Weird Numbering of Alive Section in OP

[mastin2]

Guilty as charged.
My "players in the game" uses the list=1 tag.
My "players alive" is done manually.
This, of course, is backwards to your preference.

But I got into the habit of doing this as a way of marking where that player had been originally. Not sure if that makes sense, but it basically is, "this player was there, but died, so now...isn't there". The numbers featured in the deaths, when I have multiple deaths during the night, also serve as a nice way of letting people know, "hey, you know these multiple deaths that occurred? They're listed in PLAYERLIST ORDER, not ordered by something you can try to game". (Because some players are in fact dumb enough to wonder, "why is X's death listed before Y's when they died at the same time?")

I usually just have the alive/dead in one comprehensive list as such;

Players
1. pirate mollie

2. borkjerfkin

Town Cop

3. kuribo
4. Venmar

5. Nachomamma8

Mafia Roleblocker

6. fferylt
7. Thor665

8. Bellaphant

Town Innocent Child

9. MsMarangal

Town Vanilla

This format is a pet peeve of mine for two reasons. One, you either have to spoil THE ENTIRE PLAYERLIST to hide game spoilers from those who don't want them (not ideal!), or two, you have to give game spoilers to those who don't want them (not ideal!). I very much prefer Alive/Dead spoilers. Usually separate, but that's not a requirement. This is basically my second-largest pet peeve, next to moderators not noting replacements especially if the slot has been lynched. (Sure, Nachomamma8 when lynched was the occupant of that slot, but what if there were two others? Are they also listed? If not...welcome to LARGEST pet peeve of mine.)

[Majiffy]

I care more about having all the information for my players readily available in the OP than not spoiling the game for non-players reading the game after it's over.

[pieguyn]

The numbers featured in the deaths, when I have multiple deaths during the night, also serve as a nice way of letting people know, "hey, you know these multiple deaths that occurred? They're listed in PLAYERLIST ORDER, not ordered by something you can try to game".

this is a very large part of the reason I include slot numbers in flips. in the Alive list, though, I usually just list the players' names without any numbers or other special formatting.

EDIT:

Those numbers are PLAYER_SLOT_IDs and for the game mod's benefit rather than the list mod's benefit.

I can also say I agree with this and that even though I don't make it obvious when running games, assigning a numeric ID to each slot does, in fact, help me mentally keep track of games I run. I can remember everything much, much more easily when I can associate everything about a slot to a single number, instead of associating it to its original player or abstractly distinguishing the slots in my mind.

[Toomai]

Can you elaborate?

do you just need to be able to differentiate between newbies, SEs, and ICs, or do you need to know newbie_1, newbie_2, newbie_3, etc?

It's mostly for technical reasons to be honest. The data is in the form of seperated blocks of ["slot 2 role is Doctor", "slot 2 died N2", "slot 2 was replaced 1 time", "slot 2 is newbie"]. It's a lot easier to construct the stat calculations with that as opposed to something like ["the doctor died N2", "the doctor was replaced 1 time"].

(disclaimer: I'm using Excel instead of an actual database, but the general principle is the same)

[Zachrulez]

I don't think I ever numbered player lists aside from the beginning player list. It's actually quite annoying to deal with numbering in living and dead lists that frequently change.

Edit: Ok I lied. I USED to do it in exactly the way it bothers Zoraster. Maybe I should start doing it again.

[zoraster]

Well, that's why I included exactly how to do it so that it's not annoying in my OP.

[Zachrulez]

Well I think the thinking was slot 9 is always slot 9, even when people die.

I just stopped numbering changeable lists at some point. (The reason was probably for the same reason it bothers you but with a lot less thought involved. )

[Marquis]

COMPLETE PLAYERLIST

1. a
   
2. b
   
3. c
   
4. d
   
5. e
   
6. g (replaced f)

ALIVE

Spoiler:

1. c
   
2. d
   
3. e
   
4. g (replaced f)

DEAD

Spoiler:

1. a
   
2. b

i dont get how hard it is to make a simple c+p list that includes spoilers as necessary

[mykonian]

hahaha

You are great zor.

[FakeGod]

I'm not convinced.

I think Zor Tester would have done it better.

[Magua]

This thread is as wrong and bad as it was the last time you made it. Those numbers are PLAYER_SLOT_IDs and for the game mod's benefit rather than the list mod's benefit.

I'm pretty confident that virtually no one does it for that reason because that reason is... eccentric to say the least. Because I have literally never heard anyone, whether in reviews or post game or whatever refer to slots as "slot 8" or whatever. Because no one does it that way.

I literally do it that way for that exact reason. In fact, that's the only reason I can ever imagine you would find someone using that kind of numbering in their dead/alive lists.

[zoraster]

Do you really? I don't recall ever seeing that in your setups, but maybe I just never focused on the number.

Regardless, it's not helpful information for players, right?

[Magua]

Example

Seems like the number you really want is the number alive or dead, which I put in the spoiler header, so my guess is you just never expanded the spoiler?

---

No, I don't think it's particularly helpful information for players (though I do use player-slot-ordering for basically anything that involves more than one player name, so it does affect how some information is presented to them).

But, on the other hand, straight number ordering doesn't seem particularly helpful to them either, so. =P

[zoraster]

Yours is fine because you put the total in the title/spoiler tag. My original post in this thread discusses this.

[Magua]

Yeah. It was more the point where you said you couldn't understand why anyone would ever number players that way. Also the use of "literally." =P

Also I just like making trouble.

[Raskolnikov]

I was considering replacing into a game a while ago but decided against it because the VCs/wagons were sorted by player slot like this (leading wagon wasn't on top), also no hammer VC.

[Ircher]

I was considering replacing into a game a while ago but decided against it because the VCs/wagons were sorted by player slot like this (leading wagon wasn't on top), also no hammer VC.

Thats a horrendous reason not to replace in.

Keepng a lst of all players is easier to manage than the abridged VCs. Furthermoore, having too cut and paste stuff on a mobile device is quiite a nuuisance, so resorting things isn't worth the effort.

There are several ways of doing VCs, so stop thinking there is only one way.

(That said, any game that uses the abridged (zero votes cut out) version always has the wagons ordered as far as I've seen.)

[N]

I was considering replacing into a game a while ago but decided against it because the VCs/wagons were sorted by player slot like this (leading wagon wasn't on top), also no hammer VC.

Thats a horrendous reason not to replace in.

Keepng a lst of all players is easier to manage than the abridged VCs. Furthermoore, having too cut and paste stuff on a mobile device is quiite a nuuisance, so resorting things isn't worth the effort.

There are several ways of doing VCs, so stop thinking there is only one way.

(That said, any game that uses the abridged (zero votes cut out) version always has the wagons ordered as far as I've seen.)

"the mod is shit" is a great reason not to replace in.

[zoraster]

yeah... no hammer VC is disqualifying.

[mastin2]

I was considering replacing into a game a while ago but decided against it because the VCs/wagons were sorted by player slot like this (leading wagon wasn't on top), also no hammer VC.

On that note: I really hate when mods order wagons by the "first person who was voted" order rather than "person who has the most votes" order.

Now, I understand the logic between both those formats.
If you list ALL the players in a votecount, you're giving a convenient way of letting players know, "hey, these are all the valid votes you can cast", most commonly seen in "zeroth votecounts". (What are zeroth votecounts? Votecounts made when there's no votes been cast at the beginning of a phase. They see almost zero use

except

for mods who use the All-players-in-votecount format.)

If you list the wagons in the order of the voters, you're letting people know, "that wagon came first".

These are both things that are all nice and fine and all (I include them in the extras section of my votecounts), but what I

really

need is the HIGHEST visibility for who the lead wagons are...which is only possible by seeing them at the top. I'd rather instantly know, "oh hey that player's at L-3" than know "oh, these are players I can vote" or "oh, this player was voted first". (Especially since the latter is something that can be a vote park for an entire phase which can get ridiculous if it's a vanity vote.)

Also, ideally (I sometimes forget), I will quote the hammer vote (or, at least, link to it) when I have confirmed it was a hammer, and then provide the final VC after that. These are things that you automatically need to do as a mod. (You should be double-checking your votes all the time. Ideally--I can understand not doing this all the time--you track down every player's vote, and make absolutely SURE they haven't cast any vote since that one, as to make absolutely 100% sure lynch majority has been reached.) So, why not--in the process of doing them--share with your players what you were already writing down?

(Then again, I put more work into my VCs than the average moderator, so...maybe I'm just a little bit of an oddity for how much I give them.)

[kuribo]

Any ordering of a vote count other than "most to least votes" is objectively the wrong way to do it.

Also who the fuck doesn't VC on hammer? That's lazy.

[Papa Zito]

This thread is as wrong and bad as it was the last time you made it. Those numbers are PLAYER_SLOT_IDs and for the game mod's benefit rather than the list mod's benefit.

thank you Vi you always say the right things it's uncanny

[Postie]

I've just been keeping the players being voted in my VCs in the order they are in the OP. What are the benefits to ordering them from most to least votes?

Also what Marquis said.

[zoraster]

The benefit is being able to quickly see and understand who is closest to lynch.

That said, I like the method of doing it by OP order (which is alphabetic for me usually) because it makes ISOing the mod to see a single player's wagon easier.

It also helps that my method for tracking votes is much easier if I don't resort every time.

[Ircher]

I link to votes, so cut-pasting is more of a pain.

It also makes error correction easier.