You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.

Normal Game Review Group: Difference between revisions

From MafiaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(update for 2018)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


The Normal Game Review Group are a group of members who are responsible for reviewing moderators' set-ups in the [[Mini Normal]] and [[Large Normal]] [[Queue]], as well as any Normal games run in the [[Micro]] Queue. All games are reviewed for normalcy (as defined by the [[Normal Game|Normal Game guidelines]]), and to ensure that they are sufficiently balanced. (Prior to May 2016, the balance part of the review was optional; the reviews were introduced in late 2010).
The Normal Game Review Group are a group of members who are responsible for reviewing moderators' set-ups in the [[Mini Normal]] and [[Large Normal]] [[Queue]], as well as any Normal games run in the [[Micro]] Queue. All games are reviewed for normalcy (as defined by the [[Normal Game|Normal Game guidelines]]), and to ensure that they are sufficiently balanced. (Prior to May 2016, the balance part of the review was optional; the reviews were introduced in late 2010).
In 2018, there was a major change to the review process to make it more streamlined.


==The Group==
==The Group==


{{U|N}} is responsible for running the group, answering questions and assigning reviewers to upcoming moderators. As of May 2016, here is the full list of members:
{{U|implosion}} is responsible for running the group, answering questions and assigning reviewers to upcoming moderators. As of May 2018, here is the full list of members:
 
<!-- please maintain this list in alphabetical order, it's hard to update otherwise -->
:{{U|Aeronaut}}, {{U|AngryPidgeon}}, {{U|Antihero}}, {{U|borkjerfkin}}, {{U|callforjudgement}}, {{U|Cephrir}}, {{U|ChaosOmega}}, {{U|Cheery Dog}}, {{U|Cheetory6}}, {{U|Cogito Ergo Sum}}, {{U|Empking}}, {{U|Ether}}, {{U|Faraday}}, {{U|Firebringer}}, {{U|Fro99er}}, {{U|Herodotus}}, {{U|Hoopla}}, {{U|implosion}}, {{U|Ircher}}, {{U|JacobSavage}}, {{U|LlamaFluff}}, {{U|Marquis}}, {{U|mastin2}}, {{U|mastina}}, {{U|mhsmith0}}, {{U|mykonian}}, {{U|Nexus}}, {{U|Papa Zito}}, {{U|PenguinPower}}, {{U|petroleumjelly}}, {{U|Plessiez}}, {{U|quadz08}}, {{U|RadiantCowbells}}, {{U|Radja}}, {{U|Regfan}}, {{U|Something_Smart}}, {{U|SpyreX}}, {{U|TellTaleHeart}}, {{U|Tierce}}, {{U|Untrod Tripod}}, {{U|Vi}}, {{U|xRECKONERx}}, {{U|Zar}}, {{U|zoraster}}
 
== How the process works ==
 
(See the page history for the pre-2018 process).
 
First, the moderator produces a setup they feel is Normal and balanced. It does not necessarily need to have been reviewed in advance, but doing so may be helpful, especially if the moderator is unsure about the balance, as a review under no time pressure can be more accurate than the fairly streamlined process used once the setup has been officially proposed by the moderator.


:{{U|Aeronaut}}, {{U|AngryPidgeon}}, {{U|Antihero}}, {{U|borkjerfkin}}, {{U|callforjudgement}}, {{U|Cephrir}}, {{U|ChaosOmega}}, {{U|Cheery Dog}}, {{U|Cheetory6}} {{U|Cogito Ergo Sum}}, {{U|Empking}}, {{U|Ether}}, {{U|Faraday}}, {{U|fferyllt}}, {{U|Herodotus}}, {{U|Hoopla}}, {{U|JacobSavage}}, {{U|LlamaFluff}}, {{U|Marquis}}, {{U|mastin2}}, {{U|mykonian}}, {{U|N}}, {{U|Natirasha}}, {{U|Nexus}}, {{U|Papa Zito}}, {{U|petroleumjelly}}, {{U|Plessiez}}, {{U|quadz08}}, {{U|Regfan}}, {{U|SpyreX}}, {{U|Tierce}}, {{U|Untrod Tripod}}, {{U|Vi}}, {{U|xRECKONERx}}, {{U|Zar}}, {{U|zoraster}}
Next, the moderator submits their <code>/in to mod</code> in the Normal (or, if appropriately sized, Micro) Queue (see [[How to Mod]]). At this point the [[List Mod]] of the queue in question (as of May 2016, {{U|N}} or {{U|Marquis}} for the Normal and Micro queues respectively) will contact the moderator, asking for details of the setup. (Instead of using their own setup, a moderator can ask to be assigned a pregenerated setup; the Normal Review Group maintain a pool of such setups that were designed and reviewed in advance.)


==How the process works==
Once the setup has been sent in, the Normal Review Group will appoint two reviewers: a primary and a secondary reviewer. (Depending on reviewer availability, this might be almost immediate or might wait for reviewers to become available.) The reviewers and the game's moderator will be invited into a [[private topic]] to discuss the setup.


First, the moderator produces a setup they feel is Normal and balanced, but it does not need to have been reviewed at this point (and thus there is little benefit to asking for a setup review in advance). They submit their <code>/in to mod</code> in the Normal (or, if appropriately sized, Micro) Queue (see [[How to Mod]]). At this point the [[List Mod]] of the queue in question (as of May 2016, {{U|N}} or {{U|Marquis}} for the Normal and Micro queues respectively) will contact the moderator, asking for details of the setup (all the opening posts, the wording of each role PM, and information on any information about how the setup is run that is not obvious from these).
The primary reviewer has a few options at this point:


Once the setup has been sent in, the Normal Review Group will appoint three reviewers (depending on reviewer availability, this might be almost immediate or might wait for reviewers to become available). The reviewers and the game's moderator will be invited into a [[private topic]] to discuss the setup. In addition to balance concerns, discussion often revolves around ensuring that the ruleset is reasonable, checking the wording of roles and flavour to ensure that no misleading information is being given and no information that should be secret is being given away, and ensuring that all roles and mechanics function in a Normal manner. Especially with first-time moderators, the Normal Review Group also have a tendency to dispense advice on how to moderate, especially if they foresee a problem arising in the setup that a new moderator might not know how to deal with.
* '''Approve the setup'''. It will run as is. This is only done if the reviewer feels that the setup is Normal, and as balanced as it's likely to get.
* '''Approve the setup but suggest an alternative setup'''. This is perhaps the most common option, and is done if the reviewer feels that the setup is Normal, and sufficently balanced to run, but not perfectly balanced; the alternative setup would typically be a similar setup intended to improve the balance (e.g. by changing a role or two). The moderator must choose (via posting in the review thread) to run the original setup, run the alternative setup, or suggest a new setup (in this last case, the review effectively restarts with the new setup suggested).
* '''Reject the setup, suggesting an alternative'''. This happens if the suggested setup is fixably abNormal or too unbalanced to run; the suggested alternative would be a normalcy or balance fix. The moderator may choose to run the suggested alternative setup, or suggest one of their own (in which case the review effectively restarts with the newly suggested setup).
* '''Reject the setup, and suggest running an assigned pre-approved setup instead'''. This happens if the suggested setup is too far from a runnable Normal to be fixed. The moderator may run with an assigned setup, or suggest an alternative setup themself.


In order for the setup to be able to take signups, all three reviewers must agree that the setup is normal and balanced; if there are problems with the setup, the moderator is allowed to change part or even all of the setup to resolve the issues. (If a reviewer refuses to agree to the normalcy or balance of part of a setup, this is basically a "veto" that forces the moderator to change that part of the setup or else be unable to run it. These are rare, because most moderators change parts of the setup voluntarily upon being told that they're problematic.) Once all three reviewers agree, one of them will contact the list moderator, who will allow the setup into signups if it was previously held at the front of the queue awaiting review. (A setup is allowed to move through the moderator queue even while it is being reviewed; it simply can't go into signups without a completed review, and will thus be stuck at the front of the queue until the review is completed, with subsequent setups overtaking it.)
The secondary reviewer will in practice normally make comments to help the primary reviewer and moderator make their decisions, but their only formal role is to act as a backup for the primary reviewer if they go missing.


If a moderator changes their mind about running a setup, they can cancel the review via an <code>/out to mod</code> in the queue, or by saying so in the review topic. Merely ceasing to post in the review topic is discouraged, as it causes uncertainty as to what should be done about the setup and/or the place in the moderator queue.
If a moderator changes their mind about running a setup, they can cancel the review via an <code>/out to mod</code> in the queue, or by saying so in the review topic. Merely ceasing to post in the review topic is discouraged, as it causes uncertainty as to what should be done about the setup and/or the place in the moderator queue.


Once the game actually starts running, it is good practice to link from the review topic to a moderator topic that records the distribution of roles, night actions, etc.. This allows a list moderator to recover the game if the game's moderator goes missing. Finally, once the game is complete, the review topic is made public.
Once the game actually starts running, it is good practice to link from the review topic to a moderator topic that records the distribution of roles, night actions, etc.; and to give a list moderator or reviewer (who is not playing in the game) access to it. This makes it possible to recover the game if the game's moderator goes missing. Finally, once the game is complete, the review topic is made public.


==Why the group exists==
==Why the group exists==

Latest revision as of 15:56, 16 May 2018

This page has official status; unlike most wiki pages, it cannot be edited by normal users. If you believe edits need to be made, please bring them up on the talk page.


The Normal Game Review Group are a group of members who are responsible for reviewing moderators' set-ups in the Mini Normal and Large Normal Queue, as well as any Normal games run in the Micro Queue. All games are reviewed for normalcy (as defined by the Normal Game guidelines), and to ensure that they are sufficiently balanced. (Prior to May 2016, the balance part of the review was optional; the reviews were introduced in late 2010).

In 2018, there was a major change to the review process to make it more streamlined.

The Group

implosion is responsible for running the group, answering questions and assigning reviewers to upcoming moderators. As of May 2018, here is the full list of members:

Aeronaut, AngryPidgeon, Antihero, borkjerfkin, callforjudgement, Cephrir, ChaosOmega, Cheery Dog, Cheetory6, Cogito Ergo Sum, Empking, Ether, Faraday, Firebringer, Fro99er, Herodotus, Hoopla, implosion, Ircher, JacobSavage, LlamaFluff, Marquis, mastin2, mastina, mhsmith0, mykonian, Nexus, Papa Zito, PenguinPower, petroleumjelly, Plessiez, quadz08, RadiantCowbells, Radja, Regfan, Something_Smart, SpyreX, TellTaleHeart, Tierce, Untrod Tripod, Vi, xRECKONERx, Zar, zoraster

How the process works

(See the page history for the pre-2018 process).

First, the moderator produces a setup they feel is Normal and balanced. It does not necessarily need to have been reviewed in advance, but doing so may be helpful, especially if the moderator is unsure about the balance, as a review under no time pressure can be more accurate than the fairly streamlined process used once the setup has been officially proposed by the moderator.

Next, the moderator submits their /in to mod in the Normal (or, if appropriately sized, Micro) Queue (see How to Mod). At this point the List Mod of the queue in question (as of May 2016, N or Marquis for the Normal and Micro queues respectively) will contact the moderator, asking for details of the setup. (Instead of using their own setup, a moderator can ask to be assigned a pregenerated setup; the Normal Review Group maintain a pool of such setups that were designed and reviewed in advance.)

Once the setup has been sent in, the Normal Review Group will appoint two reviewers: a primary and a secondary reviewer. (Depending on reviewer availability, this might be almost immediate or might wait for reviewers to become available.) The reviewers and the game's moderator will be invited into a private topic to discuss the setup.

The primary reviewer has a few options at this point:

  • Approve the setup. It will run as is. This is only done if the reviewer feels that the setup is Normal, and as balanced as it's likely to get.
  • Approve the setup but suggest an alternative setup. This is perhaps the most common option, and is done if the reviewer feels that the setup is Normal, and sufficently balanced to run, but not perfectly balanced; the alternative setup would typically be a similar setup intended to improve the balance (e.g. by changing a role or two). The moderator must choose (via posting in the review thread) to run the original setup, run the alternative setup, or suggest a new setup (in this last case, the review effectively restarts with the new setup suggested).
  • Reject the setup, suggesting an alternative. This happens if the suggested setup is fixably abNormal or too unbalanced to run; the suggested alternative would be a normalcy or balance fix. The moderator may choose to run the suggested alternative setup, or suggest one of their own (in which case the review effectively restarts with the newly suggested setup).
  • Reject the setup, and suggest running an assigned pre-approved setup instead. This happens if the suggested setup is too far from a runnable Normal to be fixed. The moderator may run with an assigned setup, or suggest an alternative setup themself.

The secondary reviewer will in practice normally make comments to help the primary reviewer and moderator make their decisions, but their only formal role is to act as a backup for the primary reviewer if they go missing.

If a moderator changes their mind about running a setup, they can cancel the review via an /out to mod in the queue, or by saying so in the review topic. Merely ceasing to post in the review topic is discouraged, as it causes uncertainty as to what should be done about the setup and/or the place in the moderator queue.

Once the game actually starts running, it is good practice to link from the review topic to a moderator topic that records the distribution of roles, night actions, etc.; and to give a list moderator or reviewer (who is not playing in the game) access to it. This makes it possible to recover the game if the game's moderator goes missing. Finally, once the game is complete, the review topic is made public.

Why the group exists

After a sequence of poorly designed Normal Games, a gradual push in Mafia Discussion towards mandatory game reviews was sparked; at the time, the culture of reviewing was heavily entrenched for Theme Games, but not so much for Normal Games. The tendency for Normal Games to be modded by newer mods, coupled with varying opinions of what Normal really was, was enough to push it over the edge, leading to policy being put in place defining normalcy.

Though the Normal Game Guidelines attempt to be objective in many ways, there are still gray areas that are dealt with in a subjective manner, and interpreted by the setup reviewers. The Normal Game Guidelines are reviewed and updated on a semi-regular basis, with public discussion having a large influence on how the guidelines are structured.