Mafia Watering Hole

[Ludo*1]

Because after the f*cked up LOTR game, doubt you guys would let me host again.

Just me throwing ideas out here, but how about if everything started afresh and everyone got a clean slate? I'm not saying this is what we should go with, but a 5 man panel is better than just Forehead deciding which is ultimately what happens.

[gy diamond]

Don't know what you mean Shelldon I thought you done a good job of hosting that, the concept was the problem though. New concepts are mainly trail and error sometimes they work sometimes they don't.

[Ludo*1]

My game was shite because half of the people playing couldn't be arsed. Which leads back to the point of people just signing up perhaps because they feel they have to and back to the point again of that you don't have to play if you don't want to.

They couldn't be arsed but they still signed up. This will happen game after game after game and nothing will be exciting. The longer the wait, the better the game.

[Sooky]

Because after the f*cked up LOTR game, doubt you guys would let me host again.

I would be happy with you hosting. Or I could even co-host with you, you know, since I'm a wise, experienced and respected host and player of mafia games.

[Sooky]

My retort to Forehead did have one good point, I felt, we should set up a permanent PM and become the 'mith'. Perhaps a 5 of Gordon, Gy, Me, Kyle and somebody else, perhaps Forehead, or TRS or someone? And for a game to go ahead, it needs a majority vote?

Anyone else think it's an interesting concept?

I'm sorry Ludo but that's frankly a terrible idea and I certainly wouldn't bother playing in any more games if that happened.

[number one wasp]

Wow NOW disagreeing with me, who would of thought it. Nothing to do with ego's its more about making the games more enjoyable for everyone.

More enjoyable for when you and ludo want to play more like,Why punish those of us who want to play by the decision of 4 people when 10-15 might want to play.

[Shelldon]

Don't know what you mean Shelldon I thought you done a good job of hosting that, the concept was the problem though. New concepts are mainly trail and error sometimes they work sometimes they don't.

Not my main problem though, I don't think this "panel" would portray the best interests of all the main players.

[Ludo*1]

I'm sorry Ludo but that's frankly a terrible idea and I certainly wouldn't bother playing in any more games if that happened.

As if you'd be a loss.

Seriously though, I think it's better than one guy deciding? What ideas do you have?

[Stewbo]

My retort to Forehead did have one good point, I felt, we should set up a permanent PM and become the 'mith'. Perhaps a 5 of Gordon, Gy, Me, Kyle and somebody else, perhaps Forehead, or TRS or someone? And for a game to go ahead, it needs a majority vote?

Anyone else think it's an interesting concept?

It's not a bad idea but it's setting restrictions on the many for the benefit of the few. I'm with Forehead on the number of games issue, if people dont want to play then they arent obliged to. Theres enough people on here that a few people sitting out a game wont impact it enough that it cant go ahead.

You said that your big issue after returning from your break was that the quality of players declined, I would say it's because of the number of new players who have started at the same time, so would limiting the number of games played really help that issue? About a quarter of the last games players have only been playing for the last couple of months, give them time to improve and you'll hopefully notice a difference.

Just me throwing ideas out here, but how about if everything started afresh and everyone got a clean slate? I'm not saying this is what we should go with, but a 5 man panel is better than just Forehead deciding which is ultimately what happens.

That's the thing though he's not deciding what happens, everybody else is, he's just writing it down for everyone to see.

[forehead7]

So what about Gy's claim about you saying you'd be the 'Mith'?

Exactly, YOU GIVE slots, you have no right to judge it. It should be a panel of the old guard, ie, Gy, Gordon & Kyle (If not including me) who set up a permanent PM and decide. I can drop out, and had done for a bit, but when I came back the quality had sank to such a level, purely because it's been over-saturated. It's really that simple.

They don't need to disprove you, they can disagree with you and whilst you may still think you're right, you can take what they say on board, not completely reject it as whether you believe so or not, you're changed games on here for the worse with your attitude that no breaks shall be had and the fact, that you deem yourself an authorative figure, when you're not. At all.

It's not an actual game though is it? It's a trial that shall be conducted throughout PM's.

I've always taken any discussions on Mith to be purely jocular, of course I'd throw my name in if we were actually going to do that but we don't need one. We discuss things as a group here and it works. Just FWIW, Mith doesn't actually decide, there's a series of Mods who run each type of game(theme, non-themed, themed mini, non-themed mini and others).

I give the slots out first come, first serve so I don't do any judging. Why should anyone judge what does and doesn't get passed? I'm not sure what needs to be decided, other than the schedule which shouldn't be left up to 3/4 people, we all talk about it in here and the general consensus prevails.

I have taken whatever they say on board, but there's only like 5 people who think we should take breaks, which we have. We have two weeks until the next scheduled game, isn't that enough of a break? Again, I'm not sure what's so hard to do, take a break if you want, let games continue.

I brought up that gtg had played the most games on this site then you started claiming to of played more on other sites.

I signed up for a mini game that is being held in a PM thread almost a month away hardly a proper game is it?

Still working out the difference between opinion and fact?

No you didn't, you said that GTG had played more games. Which he hasn't.

It's still going to take away some players from the games around that time.

Yeah, I'm not going to be condescended, in a English subject, by a barely literate moron.

[Ludo*1]

I doubt it unless there's a man holding them at gun point forcing them to play it shouldn't. The 'schedule' needs to be revamped sure but not under the guidance of a 5 man clique discussing it in private.

But they will. This is almost as bad as the SPL chairmen, everyone knows there is a problem, but rejects the actual root of the problem and say we need change but just ridicule any suggestion. What's your ideas?

That's the thing though he's not deciding what happens, everybody else is, he's just writing it down for everyone to see.

He completely rejected the notion of a few people hosting, if you look back through the thread.

[gy diamond]

How would this PM make games more enjoyable?

It will mean that we don't have an overload of games like we have done.

[Sooky]

As if you'd be a loss.

Seriously though, I think it's better than one guy deciding? What ideas do you have?

I think Forehead is sometimes harshly treated on this. I don't think that he controls the games. People state their intention on having a game on whatever date they want it and Forehead adds it into the schedule on the opening post. If someone wants to swap dates with someone then they sort it out between themselves, not by letting Forehead decide(an example of this is when Kyle wanted to start his game on the same week as mine and we reached a mutual agreement with Forehead saying 'sort it out amongst yourselves'). To me Forehead is just the host of the thread so he updates the posts, I don't think he decides which games are played and which aren't. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was GTG that came up with the current schedule?

However, your idea would be horrible and effectively turn mafia games from a democracy into a dictatorship!

[Ludo*1]

You said that your big issue after returning from your break was that the quality of players declined, I would say it's because of the number of new players who have started at the same time, so would limiting the number of games played really help that issue? About a quarter of the last games players have only been playing for the last couple of months, give them time to improve and you'll hopefully notice a difference.

A quarter? Really? There's been a few first time players than play one or two games and then disappear but it's always been like that and the quality wasn't that bad either.

Forehead - I've read your post, and agree with a lot of what you say, but something needs to be done about the quality of play. It's getting worse and worse. Just because one guy fancies a go at hosting, doesn't mean a new game should be created. This isn't a mafia game forum, therefore there isn't a need for one every 2 weeks.

[Shelldon]

It will mean that we don't have an overload of games like we have done.

So those five people have a better judgement on what will be a good game then anyone else does? What happens if everyone wants it except three of the five panel members? The game doesn't go ahead even though an overwhelming majority of the players that would be playing the game want it to. Democracy works better than dictatorship.

[Ludo*1]

I think Forehead is sometimes harshly treated on this. I don't think that he controls the games. People state their intention on having a game on whatever date they want it and Forehead adds it into the schedule on the opening post. If someone wants to swap dates with someone then they sort it out between themselves, not by letting Forehead decide(an example of this is when Kyle wanted to start his game on the same week as mine and we reached a mutual agreement with Forehead saying 'sort it out amongst yourselves'). To me Forehead is just the host of the thread so he updates the posts, I don't think he decides which games are played and which aren't. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was GTG that came up with the current schedule?

However, your idea would be horrible and effectively turn mafia games from a democracy into a dictatorship!

I never asked for your personal opinion of Forehead, I asked for your ideas that can increase the quality of the games. I'm sure GTG proposed a schedule a few pages back that would have drastically cut down the number of game, of which, I totally agree with.

[gy diamond]

I'm a barely literate moron but yet I'm the one that understands the difference between opinion and fact.

[Ludo*1]

So those five people have a better judgement on what will be a good game then anyone else does? What happens if everyone wants it except three of the five panel members? The game doesn't go ahead even though an overwhelming majority of the players that would be playing the game want it to. Democracy works better than dictatorship.

Could be a voting thing? Every 6 months a vote takes place within this thread to see who represents the us in the game?

[number one wasp]

Could be a voting thing? Every 6 months a vote takes place within this thread to see who represents the us in the game?

It's still a bad idea, Their will always be a majority who want to play a game but won't be allowed because a group of 4-5 people don't want to play.

[forehead7]

My retort to Forehead did have one good point, I felt, we should set up a permanent PM and become the 'mith'. Perhaps a 5 of Gordon, Gy, Me, Kyle and somebody else, perhaps Forehead, or TRS or someone? And for a game to go ahead, it needs a majority vote?

Anyone else think it's an interesting concept?

Why should other people decide what's right and was not right as a theme to games? I play in tonnes of games that I've never heard of the theme and they're great. I doubt my Marvel game would've passed through that "test" or my Pokemon game, but many enjoyed those.

Where's the accountability? Those five people get to decide but whoever the tell to get to f**k doesn't get to see why or who said it? Nah, I don't like the air of anonymity that it puts in place.

My game was shite because half of the people playing couldn't be arsed. Which leads back to the point of people just signing up perhaps because they feel they have to and back to the point again of that you don't have to play if you don't want to.

Exactly, it's nothing to do with the host or theme, it's on the players.

Just me throwing ideas out here, but how about if everything started afresh and everyone got a clean slate? I'm not saying this is what we should go with, but a 5 man panel is better than just Forehead deciding which is ultimately what happens.

I'm not deciding anything, I take the majority opinion.

That's the thing though he's not deciding what happens, everybody else is, he's just writing it down for everyone to see.

Thank you!

But they will. This is almost as bad as the SPL chairmen, everyone knows there is a problem, but rejects the actual root of the problem and say we need change but just ridicule any suggestion. What's your ideas?

He completely rejected the notion of a few people hosting, if you look back through the thread.

I don't see a problem.

Who? I think Lichtie is the only person I've said that to and that was right after he hosted his game, and loads of people agreed that he shouldn't host again so soon. The only other person who I could've thought I'd tell to f**k off would be Broxi, but he's on the schedule so I don't think I did.