The IC and SE System

[Mina]

Hi, everyone!

I'd like to hear input on a few things:

1) Do you think the current IC and SE system is working?
2) Are there any changes to the structure of the SE/IC system you think we should make?
3) Should the requirements for being an SE and/or IC be more relaxed or more stringent--either quantitatively or qualitatively? (The former is the number of games played, and the latter the subjective skill level of the IC, which is something I often have to make judgement calls on and which I HATE HATE HATE doing.)

(Re: 3), they should 100% be simpler, but I have trouble deciding what to simplify them

to

.)

It seems everyone has a different pet opinion on the newbie queue, but all these opinions conflict. I've heard ideas ranging from making newbies mandatory, to scrapping SEs, to boosting the IC requirements to ten games, to having a committee to evaluate ICs, to only letting the best players onsite IC, to letting almost anyone in, to making ICs invite-only, etc.

Since too many cooks spoil the broth, I eventually want to take applications for a newbie committee to decide stuff like this, the set-up, the format of newbie surveys, etc. (I've wanted to do that for months, so I don't want to put a timeline on it in case it doesn't happen.) But it'd be nice to get a general idea of the site's consensus on this first.

[N]

Do something about your huge mod queue too!

[Mina]

ATTN: By decree of Her Royal Highness, List Mod Mina, henceforth, no one is allowed to mod newbie games anymore.

[Malakittens]

;-;

[DeasVail]

I have thoughts I guess!

Regarding ICs, I like the 5 game requirement and disagree with making this more strict or restricting it to 'the best players'. I suppose I see the job of an IC as being an example of how mafia is played on mafiascum, and to assist with any mafia theory questions players may have, facilitating any discussion that occurs on such topics etc. I don't think the IC needs to be a great player, just someone that knows the game (which is where I see the 5 completed games coming in) and is amiable enough to help newbies with any problems that come up during the game. I agree that the need to make judgement calls on new ICs is not ideal, but I'm not sure what a suitable solution would be. Raising the completed games bar for new ICs is something you mention, but I worry that this would only further limit the number of ICs (which seems to have always been a problem) and there are probably players that have played 10+ games that wouldn't necessarily be great as ICs for reasons other than lack of experience.

If judgment calls become a problem, I would be supportive of the idea to create a committee of scummers responsible for assessing new ICs (in addition to other things perhaps), akin to the normal review group. I know it wouldn't remove the problem of the need for judgment calls, but maybe it would at least mean you don't have to make all of them, and not by yourself either. And I would be very willing to help out if such a committee became a thing.

My opinion on the SE requirements is that they're probably needlessly complicated. When I was a newbie I was really unsure as to why the SE requirements were finished games as opposed to completed ones (which may cause some confusion? I don't know). I can see why it would be the case now, but I wonder whether it would be simpler to make them completed games. Since I joined the site, there's also been the change in requirements from two finished games to three incl. one non-Newbie game, which I also don't know the reason for and personally preferred the old way of things. I think it's the thing about only being able to play two newbie games from scratch that I don't like. There could definitely be some benefit to the new way that I'm not seeing though!

[Albert B. Rampage]

I wouldn't be mad if we got rid of the newbe queue.

[Iecerint]

What problem would these changes be intended to address?

Do we have a shortage of SE/ICs, do we have problems with the quality of SE/IC players, are SE/IC players replacing out of games, etc.?

[Cheery Dog]

ATTN: By decree of Her Royal Highness, List Mod Mina, henceforth, no one is allowed to mod newbie games anymore.

You say this, then half an hour later you issue me a newbie game to mod

I think the only issue currently is a lack of them. I agree with DV about the change to SE and how they are confusing, but that at the time was a needed change. (although I think the 3 SEs to a game was solving the same problem)

[Mina]

So far, which "class" of sign-up most in demand fluctuates all the time. For awhile, we had lots of SEs and ICs sitting around waiting for newbies to teach. (Lately, it seems as though new player sign-ups have picked up.) I can also tweak around the ratio of ICs to SEs to newbies if necessary. It seems as though the queue is carried by a small pool of ICs who selflessly volunteer whenever we're in danger of falling short, though.

I'll give a more thorough answer to your question when I have time tomorrow evening, Iecerint. Most of the problems can be solved with relatively minor tweaks. Part of why I made this thread is to get feedback on whether there

are

problems in the first place, though. This system is an artifact from when there weren't enough ICs to fill the old 2 IC/5 newbies setups, forcing us to resort to less experienced people. So it's possible it doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

(I used to be in favour of abolishing SEs, but now I like how they 1) enforce a healthy ratio of new players to experienced players, and 2) create a difference between "people who just like playing newbies" and "veterans willing to take on the responsibility of teaching people the game." But I'm open to restructuring it if someone finds a more optimal solution.)

[Mina]

You say this, then half an hour later you issue me a newbie game to mod

You're safe under the grandfather clause!

[xRECKONERx]

(shameless plug for making normal queue the newbie queue and creating a new queue for "standard" mafia games)
Other than that... I think, really, the IC/SE distinction is outdated. ICs really have no "authority" anymore, and SEs are usually just as experienced. I'd much prefer a system by which we had dedicated newbie versus non-newbie slots, and had the moderators of newbie games take on the burden of information/authority.

The IC should hypothetically be objective when referencing information as well, but many times, this introduces a problem in newbie games where people either rally behind the IC because information=authority=genuine, or people fear the IC and kill them first because they're so experienced. If the information given by an IC (in the context of their IC duties) is supposed to be objective and in a vacuum anyway, then why not just give the mod that responsibility?

EXAMPLE: The IC accuses someone of OMGUS. The IC then posts a link explaining what OMGUS means. This action, even if taken objectively, will be viewed in a biased light based on the other players' perception of the IC. Was it a game related thing? Was it not? How do you distinguish between the two in a way that isn't red texting? Whereas... if a moderator sees someone crying OMGUS then they can link relevant articles and explain things in a way that absolutely WON'T be viewed in any biased manner, since they're the moderator.

[xRECKONERx]

Here's my thing: I think playing in a normal game gets you the same thing playing in a newbie game does.... except, the newbie game is limited in its setup variation, leading to long term "optimal strategies". "Okay, we have a ____, which means ____ can't be in the setup!" Why should that be a thing in the newbie queue?

I know that's not what this thread is for, but at least the first step to correcting that would be to get rid of outdated things like IC/SE. I can understand a newbie's frustration when they show up on the site, having played mafia elsewhere, and are expected to join a queue called the "Newbie Queue" (which insinuates lack of knowledge) and play a "newbie role" (which puts them in an inferior standing to other players) and play a "newbie setup" (which has limited options and low variance).

[Aeronaut]

1) Do you think the current IC and SE system is working?

As someone whose recently started ICing, I really think it is. Queue-wise, I think you tweaking the amount needed in a game based on which is more in demand is working out well. As for in-game, I think it works pretty well, but it's not perfect. For example, there's always one or two newbies who always think that I'm lying to them about theory, (usually when they come from a different site and their meta is different there).

2) Are there any changes to the structure of the SE/IC system you think we should make?

I think that there should be a rule/guideline that allows newbies who are from a different site to enter the game as "New to the site", so that everyone knows that they aren't new to the game or idea of mafia, but that they sort of know what their doing. They could PM you (or said committee) and it would be worked out on a case-by-case basis, as you could just look at whatever site they're from and the games they've played.

That would take away some of the frustration of players who aren't new to the game, just new to the site. It would also help ICs to know whether those particular players actually need the help.

3) Should the requirements for being an SE and/or IC be more relaxed or more stringent--either quantitatively or qualitatively? (The former is the number of games played, and the latter the subjective skill level of the IC, which is something I often have to make judgement calls on and which I HATE HATE HATE doing.)

I think the experiance level for an IC should be brought down to 3 games, and then one SE game in which you are required to watch what the IC in the game says and does, the way they teach, etc. You'd also be expected to answer theory questions to the best of your abilities when the IC is absent / dead. That way, you'd have a good test run.

I also think that the name of "Semi-Experienced" players is incorrect, because of things like this post. I know that that particular player had some misconceptions, but he's actually a bit right about the word "semi-experienced". Newbies are going to assume that these players are hardened experienced players (I know I did in my first game), when in reality that player might still have no idea what their doing. I don't really know what a better name for it would be at this time, though.

I've heard ideas ranging from making newbies mandatory,

Not sure about this, actually. I think it's fine the way it is, because I feel like brand new players have the common sense to know that they are going to need to learn how to play first. If they don't, they don't.

to scrapping SEs,

Nah, just change the name.

to having a committee to evaluate ICs

This is a cool idea

to boosting the IC requirements to ten games,, to only letting the best players onsite IC, to letting almost anyone in, to making ICs invite-only, etc.

Seeing that the number of ICs is scarce as it is, I don't think limiting it even more would be very good for the queue.

Since too many cooks spoil the broth, I eventually want to take applications for a newbie committee to decide stuff like this, the set-up, the format of newbie surveys, etc. (I've wanted to do that for months, so I don't want to put a timeline on it in case it doesn't happen.) But it'd be nice to get a general idea of the site's consensus on this first.

Again, this is a really cool idea. I don't think you should be held responsible for doing everything on your own, a committee could help you deal with IC stuff and subjective game problems if you need help dealing with something.

[Zachrulez]

The whole IC thing gets over thought a lot in my opinion and because some people want it to be so much you have users who are in fact afraid to IC.

The point is more for newbies to be exposed to the site's style of play and an IC is only really someone who has experience playing this style of game.

There should never be a 'skill' requirement for ICs. Let people IC until they prove they can't handle it. I mean it's more important what an IC

doesn't do

than what they do.

Edit: If a more strict IC system is implemented, how will this effect people who already have IC status? Will they have to be approved as ICs again?

[quadz08]

I actually quite like the idea of moving the IC's "teaching" role to the mod.

[fferyllt]

As a mod, making sure your teaching really is neutral could be an interesting challenge.

[Iecerint]

I think keeping the IC as a player is a better choice for the reason ffery has indicated. New players should not perceive that we are a site with activist mods.

I always assumed that the point of SEs was that those slots would be less likely to flake and therefore reduce that negative aspect of newbie games for new players.

[xRECKONERx]

Activist mods????? Is that an actual word with actual meanings or is it just buzzwords

[xRECKONERx]

(I don't think a newbie committee is needed.)

[fferyllt]

I wasn't thinking of activist mods at all in my reply. The timing of advice can already be problematic. IME mods tend not to follow games as closely as players do. I think the mod commitment would be a lot higher than it currently is if you have to keep an eye out for theory questions and then make sure you're answering them in a neutral way, and then on top of that the natural gaps in online presence could have a disproportionate impact depending on the time zones of the questioners, and their alignments.

There's a tendency to second guess the mod in general in games IMO. This is less of a concern in newbie/open games, but I think putting a teaching component into the mod duties would introduce more second guessing than probably happens in a game where you can look at the player's alignment indicators and decide what you think of their advice.

As a player, I look for data in everything that occurs. In newbie games, I don't have to think hard about mod info, mod meta, etc, though once in a while something comes up that could be mod-specific. I think mods as instructors could affect that.

I've played a couple newbie games on a site where each team has a coach that players can PM with theory questions, site meta questions, game mechanics questions, etc. The coaches don't post in the game thread and they try to stay fairly neutral. It's a different sort of approach to teaching the game and familiarizing people with site meta. Although the coaches have to be very careful not to play the game through their students or give unfair hints, they don't have to worry about scrubbing the least hint of partisanship from their advice. They are on the side of the person who's asking them for advice, and the player can take what they say at face value.

[xRECKONERx]

Why would second guessing a mod be any worse than second guessing a player who actually, by the nature of their role, has an agenda in the game?

[fferyllt]

Why would second guessing a mod be any worse than second guessing a player who actually, by the nature of their role, has an agenda in the game?

They aren't necessarily worse, but the effects would be different, and at this point the differences are hard to anticipate.

[Zachrulez]

An agenda isn't really a problem as long as the IC explains what was going through their mind at the end of the game, and what optimal play would have been for both sides if it went against what they suggested in game.

[Kagami]

If you're exploring the idea of the mod filling a neutral teaching role, why not have a non-player observer fill that role?

[xRECKONERx]

I've also thrown that idea around before. I think the main issue is that it's hard to have a neutral party fill that role.