be confused by this matter.

Generally speaking, we DO want a player to work through a moderator first. We frequently refer matters back to moderators when they come to us. Most things are best resolved at the game mod level as it is usually quicker and listmods wield sledgehammers -- game mods can use a scalpel. But that doesn't mean players are breaking rules by involving listmods. It is sometimes necessary.

As for why PTs alleviate your concern: you have control over who sees the thread. I could have access to all of your QTs and you would never know it. If I have access to your PT, it's because you gave it to me. The fact that a listmod can compel you to add them may stick in your craw, but at least you know they're doing it. If you don't buy it, feel free to use QTs.

For what it's worth, I don't want it to come down to a situation where we force a mod to give us access. I'm sure we'll politely ask first. I want to work with game moderators to make sure their games run smoothly and provide players a great time. I try to the best of my abilities to be a resource for game moderators rather than a harsh supervisor. But at the end of the day, we will keep tools at our disposal that make sure we can do our job.

I thank Chamber for all of his hard work that has gone into this project and I think the addition is really cool, but what advantages do we gain from having Private Topics over QuickTopics?

Lots!

1. You post from your MS account. As a mod, you can decide whether you want individual heads of a hydra to have access to the scum qt or if you want them to only be able to post as one head.
2. You make sure that only the people you want have access.
3. Formatting is WAY better, and uses bb code.
4. It reads top to bottom rather than bottom to top, which drives me nuts
5. You don't have to check another website.
6. You see it come up in your bookmarks, subscriptions and egosearch. That tends to mean much faster interaction with other people in the threads
7. Avatars. I don't know if I'm alone, but reading a thread without avatars, even with only a few people, gets confusing fast. Avatars help me a lot when reading a thread.

Those are the first ones that are off the top of my head.

In post 19, zoraster wrote:Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked.

Honestly what I'm worried about here is taking action against a player for breaking game rules and my action being interpreted as retaliation. (Which is how Faraday seemed to interpret my resolve to take action in the example I laid out.)

In post 19, zoraster wrote:Generally speaking, we DO want a player to work through a moderator first. We frequently refer matters back to moderators when they come to us. Most things are best resolved at the game mod level as it is usually quicker and listmods wield sledgehammers -- game mods can use a scalpel. But that doesn't mean players are breaking rules by involving listmods. It is sometimes necessary.

As for why PTs alleviate your concern: you have control over who sees the thread. I could have access to all of your QTs and you would never know it. If I have access to your PT, it's because you gave it to me. The fact that a listmod can compel you to add them may stick in your craw, but at least you know they're doing it. If you don't buy it, feel free to use QTs.

For what it's worth, I don't want it to come down to a situation where we force a mod to give us access. I'm sure we'll politely ask first. I want to work with game moderators to make sure their games run smoothly and provide players a great time. I try to the best of my abilities to be a resource for game moderators rather than a harsh supervisor. But at the end of the day, we will keep tools at our disposal that make sure we can do our job.

With a QT you shouldn't have access unless I give it to you. If a player gives you access without my knowledge and consent, I am interpreting that action as a violation of my game rules against outside discussion of the game. I don't think the act of reporting an action to a list mod is punishable per say, I just don't think the action of reporting justifies breaking the game rules.

That said, your explanation gives me a better understanding of the workings of private topics.

So if a player links someone who doesn't have access, I assume something comes up saying they can't view the thread?

In post 22, Zachrulez wrote:So if a player links someone who doesn't have access, I assume something comes up saying they can't view the thread?

correct. it will tell you:

You are not authorized to read this topic.

On another matter, due to all the requirements that list mods have for what needs to be ready for review, I actually design the entirety of my games through quicktopic. Is there any consideration for access to creating private topics for this purpose?