keybroad: (Smile)
Lotus ❊ ([personal profile] keybroad) wrote in [community profile] notasstrange 2017-04-24 10:43 am (UTC)

Thank you for these replies that are even clearer than my original questions which I attempted to make very exacting. So, here I go.

To state the biggest point that I don't see directly addressed, announcements about the game state were being made on Plurk (whether the game or the mod's personal) where not every single player was added on the timeline. I have looked at the OOC comm, the mod journal (though players wouldn't necessarily be tracking this), and the IC comm with both new entries and new top-levels. The existence of a new deadline is not directly indicated on Dreamwidth as far as I can see. If you intend to make binding announcements over Plurk in the future, there should be a rule where all the accepted players provide a Plurk account that must friend the mod account.

Secondly, even your modified rules do not reflect the voting period that was actually imposed. Your rules estimate a 12:01PM~11:59PM EST period of availability commitment (or perhaps twelve hours after the latest suggested trial time posting would get you 2:00PM~2:00AM), and then your 2:27AM~11:59AM EST voting period falls entirely outside of said commitment period.

(Note: The following statement depends on this plurk that I am seeing in an edited form and may be misunderstanding.) In fact, you had even directly indicated at 1:09AM EST that voting would go up "tomorrow" with no indication of the exact time it would appear. The original plurk could easily be interpreted as an injunction to go to bed with no further availability commitments that would emerge before, for example, noon. Then over an hour later the voting went up after all. This modification occurred on Plurk over editing instead of a response. An "unread plurk" notification would not necessarily show up on a players timeline.

So even though the notice was public for nine whole hours, players were not obligated to follow that publication medium. This nine hour period was also slightly outside the range of even the modified FAQ. In short, theoretically a rule-following player could not be certain to know.

I don't want to entirely remove the flack from the players here. I can understand your reservations about having a long voting extension when so many players hadn't even been in the trial the entire time. Even in the most uncharitable interpretation of your voting period notification methods, some of the players made the choice to not participate in the necessary investigation and/or the trial. Your FAQ was extremely clear about the inverse relationship of these behaviors to a minimum participation requirement (even if irrelevant to the mock trial that wouldn't have a long term good ending). Char is correct in her statements that the mock reserve post was sufficiently clear.

It's my opinion that the biggest reason for the bad end was the combination of the preexisting voting system and the idlers. Either one by itself wasn't necessarily a problem. The culprit is not obligated to vote for themselves, and several canonmates are allowed (losing memories but not necessarily of one another), so as in this case eight active players might still cast votes and yet not all for the true culprit. Ri and Lynny are accurate in their statement that "Ultimately what we see is the players who were active being effectively punished for the inactivity of others." However, I see this as part and parcel of the two-outcome trial system. For example, there is the need to await an organic culprit confession (Machine Talk Battle) and then a "call" for votes instead of simply a screened post where everyone can submit their votes at any time during the trial. Even though people not participating earlier was a problem, there is also the possibility that they had left by the time the vote was "called" (which, as I've said before, was somewhat outside the availability commitment period). Your current voting system itself will always allow that abstainers/culprits/accomplices can outweigh the existence of a confession, a correct conclusion, and a couple of correct votes. So, I think that's sort of just how the chips fall.

I disprefer this two-outcome system, which is why I've never played in a game using it. I have instead played in games that avoid these problems with a different system from the ground up. For example a 6-5-4 vote would still get the culprit with 6 votes executed. Or, a vote with 6 for the culprit, 1 from the culprit for an enemy, and 8 abstainers will get the eight abstainers and the culprit executed. That's not even getting into a simple mistrial system where just one scapegoat is executed, or a more complicated comprehensive activity check that prosecutes individuals. There are a lot of options, I won't say more because I want to focus on all the facets of your own original vision here.

That's about everything I have to say. You can PP me at [ profile] Lengachan if you want to talk more in depth. I've omitted a lot of thoughts about my own similar experiences because I want to keep the focus on you. Finally let me know if I can paypal you some cash for an Italian ice or something because holy fuck my heart is going out there to you so hard. I know this must just be one of the most terrible feelings in the world, spending so much effort trying to fix something, and then failing, and then having to read thousands of words about your actions that focus primarily on the parts where you failed. I want to emphasize that I think you tried very hard, and you deserve to feel less sad later.

Post a comment in response:

Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.