The New Mafia Waiting List Thread (now with 100% more democracy!)

[HarshMillennium]

3 minutes ago, RPS said:

Dog Mafia is ready to go. 

Fits 19 players. 

Are the scum airhead celebrities who want to catch the dogs and shrink them down to fit them into a handbag?

[RPS]

28 minutes ago, HarshMillennium said:

Are the scum airhead celebrities who want to catch the dogs and shrink them down to fit them into a handbag?

Cannot confirm or deny. 

[MalaCloudy Black]

Is it Dog the Bounty Hunter themed?

[RPS]

42 minutes ago, Blaine ClouDeBeers said:

Is it Dog the Bounty Hunter themed?

No. It is literally Dog themed. As in dogs! 

 

[Josh]

But I don't want ANY dogs lynched!

[LittleDaniel]

oh dog gonnit just when i thought i was out puppers pulled me back in

[HarshMillennium]

Is it a vote for the next game?

[LittleDaniel]

4 minutes ago, HarshMillennium said:

Is it a vote for the next game?

Yeah, the next game is poll, but first I wanted to ask people whether they think we should stick with two games or shift down to one game while things are a bit slower.

I don't think its a bad idea to switch between running two games when things are hot and one game when things aren't.  But I also have pretty much just been paying attention to this thread in terms of mafia stuff right now since I'm so busy, so I don't want to be the person to make the decision to slow down a bit.

So basically chime in people, or I can make it a poll in here, whatever works for y'all.

[Josh]

I'm for a switch to just one, but only IF game runners commit to keeping their games moving by enforcing shorter day phases. You never need more than 72 hours.

If games are going to run more slowly, stick with two.

[RPS]

My game has similar numbers to Sean's game (19 for me) and I am not saying mine will be as crazy as Seans, but not a vanilla game. Not a good fit to run concurrently. 

What I propose is that we either run a smaller game concurrently (10-11 people) or we just run a bigger game near the end of Sean's game. 

44 minutes ago, Joshu Picchu said:

But I don't want ANY dogs lynched!

Some dogs are NOT good dogs. 

[Josh]

Horse hockey!

[HarshMillennium]

I agree reducing it to one in the meantime. Hopefully it will pick up again soon

[LittleDaniel]

14 minutes ago, HarshMillennium said:

I agree reducing it to one in the meantime. Hopefully it will pick up again soon

I feel like it used to be busier in the summer, but I think that was also when a lot more people here were in school so they had more time then thanks to holidays.  Now I think its inverted, people are busier during the summer since there's more stuff to go out and do (I mean I just sit around inside all day, but I've heard tales).

Or that could all just be bullshit.  I dunno.  Anyway, if anyone has an objection to just running one game lemme know, I'm also going to go through the thread and add the player count to the front page so that if we want to implement something like RPS's idea we can.

[LittleDaniel]

Oh!  That reminds me, I had another idea (not about this specific problem, just in general).

Should we start choosing the next game to run a little earlier?  Like, now, we wait for one game to stop and then choose the next one and I've noticed people not always getting the number of sign-ups they wanted.  But, if we choose the next game like a week before the current one ends, then we have time to a) choose the game if its a poll, b) give people plenty of time to sign up, c) not have as much problem with people needing to skip their turns because they're going to be busy in the next couple of days.

So yeah, basically I think it will be easier if we start choosing the next game and get sign-ups going a bit earlier.  Thoughts?

[Josh]

I'm fine with earlier sign-ups, but I'd be very careful about saying when they should go up. If a game runner comes in and says their game is close to done, that could indicate new info to those players they may not have known.

Maybe leave the timing of sign-ups to the judgement of the next game runner or yourself? Like, feel free to post them early, just not absurdly early - and still only one sign-up thread at a time.

And for reference, The Grand Experiment will have 13 players.

[RPS]

I think once the game is half over, aka half the contestants are dead, we should have a sign up and a new game start.

[LittleDaniel]

Alright, went through and recorded the people's player counts that said what it was just in case we implement that idea.  Might have missed some people, had to go pretty far back in the Discussion thread to find some of them.

I had the same concern as Josh about my idea, that we'd need to find a way to signal that the game is coming to an end without tipping the players off to anything, but I think that RPS's idea of waiting until half the players are dead is as solid as they come.  That should give everyone enough time to get sign-ups posted and get a good amount of interest.  

One thing that I forgot to mention when I brought up the idea was I noticed (especially for RuPaul) that quite a few people came in after the roles were filled because they didn't notice the sign-ups but really love the theme.  So, I think that the new rule will also help with that as well.  Like, if you're a gamerunner and five extra people sign up for your game, you'll have time to decide if you want to add extra roles to accommodate.

[Josh]

As a game runner, that's where I would reward the most active players by keeping the same number of roles and choose players on the basis of activity, not chronological sign-ups.

[Mx. Canadian Destroyer]

I like the idea of waiting until half the players are eliminated from the current game. I think it could start before the other game ends, because if you get eliminated early, you'd be waiting a while for a new game to start. 

[Josh]

Yeah, that sounds like a good plan.