Survivor Review Board: Discussion

[Chevre]

This is a fun thread! I'm not sure how welcome I am here, seeing how many issues are things I've done, but I do have a few things to say:

First, I think a major thing is that designing a Survivor and running a Survivor are two different monsters, two different battles. I get wonderful, innovative ideas for Survivors all the time, and I personally think I design a good game. I also think Blackberry falls into this category, where we can design a really neat experience. But then, we've both fallen short on moderating. It breaks my heart, but I know I can never be expected to moderate again because I just can't do it. I guess what I'm saying essentially is that what we consider a "moderator" is the combination of two roles: the "moderator" insinuated by the title but also the "designer" who makes the game, and, as these moderators, we do it to get a new sort of enjoyment from the game. I love the designing aspect because I can put things into place and think about all the scenarios that could follow afterward. I guess, honestly, I don't like that long term commitment as things don't unfold perfectly and I have to deal with all the little scrutinies I couldn't envision. So what's all this mean? I think we should maybe split the process more, which I guess would definitely happen with the advent of a Survivor Review Committee (or whatever, tbh I was kind of skiimming). But, we must also remember that a good setup doesn't guarantee good moderation. I had planned out Summertime completely, and it probably would've passed a review, but I still abandoned it (thankfully Shiidaji took up the reins, forever my thanks.)

As for innovation in challenges...well, let's be honest, Survivors have been running on MafiaScum for almost if not ten years. Even the real show is repeating challenges, and we are just a simulation without the physicality. Looking at Summertime, I think the most innovative challenge was the worldoftext shelter build, which was really just another twist on the category of shelter-building challenges. I think that is really the best we can do; of course, the challenge ideas still left to be discovered...are to be discovered! But (and note I am obviously fairly removed from recent Survivors), I think the use of basic challenges such as RAF, without any sort of twisting to the mechanics, is lazy and should be used sparingly if at all. And as has been mentioned, there also seems to be an apprehension from players toward more creative challenges; Summertime is definitely not the first time I've seen a fashion or other post-a-picture challenge go sour and unsubmitted.

[Chevre]

Alright, this has gone quiet so I'm going to put the Koopamod hat back on and propose a really simple solution: from now on, any large game, whether it be Survivor, Big Brother, or a new format must be either reviewed by somebody who is not playing or should have a co-moderator. Reviewers should be listed in the OP of any game threads as having signed off on the final version of the game. I think that if that policy is put into place, it'll help alleviate concerns that people have.

Topics for discussion:
- Can you, at any point, circumvent this process if you have proven you don't suck at things?
- Should any new idea be reviewed, even if it's not a large game? Example: I have a new board game I'd like to run, should someone be required to review it?
- Should there be some "approved" list of reviewers, or is a review accepted from anybody (at players' discretion, naturally)?
- Should I prevent a game from running until it has a review?
- Should I have a "naughty list" of mods who should maybe have a second reviewer, or is that just me being an elitist fuck?

Discuss.

- I don't think so. I think an extra pair of eyes can always weasel out any little flaws, and I imagine there will always be available eyes. Even if you are experienced, an extra pair of eyes doesn't hurt anyone.
- No. I think the important thing is for games like this to not have huge gaps or boredom. The reason we're considering this is because Survivor-Types got so popular; if another style were to get popular, then maybe them too.
- I think so.
- ...No, because I think it was stated earlier that players were still going to join even if it didn't have the Stamp of Approval, and then if they complain, it is their fault for risking it. And should the moderator not get enough players without, they could just get a review and then try again.
- I don't think so, but I think multiple reviewers, if it happens, should be noted.

Considering the definition of "large game", I think it has to be a loose definition, but that doesn't mean it won't be easy to discern. Also, if anyone is truly worried about their idea, I imagine they can get it reviewed and remedied for full certainty.

[Chevre]

Once again this thread seems to have settled without conclusion. I feel like the Mish Mash community always comes up with great ideas like this (see: numerous attempts for the Mashies) but they are never fully realized. As someone who has had a role in disappointing the players of Survivors, I want to see this happen so that less users have to experience such a system failure.

[Chevre]

Hooray! That sounds lovely!