What does it mean to be normal?

[chamber]

3 months is arbitrary,

You could probably reduce it to average mini normal run time or some such.

[chamber]

Which appears to be about a month. Could bump it to 6 weeks for review time as well, and it's still halving it.

[Firebringer]

Running my own numbers on my finished 5 games the average Normal game is 44 days.
About a month and a half.

[N]

I don't think the problem is time in review; that has been pretty constant (except for a few outliers). The problem is that there aren't enough active NRG members, so mods are waiting longer to actually start their reviews. There is a higher player demand then there used to be, so games are filling quicker.

Spoiler:

[ika]

I don't think the problem is time in review; that has been pretty constant (except for a few outliers). The problem is that there aren't enough active NRG members, so mods are waiting longer to actually start their reviews. There is a higher player demand then there used to be, so games are filling quicker.

Spoiler:

Well then how come we arent trying to reach out and get new people? Not to sound jerk about it but last time it was "hey come join NGR" was a while ago and now I dont partially see any reach outs to try to get new people right now?

[N]

it was last month

[zoraster]

I'll just say that while the review process IS an impediment, it's often the mod themselves who hold up the process. They'll get comments and then not come back in a timely manner.

The question to me is whether we're not getting enough new mods because of the wait period (in which case our retention isn't as good as it used to be) or because they don't feel compelled to run a game, which is what I actually think is going on. That latter reason is not going to be solved by a lower time period.

I've mentioned this in a few places before, but I think the balkanization of our queues has not served us especially well. It has given us variety of games, which is good in a vacuum, but at the expense of providing a steady stream of games and leading to feeling like a "deader" site than we actually are.

I suspect come the new year after we figure out whether the Blitz queue has a place permanently there will be a reorganization of the queues. I wouldn't waste a ton of time discussing that here as I promise I'll ask for user input before doing anything like that, but start to mull it over in your head. I don't want to get too involved about it before we figure out whether these shorter deadline games need to be found a place too.

[chamber]

This is a complete tangent at this point, but I've been suspecting you may have unintentionally sabotaged your data by announcing the blitz queue as a trial run. I know I've been strongly considering joining one just ot get one in before the period ends. If others have had similar thoughts it will be hard to draw conclusions from the data we get.

[zoraster]

It's certainly possible, but I don't think it would be worth it to pretend it was otherwise as people would get angry if I announced 6 weeks later that it was done.

Anyway, many of the things we're testing aren't likely to be contaminated by that.

[Davsto]

A likely reason as to why the other modding queues are so empty is that it is required to mod a mini normal/open before anything else. The former has a long review process which can seem boring, while the latter has an enormous modding queue. This could very much put some people off modding, or at least hugely increase the time in which a user can start modding micro/theme/large games.

[BBmolla]

Is there a scenario where a normal would be allowed to have only one VT? Cause if not you should sharpen that rule imo

Wrong thread but I thought I'd mention it.

[Cheery Dog]

The rule currently states that the game must have at least one Vanilla Townie. I assume it being role madness is something that might get announced when it enters signups.

[quadz08]

Is there a scenario where a normal would be allowed to have only one VT? Cause if not you should sharpen that rule imo

Wrong thread but I thought I'd mention it.

Normal in a purely by-the-letter sense, but unlikely to pass the reviewers' eye test.

[BBmolla]

Is there a scenario where a normal would be allowed to have only one VT? Cause if not you should sharpen that rule imo

Wrong thread but I thought I'd mention it.

Normal in a purely by-the-letter sense, but unlikely to pass the reviewers' eye test.

That's absurd in my opinion. What is the point in having guidelines that won't get a setup passed?

[quadz08]

Normalcy will always be subjective. We had a discussion specifically about the required number of VTs and decided to leave it at one - to get the point across that ALL PRs won't be allowed, but also allow for wiggle room / meta fluctuations / etc. It's conceivable that someone could present a setup with 8 normal PRs and a VT and we'd pass it - it's just unlikely.

[Hinduragi]

Might want to mention that somewhere visible for future mods. It seems like a long and tedious process as is and I can see newer mods wanting to try out a PR heavy game when they start out. This may not be necessary by virtue of what percentage you guys have already seen with this rule but can't hurt nonetheless.

As for what I think of as normal---

I'm much more in agreement with you (whether I'd use those particular criteria or not) that the NRG should be shaping normal games to provide a consistent, predictable (in a broad sense of the word) experience rather than just a collection of "common roles" as that's super circular.

I couldn't have said it better. While some of the current guidelines drive normals away from the unpredictable, I don't think it should be based just on the roles. I think the real underlying question is: what guidelines can you really set to define normals? Of chamber's criteria, "taking any one action shouldn't be too punishing" and "the emphasis should be on the day play" seems a bit ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation.

[zoraster]

Well, I'm actually in favor of a fairly expansive white list of roles because that's the way normal guidelines are applied in a practical sense (along with a few other rules). The question is how those roles are determined (and that's where the "what is normal is normal" vs. the "what is normal is what we decide normal is" camps fight). We don't want to get into an interpretive argument every time someone comes in with a setup. Clarity is a good thing for players and mods.

Those in the NRG are probably aware of my distaste for the so-called "greylist" for precisely this reason.

[Zachrulez]

A likely reason as to why the other modding queues are so empty is that it is required to mod a mini normal/open before anything else. The former has a long review process which can seem boring, while the latter has an enormous modding queue. This could very much put some people off modding, or at least hugely increase the time in which a user can start modding micro/theme/large games.

I think the long review times correlate more to heavy pressure to review for balance as well. It's actually really easy to make sure a game fits the normal guidelines. It's a balance review that can take a small eternity.

Normalcy will always be subjective. We had a discussion specifically about the required number of VTs and decided to leave it at one - to get the point across that ALL PRs won't be allowed, but also allow for wiggle room / meta fluctuations / etc. It's conceivable that someone could present a setup with 8 normal PRs and a VT and we'd pass it - it's just unlikely.

That setup should pass as normal. The guidelines only require one VT. If you're subjectively debating the definition of normal, then that's a clear problem in the review process. The process should be a clear cut yes/no on whether a game fits the site guidelines for a normal game, and the things that cause the answer to be no should be very clear and quick issues to address.

I'm also assuming that balance reviews are still not required, but that may have changed because I'm not actively paying attention to site policy any longer.

[chamber]

Well, I'm actually in favor of a fairly expansive white list of roles because that's the way normal guidelines are applied in a practical sense (along with a few other rules). The question is how those roles are determined (and that's where the "what is normal is normal" vs. the "what is normal is what we decide normal is" camps fight). We don't want to get into an interpretive argument every time someone comes in with a setup. Clarity is a good thing for players and mods.

Those in the NRG are probably aware of my distaste for the so-called "greylist" for precisely this reason.

The way I see it, the greylist should be to allow innovation in normals. If a role is known it should probably be sorted one way or the other already. And that's not how it's used atm.

[N]

That setup should pass as normal. The guidelines only require one VT. If you're subjectively debating the definition of normal, then that's a clear problem in the review process. The process should be a clear cut yes/no on whether a game fits the site guidelines for a normal game, and the things that cause the answer to be no should be very clear and quick issues to address.

They are guidelines, not rules. Of course things are going to be subjective, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[BROseidon]

I think that Chamber's philosophy is the better one because it means that bad design trends don't get pushed into normalcy (not that that hasn't already happened - the fact that miller/godfather/ninja are still normal is absolutely terrible).

[Iecerint]

You should clarify the OP to differentiate between what we think it SHOULD mean and what we think it DOES mean.

Myko is definitely right in practice, grounds being that normal now is not the same as normal in 2009.

[Zachrulez]

That setup should pass as normal. The guidelines only require one VT. If you're subjectively debating the definition of normal, then that's a clear problem in the review process. The process should be a clear cut yes/no on whether a game fits the site guidelines for a normal game, and the things that cause the answer to be no should be very clear and quick issues to address.

They are guidelines, not rules. Of course things are going to be subjective, and there is nothing wrong with that.

"This page describes what is considered to be "Normal" on mafiascum.net. These guidelines are intended to enforce common expectations of games, such that all games called "Normal" are reasonably balanced and not deviant from what one would reasonably expect in a standard game of Mafia.
If you are moderating on mafiascum.net in the Newbie, Open, or Normal queues, your game must follow the appropriate guidelines below."

Unless we don't feel like following it.

[BBmolla]

I agree with Zach.

[talah]

Nothing is too unpredictable.

Sorry for reading the first post and nothing else yet, but I think the above is the essence of "Normal".

You can expect a curveball or two but if it's something completely unexpected then it may be unfair.
However,
If we can always expect something unexpected in a Normal then where does the delineation lie between Open and Normal?
Or Normal and Theme?

Are Normals more suited to having exactly *nothing* unpredictable then?

(egh now I'll read, sorry :P )