Private Topics Discussion (Now with Mish Mash)

This forum is for discussion related to the game.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #10 (isolation #0) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:02 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 0, zoraster wrote:
Conduct in Private Topics will be held to the same standard as other MS topics. If asked, the moderator of a private topic MUST give access to the topic to listmods and discussion moderators.
Can you explain why a discussion mod or a listmod would want to force me to give them access to a private topic? If I'm using it for a scum topic/mason/ect you can understand why I'd be reluctant to grant access to those topics to anyone beyond the players necessary. (Especially given that some listmods actually do play.)

If I have to allow a site mod to look at private topics whenever they want, what's the advantage of switching from quicktopics? I still have complete control over who has access there.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #13 (isolation #1) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:18 am

Post by Zachrulez »

I don't want to sound rude here but I can handle anything related to cheating and abuse as a mod of my own game, and I don't really want to be forced to give others access under any circumstances.

Regardless of commitment to game integrity, it makes me nervous even introducing an avenue of temptation.

Which is kind of a shame because I do like the idea of site based private topics otherwise, I just don't think I can use them with that clause there.

Pedit:
Listmods could ALWAYS do this with QTs. If someone wanted to report activity in a QT, they simply linked a listmod to the thread. Given the restricted access with PTs, just linking won't work. You actually have considerably more control over knowing who has access to your thread now.
I can't see how I wouldn't punish one of my players for doing that. (Not reporting me, but linking the QT without my approval.)
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #16 (isolation #2) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:45 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 14, zoraster wrote:First, using QTs does absolutely nothing to stop what you see as potential abuse on our parts. A player reporting abuse can simply link us to the thread. This happens somewhat regularly. With PTs, at least you're aware when a listmod needs access.
They can, but if I get contacted by a listmod over the contents of anything in a QT and have a good idea who did it. That player is going to be reprimanded because they are in violation of game rules regarding giving out private QT links.
In post 14, zoraster wrote:Second, if a listmod asks for permission and it's someone in the game, you're going to (rightly) make a stink afterwards. Listmods don't want that, and any listmod that used that to abuse his position would be removed as a listmod. Again, you know exactly who has access.
My concern isn't a list mod transparently attempting to cheat in a game. I'm worried about alts in this instance. Yes, it's probably mostly a theoretical concern.
In post 14, zoraster wrote:Frankly, PTs should alleviate this concern -- not strengthen it.
I'm having trouble seeing it.
In post 14, zoraster wrote:This isn't some power grab. This is just to make sure that we don't get abuse where people say "neener neener" behind a Private Topic. That said, if you still feel more comfortable with QTs, we aren't going to make you use PTs.
I'm not accusing you guys of a power grab here. I just find the clause concerning for the reasons I laid out.

Edit:
In post 15, zoraster wrote:
In post 13, Zachrulez wrote:I can't see how I wouldn't punish one of my players for doing that. (Not reporting me, but linking the QT without my approval.)
I understand you are concerned with this, and I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh here, but if you punished a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention (unless that listmod was a player, obviously), I am fairly confident we would not allow you to moderate again.
I do see that it's a very thin line, but the example we're talking about is a situation that indicates that the player is making no effort to go through me to resolve the problem. (Given that I'm describing acting on learning that the quicktopic was given out without my knowledge, it's safe to assume I wasn't aware there was even a problem in the first place.) If the list mod can't see my concern in that instance that a player is acting in a way that threatens game integrity, I don't think I'd want to mod again anyway.
Last edited by Zachrulez on Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #18 (isolation #3) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:52 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 17, Faraday wrote:
In post 16, Zachrulez wrote:They can, but if I get contacted by a listmod over the contents of anything in a QT and have a good idea who did it. That player is going to be reprimanded because they are in violation of game rules regarding giving out private QT links.
Someone reporting something to the listmod is breaking the rules? :?
I hope someone understands the point I'm trying to make here.

The player does not need to give a link to a private topic to the listmod without my permission or knowledge in order to report something to the listmods. They should be reporting it to me anyways. If they feel I'm not acting they can make the list mod aware of abusive action or moderating and I can discuss the situation with the listmod. Through the discussion I may find that it's worthwhile to share the QT with the list mod. Following that process is important to me, the former process neuters my ability to mod the game myself.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #22 (isolation #4) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:28 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 19, zoraster wrote:Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked.
Honestly what I'm worried about here is taking action against a player for breaking game rules and my action being interpreted as retaliation. (Which is how Faraday seemed to interpret my resolve to take action in the example I laid out.)
In post 19, zoraster wrote:Generally speaking, we DO want a player to work through a moderator first. We frequently refer matters back to moderators when they come to us. Most things are best resolved at the game mod level as it is usually quicker and listmods wield sledgehammers -- game mods can use a scalpel. But that doesn't mean players are breaking rules by involving listmods. It is sometimes necessary.

As for why PTs alleviate your concern: you have control over who sees the thread. I could have access to all of your QTs and you would never know it. If I have access to your PT, it's because you gave it to me. The fact that a listmod can compel you to add them may stick in your craw, but at least you know they're doing it. If you don't buy it, feel free to use QTs.

For what it's worth, I don't want it to come down to a situation where we force a mod to give us access. I'm sure we'll politely ask first. I want to work with game moderators to make sure their games run smoothly and provide players a great time. I try to the best of my abilities to be a resource for game moderators rather than a harsh supervisor. But at the end of the day, we will keep tools at our disposal that make sure we can do our job.
With a QT you shouldn't have access unless I give it to you. If a player gives you access without my knowledge and consent, I am interpreting that action as a violation of my game rules against outside discussion of the game. I don't think the act of reporting an action to a list mod is punishable per say, I just don't think the action of reporting justifies breaking the game rules.

That said, your explanation gives me a better understanding of the workings of private topics.

So if a player links someone who doesn't have access, I assume something comes up saying they can't view the thread?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #24 (isolation #5) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:53 am

Post by Zachrulez »

On another matter, due to all the requirements that list mods have for what needs to be ready for review, I actually design the entirety of my games through quicktopic. Is there any consideration for access to creating private topics for this purpose?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #29 (isolation #6) » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:27 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 26, zoraster wrote:
In post 24, Zachrulez wrote:On another matter, due to all the requirements that list mods have for what needs to be ready for review, I actually design the entirety of my games through quicktopic. Is there any consideration for access to creating private topics for this purpose?
yes. That's actually #2 on the policy list. Ask the appropriate listmod for access to create a review thread. If you already have access (because you're on one of the mod lists), you may create a review thread already.
I'm not on the mod list. :(

And I'm not keen to ask everytime I'm set to start a setup when I got quicktopics right over there. (I mean
geez
I have to actually send a pm and do stuff?)

I think I've been sold on it for in game use though...
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #32 (isolation #7) » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:51 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Tierce does for all normal games now too. I've set my games up this way for a while because it gets the game reviewed and ready to go the quickest anyway.
Last edited by Zachrulez on Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #34 (isolation #8) » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:55 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 33, zoraster wrote:yeah. you don't need to be /inned to ask to have access to review. We'll notice if you illicitly start a game anyway. If you already have group access, just go ahead and make a review topic. We don't need to sign off on that. If you don't, we'll happily give it to you.
I don't have access, and in post 29 I was kind of implying that I was too lazy to go through the extra step of asking for access with ready access to quicktopics. :P
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #38 (isolation #9) » Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:16 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 35, Mr. Flay wrote:I find the idea that a Game Mod is too lazy to send one additional PM kind of hilarious. I know you're kinda-joking, but...
I take all the shortcuts available to me throughout the whole process. :cool:
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #47 (isolation #10) » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:48 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 43, Mr. Flay wrote:
In post 42, Who wrote:Can we use them for hydras, or are they only for games and setup creation?
I don't believe we've addressed that, but at this time I'd prefer to keep them for game-setup-related threads. I will bring the question up, however.
Miscellaneous section private topics for hydra qt and setup review stuff?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #63 (isolation #11) » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:09 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 61, RedCoyote wrote:I'll have to remember the dice rolls to determine role draws. It would be nice to just have that as a provable reference.

But that means I wouldn't get to use the Random Generators Shell anymore. :(
I use this as well. So does Sotty.

Why exactly should we make dice rolling alignment standard?

I mean... I could youtube myself using the randomizer if it's really that important. I've never manipulated a random generator for alignment draws in my life.

Also it's important to note that while you can't edit a dice roll, you can delete posts if you have mod power in a topic, so you can effectively roll until you theoretically get a roll you like... so...
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #72 (isolation #12) » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:53 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 64, Mr. Flay wrote:This actually does NOTHING to guarantee unbiased role assignments. can be manipulated (in ways I won't get into).

That said, if you want to roll dice in your setup PT to arrange your game, feel free. Just don't assume it's foolproof when/if someone questions you on it.


I have no problem with mods determining alignment that way. I just question the idea that it should be standard.

In post 70, quadz08 wrote:
In post 68, Nexus wrote:Is there really a big thing about 'mod manipulation'?

I genuinely have never considered that mods might manipulate the game to choose who is scum...

Either way, I'll continue to use random.org for my role assignments, and if people don't like it, then don't sign up...

I personally find it highly unlikely there's a lot of mod manipulation, but before the newbie queue mod was randomizing setups for the mods in question, certain setups were getting played often / not-often enough that it was statistically significant.


I believe the data on the setups indicated something like 5-10% of mods assigning setups in a manner other than random. I mean that's a problem when you want newbie setups selected randomly, but that also means 90-95% of the mods were assigning setups (and presumably roles.) randomly.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #74 (isolation #13) » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:11 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 73, zoraster wrote:oh, i think i can safely say the listmods aren't going to require random generation that way if that's what you're worried about. I'm speaking as a mod in general. I think it's good practice. Personally I'll take every opportunity to show my players I am giving them a fair game.
Actually when I looked at Kunk's data on newbies, the F11 setup was manipulated by likely fewer than 5% of newbie mods. The C9 setup was worse, but I think making it clear we don't really want to see that kind of thing greatly changed things for the better there.

In terms of showing players you're giving them a fair game... I don't think it's unfair to ask the players to trust that you're giving them one without reason to suspect otherwise.

I could youtube my draw, but then, I could have recorded a bunch of other videos and just aired the one that gave me a draw I liked. I could roll a dice tag in the mod private topic, but how do you know I haven't deleted posts and rerolled that, or used another more difficult to detect exploit to manipulate that?

The answer at the most basic level is that you trust me as a mod to give you a fair game. If you don't, then you probably wouldn't have signed up for my game in the first place.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #76 (isolation #14) » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:36 am

Post by Zachrulez »

That hurts man. :(

If mods are unhappy with their draws, the easiest way to solve that problem if you're using the random generator shell is to just reroll it. You can do that after you get the draw with a simple press of the button. If there's any manipulation going on, I suspect that would be what's happening. I doubt the prevalence of that is as high as you believe though.

I've personally been tempted at times, but have never done so myself.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #78 (isolation #15) » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:04 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 77, zoraster wrote:Rerolling is absolutely manipulation of results.

My general thought is that if I've been tempted to manipulate results (I have), and if there's a ZERO percent chance of being caught, at least some fairly sizable portion of the population will choose to manipulate. My desire to provide a completely unbiased game will not be shared by all those who share my temptation to manipulate.

Truth be told, the systems I put in place are there to help remove that temptation so that I don't have to wrangle with it every time I do a new game.
Mostly I've just trained myself not to be invested in the outcome of the game. (I'm talking in terms of how it unfolds. I am invested in a smooth well run game.) It removes a lot of the temptation to manipulate.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #80 (isolation #16) » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:07 am

Post by Zachrulez »

I'm sure in my earlier modding days, I might have found it worthwhile to create a system to remove temptation to manipulate the draw. I've gained enough experience and separated myself from the investment of wanting a draw that "results in an interesting game" to the point where I'm much less tempted to manipulate the draw now.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #118 (isolation #17) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:44 am

Post by Zachrulez »

I'm not really seeing the benefit of determining alignment by dice. It looks needlessly confusing to me with a chance of doubling up rolls anyway.

Why does it feel like we're trying to fix what isn't broken with the random generator shell page? It's designed specifically for randomizing mafia roles. The dice tags aren't.

Oh right... verification.

If we're to the point of actively distrusting mod rolls, I'm not even sure why we're here anymore honestly.

Edit: Actually an ideal solution would be to build in the random generator shell code into the site so you could run THAT as part of a mod topic for verification. No idea how viable that would be but I'm guessing it wouldn't be easy.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #121 (isolation #18) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:19 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 119, zoraster wrote:If we don't trust the mod, this fixes that. or at least in regards to this. Just because I don't trust a mod to not manipulate results doesn't mean I don't trust the mod to not cheat in more obvious ways (e.g. telling his friends who's scum). Anyway, it's a way for a mod to gain and keep trust from the beginning.

I mean, use this method or don't, but no need to get upset at people who are using it.
It just annoys me because there's a program that exists specifically for the purpose of randomizing roles. If it was built into the site somehow, I would have no problem using it. But rolling dice for the benefit of verification vs the random generator shell... I'm going to pick the page that's specifically designed for it vs the faults that the dice tags have.

I also don't think it was ever clarified that the dice couldn't be manipulated anyway.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #124 (isolation #19) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:37 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 123, zoraster wrote:
In post 120, Jake from State Farm wrote:why would a mod tell his friends who scum is? lol
Why? Because he's colluding with his friends. Do I think mods do this? Almost never. But that's my point.
Are you talking about him telling friends that are actively playing the game, or friends that aren't playing that they might be calling on to be somewhat of a backup mod or a friend that just wants to follow along the game knowing all the rolls without actually playing in it?
In post 123, zoraster wrote:
In post 121, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 119, zoraster wrote:If we don't trust the mod, this fixes that. or at least in regards to this. Just because I don't trust a mod to not manipulate results doesn't mean I don't trust the mod to not cheat in more obvious ways (e.g. telling his friends who's scum). Anyway, it's a way for a mod to gain and keep trust from the beginning.

I mean, use this method or don't, but no need to get upset at people who are using it.
It just annoys me because there's a program that exists specifically for the purpose of randomizing roles. If it was built into the site somehow, I would have no problem using it. But rolling dice for the benefit of verification vs the random generator shell... I'm going to pick the page that's specifically designed for it vs the faults that the dice tags have.

I also don't think it was ever clarified that the dice couldn't be manipulated anyway.
It fulfills the purpose of randomly assigning, but it does not fulfill the specific purpose of letting your players know you aren't manipulating.

The biggest way you can manipulate it is by deleting the post. But you run the risk of a reviewer seeing you do this, plus that kind of thing is on the system. Flay indicated there may be a way to do so more directly, but I haven't figured out how to do that, so unless someone is purposefully picking a system that makes life harder to manipulate and then manipulates, it seems unlikely.

The truth is that these attempts are designed to make manipulation much harder, not impossible. That was the point of RGAM too, which could be manipulated but why would you choose to do that and then have to do all the work to manipulate it? The dice roll/private thread is just another way -- a better way incidentally -- of doing that.
Technically it's legal for a mod to actually just assign roles without bothering with randomization. It's something most of us look down on and it's not particularly good modding, but we do technically permit roles to be assigned that way. (It's actually an acceptable way of assigning roles if the players are unaware.)

The main reason I chose NOT to manipulate is not really because I'm incredibly concerned with whether players think I'm honestly assigning roles randomly, it's because of the drawbacks of manipulating. I don't want my own preferences for role assignments becoming a point of discussion in the game. So the motivation to not manipulate for me outweighs the motivation to do so.

I'm actually interested in the viability of building something like the random generator shell into the site because I'm actually somewhat surprised that something like that doesn't already exist as an internal moderator tool.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #132 (isolation #20) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:08 am

Post by Zachrulez »

When it comes down to it, at some level you do have to trust the mod to be honest about what they're doing.

It doesn't matter how many mechanisms of verification you put in place. You still have to trust that the mod is not interested in pulling one over on you.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #139 (isolation #21) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:42 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 138, zoraster wrote:
In post 91, RichardGHP wrote:
In post 86, zoraster wrote:
In post 83, RichardGHP wrote:I do the randomization way before sign ups even take place. Removes pretty much all temptation to tinker with the assignment. If you get a list which is not strictly desirable (e.g. the entire scum team taking up one single section), you will obviously want to reroll that. On that basis, I am not entirely opposed to zoraster's example a). But I think that altering the distribution any more specifically than that is just not good modding practice. Having said that, it absolutely should not be incumbent on the mod to prove that the distribution is random.
what do you mean a single section?
I mean, if the scum team is taking up three spots on the list right next to each other, for example. Or any such situations where the distribution isn't considered to "look" particularly random.
Not really sure what he meant by that not looking particularly random because when you draw randomly a distribution like that is bound to happen from time to time.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #141 (isolation #22) » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:53 am

Post by Zachrulez »

I mean yeah, I get that he said he would reroll in those cases. The reasoning just seems silly, because the distributions he wants to "fix" are a natural part of random drawing.

Also in that kind of game if you get a player list where known alignment on list goes

scum
unknown 1
scum
town
unknown 2
ect.

You're going to argue that unknown 1 isn't scum because Richard is known to reroll because the first 3 players being scum doesn't look random by his definition.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #170 (isolation #23) » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:15 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Zoraster, my problem isn't the aspect of verification per say. I'm not hugely for it or against it. It's that I find dice rolls an inferior way of actually randomizing alignment and find it an overall worse method than simply using my current method. If I was able to use my current method in a verifiable way, I would as it's not really a big deal to me one way or another.

That is to say I don't really understand why it's important to verify a mod's honesty in distributing the roles, but I don't really have a problem with it outside of the fact that a push toward it might force or pressure me to use what I feel is an inferior randomization method.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #172 (isolation #24) » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:27 am

Post by Zachrulez »

That it's more efficient to put together is why I prefer my current method. How much value we put in the ability to verify that it was put together honestly is where we part company.

In fact I've as much as said that I would be happy to use my current method in a verifiable way if it was possible, but I don't find the advantage of verification alone a big enough one to use dice tags.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #196 (isolation #25) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:12 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 29, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 26, zoraster wrote:
In post 24, Zachrulez wrote:On another matter, due to all the requirements that list mods have for what needs to be ready for review, I actually design the entirety of my games through quicktopic. Is there any consideration for access to creating private topics for this purpose?
yes. That's actually #2 on the policy list. Ask the appropriate listmod for access to create a review thread. If you already have access (because you're on one of the mod lists), you may create a review thread already.
I'm not on the mod list. :(

And I'm not keen to ask everytime I'm set to start a setup when I got quicktopics right over there. (I mean
geez
I have to actually send a pm and do stuff?)

I think I've been sold on it for in game use though...
I'm just going to say here that I think it would be useful to have a section of private topics specifically for review purposes/hydra discussion that can be created by anyone.

Practically I will probably just continue setting my games up in QT and then copy and pasting into Private Topics when my games go through the review process when such is required. (Having to ask for access is in essence asking for permission to design a game.)

Which brings the question, for things that require review, are they going to require the use of Private Topics for review or can you continue to submit setups for review via quicktopics?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #198 (isolation #26) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:12 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 197, zoraster wrote:PTs are required for Normal review. They aren't required for Large Themes, which require a reviewer but aren't overseen by me directly.
This would be the point where I'd ask why, but I don't have the energy or the motivation to fight that battle.

Is the moderator expected to create the private topic or is it created for them?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #200 (isolation #27) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:31 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 199, zoraster wrote:for the normals?

They're created by Tierce. And by that point, she already has the submitted setup and posts it in the OP. It's easier for her and it's easier for the reviewers to keep track of the multiple setups under review at any time. Plus there are all the other benefits of using a PT such as being able to actually read the role PMs (an essential function of the review group) in the format it's going to be posted rather than BBCode.
The format it's posted in is BBcode. Quicktopic codes via HTML.

I don't think the coloring and coding format is essential to determining the normalcy of a role pm, but whatever.

I still think there some be some level of access for users to create private topics to design game setups. I will initially be designing my games in QT until there is some kind of access for that without having to ask for permission. (I'm stubbornly opposed to the idea that I have to ask for "permission" to merely design a game.)
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #202 (isolation #28) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:49 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 201, chamber wrote:You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.
How exactly is it abusable? Someone might create too many topics?

I really don't get it.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #206 (isolation #29) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:06 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 203, zoraster wrote:
In post 200, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 199, zoraster wrote:for the normals?

They're created by Tierce. And by that point, she already has the submitted setup and posts it in the OP. It's easier for her and it's easier for the reviewers to keep track of the multiple setups under review at any time. Plus there are all the other benefits of using a PT such as being able to actually read the role PMs (an essential function of the review group) in the format it's going to be posted rather than BBCode.
The format it's posted in is BBcode. Quicktopic codes via HTML.

I don't think the coloring and coding format is essential to determining the normalcy of a role pm, but whatever.

I still think there some be some level of access for users to create private topics to design game setups. I will initially be designing my games in QT until there is some kind of access for that without having to ask for permission. (I'm stubbornly opposed to the idea that I have to ask for "permission" to merely design a game.)
I know. But when you post role PMs or what not into a QT, you can either (a) not format it at all and just have text or (b) leave in the bbcode. Whereas when you use a PT, you can do both: you show exactly what that role PM is going to look like. That makes it far easier to read as a reviewer.

And the formatting probably isn't necessary to determine normalcy, but why not use the tool we have?
The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.
In post 204, chamber wrote:
In post 202, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 201, chamber wrote:You aren't asking for permission to design a game. You are asking for permission to use a potentially abusable site feature to do so.
How exactly is it abusable? Someone might create too many topics?

I really don't get it.
I personally probably wouldn't care all that much about the abuse. But I think the primary concern is cliches forming private discussion groups.
That's probably one of the last things I'm worried about.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #208 (isolation #30) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:13 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 207, zoraster wrote:
In post 206, Zachrulez wrote:The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.
Use it or don't use it.
It's not even a choice if it's required for reviewing now is it? I HAVE to use it at some point regardless. Now you're just arguing the illusion of choice.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #210 (isolation #31) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:31 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 209, zoraster wrote:what i mean is: request access from us or don't request access from us. We are here and happy to work with you if you decide to use PTs to design your game, and I have not turned down a single mod who has asked yet. You have to use the PT if it's a normal, true. But you are welcome to "Design in QT and port over to PT" if getting access from us is so objectionable. But your objections are not the ones that will lead us to to provide unfettered access. So feel free to make the choice to do it as you've stated.
Hopefully the lack of a real reason to restrict access will be.

I'm just in a place where I want to interact with authority when designing my games as little as possible. I was very happy with the way the site was run years ago when I didn't have to do all the things I have to do now. It just adds stress.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #214 (isolation #32) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:39 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 212, Faraday wrote:I had to ask zoraster for use of Private Topics. It was pretty traumatising!

(On a serious note, it's nice to be able to design with Bbcode showing! Much more aesthetically pleasing, + I'm less likely to forget about them than a qt!)
A lot of normal social interactions are pretty big hurdles for me. I really dislike what I see as unnecessary social contact, much less being expected to initiate it.

I'll probably end up ultimately finding a way to deal with it, but one of the side effects of my issues is that I can't resist venting about it. (Which can lead to arguments over really tiny points.)

I guess it could be worse. I could have even more severe autism and work myself up into a stroke about getting the wrong flavor ice cream or something.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #216 (isolation #33) » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:23 pm

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 215, Tierce wrote:
In post 206, Zachrulez wrote:The point I'm making is that since I don't have the permissions to use private topic prior to submitting, I am just going to continue designing setups in QT and then porting to Private Topic since it's been required for reasons I can't fathom, so the reviewers will not see that benefit from me anyway.
I have not asked you for your full game information yet, but I fail to see the issue when it comes to designing in BBcode even if you don't have access to private topics. If you have no other place that uses BBcode, you can use the private message system on the forum--that gives you the necessary BBcode, and you're going to need that format
anyway
for when you actually run the game.
Well technically, I can just put the bbcode tags in...

But the whole concept of coding the role pms is a stylistic choice anyway. I could write the things in pure text and it wouldn't make a difference to the text content of the actual role pms.
In post 215, Tierce wrote:What happened previously was that I (and before me, Zito) had to convert
every
game design into something that looks decent in HTML. I didn't have a choice, the users didn't have a choice, we were all using QTs. By using Private Topics for Normal reviews, I'm removing that step for myself and keeping things in a place that is much easier to organize, sort, and search through than QTs. I'm making things easier for myself and for most others. You're going through the extra step of using QuickTopics because you want to, so I really don't see what's the big fuss in me requiring moderators to use a native system when the
vast
majority of moderators have always sent me their designs optimized for BBcode anyway and you have an alternative that works in this forum already. A system that you can request access to, a system that people can give input on regarding features, a system where you actually have control over who sees the topic. You're making things more difficult for everyone involved, including yourself. We're offering you a system here, the possibility of "early design" access to it,
and
an alternative to that system that does not require change and/or social contact, but you're saying this whole new thing is being forced on you. What is the point you're trying to defend?
See above. What I'm basically saying is that you don't
need
to see the styling of the role pms. You only need to be able to read the text and determine the normalcy of the role pms. It doesn't matter what's bold, what's big, or what color the text is in. It's still there.

So while you're having trouble understanding what I'm defending, I'm having trouble understanding the justification for the requirement. My thought is that it isn't necissary, but I'm probably putting too much effort into fighting it because it's much less of a big deal than my emotions are making it, but from a logical standpoint, I'm not seeing an argument in it's favor other than the fact that the combination of the argument and the fact that "it's not a big deal" prevail.

Anyway, it doesn't take much time to actually code the style of the role pms, but it's something I usually save for when I'm actually sending out the role pms. When I'm going through everything else in the design, I don't want to go through the stress of figuring out the coding.
In post 215, Tierce wrote:I understand asking for things may be difficult for some people, but if asking for permission to have access to a system is too much change for you, you already have private messages that give you BBcode formatting that I can then port to private topics; you're inflicting stress on yourself for no good reason.
In a perfect world, I would be given access just to be shut up... just sayin. :P But it's a combination of having to do it, and also with having to do it everytime I have to design a game because somehow I don't see myself staying in the moderator group. It's admittedly a silly thing to complain about, but it's important to me dammit!

On that thought, on another forum I was on, there was a BBcode tag that allowed HTML to be recognized on the forum. Is such a thing possible on these boards?

I'm just really resistant to change in the end, and I'm generally skeptical said changes won't result in more work for me.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #220 (isolation #34) » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:39 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 213, tn5421 wrote:All I'm seeing from Zachrulez for the last page or so is like "blah blah whine whine i have to ask for permission waaaaaaaaa". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
This is flamebait. If anyone can tell me how this post actually contributed anything to the thread except attempting get me more upset, I'd like to hear it.

As for the argument yesterday, I'm just going to apologize for the whole thing because it's basically just me being petty and poking holes into a system I have grown a dislike for many years running, but also something I should have let go that long ago as well. My opinions and positions on where the review process for normal games are going isn't going to change anything or matter at all in the long run and it's really silly for me to keep complaining about it when I have an alternative that would resolve a lot of my complaints. (Simply running my games as themes even if they otherwise qualify to be normal.)

I was just arguing for the sake of arguing and let it sweep me up in emotion.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #223 (isolation #35) » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:41 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 222, tn5421 wrote:
In post 22, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 19, zoraster wrote:Zach, let me say it again: if you take any action against a player for bringing something to the listmods' attention, you are likely to have the privilege of moderating revoked.
Honestly what I'm worried about here is taking action against a player for breaking game rules and my action being interpreted as retaliation. (Which is how Faraday seemed to interpret my resolve to take action in the example I laid out.)
Maybe because that is EXACTLY what you said you would do. I'm done talking to you.
You were never talking to me in the first place. Only attacking.

Edit: Also in full context to the argument on page 1. Zoraster himself said that list mods can't access a private topic without moderator consent, and since I'm planning to use private topics for scum qts, mason qts, ect. The entire hypothetical we were arguing over is no longer even possible. (A player can link the topic, but it's not possible for other parties to see it without my ok.)

There was also a separate argument about being forced to give the list mod the link to a QT, and in that case I was arguing more for the right to say no... even though I don't really see a situation where I would refuse to give a list mod a QT link if asked.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #225 (isolation #36) » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:27 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 224, chamber wrote:
In post 223, Zachrulez wrote:(A player can link the topic, but it's not possible for other parties to see it without my ok.)
In post 95, chamber wrote:at the moment all admins can see all PTs, and when I'm not in games I'll likely also periodically be in that group to make sure everything's working right and not being abused.
I felt the need to reiterate this point.
Is it going to stay that way? Also does a list mod qualify as an admin?

Most of my concern on that front is if admins/list mods are also players.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #254 (isolation #37) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:00 am

Post by Zachrulez »

I think it would be great if it was possible to share moderator power in PT and in game threads.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #256 (isolation #38) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:13 am

Post by Zachrulez »

That's not an issue. If I were in a situation where I was unable to continue moderating, I would facilitate a change in power. The reason I'd argue for an ability to share power without asking is because not all moderator flakes are going to arrange that change in power.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #260 (isolation #39) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:27 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 257, Mr. Flay wrote:...but all Modflakes involve the List Mod? So it's zero extra work.
A while back I had to take over for a mod that flaked a couple of games. The only listmod that got involved as I remember was the newbie list mod, which happened after the fact. (I didn't actually need moderator power for that because I only had to end that particular game.)

I just think that it could make the transition to a backup mod smoother, but it's not a big deal, just something I think would be nice.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #262 (isolation #40) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:34 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Actually the modflake was just that newbie game. I think the other game I was thinking of was a game Sotty backup modded where she had to take over for a modflake around the same time.

My memory sucks and I feel old.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #264 (isolation #41) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:36 am

Post by Zachrulez »

In post 261, Mr. Flay wrote:*nod* I get what you're saying, but I know the LMs want to know when somebody flakes, because it affects the experience credit they get, and their ability to sign up for other games (modflakes get a New Game ban as a player, now).
Does that mean if I hypothetically had to stop modding a game I would get a ban even if I arranged for my backup to take over in a smooth manner?
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #266 (isolation #42) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:45 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Would it change anything if even though I had a backup plan in place that I would feel bad for not finishing my commitment to mod the game and feel like a flake?

No, I was just making sure we had the same definition of flake here. Thanks.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #273 (isolation #43) » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:05 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Am I the only person who finds granting permissions to a user awkward? I get the whole editing aspect of it, but there's been a few occasions where I've added people to the topic and then forgotten to submit the edit. This is compounded by the fact that you can only see the list of authorized viewers in the edit mode. (Unless there's a way to see it that I don't know about.) It would be nice if there was a way to do this that didn't involve editing post 0. Just sayin.
User avatar
Zachrulez
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Zachrulez
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 8550
Joined: December 5, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Post Post #311 (isolation #44) » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:10 am

Post by Zachrulez »

Could the linked text color be something other than white? It's nearly impossible to read in a quote box. The most common issue is with a quote itself where it refers to what post the quote comes from.
Post Reply

Return to “Mafia Discussion”