Mafiascum.net

honestly have to suppose you probably haven’t really read the thread if you can pop in here of all places and say something like “I'm not sure what more you are looking for”
we aren’t exactly making it a mystery

Could the mods maybe say which problems they are working on addressing?

Hi. I did read this thread but I happened to be extremely busy when it initially came up. I'm happy to answer any tough questions & catch any rotten tomatoes. There's a lot here so I'll have to go back and see what all was brought up.

Anyway, from memory, someone mentioned closed-door volunteer work. I think it's an interesting idea to move some of the hidden boards to the public. For example, I would have no problem moving the coding forum into the open and making it read-only unless you join the group & seeing how that works out. The only issue is we don't actually use it a ton anymore, primarily because we use apps like Slack & Discord to communicate now.

Someone asked why we aren't using the automated signups that we began working on. That project was worked on by several people over many many years. It was close to being done, but Chamber, the last person to really work on it & the only active coder at the time, was not able to get it out the door. Once myself & others became active again, we decided we would work on upgrading the board first, as it would make that project a lot easier. Chamber and I talked about it just two days ago and we decided he would work on porting it over to the new forum codebase while the rest of us worked on completing the upgrade, which IMO is the best possible solution.

Status on the board upgrade? It's getting very close. We have one or two more features to complete, skinning & then it's just testing. Want to help out? You're more than welcome.

I think that in general, having open boards for behind the scenes work is a good idea.
Even having them read only makes knowledge that these groups exist a lot more accessible than they are now.

In post 176, brassherald wrote:Could the mods maybe say which problems they are working on addressing?

As someone in this thread mentioned earlier, we're having a meeting sometime in the next few weeks. I personally would not be opposed to publicizing the big picture items that we talk about.

The is now public and read-only by default. We probably need a better name for it and should reorganize things a little bit.

Sounds like good stuff Kison, thank you!

These are excellent steps.

In post 179, Kison wrote:We probably need a better name for it

Barrel of Monkeys

ok yes that's motivating

This is great, thank you Kison.

Unannounced, but implemented: art forum is public now, I believe.

And wiki forum is going public.

Both very appreciated!

Yep. I just moved the Art(fairly inactive) & Wiki(new & active) forums under Site Development(formerly Omerta). The same read-only restriction applies here.

Things could shuffle around a bit, but I think this will work for the time being.

In post 142, xRECKONERx wrote:Automated sign ups is the only thing that will fix the queue issues (or I guess one could argue more reliable listmods... But I don't think people should expect someone to spend every day doing their job and listmodding)

I'll also point out there are a lot of people here complaining who I haven't seen apply for open positions so /shrug

This is something I've honestly thought about at times but honestly with the vitriol that many of the users on this site show toward any kind of administration I really don't want that headache. I'm not sure if there's anyone who's otherwise willing that feels the same way as me.

I've moved everything previously in into a subforum. Site Development is now just a parent board housing these subsections.

This still leaves us with several behind-the-scenes groups. I know people mentioned that it's very difficult to figure out what groups even exist & what the process for joining is. ErrantParabola had an idea that I like: we can build an index of these groups(as well as the now-public ones) as a stickied thread in Site Development. That would give a quick picture of everything we have.

Posted a detailed update on where we stand with the board upgrade . Feel free to follow along. I'll try to update every week or two.

In post 1, Mathdino wrote:
There is no clear avenue to join the NRG right now, and there hasn't been for years. So it's hard to see the attempts to solve the review bottleneck as being in good faith.

This is actually something I might be interested in doing but yeah I'm not aware of any avenue to become an NRG reviewer. I assume they're simply asked to do it.

Re: NRG.

Since the change to normal rules, things are generally pretty un-hectic. People are welcome to apply (pming me instead of Nexus, of course) - while there's no strong need for reviewers at this exact moment, it's always nice to have a good pool and have more experienced voices to weigh in on changes.

I'll probably add some blurb in the normal queue thread about it.

things are a catastrophe backstage, complete breakdown of the social order

can't even get some people to submit role pms for setups

So I'm guessing that's a request to hurry up with role pm standardization

I'll role PM standardize right here:

Welcome [Name] you are a [role] look up what you can do on the wiki and start playing already.

In post 195, brassherald wrote:I'll role PM standardize right here:

Welcome [Name] you are a [role] look up what you can do on the wiki and start playing already.

This is why when, as often as I'm able to, my role PM formatting will feature a link to a role.
E.g. .

I can't always give it because sometimes I modify roles (if a role is sufficiently modified, linking to the wiki of the role may be misleading), sometimes there's no wiki for it, sometimes the wiki for it doesn't match even remotely the role I'm using because is out of date (this will soon be fixed tho), and on some very rare occasions, sometimes I simply wasn't aware that the role I was using actually had a wiki page and thought for sure it did not. But whenever I can, I do.

In post 196, mastina wrote:

In post 195, brassherald wrote:I'll role PM standardize right here:

Welcome [Name] you are a [role] look up what you can do on the wiki and start playing already.

This is why when, as often as I'm able to, my role PM formatting will feature a link to a role.
E.g.

Mafia

Rolecop

,

Town

Cop

,

Alignment

Role

.

I can't always give it because sometimes I modify roles (if a role is sufficiently modified, linking to the wiki of the role may be misleading), sometimes there's no wiki for it, sometimes the wiki for it doesn't match even remotely the role I'm using because

the wiki

is out of date (this will soon be fixed tho), and on some very rare occasions, sometimes I simply wasn't aware that the role I was using actually had a wiki page and thought for sure it did not. But whenever I can, I do.

Stealing this idea.

In post 193, RadiantCowbells wrote:things are a catastrophe backstage, complete breakdown of the social order

can't even get some people to submit role pms for setups

Not that I disagree with the mandate, but the standardized role pms should have been ready before the mandate was issued to standardize the role pms.

In the meantime any role that has a sample pm entry in the wiki could be used in a pinch.

Sup.

I'll be around starting tonight & am planning to devote all time to MS this weekend. Plan is to work with Chamber & anyone else who is around on the upgrade(we did the same last weekend). Will update the by the end of the weekend.

To tackle another common complaint in this thread, I'm hoping to finish the directory of contributor user groups & how to join them and sticky the thread in the Site Development board. I got about 75% done but I need to hunt down information for the areas I'm less familiar with.

If you want anything looked at, don't be shy. I'll also be on Discord.