Mafia Universe Championships - Representative Nominations

[Irrelephant11]

nth datisi, guiltylion, mastina

I think skitter has already said she can't do the short timelines

[DkKoba]

nth Datisi, Luke, Catboi, Shiki

nominate Alyssa the Lamb, Skitter, GuiltyLion, mastina

Alyssa and skitter already declined fwiw.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

2/4 isn't bad

[AniX]

I will say part of the reason we wanted to be more hands off as mods is that we wanted to leave open the possibility that the site doesn't have a sufficient level of interest to compete.

I think that it is important that it be defined what is needed for the mod team to acknowledge "sufficient level of interest to complete." I saw sufficient evidence from my PoV, but apparently it didn't reach a sufficient level for the mods?

I saw multiple threads of the topic, with many varied voices all voicing support, and numerous people nominated. Outside of the public thread, this is something that I both had conversations with people about, and saw others discuss in other settings such as discord (including people that for whatever reason, have not posted here - but seemed supportive of the idea in those settings).

So, what is the point where the mods say : okay, there is support,let's make this happen

Do we need X number of people to post that we want it to happen?
Do we need X number of posts across a set time period?
Do we need X number of people nominated, who then accept their nomination?

Or do we, with no set authority or structure, have to hobble together a method by which to settle on a name, and then get it to you without even knowing if you are gonna reject the name, or worse yet, say "despite this name being presented, we didn't see sufficient levels of interest, and are choosing to not move forward"

Sufficient interest is being measured by performance is probably the best way to phrase it. If users put in the needed effort to nominate, the interest required to do so would certainly be sufficient. I slightly disagree with what you said earlier that everyone who disagrees with participating at all will necessarily voice that disagreement, but as we've already seen, if people disagree with the process they'll speak up so we trust that if the process yields results those results reflect sufficient interest.

[AniX]

As for is us rejecting a name, I think the circumstances where we will do so is pretty straightforward and hardly will leave users in doubt as to when we will utilize it. Did you have any specific questions or clarifications about them?

[Prism]

The mods yesterday did not use a straightforward veto. They used a vague implied threat to avoid getting their hands dirty, encouraging us to relitigate behavioral history and character teardowns.

Absolve yourself of blame and claim nothing was implied all you want but it's disingenuous and I'm sick of it.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

isnt it easier if the mods just say which users are unacceptable so we can just vote in the acceptable pool and put someone forward alrdy >.>

or barring that just tell us which user(s) are acceptable and we can vote on that

either way we should just uh just get it done no this isn't that hard.

[AniX]

We didn't veto because there was not, to our knowledge, a final decision to veto. There was suggestions of reaching a final decision and we wanted to remind everyone of the standards at that time BEFORE a final decision was made. Those standards are straightforward: A user wondering if we will veto can easily review whether a user agreed to participate, or whether that user was reached through the gears of the process, or whether that user was recently (two years or so seems a good cutoff for recent) banned.

[Prism]

Spoiler: Reply to AniX

This is disingenuous. No one claims it was a formal veto or that it was finalized. It was a vague implied threat that encouraged us to litigate those two specific players' character and ban histories publicly. You pointed us in a direction and said "Well, we didn't actually tell you to run that way". I'm tired of disingenuity, responsibility shirking, and gaslighting.

You should have just asked us to expand the nomination pool. I did it for you. You're welcome. If you wanted a public nominee teardown, sorry it didn't happen.

I've really appreciated the contributions of everyone the last day. I agree that support is clear, and it's unfortunate that many of us (Skitter, myself, Pooky, Andante, etc.) simply can't participate for one reason or another.

I'm really happy that Lukewarm is willing to serve as a backup if that's the obstacle to our participation. For Datisi, I'd encourage you to let the community vote decide whether or not you're better suited than the peers you have in mind.

You're also encouraged to nominate those peers!

[Ircher]

2 years doesn't seem all that recent tbh.

[Datisi]

nth catboi, shiki, guiltylion, lukewarm

nom dwlee99

i guarantee that i'm going to think of additional names not long after i hit submit here, but oh well

[DkKoba]

dwlee privately declined ? Iirc due to poor experience with the fast deadlines when we both played but nth dwlee if they had a change of heart.

[RH9]

Nth GL

Nth mastina

[Lukewarm]

Sufficient interest is being measured by performance is probably the best way to phrase it. If users put in the needed effort to nominate, the interest required to do so would certainly be sufficient.

This seems like a poor system. No one currently is speaking with any authority, because the mods are neither taking charge, nor putting someone in charge. Lots of voices, but no authority, makes for poor planning at best. I will thrown my hands up in both frustration and disbelief, and then start working with Prism on doing our best to make do with the situation that mods are presenting us

I slightly disagree with what you said earlier that everyone who disagrees with participating at all will necessarily voice that disagreement, but as we've already seen, if people disagree with the process they'll speak up so we trust that if the process yields results those results reflect sufficient interest.

That is not what I was trying to say. Between this thread, and the prior thread, there have been 29 unique users

who have made posts, and exactly zero of them have voiced an opinion that we should not participate.

Yes, there are likely people who have withheld their opinion - I did not say otherwise- but the public response has been universally positive from what has been visible to me, which says a lot in and of itself.

[Lukewarm]

Nth GL, Nth Datisi, Nth Mastina

[Lukewarm]

@Prism - Hello, I have decided that I am going to treat you like you are in charge until and unless the mods name someone else. Congratulations.

I suggest the following course of actions:

I think that we need a hard dead line for nominations. At the end of that Period, we send a PM to everyone who has been nominated and seconded. They have 24/48 hours to accept/reject their nomination. We then do a vote. Possibly using Google forms? I liked your idea of each person submitting 3 names, in order of preference, and doing a IRV style. Winner competes, second place is the back up.

Personally, I think that the most appropriate thing would be for the voting stage to be ran by the mods, so that people could vote semi-anonymously. But, if they are unwilling to do so, I guess you would get that privilege too?

[Prism]

I agree with a new deadline on nominations, now that we've opened it back up and are rolling again.

As we need to get voting, but have struck renewed interest, I think the 10th is fair to get more nominees and for any nominees to confirm interest or decline, with a goal of starting the vote the same day and running through the 17th.

If this seems agreeable, I can post a countdown with a set time.

I would love for the voting stage to be run by the moderation team, using the basic ranked-choice voting I described earlier. In an ideal world, there are private ballots for those who don't feel comfortable ranking in-thread, or even ideally all votes are private, but this can't really happen if I am the one counting. I'm in the position of being both a makeshift arbiter and a blatantly biased advocate for one of the players. It's conceivable that I manipulate the private ballots to suit my favored candidate. It is less conceivable for the modteam to do so. I'm okay using Google Forms, but the perks of using forum posts/private PMs mean there's virtually no risk of doubleballots or false identification.

[Lukewarm]

I have scrolled through both threads to compile all nominations [updated through post 136]

Nominated, and said they were open to competing

Peta/Catboi
MathBlade
Datisi
Lukewarm

Nominated, but I did not see where said if they were interested yet. I will PM all of these names

MariaR
dannflor

Nominated, but Self-Recused

Spoiler:

Hectic
NancyDrew39
Notscience
Skitter
Prism
Cabd
Pooky
Not_Mafia
Alyssa
Andante
Mastina
NorthSideGal
GuiltyLion
Shiki
okapoka
Morning Tweet
radiant cowbells
dwlee

I have no intention to double check any players nomination for a ban history. That seems harmful to this process, and I don't feel comfortable with myself, or any other user who is not a mod, announcing that a player is not allowed to participate. My suggestion is that anyone nominated, to personally think about if they have been banned in the last 2 years (cut off provided by mods) and just decline the nomination. No reason is needed to decline, so there is not need to even bring up past bans.

[DkKoba]

I love that we went through all that drama in the last thread just to essentially revert to an extremely similar plan that I had suggested just now... Not to begrudge Prism, because I am glad they did step up but it is annoying when things like this happen for no good reason.

And if mods wanted to say "We don't want Nancy Drew 39 to play" they can just say that instead of using this cringe corporate like speak that dances around the point. I thought I had commented on that but yeah. The role of moderators should also include helping boost community engagement, being the very people with the executive powers to facilitate such engagement in an official manner. I understand some may be busy IRL and fine with just doing the administrative duties of running their queue - but there should at least be 1 moderator happy to take on the role of engagement so this kind of stuff doesn't happen when a community wide thing is organized - Or at least delegate an elevated role that is allowed to make decisions for these types of things, etc.

Dunno just venting thoughts, the process was a bit more frustrating to watch than it should have been.

Also update, catboi is 100% in the running here, Epicmafia chose him as neither the representative or backup(to be fair, he was up against a strong cast of players, as that community is really weighted with high level players as well as not being as active as those others)

[Prism]

To be clear, if there's strong support for private ballots and the modteam is not willing to be the one to count them, we can work with a dubious system and I (and/or someone else!) can be the one to take them. CC'ing someone else can add some layer of safety but people will forget, the most energetic atm is Lukewarm who shares my view on who should go, etc.

My personal preference is just to not even have that question of veracity.

[DkKoba]

I have scrolled through both threads to compile all nominations

Nominated, and said they were open to competing

Peta/Catboi
Datisi
Lukewarm

Nominated, but I did not see where said if they were interested yet. I will PM all of these names

Notscience
NSG (not sure I recognize this name in order to extrapolate the full name - someone please help so I can send the PM)
MariaR
Hectic
NancyDrew39
Shiki
GuiltyLion
Mastina
dwlee

Nominated, but Self-Recused

Spoiler:

Skitter
Prism
Cabd
Pooky
Not_Mafia
Alyssa
Andante

I have no intention to double check any players nomination for a ban history. That seems harmful to this process, and I don't feel comfortable with myself, or any other user who is not a mod, announcing that a player is not allowed to participate. My suggestion is that anyone nominated, to personally think about if they have been banned in the last 2 years (cut off provided by mods) and just decline the nomination. No reason is needed to decline, so there is not need to even bring up past bans.

MariaR is a strong maybe, Hectic I DMed earlier and is a no, he said he doesn't want to play mafia in super serious settings right now, mods basically said nancy is a no, Dwlee I actually was wrong on them saying they don't want to play champs but expect a decline (maybe?) because they played on MU and didn't like the deadlines and high post rates at all.
NSG= NorthSideGal, She might play, she would be strong, only concern is ability to have activity due to them having V/LA over the course of full 24 hour periods iirc?

[Lukewarm]

NSG= NorthSideGal

Thanks!

[Prism]

Thanks for all the work in 117 Lukewarm, especially with adding in all of the single-nominees+splitting off those who confirmed interest. I definitely don't object to PMing them, and I think a combination of self-recusals and the modteam veto (which will only be utilized for final candidates) should solve the behavioral issue.

As a reminder, I at least assume the modteam's PMs to be open to behavioral concerns/ban history. (If that much isn't available we are truly fucked)...But as much as Lukewarm and I can believe this isn't the thread for it, the modteam has made it clear that litigating ban history is a valid topic of discussion. If people actually want to do that, we have no authority to stop you. I just hope we don't go that route.

[Lukewarm]

Here is the message I am getting ready to send out to all nominees who have not checked in. Please let me know if I missed an important detail, or if I should change something.

Planning to send it in ~30 mins if I have not heard any feedback.

There is going to be a Mafia Championship on Mafia Universe, and we are hoping to send a contestant to represent MafiaScum. If you are getting this message, then you have been nominated to be a contestant!

Be aware that there will be shorter deadlines for this competition, then game on MafiaScum.

SOME NOTES ABOUT THE COMPETITION:

The setup is 3v12 Mountainous.

The elimination is compulsive plurality everyday, with hammers possible past day 1.

The deadlines you are able to pick for the qualifiers, usually its either:
12/12
24/24
48/24
72/24
(all in hours)

We will need to choose a Main Representative and a Backup. The backup will play if the main representative cannot play anymore.

The choices must be finalized by APRIL 23rd.

If you would be interested in representing the MafiaScum Community, please check in and let us know! If you are not interested, don't hesitate to delince the nomination [that can stop me from bugging you in the coming days ]

To accept or decline a nomination, please post in this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=89125

Also, as a note. The mod team has stated that neither the primary player nor the back-up representative can be a user who has been banned in the last 2 years. If you have received such a ban, please do not accept your nomination.

Thanks!

[skitter30]

NSG (

not sure I recognize this name in order to extrapolate the full name

- someone please help so I can send the PM)

i did a double-take to look at your join date lol
northsidegal

i like prism's plan, thanks also luke for helpin gwith the organization