General Mafia General Chat

[Ratchet]

rather doing that I'd suggest you to stop people from hosting nonstop

hosting without playing doesn't harm anyone so it'd be a pretty meh move to needlessly restrict it

nonstop hosting on the hand takes away chances for other people to host

also if you make a rule like that then someone retired like me for example can't host

I've noted that there are exceptions for special games. If we end up running into the issue of not enough hosts, then obviously it will be relaxed. You say it doesn't harm anyone, but as players are more experienced they naturally want to try their hand at hosting. The purpose of this is to still encourage them to play - it's supposed to be a community. So yes, someone retired from playing won't be able to host, generally speaking, and I don't have much issue with that. Basically, what I want to promote is the idea that "I signed up for your game, so can you do me a solid and sign up for mine" sort of mentality. I want people to want to be a part of the community, to me, if you don't play and just want to host, you're mostly disengaged from the community which is what I would like to avoid. Rather consider it a way to encourage someone who may have decided to stop playing, to give it another go, because they'd like to get back into Mafia. That kind of thing.

I am flexible on the exact length of time. 2 months I gave because it felt reasonable, but it can go to three. I'd like to avoid much longer if I can help it, but this should ensure a rotation of players and hosts. And like I said - if we end up with only the same few people hosting, we can do away with this idea entirely.

 

[Mashiro Blue]

I have a suggestion for a happy ending here

 

[Ratchet]

And yes, on the topic of nonstop hosting - players won't be able to claim spots for two games back to back. Both to avoid hosting burnout, and also to avoid one person getting to host 5 games in quick succession. Also required a month apart from games within reason. Additionally, those who are done with their game but were prevented from hosting have been grandfathered - SoulKiller and Ultra in this case. They were ready to go, then didn't have time once we actually got to them, which was later than anticipated. Both have played recently so I have no issues there.

 

[Ratchet]

I have a suggestion for an happy ending here

I'm all ears - I would prefer to get the announcement posted first so that I can clarify the rule exactly, but by all means either way, this is up for negotiation.

 

[Mashiro Blue]

I'm all ears - I would prefer to get the announcement posted first so that I can clarify the rule exactly, but by all means either way, this is up for negotiation.

It's not about the idea itself but more when it should take effect.

So instead of applying the rule retroactively I think it should start taking effect the moment it's announced.

So in practice after the announcement is made, if someone doesn't play a game in the subsequent 2 months, they won't be able to host. Basically it becomes a prior notice for people to know what and when to expect the changes and adjust accordingly and avoid this present situation.

 

[AL sama]

I've noted that there are exceptions for special games. If we end up running into the issue of not enough hosts, then obviously it will be relaxed. You say it doesn't harm anyone, but as players are more experienced they naturally want to try their hand at hosting. The purpose of this is to still encourage them to play - it's supposed to be a community. So yes, someone retired from playing won't be able to host, generally speaking, and I don't have much issue with that. Basically, what I want to promote is the idea that "I signed up for your game, so can you do me a solid and sign up for mine" sort of mentality. I want people to want to be a part of the community, to me, if you don't play and just want to host, you're mostly disengaged from the community which is what I would like to avoid. Rather consider it a way to encourage someone who may have decided to stop playing, to give it another go, because they'd like to get back into Mafia. That kind of thing.

I am flexible on the exact length of time. 2 months I gave because it felt reasonable, but it can go to three. I'd like to avoid much longer if I can help it, but this should ensure a rotation of players and hosts. And like I said - if we end up with only the same few people hosting, we can do away with this idea entirely.

its not encouraging ratchet its forcing

it'd do more harm then good in my opinion so I disagree with you here

 

[Ratchet]

It's not about the idea itself but more when it should take effect.

So instead of applying the rule retroactively I think it should start taking effect the moment it's announced.

So in practice after the announcement is made, if someone doesn't play a game in the subsequent 2 months, they won't be able to host. Basically it becomes a prior notice for people to know what and when to expect the changes and adjust accordingly and avoid this present situation.

I'm okay with that. I even considered installing it from the new year, though I'll need to sleep on it.

 

[Ratchet]

its not encouraging ratchet its forcing

it'd do more harm then good in my opinion so I disagree with you here

I don't see any other way to encourage it without using a rule to support it. Like I could say "hosts who play actively will get preferential treatment in terms of when they can host", but that not only solves nothing, it opens up its own issues. I really don't mind "forcing" hosts to be players too, if it does create the issue where there are no hosts then it will be done away with.

 

[Mashiro Blue]

I'm okay with that. I even considered installing it from the new year, though I'll need to sleep on it.

Yes I think it would be better. People can get frustated if they were expecting something and can't do it out of the blue.

 

[Mashiro Blue]

Issue solved.

Please leave a good survey so I get a 5€ bonus to my salary at the end of the current month.

 

[AL sama]

It's not about the idea itself but more when it should take effect.

So instead of applying the rule retroactively I think it should start taking effect the moment it's announced.

So in practice after the announcement is made, if someone doesn't play a game in the subsequent 2 months, they won't be able to host. Basically it becomes a prior notice for people to know what and when to expect the changes and adjust accordingly and avoid this present situation.

that doesn't help the issue I m seeing with this needless rule

not many people just wants to host without playing to begin with

so its a needless restriction

 

[AL sama]

I don't see any other way to encourage it without using a rule to support it. Like I could say "hosts who play actively will get preferential treatment in terms of when they can host", but that not only solves nothing, it opens up its own issues. I really don't mind "forcing" hosts to be players too, if it does create the issue where there are no hosts then it will be done away with.

you don't see that this can make people upset which might lead to not wanna host or play even in the future??

forcing never helps ratchet

 

[Ratchet]

you don't see that this can make people upset which might lead to not wanna host or play even in the future??

forcing never helps ratchet

No real reason for that, as the only people it affects are those that are not playing anyway. I like the idea of enforcing it from the new year too I think, that way no one gets to say they've been treated unfairly as a result of the rule for something they've planned in advance. I'll iron out the details, but at the end of the day it's just one extra requirement to host. Anyone getting upset is upset at the principle of being expected to play games to host them, which er, I can live with.

 

[AL sama]

No real reason for that, as the only people it affects are those that are not playing anyway. I like the idea of enforcing it from the new year too I think, that way no one gets to say they've been treated unfairly as a result of the rule for something they've planned in advance. I'll iron out the details, but at the end of the day it's just one extra requirement to host. Anyone getting upset is upset at the principle of being expected to play games to host them, which er, I can live with.

you're failing to see what I m saying

so yeah lets agree to disagree

 

[AL sama]

No real reason for that, as the only people it affects are those that are not playing anyway. I like the idea of enforcing it from the new year too I think, that way no one gets to say they've been treated unfairly as a result of the rule for something they've planned in advance. I'll iron out the details, but at the end of the day it's just one extra requirement to host. Anyone getting upset is upset at the principle of being expected to play games to host them, which er, I can live with.

also maybe you can live with it but it'd do more harm then good to the community

forcing people cause you think it'll encourage them isn't worth it in my opinion

 

[Reborn]

Imagine when about to Hosting a game need to play any games before you start Hosting it.....

Even if you already had experience with 20, 30 or 100 games.....

I am okay if it was me, I am just some silly annoying users that cant even play properly.
I am not worthy to Hosting any games.

But others vets when have some idea for Hosting and don't have times to play then later they cant Hosting it because bla bla blaaa, its the bla blaa, you need bla blaa blaaaa..............

Its not fair at all.

Sorry @Nana I made a promise that I couldn't keep. Truly really sorry

EDITED :

Spoiler: Meanwhile....

- Hey, I want to Host a game.
- Sure, you need to play before Hosting.
- Umm okay, but I dont have times. I just want to create some fun games in my mind.
- Idc, just go find some Sign Ups thread and join it.
- Uhhuh, kay.

A moment later.
- Yoo Hi there. I am already play, so can I Hosting?
- No you cant.
- Why? :(
- You get lynched on D0, and you have low post on game thread. Join next game and be active.
- B-But... I told you I dont have times. I create games and I have something to do IRL.
- Do I look like I care? Finish your set up and go play some games.
- Kay...

And... A moment, very moment later.
- You get lynched again and seems like you are not fully aware for the game you have played.
- Yeah, I was playing while I create set up and also I train my Trex IRL then fix my space ship.
- So how about the set up?
- Its finished, yaayyy~! I am ready to Host on next week.
- No you cant, others already give the set up and they already well played in games. So you will Host your game in the next 3 months. And yeah ofc you need to keep playing a games before that happen.
- K, *Leave the Earth and going to Mars*

Lol

Now if you mood is good then let me handle this.


@Ratchet it's not about my game but whole community. There is actually nothing to negotiate because your rule doesn't make sense.


Let me get to your real reason for having this rule - people are more encourage to host than to play.

Your solution - have a time cap. One should play a game preceding two months of hosting the game.

Do you realise that people can get busy with real life and might not be able to play game preceding two months of their game?

You are forcing people to play game within time bound disregarding how busy one can get. Also, your role applies to those who haven't even hosted


I am not questioning your position or your intent but the rule in itself.


The best way to deal with the situation is have another rule which doesn't bound people in time limits but also serve the purpose - one must play game in between hosting two games.

For example, if ekko is hosting game right now then before he hosts his next game, he has to play. There is no time cap involved here and at the same time it will allow players who haven't hosted in long time to host but played and also encourage new ones to host and play.

Rest is your wish. I am not here to argue nor I have any intention to have negotiation.

 

[Rej]

I don't see a problem with Ratchets rule. But maybe because I am the type of person who likes to play before hosting, just to show the peeps that I am here ready to mingle.

I also agree with the others, its a difficult topic but I exactly know why Ratchet wants to implement this rule and its also a common rule on some communities. Its also actually just a "gentlemen's rule".

I am surprised we came to this situation where we debate about hard-enforcing gentlemen's rules into the rulebook kek.

 

[AL sama]

I don't see a problem with Ratchets rule. But maybe because I am the type of person who likes to play before hosting, just to show the peeps that I am here ready to mingle.

I also agree with the others, its a difficult topic but I exactly know why Ratchet wants to implement this rule and its also a common rule on some communities. Its also actually just a "gentlemen's rule".

I am surprised we came to this situation where we debate about hard-enforcing gentlemen's rules into the rolebook kek.

forcing won't encourage anything you know better then that

for example I'd rather not host rather then needing to play games before I can host

so it means the rule would push me away from the community rather then encouraging me

 

[Midnight Delight]

I am surprised we came to this situation where we debate about hard-enforcing gentlemen's rules into the rolebook kek

Because a lot of people here play to keep up with friends rather than competitively

Whether you agree with that or not it's a big difference between other forums Mafia cultures

I do agree with Ratchet's points but I also understand why people here think he's going too far

 

[Rej]

forcing won't encourage anything you know better then that

for example I'd rather not host rather then needing to play games before I can host

so it means the rule would push me away from the community rather then encouraging me

:pepetired