Scummies Ideas, Suggestions and Comments Thread

[Faraday]

I would prefer a system where ballots are given to players who either play or mod a lot of games. Perhaps ex scummy winners could be given ballots as well, as well as any site mods. Basically create an academy of the scummies. You get a wide diverse group of people who have votes, which nullifies the popularity contest aspect of a) the nomination process (which is really the worst part of the whole thing) and b) the small sample and biases of the tiny group of scummies judges.

*shrug* I don't know. My problem with the nomination process is that not everyone bothers to nominate at the moment. I generally think those that are nominated

usually

deserve it - but not all of those deserving get nominated, if that makes sense? I mean I don't really think nominations are done on popularity, for the most part. There's usually a strong foundation backing most of the noms. I don't actually think the wrong people win a large % of the time, I mean there are exceptions but generally from the pool nominated I go 'It'll probably be X/Y' and it usually is.


I'm probably not understanding your system right at the moment but: Is it that only these ballot holders would decide what was judged scummy worthy? So they'd propose it to the rest of the group and they'd all read it?

[SleepyKrew]

I've got ideas for formulas bouncing around in my head. Idk, maybe I can make TSQ like me.

[Faraday]

Well, when I conceived of it, it was as an additional award, which would essentially be awarded to anyone who broke a certain threshold in both a minimum number of nominations and percentage of games nominated. I guess it wouldn't work as a way to deal with the current awards.

Hmm, I don't think your idea is a bad one it's require a lot of work.

Basically the mod would submit those he felt performed best in the game? At the end of the year you'd look at those who had multiple good performances/consistnetly good as either alignment and it'd be between those? Does help those that play more games (you'd probably have to check games nominated/games played to have some sort of useful metric, really). The logistics of such a thing concern me - I also think that there are certain mods who I'd not particularly trust to do a good job, but then again you could probably weed that out by the judging process.

[Thestatusquo]

I remember one time I nominated a popular scummer for a complete joke reason that was clearly not scummy worthy, and like 2-3 people 2nded it.

I dont think the problem is necessarily with the nomination in the first place, though that is sometimes a problem, but I think that people generally just second nominations for their friends. I also agree with what you've said about not all deserving people getting nominated.

No, they all just get one vote for each catagory. I think if maybe you had a group of 30-50 people you will get enough ballots and it would be more accurate and less biased than the current system. It's the same way that MVP voting and such work in various sports.

[Faraday]

I also agree with what you've said about not all deserving people getting nominated.

This is my biggest problem with the current system. I'm not sure if your system fixes it, either. I unfortunately can't think of a way it *can* be fixed. Some people don't tend to nominate stuff for scummies so certain people playing well go unnoticed.

Eh. Your system has merit, there's obviously no perfect solution (sadly). Too tired to think through the cons of what you're proposing now tho'.

[xRECKONERx]

I like TSQ's system. I'm not sure how well it'd work, because why not just have the "Academy" choose the winner outright? They pick nominees/finalists, then who votes on it? It can't be the whole site, because not every user is going to read every game/player nominated and make an informed decision (that's why we have judges). It can't be the "Academy", because then it's basically just a small group deciding everything. I suppose it could be a completely separate group of judges who aren't involved in the balloting process, but that's a really inefficient way to do things.

I think it's a lot of work to ask mods to submit every game. I wouldn't mind doing something similar, though. For example, I recently suggested we break down "judging periods" into every three months instead of biannually. What if, when we did those three month blocks of judging, we got a list of all games run during those three months and PMed all the mods, asking them if they felt any of the players or moments in the game were award-worthy?

We can also make it a habit to post at endgame in completed games and remind people to nominate for the Scummies.

I do think it's a very small subset of people who actually do the nominating and it isn't perfectly representative of the site as a whole.

[zoraster]

Doing nominations or judging by a large group of people is seems like it would make it MORE likely to induce popularity and reputation contests. The more people to add, the less time they're going to actually spend going through it. The common denominator will be reputation.

[Thestatusquo]

In my system the academy DOES choose the winner outright, reck.

Zora, that is an interesting point, but I think its an implimentation problem. If you choose a good group of people, you'll be more likely to get a good result than the current system.

[Mr. Flay]

Again, how do you pick the people? I originally thought you meant the players in each game vote on the players in each game, which is perhaps workable (except for flaking). But what you're talking about now seems to combine the worst of both systems (favoritism and burden of reading).

[Thestatusquo]

Ok. New system. I just pick all the awards.

[Amrun]

I think it's a lot of work to ask mods to submit every game. I wouldn't mind doing something similar, though. For example, I recently suggested we break down "judging periods" into every three months instead of biannually. What if, when we did those three month blocks of judging, we got a list of all games run during those three months and PMed all the mods, asking them if they felt any of the players or moments in the game were award-worthy?

Three-month blocks is so much easier. I was a scummies judge this year and it was soooooooooo hard to read everything the way it should be read.

[IceGuy]

You're not going to find an objective rating system that rates Mafia play.

Sure, you can have objective criteria, and you can consider good play, but the two things are mutually exclusive. Mafia depends too much on the set-up, the teammates and the opponents to objectively separate one player's play from the other players' play. The Elo rating system already has a bunch of problems although this is probably one of the most widely-studied rating systems, and the set-up is always the same, and there are only two players.

In the end, it will always boil down to subjective ratings and awards (or objective ratings and awards that have absolutely nothing to do with actual good Mafia play).

To reduce the nomination problem, I propose introducing "little awards".

After every game, the mod has to reveal all game information. Then, an MVP vote will be held. Every player gets one vote, the mod gets three votes (in small games) or five votes (in large games). If one player gets more than two-thirds of the votes, they'll be named MVP, and automatically be nominated for a Scummy. The MVP awards could be displayed in a microbadge-like fashion in the user box next to posts.

This would solve several problems at once:
- Some mods forget to share game information with the town at the end. Under the new system, this would be mandated by the list mod and lead to a temporary mod blacklisting if not executed.
- The larger possibility of winning an MVP award as opposed to a Scummie is a bigger incentive to actually play well.
- Players would be reminded that there is a Scummies nomination possibility, and be more inclined to nominate.

[Quilford]

I really really like the idea of a MVP/game system.

[animorpherv1]

I really really like the idea of a MVP/game system.

[DeasVail]

Iceguy, would that be in addition to the scummies as they currently are?

[IceGuy]

Iceguy, would that be in addition to the scummies as they currently are?

Yes.

[Xalxe]

Can I just go on record that any sort of official win/loss record is a horrible EM-style idea?

Thanks.

[Oversoul]

I support Reckoner's three month breakdown judging group idea.

I do not support any suggestion that trivializes Mafia games to points or win loss.

[quadz08]

nth-ing

the MVP idea. I really like that.

[SleepyKrew]

MVP is a great idea.

[Amrun]

You're not going to find an objective rating system that rates Mafia play.

Sure, you can have objective criteria, and you can consider good play, but the two things are mutually exclusive. Mafia depends too much on the set-up, the teammates and the opponents to objectively separate one player's play from the other players' play. The Elo rating system already has a bunch of problems although this is probably one of the most widely-studied rating systems, and the set-up is always the same, and there are only two players.

In the end, it will always boil down to subjective ratings and awards (or objective ratings and awards that have absolutely nothing to do with actual good Mafia play).

To reduce the nomination problem, I propose introducing "little awards".

After every game, the mod has to reveal all game information. Then, an MVP vote will be held. Every player gets one vote, the mod gets three votes (in small games) or five votes (in large games). If one player gets more than two-thirds of the votes, they'll be named MVP, and automatically be nominated for a Scummy. The MVP awards could be displayed in a microbadge-like fashion in the user box next to posts.

This would solve several problems at once:
- Some mods forget to share game information with the town at the end. Under the new system, this would be mandated by the list mod and lead to a temporary mod blacklisting if not executed.
- The larger possibility of winning an MVP award as opposed to a Scummie is a bigger incentive to actually play well.
- Players would be reminded that there is a Scummies nomination possibility, and be more inclined to nominate.

The site I started on used to have this, and it really motivated players to try hard and rack up MVP awards. Only good play got awarded, so there was really no downside.

This is how we did it:

-The mod either just decided who was MVP and Honorable Mentions, if any.

-The mod let the playerlist decide by itself via votes.

-The mod narrowed it down and let everyone else pick the player.

I have to say that it was a LITTLE more objective, allowing the players themselves to pick, there rather than here because those games averaged fifty players all the way up to 120.

[zoraster]

Yeah except if the goal is to reduce reputation or popularity in giving roles...

[Amrun]

I've found that with less prestigious awards, underdogs are actually more popular. And then, once they have a lot of those awards - voi la, recognition. Just my personal experience.

[Mr. Flay]

Have stolen the MVP idea and am kicking it around in coder forum. Really like it.

[xRECKONERx]

KittyMo actually did the MVP voting thing in this game and it added a lot to the game, in my personal opinion. I may try it with my upcoming mini normal.