Abandoned games

[Cadmium]

There seem to be more and more mods who just don't understand the commitment that comes with modding a mafia game. They sign up to moderate a game and when they're up (they've been around long enough by this time, so that's not the issue), they start the game, only to either completely abandon it without any notification whatsoever or to put it on hold because they are too busy at the moment.

In the New York forum, out of the five games running at the moment, there's one game currently on hold and one was abandoned without any notification. If it wasn't for one or two paladins, the latter would never have continued if you ask me. In the Little Italy forum, only last month, one abandoned game and one game on hold. In the Theme Park forum, another abandoned game this month.

Now, this may just be me, but I feel that if you start moderating a game, you need to do everything in your power to keep the game moving. Abandoning a game without any notification is just plain wrong, there must be no doubt about that. I agree that there may be situations where the mod is forced to leave his game, but these are sporadic IMO. Most of the time, this is just not the case. Mods abandon games God knows why and leave the players out in the cold.

Then there are the games that are put on hold. Again, things may occur that forces the mod to put the game on hold for a short (or maybe longer) time. But what I see most of the time, are mods who could very well have anticipated that they're not able to commit to the game for a longer period of time. If this is the case, I feel they should have waited with starting the game (or not starting at all) in the first place. If you know that you will have exams (or whatever) in two months and will be swamped with activities for at least a month, why on earth would you start moderating a mafia game?

Now to the actual question. Is there anything we can come up with to prevent any of this from happening? I know it's impossible to completely get rid of the problem, but the way it's going now, I think we need to at least try to come up with something. Maybe we need to be more specific what responsibilities come with moderating a mafia game? Maybe we need to put some kind of "penalty" on leaving your game without a very good reason? Maybe making stricter rules for qualifying to moderate? Just some wild propositions.

Or am I the only one who's annoyed by this? If so, I'll start another topic: Replacements .

[Phoebus]

Maybe we need to put some kind of "penalty" on leaving your game without a very good reason?

That would be my choice but we're not in highschool here

Mandatory appointment of a co-mod?
Telling the list mod about exams and the such?

[Talitha]

I completely agree with Cadmium.

As for what to do about it.... hmm

Yeah, maybe require

everyone

to have an experienced co-mod, unless they have modded a certain number of games (3?) without any issues. (Eep, would there be enough co-mod volunteers?)

Maybe the list mod could give a pass or fail grade for the modding of each game? If someone gets a 'fail' they need to have a co-mod until they get 3 consecutive 'pass' grades or something?

Or maybe instead of a co-mod, maybe there should be a 'Mod co-ordinator', and all mods are required to submit a full set-up of the game to this person. If the mod then goes missing, it would be easier for another mod to pick up the game.

But most importantly, yes, it should be drummed into people that choosing to mod a game is taking on a serious commitment and should not be neglected except under the most extreme circumstances.

If only we could get people to sign a contract when they start modding, or dock their wages for non-performance.

[Phoebus]

(Eep, would there be enough co-mod volunteers?)

Maybe, maybe not.
Some people might volunteer, never having run a game themselves, looking for experience points.
In which case, similar to the newbie games, unless the co mod successfully runs a majority of the game, it should not count as having modded a game.

Maybe the list mod could give a pass or fail grade for the modding of each game? If someone gets a 'fail' they need to have a co-mod until they get 3 consecutive 'pass' grades or something?

Interesting.
Theoretically, only an abandonment or forced halt would need a "fail" grade. So this could work as an automatic mechanism.

Or maybe instead of a co-mod, maybe there should be a 'Mod co-ordinator', and all mods are required to submit a full set-up of the game to this person. If the mod then goes missing, it would be easier for another mod to pick up the game.

Probably the most feasible.
All current mods to send their setups in either a word or notepad document to the list mod. In case of mod disappearance, the list mod can solicit a replacement mod.
The setup should not be in the main body of the email lest the list mod wants to play.
And it should also indicate mod notes giving cop quirks, individual percentages of success and role bias where applicable.

While this is very good for the players concerned, it leaves the mod free to disappear without being liable and still have a fallback mechanism in place. This needs to be addressed.

[Cadmium]

Maybe we need to put some kind of "penalty" on leaving your game without a very good reason?

That would be my choice but we're not in highschool here

Yeah, I know. But tell that to the people who are "skipping class" !!

Maybe the list mod could give a pass or fail grade for the modding of each game? If someone gets a 'fail' they need to have a co-mod until they get 3 consecutive 'pass' grades or something?

Interesting.
Theoretically, only an abandonment or forced halt would need a "fail" grade. So this could work as an automatic mechanism.

But you'd still need someone to judge when the abandonment or forced halt is valid or not.

Or maybe instead of a co-mod, maybe there should be a 'Mod co-ordinator', and all mods are required to submit a full set-up of the game to this person. If the mod then goes missing, it would be easier for another mod to pick up the game.

Probably the most feasible.
All current mods to send their setups in either a word or notepad document to the list mod. In case of mod disappearance, the list mod can solicit a replacement mod.
The setup should not be in the main body of the email lest the list mod wants to play.
And it should also indicate mod notes giving cop quirks, individual percentages of success and role bias where applicable.

While this is very good for the players concerned, it leaves the mod free to disappear without being liable and still have a fallback mechanism in place. This needs to be addressed.

I like the idea of a "Mod co-ordinator". Indeed, the mods sending in their game set-ups should not forget to include all the "behind the scene"-scenarios. The downside to this idea is that the co-ordinator can't play in any of the games. I don't think it is wise to just assume that the set-up is complete without looking at it. And even if we're willing to take that risk, it might bring up discussions that there was inside knowledge in certain games. I really don't feel like having that discussion again.

We could have multiple co-ordinators. For instance, the last mini I played in was Minvitational 4 and before that in Mini 83. So I could keep record of all mini games (although I'd have to think about this first, that's a lot of games ). Maybe others just play in mini games. I think we can work something out.

[Phoebus]

The downside to this idea is that the co-ordinator can't play in any of the games.

Why? That's why it should be in a word file that can sit in the co-ord's email inbox.

I don't think it is wise to just assume that the set-up is complete without looking at it.

Depends on the mod's experience.
We can expect them to be complete from someone who has been around.
A) They won't send in incomplete setups.
B) They will almost always have a backup mod ready. [Backup, not co]
C) Despite their experience, if they still send in an incomplete setup, have no backup mod and disappear, we can publicly ridicule them.

For newbies:

A) Double check setup before sending.
B) Have it reviewed by someone experienced. Part responsibility could lie with this person to ensure that the emailed setup will be correct and final.
C) Require appointment of a co-mod.
D) Failure with the above, results in a "fail" grade, along with requirement of co mod for for X number of future games, to be completed succesfully and ofcourse, public mocking and 100 lashes of the whip.

it might bring up discussions that there was inside knowledge in certain games.

Now that's just cynical.
We talk of having a mature and sensible community.
Well then, the co-ord , whom I still assume to be the List Mod, should be emailed beforehand by the prospective mod and asked about participation.

This question is moot for newbies. For normals, you can announce yourself if you want to play in the game supposed to be taking signups.
If you want to play, the signup thread may not appear till a different "keeper of the setup" is found. Otherwise, you can bless the new thread and accept the setup.
Same with the Free Market.

Minis take some time to fill up in any case, so again, MeMe can tell whether she wants to play in a particular game or not and if she does, the time taken to fill the game, can be used to search for another keeper.

[CoolBot]

Now that's just cynical.
We talk of having a mature and sensible community.

We can talk about anything we want. People will still come around and see Person X has inside knowledge. I really don't see why there can't be multiple mod cords. That way, if one wants to play, one of the others get setup.

[Phoebus]

We talk of having a mature and sensible community.

We can talk about anything we want. People will still come around and see Person X has inside knowledge.

Yeah.
I missed the dots there. It should've been:

We talk of having a mature and sensible community...

to imply...whatever.

I really don't see why there can't be multiple mod cords. That way, if one wants to play, one of the others get setup.

There is no problem.
Where did I say, assuming that's directed at me, there should be only one?
I just came to the natural conclusion that the List Mods would be it, since the current ones are not prolific as far as playing games is concerned. Each usually responsible for their own list and if one wants to play, ask the others and adjust. It will probably be rare that all four (plus 1) list mods would be playing in the same game.

[halo freak]

I think two cordinators would be enough and is they both want to play in the same game then i guess the setup could be sent to another experienced player for safekeeping.
One could do the minis another for the full size and newbies. The reason for the full size and newbies is that there is only five full size games taking place at the same time and they last for longer so that person would be able to do newbies as well. Minis (theme and standard) would be a full time job.

[Phoebus]

My dear fellow, the newbie setup is an open setup.
And in any case, even if there is a slight variation, there will be no issues of cop sanity.
So, the players could just PM the new mod their roles and choices till that time.

[Mr_Gnome_It_All]

We can talk about anything we want. People will still come around and see Person X has inside knowledge.

Right. Just look at the whole "Jeep Cheating" thing a while back.

And that was with one of the best known players on the site.

[Phoebus]

That was what the dots were for.

Meh.
Better to let that issue sink...

[Dmi]

What issue?

[jeep]

So I'll volunteer to be one coordinator. I've reviewed dozens of setups recently (not always in as much detail as I would like).

I like the idea of a co-mod for every game, but...

Here is my idea:

• 3 coordinators, all with significant ties to the forum. We can rotate these positions as needed. I like the idea of having list mods help out here if they have time. It shouldn't be much extra work.
  
• Emergency mods in a queue.
  
• Any game without a co-mod must be held by two coordinators. The list mod will notify the game mod who should receive the setup.
  
• Any game with a co-mod must be held by one coordinator. (thus ensuring that three people know the full setup of every game. Probably overkill, but...) Co-mods can simply be a "backup". I.e. has no authority unless the mod goes missing.
  
• Coordinators and co-mods cannot play in games they hold the keys to.
  
• Coordinators will be listed in the game thread. Players will be asked to notify the coordinators if a game mod goes missing.
  
• The emergency mods are called upon when this occurs.

Of course, even if the community agrees, we still need mith to approve any decision to change policy.

-JEEP

[Stewie]

Just a backup mod would be fine... I used one for all my games, with the exception of newbie games. I only had to use it once, and it worked. Nanook was able to finish modding while I was in sanhetgochasitakeiusar helping the needy.

We could also do this:

The mod writes the setup in a way such that eveyone can understand it. He prints a hard copy, then puts it in some kind of box. He installs 12 locks on the box (this box is reusable) and gives one key to each of twelve people, and places it near the top of the CN tower. I the moderator goes missing, everyone with a key flies to toronto to retrieve the game setup and give it to a new mod. If you already live in toronto, you fly out, then immediatly in again, for security reasons.

Or we could also do this:

With word, there's a feature that lets you put a password on files. The moderator sends the game setup inside a password protected document. Then, he or she sends the document to co-ordinator A and the password to co-ordinator B. Since neither of them has access to the what's inside the file, they can both play, and send the file and the password to a third party if the mod happens to disappear. One thing is that if they are on the same side, they could use this to their advantage, but this can be prevented by chosing AFTER you give out the roles, and if not initially on the game but willing to replace, do so only if not in the same team as the other one. And keep them secret to prevent metagaming.

Tada!

[jeep]

Word's password feature has been broken. So if you don't trust a person to have the file unencrypted, this won't work.

I think every game with a co-mod is fairly safe. Fuldu was able to handle my trip to China quite well.

-JEEP

[vikingfan]

What I would recommend(though I don't have as much experience as you guys do, obviously) is something along these lines. Have the list moderator for each forum as the main moderator for mods to send their info to.(say MeMe) If MeMe wishes to play in a mini, and that's what she's moderating, then the mod sends the info to the backup mod(which can be one of the other mods not playing in the game) and MeMe is free to play in the game. Do this for all games(except maybe newbies).

Actually, I just agreed with Phoebus, so...

[Stewie]

Word's password feature has been broken. So if you don't trust a person to have the file unencrypted, this won't work.

I think every game with a co-mod is fairly safe. Fuldu was able to handle my trip to China quite well.

-JEEP

Broken? Please elaborate, because I use this quite often, I cannot afford to have it broken.

[Dragon Phoenix]

A co-mod obviously also needs copies of all the night actions of a game, in case players need to be replaced.

[halo freak]

phoebus i know the newbie games are open setup but games can still be abandoned if the mod dissapears and also it would be a good way to montitor some of the newer mods there. I don't think it should be a free for all when the others would be monitored closely. And it would eliminate the new for co-mods for the newer mods because the cordinator would be able to offer advice.

Halo

[Phoebus]

So what's the difference then?
It isn't a free for all at present.
Once you say it shouldn't be so, and next you say there is no need for co-mods.

Make sense man!

[halo freak]

it said there would be no need for co-mods because they would have the cordination to answer questions and give support a bit like a co-mod does.

[Phoebus]

a bit like a co-mod does.

So what's the difference then?

[halo freak]

difference is there is one person instead of lots. I think it would make it easier to organise.

But i think we should think more about wat happen to a mod who dissappears from a game and causes it to be abandoned, without any kind of warning just stops all activity in the game. I think they should be forced to have a co-mod for a while until they have modded a certain number of games without a problem.

[jeep]

?? A co-mod can be completely different than this "coordinator" is.
1) I wouldn't expect coordinators to offer advice while wearing their coordinator hat. The reviewer would offer advice.
2) A co-mod often helps with running the game.

I guess I am not following what people mean here.

-JEEP