MTG Salvation

Thank you!

Upkeep Edit: I've added "Shadow" to the Mafia terms list and have begun to restore the hosting thread.

Upkeep Double Edit: The Hosting List thread has been restored completely.

Double post for bump:

Just a reminder to everyone that I will be sending out a final notice PM tomorrow about the hosting list to anyone who hasn't confirmed completion to me as setups are due then. I will give until the end of the weekend to respond to the PM and then you will be dropped from the hosting list.

To the Council: I implore you to reconsider my queue restructuring proposal to size-based instead of complexity-based. TCM's Normal sign-ups have been open for over a month, now, and other games are still having serious activity issues despite the holidays having been over for half a month, now. In addition, the last Normal was abandoned, largely due to activity issues with the playerbase. I suggest we blur the line between Specialty and Normal due to the fact that the two are largely becoming indistinguishable anyway.

With the smaller community here compared to a larger on such as MafiaScum, I would support Iso's suggestion. Primarily echoing most of Iso's arguments but you can add the fact that larger game add complexity to the game just in terms of gameplay, even if the mechanics and roles are simpler than a mini, so blurring the line of Speciality and Normal might not be so different.

Given previous problems with past normals, I definitely think reducing numbers of large games until there exists an influx of players unable to participate in games due to supply outweighing demand is the best plan.

Historical Figures can't fill up, King of the Hill had problems filling up and then was abandoned due to replacements, Gotham Underground ended up having to modkill at the end after numerous replacements.

I'll point out it's hard to replace into normals after the first day or so when there are like 1000-2000 posts to weed through and process.

FWIW, I've been trying to get people to join MTGS just to fill TCM's game. It's no easy feat.

Quote from Iso

To the Council: I implore you to reconsider my queue restructuring proposal to size-based instead of complexity-based. TCM's Normal sign-ups have been open for over a month, now, and other games are still having serious activity issues despite the holidays having been over for half a month, now. In addition, the last Normal was abandoned, largely due to activity issues with the playerbase. I suggest we blur the line between Specialty and Normal due to the fact that the two are largely becoming indistinguishable anyway.

...and yet again, I am still in favor of it. We also now have a couple more months of proof that our current system isn't cutting it and normals don't have anywhere near the popularity they once did. Once again, I am willing to listen to proposals on how to fix this issue (something people kept insisting was a non-issue), but this proposal seems like the best course of action. Additionally, it should be noted that I am only but one member of the council; my voice does not speak for our entirety.

Quote from atlseal

Quote from Iso

To the Council: I implore you to reconsider my queue restructuring proposal to size-based instead of complexity-based. TCM's Normal sign-ups have been open for over a month, now, and other games are still having serious activity issues despite the holidays having been over for half a month, now. In addition, the last Normal was abandoned, largely due to activity issues with the playerbase. I suggest we blur the line between Specialty and Normal due to the fact that the two are largely becoming indistinguishable anyway.

...and yet again, I am still in favor of it. We also now have a couple more months of proof that our current system isn't cutting it and normals don't have anywhere near the popularity they once did. Once again, I am willing to listen to proposals on how to fix this issue (something people kept insisting was a non-issue), but this proposal seems like the best course of action. Additionally, it should be noted that I am only but one member of the council; my voice does not speak for our entirety.

I'll support altseal in this.

I was initially reluctant to enact sweeping changes to the system, but the current state of affairs indicates that we do have a pervasive problem.

An idea I just had regarding one way to facilitate signups would be to have the Player Signup Thread be a place for players to indicate which non-Basic signups should go up next; if there is a demand for a specific game size, players can speak up there. Once 125% (open to suggestions) of the players needed to fire the game support a signup firing, the host will be given permission to post a thread.

The biggest pros to this idea are that we will no longer have problems filling signups and that players will be able to play in exactly the size of games they want.

The biggest cons to this idea are that the queues will move at unpredictable rates (some perhaps not moving at all) and that some hosts may feel cheated that their game designs must be abandoned due to the lack of popularity of games of that size.

One counterpoint to the cons I list is that our current system for Normal games is clearly ineffective at this point in time, so that queue is more or less on its last legs either way.

Thoughts?

Hosts should accommodate players, not the other way around. If I design a 40 player game, I can't get mad at the player base for not being interested. If a host doesn't get his game run because the player size is wrong, s/he should make changes to fix it.

I think Iso's probably right; we do have a problem with activity dropping and simply doing nothing isn't a solution. I'm in favor of tinkering with the queues to see if anything helps. Size-based discrimination seems to be a logical solution.

Looks like Gman's solution will finally be implemented. I enjoy this.

My suggestion as before is to split up the queue as such:

Basic <# as playerbase demands>
Small (14-) <1-2>
Large (15+) <1>
FTQ <1>
League <1>

For reasoning, the discussion wasn't that far back, so I'm sure you can find it.

This won't be a problem at all because I have 4 days off this week (:dance:) and I can look up the order in which hosts signed up in some of that time, I'm sure. Plus I've been collecting setup information to spur more interest in the playerbase, and this information can be doubly used for queue restructuring.

Quote from AsianInvasion

I'll support altseal in this.

I was initially reluctant to enact sweeping changes to the system, but the current state of affairs indicates that we do have a pervasive problem.

An idea I just had regarding one way to facilitate signups would be to have the Player Signup Thread be a place for players to indicate which non-Basic signups should go up next; if there is a demand for a specific game size, players can speak up there. Once 125% (open to suggestions) of the players needed to fire the game support a signup firing, the host will be given permission to post a thread.

The biggest pros to this idea are that we will no longer have problems filling signups and that players will be able to play in exactly the size of games they want.

The biggest cons to this idea are that the queues will move at unpredictable rates (some perhaps not moving at all) and that some hosts may feel cheated that their game designs must be abandoned due to the lack of popularity of games of that size.

One counterpoint to the cons I list is that our current system for Normal games is clearly ineffective at this point in time, so that queue is more or less on its last legs either way.

Thoughts?

Didn't we try that sort of queue before?

The major problems I see are as follows:

1. Large games will never fire. To get 125% for a large game is a significant chunk of the playerbase. In addition, small games need fewer players to get going, so many will get sick of the waiting and skip down to the mini queue.

2. A lot of players might sign up for the game, but not sign up for it in the queue.

I fully support the need to change something, but I don't think that's the answer.

An alternate suggestion: I think we still have enough support for one large game at a time. Perhaps rotate around between Normal, Specialty, and FTQ, and have no more than one such game running at a time? (Possibly excluding the league, which is likely enough to generate its own interest)

EDIT: Response to Iso's list since he nath'd me:

The big problem here is that FTQ and League games tend to be large as well. This essentially makes it two small games (+basics) vs. three large games, when large games aren't working with that many running.

Quote from Iso

My suggestion as before is to split up the queue as such:

Basic <# as playerbase demands>
Small (14-) <1-2>
Large (15+) <1>
FTQ <1>
League <1>

For reasoning, the discussion wasn't that far back, so I'm sure you can find it.

I'm in agreement with this proposal, although I'd consider dropping the League game from the list. Siphoning off a subsection of the player base to play in games hardly seems constructive when we're in short supply. If/when the time comes where we're seeing increased activity, consider revisiting, but it just doesn't seem worth it (not to mention all the drama that accompanied the scoring methodology).

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

The big problem here is that FTQ and League games tend to be large as well. This essentially makes it two small games (+basics) vs. three large games, when large games aren't working with that many running.

Given this observation, it's no wonder that Normals are dead; everyone who would play in them is signing up for FTQs and League games instead. Simply phasing out the queue would probably solve all of our problems.

I still think the League should choose some of the games from the usual queues. I understand there's some premisses the league games need to comply but I believe that if the judges talk with the next 10 or so mods from all queues they can find an adequate game for the league within it. In worst case one of the next mods can even tinker his game to better fit the league.

EDIT: I've been thinking, isn't the end goal of the League to find a "perfect" rubric to score mafia games? If this is true it makes even more sense to try to fit the league games into the usual queues, to increase the evolution of the rubric. Because if the league can work within games of all sizes and complexities it can be used everywhere.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

The big problem here is that FTQ and League games tend to be large as well. This essentially makes it two small games (+basics) vs. three large games, when large games aren't working with that many running.

We are currently seeing 2 large games running, and we saw that with a League game running just last month if I'm not mistaken. KotH Mafia was what pushed it over the edge.

Quote from DYH

I'm in agreement with this proposal, although I'd consider dropping the League game from the list. Siphoning off a subsection of the player base to play in games hardly seems constructive when we're in short supply. If/when the time comes where we're seeing increased activity, consider revisiting, but it just doesn't seem worth it (not to mention all the drama that accompanied the scoring methodology).

Dropping the League, really? (I mean that as a sincere question, no snark.) There seems to be enough interest in the League to keep running it with little to no problems.

Edit: @AI: But that doesn't give the mods who WANT to run Normals a fair chance.

Well, unless I've missed something, it doesn't seem that there's a League game running currently, and the Normal game in sign-ups hasn't filled. So the question is:

Are people waiting for a league game to sign up to play in a large game?

If so, that is directly hindering the ability to fill Normals. Hence the "siphoning off a sub-section of the playerbase" comment.

Follow-up: Is the alternative solution to just count every large game in the League?

I don't know the answer, just throwing out ideas.

We're currently waiting for TCM's game to finish filling up before we open the League game sign-up thread.

That creates a problem for the players in the League who want in to a specific game and the players who aren't in the League who want in to a specific game, or if either don't, blah blah, etc. With the PCQ submission we have going on in the League, players have more diversity in being able to choose what kinds of games they're scored on. After all, the League is for the players.

Quote from Iso

That creates a problem for the players in the League who want in to a specific game and the players who aren't in the League who want in to a specific game, or if either don't, blah blah, etc. With the PCQ submission we have going on in the League, players have more diversity in being able to choose what kinds of games they're scored on. After all, the League is for the players.

Not only the League Iso, all this subforums are for the players. And we already have a PCQ like queue for more diversity and for the players to choose what games they like to play more, it's called the PCQ (and it's not being used anymore either).:)

And there's no fixing for this "problem", I mean, all players want something, and it's not like everyone can have what they want at the time they want. Let's say I want to play a #30 player game with the flavor of the teletubbies, chances are this is not happening anytime soon, so I play in other games meanwhile the game of my dreams is not in signups.

To me what the League has acomplished is an alien queue that syphons a bit of the player base and puts some games in front of all mods, some of then that are waiting for years for their time in the spotlight. In brazil we call that a "queue stabber", it's someone who comes late to the queue and instead of waiting for their time to come, goes and try to get one of the first spots by smooth talking their way into it.

EDIT: Thinking some more I don't believe we should be having this discussion in public, I think the mods, the judges and the council can and should discuss this privately and come with the best solution. I agree reestructuring the queue by size is a big step forward however.

Well, I'm down for someone to make a QT (123notme) so we can talk about it.

/quickly changes Amistaria III to a 30-player Teletubbies themed game instead

But yeah, it seems DRey and I are on the same wavelength here about the league dividing the player base.

I share Iso's opinion.

@Iso: That's my point: 3 large games is too many. One way or another, there needs to be no more than 2 large games.

Quote from DRey

Let's say I want to play a #30 player game with the flavor of the teletubbies, chances are this is not happening anytime soon, so I play in other games meanwhile the game of my dreams is not in signups.

I don't know how serious this is but I am (hopefully soon) going to make a 16-18 player Teletubbies Mafia.

Quote from DYH

/quickly changes Amistaria III to a 30-player Teletubbies themed game instead

Well, I'd like to hear the rest of the Council's opinions on the matter so I can get moving on this.

At this point, I would have absolutely no compunctions about killing the normal queue altogether. I've never been fond of it, it seems to be an awkward size and tends to be a dumping ground for hum-drum designs as well, which lag on and on due to the larger size.

I'm pondering whether we should attempt to leave the Specialty queue around, or just have the league, PCQ, and FTQ take point on filling that niche.

I think I'd lean towards killing them both. It may increase the number of FTQ/PCQ submissions, reduce the number of long games, increase game quality, and help support the league. We'd still have the opportunity to play in some large games, but it reduces the chance of having boring or ill-conceived long games and helps ensure that if anyone's dabbling in a larger size, they know what they're doing and can justify it.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

@Iso: That's my point: 3 large games is too many. One way or another, there needs to be no more than 2 large games.

This. Either we grant a regular game the title of "League Game", or we replace one of the queues with the League queue, but we can't handle another queue for (possibly) large games on top of all the other large game queues.

The League has been accepting game setups for awhile now but we've only received a small amount of responses. I'm not quite sure why, since it's probably easier to get a League game run (due to the voting process like with game 1).

We're going to be testing a Micro League game to stress the rubric, but after that we might need more setup submissions. Judges have been making their own setups but they shouldn't need to after a certain point of testing.

@Azrael: I'm not sure where "normal" games would go after killing the queue for it, but I do think killing it would probably increase the quality of setup designs.

Thing is, we're using the League as an extension of the PCQ. There are some games on the hosting list that would just absolutely be unsuitable for the League. Players may not be aware of that and prospective hosts may not be aware of major design flaws in the game or just excited that their game is being considered. For example: My Specialty I have queued is absolutely not suitable for the League. It's a simple and elegant setup with some daring twists, and Az, himself, approved my design. But it's swingy as hell, and it's setups like that which make me reluctant to agree with the 'let's just vote on a queued game to slap in the League slot' idea. The League games we've seen so far have been specially tailored so that there are no underlying elements that can completely offset the balance of the game so as to not leave a bad taste in the more competitive players' mouths.

If my initial idea isn't popular enough, here is my second proposal:

FTQ designed and submitted specifically to be fast-tracked (1)
PCQ chosen from any Normal or Specialty game option in the top 5 of each, with options narrowing to force hosts to adapt to what the playerbase wants (each player should provide reasons for their noms and votes so they can do this) to be nominated and voted on by the playerbase - I can run the polls, though this will slow down game transition (1-2)
Mini - (2-3)
League - Will operate the same as before (1)
Basic (Demand)

Quote from Iso

If my initial idea isn't popular enough, here is my second proposal:

FTQ designed and submitted specifically to be fast-tracked (1)
PCQ chosen from any Normal or Specialty game option in the top 5 of each, with options narrowing to force hosts to adapt to what the playerbase wants (each player should provide reasons for their noms and votes so they can do this) to be nominated and voted on by the playerbase - I can run the polls, though this will slow down game transition (1-2)
Mini - (2-3)
League - Will operate the same as before (1)
Basic (Demand)

To be explicit: under this proposed system, neither the Normal nor Specialty queues will ever fire? They will just be used as a harvesting ground for PCQ games?

In other words: is it possible that someone in 1st place on the Normal queue could stay there forever if they are not able to sell their game to the PCQ well enough?

That is correct. This would encourage hosts to tailor their games to what the playerbase wants. By limiting it to the Top 5 or so, this will still give hosts a fair chance and prevent it from becoming a popularity contest.

Quote from Iso

That is correct. This would encourage hosts to tailor their games to what the playerbase wants. By limiting it to the Top 5 or so, this will still give hosts a fair chance and prevent it from becoming a popularity contest.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

There should always remain a queue for large or medium sized non-gimmicky games.

I am with ZDS on this. The games that run through the FTQ and PCQ tend to be more advanced, more complicated ones. Under this proposed system, someone who has a clean design with no real innovations will never get to run it. Ged's Normal, for instance. I think there's enough evidence around that we should cut down on large games, say by consolidating the Specialty and Normal queues. I think that eliminating both of them as queues and keeping them just as waiting lists for the PCQ will not work.

This idea is terrible Iso, does not everyone remember why the PCQ was retired in the first place? It opens up much more problems than it solves and after last debacle no one has asked for it to be reinstated so far. Turning all games into PCQ is very very bad and would probably result in eventual destruction of the forums. I'm not joking.

Quote from Zionite

The League has been accepting game setups for awhile now but we've only received a small amount of responses. I'm not quite sure why, since it's probably easier to get a League game run (due to the voting process like with game 1).

Well, maybe it's because no one knew this, I certainly didn't despite being quite active on the forums and have been working on some setups myself.

@DRey: We made it clear [somewhere in one of the League threads] that we have been accepting submissions for League games.

That said, I'm infinitely more in favor of my first suggested change than the second.

Quote from Iso

That said, I'm infinitely more in favor of my first suggested change than the second.

That was this one?

Quote from Iso

Basic <# as playerbase demands>
Small (14-) <1-2>
Large (15+) <1>
FTQ <1>
League <1>

Seems reasonable to me.


Edit @DRey: it was originally mentioned in the Mafia League Beta Testing Season Sign-ups thread, and was also copied to the stickied Mafia League Scores and Discussion thread:

If you want to run a League game as a Host, our "Mod-Judge" will Co-host the game with you. The Co-host will be as hands on as you desire; she/he can fully run the setup for you or just be a back-up in the case you can't run it anymore. This is to allow everyone who would have previously submitted to the PCQ to still get a chance to host while still maintaining the integrity of the League game. If you're interested in submitting a League setup for review, PM any of the listed judges or the bookkeeper. Make sure you get a response to acknowledge it was received.

Quote from DRey

This idea is terrible Iso, does not everyone remember why the PCQ was retired in the first place? It opens up much more problems than it solves and after last debacle no one has asked for it to be reinstated so far. Turning all games into PCQ is very very bad and would probably result in eventual destruction of the forums. I'm not joking.

I believe that the PCQ was originally instated to fill unusually high game demand, and I have always seen it as an "overflow" game queue when our normal queues are firing at capacity. The fact that it has proven to be quite popular among some players may have led to some confusion as to its intent. The drama surrounding the last iteration of the PCQ was not the cause for its hiatus, though it does indicate that we should be careful when approaching it in the future.

If we try out Iso's first plan, I support alternating between the FTQ and PCQ.

@RobRoy: Yes.

@AI: I can dig it.

I think Basics should be taken off "as demanded" status. A cap on Basics of 2 or maybe 3 would prevent players from getting bogged down with those games and then feeling unable to join a cool Normal game.

If you combine that with telling Normal hosts to keep their games around the 18 player mark (and only firing one Normal at a time, natch), I think that will solve the problem.

Currently we're running 3 Basics at a time, and the 19-player Normal game took over a month to fill up...

Quote from Iso

Currently we're running 3 Basics at a time, and the 19-player Normal game took over a month to fill up...

Ah. Well, then I'd go with your original (small/large games) solution with a preliminary hard cap of 2 on Basics.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

There should always remain a queue for large or medium sized non-gimmicky games.

That was our thought for a long time, but it seems like market forces are voting against it pretty decisively.

We need to scale back *somewhere*, or add a bunch of players (who like normals) in a hurry. But folks seem to prefer things such as the PCQ, FTQ, league, minis, and basics to ordinary size normals.

I suppose we could just take a hatchet to just a single one of the normal or specialty queues? Specialties still seem to be filling up ok.

That doesn't really address ZDS' concern, but frankly, most of the players who seem to like simplicity in their setups are going with basics and minis.

I mean, I suggested combining the Normal and Specialty queue and blurring the lines last time and got completely shot down.

I still think size-based games is the best route we can go for this.

I like Basic, Mini, and Large, with basics run on demand.

ZDS, remember my Normal (Digimon Mafia) that you reviewed? Would you classify it as a not-good-enough-for-Specialty or a Normal Normal? I'm trying to understand the line, here.

No worries, I thought that might be the answer.

So, Council, what's the verdict? Would also like Eco's input.

I 90% agree with ZDS however there's one thing I disagree and I want to talk about it. I do agree the line between normals and speciality has become blurry (I even raised this very same point like a year ago when Gman suggested separating the queues by size the very first time), however I think the best solution is to merge both of those queues, merging by size.

I don't think the adequate solution is to reinstate both queues and differenciate then adequately from now on, because we will just return to the state we were years ago when the queues were created in the first place.

I think that separating games by size already will fix all problems and will give everyone what they want, innovative big games (Seasons), innovative small games (Deitriptychos), classic medium games (Ged's normal, Checks), classic small games (basics), everything is game. We don't need rules for that ("we run X classic games, Y innovative games at at a time"), let the mods and players decide which games they like most by supply and demand laws. Given enough time the mods will learn what players enjoy more and move in that direction in a natural way. I for example like to play both innovative and classic games however I dislike large games (17+ players) because, no matter the complexity, those games turn into a mess fast.

Well, with all of the information I'm collecting on setups from prospective hosts, it won't be so much of a crapshoot anymore.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Sure, everyone will have what they want, but guess what: they already do. What poses problem is not the availability of wanted games, it's their predictability. The solution you propose would only considerably aggravate the issues I have with the Normal queue, which is that I can't predict when a game I might want to play in will start (you can replace "I" with the name of anyone who shares this sentiment, it's not just about me).

You say if we differentiate the queues adequately we will just return to their initial state. It's true, but why do you say it like it's a bad thing? The problem is not in how things were, it's in how things have become. Mods and reviewers were given no clear indication of what should be considered a Normal game, except emulating the previous mods and reviewers who themselves had no clear indication, etc. We let the queue be run by the invisible hand of the market of wild guesses, and it became something wild (who would have guessed?).

Makes sense, I understand your point, however as Iso said this problem will be solved by his preliminary gathering of info from the mods about their game particularities. This issue has nothing to do with the problem we are facing right now (low interest of large games plus large supply of large games and Normals are specialities and vice-versa).

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

2) Because of the great difference between the fast pace at which Minis and more importantly Basics come and go, and the snail pace at which Normals do, if I want to play in a Normal I have to make sure I hold off from joining too many games (which, in my case, often translates into "joining any game at all"). And even then, because of the previous point, I can only do that when I know the Normal I'm looking forward to isn't going to be some lame pseudo-Specialty; which I rarely do. As a result when a promising Normal game starts (like, say, Historical Figures), I have more often than not already reached my personal limit on simultaneous games.

This is why the queue system needs fixing, IMO.

E: Right, the actual point I wanted to make. Back when I started here, the first Normals I remembered seeing were Conflux & Return to Amistaria. Good games, very enjoyable reads, but that is the level of difficulty I came to understand. It confused me a bit, at first, but I eventually became accustomed to it. By comparison, seeing games like Final Fantasy & WoW, which changed fundamental principles of how the game worked (the NK), were my baseline for Specialty (and/or PCQ+FTQ).

So there's that.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Sure, everyone will have what they want, but guess what: they already do. What poses problem is not the availability of wanted games, it's their predictability. The solution you propose would only considerably aggravate the issues I have with the Normal queue, which is that I can't predict when a game I might want to play in will start (you can replace "I" with the name of anyone who shares this sentiment, it's not just about me).

You say if we differentiate the queues adequately we will just return to their initial state. It's true, but why do you say it like it's a bad thing? The problem is not in how things were, it's in how things have become. Mods and reviewers were given no clear indication of what should be considered a Normal game, except emulating the previous mods and reviewers who themselves had no clear indication, etc. We let the queue be run by the invisible hand of the market of wild guesses, and it became something wild (who would have guessed?).

I think ZDS nails it, here. It's a branding issue.

I understand that Iso is going to try to provide information on game hosts and setups, but it still doesn't resolve the issue of players either wanting or not wanting to play the "normal" or "specialty" brand.

From what I can see, not only do most players not enjoy the current brand of "normals", most hosts don't enjoy designing those games - so they bend the definitions. But we don't have enough players to support the hybrid normal option anymore. That seems to be a given.

That being the case, I don't think a pure "large-size" brand is going to be very successful either. The only large-size brands that have been successful lately are the FTQ, PCQ, and specialty queues. People don't enjoy joining games just because they're large - so naming them the "large-size queue" and lumping them together into a grab-bag is a good way to discourage people from signing up for any large games whatsoever, and decrease the visibility of the innovative games which draw in the largest crowds. The reason people join large games, is because often people are able to do cool things with the increased design space. Its better branding and consistency to give those different types of games queues of their own.

Its *possible* a "strictly normal" game might gather some interest if it's particularly well-built. But if so, I think it will need to fight it out with other competitors in the FTQ/PCQ circuits, because I'm skeptical that there is enough support for an entire queue dedicated to that at the moment.

I could be wrong - maybe it just needs to be rebranded into a "true normal" queue, without any of that grab-bag of randomness, with a clear set of expectations and rules about what's allowed (no original roles, for instance, only named roles). Maybe that would give it a chance to compete with the basics and minis.

But unless I hear a groundswell of interest for the true normal idea, my vote is to hack out the normal queue, prevent the specialty queue from diluting into a normal-style queue, and see what kind of shape we're in after that. Normal normals would fight it out in the discretionary queues from now on, until the point where sufficient interest in them revives.

Should we continue running Normals until the current queue is exhausted? It seems unfair to the hosts in the Normal list to just completely lose their place if they've been patiently waiting for some time.

Quote from Iso

Should we continue running Normals until the current queue is exhausted? It seems unfair to the hosts in the Normal list to just completely lose their place if they've been patiently waiting for some time.

How many different names are currently on the list?

I'm not entirely certain there's an ideal solution to this problem. We can't fill those games as-is, there's probably a year or so of backlog, and featuring games that the playerbase enjoys playing in is the primary priority.

I say you give the top five or so names on the Normal and Specialty lists preferential placement on the list that replaces them or another list of their choice (in the latter case, likely not in the top five, but maybe in the top ten).

I figure anyone outside the top five people on those lists is likely to be far enough out that they won't be as harmed as someone who's sat on the list for a year.