The future of the Mish Mash "Survivor queue"

[PrivateI]

First of all, I think it is easy to agree, after the events surrounding the last game, that a queue is necessary. The primary concern is how much "control" is taken away from the mods.

Here are some elements it would be fun to discuss:

- Should there be a minimum number of mods for a game?
- How much experience should the mods have? (Should they have had to play a total of three games between them? Should they have had to mod one game before? If they have never modded, should the game be reviewed?)
- How many games can be in a queue for the same relative time slot at one time?
- Should games have to go through a review process?
- What qualifies as a large social game? If I decide to run a 10P Mole, do I need to run it through the queue?
- Are there some standards for a game (specifically Survivor) that we could agree to? For example, if we had a set of requirements (a Survivor game should not cross-tribe communication, a game should have at least one way of swapping players prior to the merge, a game should not have a Legendary Box, etc.) that a game must adhere to, or else describe itself as somewhat bastard?
- How far in advance must games be announced?

[PrivateI]

If the mod(s) have never modded, I would be fully in favor of their having to get the full game, including and especially challenges, reviewed by someone who has modded at least...two games successfully? That person wouldn't have to be involved in any other way, but in the opening sign-up post or whatever, the reviewer's name would be included.

[PrivateI]

Wait, why are non-anons not being held to the same scrutiny? There's no reason that a non-anon wouldn't go through a queue as well, is there?

[PrivateI]

Three modded plus three played? First-timers can be dangerous, true.

Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?

With the first point, I would largely disagree. Requiring three modded games between the two mods is a lot. Plus, Game of Thrones wouldn't have happened, and that would be awkward. I would recommend, like I said, just ensuring that it's reviewed before it goes out, and requiring maybe a total of ~45 points or something between the mods, where you get a point for each person you have surpassed. (For example, placing 4th in a 16P game would grant you 12 points. (That's a super simple system, obviously.)

With the second, the only reason gaps are an issue is because they hold up the queue. I would rather give people the chance to finalize any preparations than to rush a game into production. UNLESS we were going to require players to have the forum/challenges thoroughly designed and fleshed out prior to entering the queue.

And with the third, I thoroughly disagree for many reasons. Long story short, non-anons take from the same player base that anons do, they require the same effort from their players, and similar contributions from their mods.

[PrivateI]

The problem is, Big Brother and Mole games just haven't been as popular to run. I'm not saying that the demand is not there, but even most of the ideas I've heard for future games are for some large scale games. Crazy and my hybrid, for example, is certainly a "large" game. It's one thing to point out, correctly, that there could be a demand for smaller games of that nature, it's quite another to create a supply of them.

Hyrule certainly benefited from having the "friends" of what ended up being about six different mods sign up for the game. That, coupled with people wanting to move on relatively quickly from Doctor Who, created demand that I don't think will always be there. (By that I mean that Doctor Who created an environment where about fifteen players had nothing to do for a majority of the game due to the twist, they weren't even able to follow along readily.)

I do like the idea of staggering sign-ups somewhat, and potentially starting sign-ups for a game around the time jury began in another game. Especially right now, with the sheer number of games in the queue. It would be an interesting experiment, at the very least.