Long Game 74: You Want It Darker

[Kasimir he/him]

5 minutes ago, _Stick_ said:

Yeah...like the village PM group’s name, it was all 2 little 2 late  I did try that seeker Thing with Fifth as well but Fifth was too adamant on PM safety >:[ Also I had guessed his role wrong so there’s that too xD Cuz realistically, if a supposed seeker does come to me with a claim of having scanned someone as evil, before taking it to the thread I would for sure PM the player in question first, because 1) who’s the say the seeker is telling me the truth in the first place? And 2) it would be a very fun conversation  Eventually I would tell the thread in the same turn but not immediately. 

What happened to good ol' "We lynch 'em, and if they're not Evil, we lynch you and the Seeker"?  Though at that stage in the game, Village could definitely no longer afford the luxury of that kind of LAFO.

It's a stylistic difference, I think, ultimately. I'd have dropped in on the thread to bait reactions there before revealing the Seeker thing late  But it's my old playbook talking here.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Kasimir

[Stick. she/her]

3 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

What happened to good ol' "We lynch 'em, and if they're not Evil, we lynch you and the Seeker"?  Though at that stage in the game, Village could definitely no longer afford the luxury of that kind of LAFO.

It's a stylistic difference, I think, ultimately. I'd have dropped in on the thread to bait reactions there before revealing the Seeker thing late  But it's my old playbook talking here.

Yeah I mean that logic is always great to fall back on if nothing else comes to light  it’s very solid and will give great results unless this claimed seeker is a jester role, or an elim bus tactic or something. xD  

[Quintessential she/her]

18 hours ago, Kasimir said:

Inactivity

  Hide contents

I really don't know what more can be said here. Maybe it's my exhaustion speaking, or a general metaphysical weariness. Yes, this isn't the Inactivity Blight redux. Yes, going inactive does make it bloody hard for the GM to balance things, especially if the inactive player has a power role, and especially if the player does so without warning. What is there to be done? Should GMs plan for a base level of inactivity? What if there aren't pinch-hitters available? 

In this game, inactivity was especially harsh on the Village, resulting in the early, premature, and unnecessary loss of vote dominance.

And yet, I kind of get it too. This is supposed to be a LG, and there was a significant amount of backlog for players to trawl through due to the insane frenzy of activity on the first few cycles. Even Wyrm was taken aback that we had a 13-page D1 thread. Pinch-hitters also mentioned having difficulty catching up, and I expect that to an inactive returning to the game, there's a daunting amount of backreading to be done.

What can be done about this? I don't know. We can't stop players from posting to the thread, and it's likely a playstyle/meta shift. As a returning player myself, I was definitely caught offguard by the post volume this generation puts out. I cope because my playstyle doesn't require close reading and I absolutely refuse to go over posts in detail. Also because I used to have to crunch a lot of readings in grad school philosophy, so I read very very fast when processing arguments. But I also get that a number of players felt isolated, or locked out of the thread and forced to go through everything just to participate, and they ranted to me about it in their PMs. And I don't really want to tell them to change their playstyle. Neither do I want to tell our more exuberant players to tone it down.

I think both inactivity and the opposite, hyperactivity, is worth having a conversation about, really. How can we accommodate each other? I feel like losing either tranche of players would still be a loss to the community. Wyrm and I had a conversation about this in Dead Doc #1 about rejigging the expectations that accompany each game category, if not just outright creating games with limited posts.

I... had a thought about this, kind of. As uncontestably the most active player in this game while I was alive, I am at least somewhat (probably more than somewhat) to blame for the threads being so long and hard to read through. Mostly because I have so much time that I can spend on this each day, and not much else to do in that time, but I get that it's not like that for a lot of people, and I was thinking about how I could help with... this? I mean, obviously I can try to post less, or at least more consciously (less fluffposting, putting more thoughts in the same post, trying to condense posts a bit by editing them before posting so that they're more concise). But I was also thinking...

This isn't really a solution to the problem, exactly, but I was wondering if it would help people to keep up if I went through each cycle or turn after it's over (which yes, I have the time to do : P) and summarized all the important things that happened. Not commenting on them, just picking out and either quoting or summarizing (probably both, in separate spoiler boxes) everything that was serious discussion or voting or whatnot, and posted that at the start of the next turn? I guess I was wondering if that would help, to have a concise(ish) reference of what happened and not have to wade through pages and pages of text, not all of which is important?

[Wyrmhero he/him]

42 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

I... had a thought about this, kind of. As uncontestably the most active player in this game while I was alive, I am at least somewhat (probably more than somewhat) to blame for the threads being so long and hard to read through. Mostly because I have so much time that I can spend on this each day, and not much else to do in that time, but I get that it's not like that for a lot of people, and I was thinking about how I could help with... this? I mean, obviously I can try to post less, or at least more consciously (less fluffposting, putting more thoughts in the same post, trying to condense posts a bit by editing them before posting so that they're more concise). But I was also thinking...

This isn't really a solution to the problem, exactly, but I was wondering if it would help people to keep up if I went through each cycle or turn after it's over (which yes, I have the time to do : P) and summarized all the important things that happened. Not commenting on them, just picking out and either quoting or summarizing (probably both, in separate spoiler boxes) everything that was serious discussion or voting or whatnot, and posted that at the start of the next turn? I guess I was wondering if that would help, to have a concise(ish) reference of what happened and not have to wade through pages and pages of text, not all of which is important?

Now we get to talk about bias and how it's impossible to avoid in the media .

Essentially, by choosing what to avoid and what to include, you are editorialising what you are summarising. By making any decision on this, you (in general, not you specifically) are letting your own bias enter in - Are you saying it because it's important, or because you think it's important? Would someone on the Eliminator team consider things the same way? Would there be a temptation to leave stuff out, and omit important details? Maybe not, but can people take the chance? I think all you'd end up doing is creating another post which people need to use to analyse. A summary would probably be useful for people to glance at, and to know what you think, but I don't think it would do quite what you want here.

An idea I had in the spec/dead doc was to scrap our current ideas of LG/MR/QF, as they're really old and probably not fit for purpose as descriptions anymore? It would probably be better to redesign these games in terms of both complexity and expected level of activity needed to keep up, though that's hard to enforce. The other issue would be it increases stratification of players, and would lead to smaller games most likely. You might need to somehow restrict people from posting so much or such long comments, but again, hard to do. We can't approach this from a single point, I think, it's a wider discussion within the community. But it does need addressing, as I think you basically need to build in the Village being 10% smaller than you would otherwise think. But then if people don't, it unbalances the game, so should you make that assumption? Again, I don't know, I'm stream-of-consciousness spouting ideas here.

An idea for a game I suggested to Kas in the dead/spec doc was for a game in which you essentially have a set number of posts you can make, with either criteria to earn extra, or an automatic 'right-of-reply' if a vote is placed on you. Again, this has its own problems if new information enters the thread later on (a day in, someone confirms they'd Seeked someone, but everyone's used their posts), but perhaps if it's the rules of the game it would be approached differently. Food for thought perhaps!

Another idea I had within the spead doc was to make myself and Kas a new subforum role, the IH, or Impartial Hecklers, free to comment on any game without any of the knowledge of either players, speculators or the dead. This is unrelated to the inactive point, it just feels right. I can't see it going badly. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Wyrmhero

[Kasimir he/him]

5 minutes ago, Wyrmhero said:

Another idea I had within the spead doc was to make myself and Kas a new subforum role, the IH, or Impartial Hecklers, free to comment on any game without any of the knowledge of either players, speculators or the dead. This is unrelated to the inactive point, it just feels right. I can't see it going badly. 

No.

Hard, hard no.

This would be a disaster and I absolutely can see why >>

[Biplet she/her]

So I wanted to throw some little character points out since I'm kinda proud and didn't get to finish!! Spoilered for those who don't care to see my ramblings about Sara .

Spoiler

I'd originally intended for Sara to be very friendly, but I wondered if I could emphasize the fact that she knew a lot about everyone, but a lot of people didn't know much about her (especially once I got the coinshot role). A few people caught it, but Sara is autistic! The tapping on the counter, mimicing others (townsfolk to be "normal," Variel to help her come to terms with herself), and the repeated inner thoughts were all little clue-ins. Being neurodivergent myself, I was excited to rp an autistic character.

As for her deep dark secret? Accidental murder. All the bits about her coming to town 10 years before, being quiet, living with her uncle (not parents) was pointing toward that. General gist of what happened is in her hometown, a man had a little too much to drink and got a little too close, and she panicked. Being a coinshot, that didn't go well, so she was rushed out of town by her parents and the crime was kept very hush hush.

I basically outright claimed in rp a few times, drawing attention to her pocketing coins. I wonder if anyone caught that?

Thanks everyone for putting up with my millions of questions and general lack of SE knowledge! Hopefully I'm better in the MR happening now.

[Ashbringer he/him]

32 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

This isn't really a solution to the problem, exactly, but I was wondering if it would help people to keep up if I went through each cycle or turn after it's over (which yes, I have the time to do : P) and summarized all the important things that happened. Not commenting on them, just picking out and either quoting or summarizing (probably both, in separate spoiler boxes) everything that was serious discussion or voting or whatnot, and posted that at the start of the next turn? I guess I was wondering if that would help, to have a concise(ish) reference of what happened and not have to wade through pages and pages of text, not all of which is important?

I think making summary posts of notes of the day can help for a lot of different players. I've done that a few times when I've been too busy to actually create or share my thoughts real-time, and it could help the hyperposters (you, Illwei, Mat, Connie, etc) filter out what you mean vs what you're saying for the laughs.

But I don't think that's a responsibility that you, specifically, need to do each game? Different people posting their thoughts on what went down D1 to either fill the first Night or as talking points the next Day is... sort of what the game is. It would be a good group effort to sort of summarize our own ideas (and our impressions of each others').

(Plus (as Wyrm has apparently ninja'd me on) I'd constantly be nervous that you're an Elim and are leaving something out )

[Kasimir he/him]

Just now, Ashbringer said:

(Plus (as Wyrm has apparently ninja'd me on) I'd constantly be nervous that you're an Elim and are leaving something out )

Technically Wyrm is making a slightly more sophisticated point which is that even in the most optimistic scenario, Villagers cannot help but insert bias (see: tunnels, and so on) when editorialising. It's possible to amplify this point by connecting it to certain debates in the philosophy of science and epistemology which would in turn help to tackle certain rejoinders I could see being raised to Wyrm's argument, but I think rewriting my Master's thesis on this forum is a tad unnecessary

Plus, that's the most optimistic scenario. Villagers do lie for their own purposes at times (Fifth has an interesting track record here), and as you pointed out, low-hanging fruit is that an Elim would love to use that to manipulate, requiring players to still...go back and actually do their homework  

[Wyrmhero he/him]

Just now, Kasimir said:

...but I think rewriting my Master's thesis on this forum is a tad unnecessary

You don't have time for that, you've got films and shows to watch and games to play >>

[Kasimir he/him]

46 minutes ago, Wyrmhero said:

You don't have time for that, you've got films and shows to watch and games to play >>

But not books to read? Old Wyrm, you suggesting I get to skip out on reading all your book recs then? 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Kasimir

[Wyrmhero he/him]

Just now, Kasimir said:

But not books to read? Old man, you suggesting I get to skip out on reading all your book recs then? 

Point, go read Reaper Man.

[The Young Pyromancer he/him]

I really wish I could've been on this Spiked team.

But yeah, Malliw, you're spot-on. I WAS trying to be a meat shield.

[Araris Valerian he/him]

56 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

I... had a thought about this, kind of. As uncontestably the most active player in this game while I was alive, I am at least somewhat (probably more than somewhat) to blame for the threads being so long and hard to read through. Mostly because I have so much time that I can spend on this each day, and not much else to do in that time, but I get that it's not like that for a lot of people, and I was thinking about how I could help with... this? I mean, obviously I can try to post less, or at least more consciously (less fluffposting, putting more thoughts in the same post, trying to condense posts a bit by editing them before posting so that they're more concise). But I was also thinking...

I can definitely say that going through all the posts in the thread for analysis was pretty rough. I didn't actually need to, since I was elim, but village!me might have gone to the bother. But I don't think you are the one at fault here, and I'm happy to have someone posting as much as you are. There's no rule that says villagers have to read the backlog before placing a vote. I would even say that part of the strategy of the game is finding an analysis method that fits your available time commitment. If the thread is long or you are busy, maybe it's time to try something new. Perhaps there's a danger in scaring off newer players from participating when the threads get so long, but I think in general there is a rather large learning curve for SE. The people who stick around for the long run figure things out, eventually.

20 minutes ago, Wyrmhero said:

An idea I had in the spec/dead doc was to scrap our current ideas of LG/MR/QF, as they're really old and probably not fit for purpose as descriptions anymore? It would probably be better to redesign these games in terms of both complexity and expected level of activity needed to keep up, though that's hard to enforce. The other issue would be it increases stratification of players, and would lead to smaller games most likely. You might need to somehow restrict people from posting so much or such long comments, but again, hard to do. We can't approach this from a single point, I think, it's a wider discussion within the community. But it does need addressing, as I think you basically need to build in the Village being 10% smaller than you would otherwise think. But then if people don't, it unbalances the game, so should you make that assumption? Again, I don't know, I'm stream-of-consciousness spouting ideas here.

Perhaps part of the rules committee's job could be to assign a "complexity rating" to games. We'd have to talk out what all that should include/mean, but it could definitely help. I also wouldn't say that LG/MR/QF are bad descriptors. Just translate them as Likely/Maybe/ Almost Never play, and they work great!  (this is actually my heuristic). Really the 3 factors that determine whether I play a game are the format, the complexity, and my personal busyness. The format being in the list suggests that it's still a valuable label, at least to me.

[Ashbringer he/him]

Just make the measure of complexity “# of Bullet Points in the rule list”.

[Araris Valerian he/him]

19 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

Just make the measure of complexity “# of Bullet Points in the rule list”.

Or perhaps the number of nested spoiler boxes .

[Mailliw73 he/him]

1 hour ago, The Young Pyromancer said:

I really wish I could've been on this Spiked team.

But yeah, Malliw, you're spot-on. I WAS trying to be a meat shield.

I thought so and I think you did a good job of it and I appreciated the strategy behind it. It even kinda worked in a way. 

[StrikerEZ he/him]

@Fifth Scholar I know I ran LG56, but what happened in that game that had you keep bringing it up in the elim doc? I'm about 20 pages in, and you've mentioned that game a lot now, and I don't remember what you did in that game, even though I ran it.

Edited March 17, 2021 by StrikerEZ

[Young Bard he/him]

Oh, man. I got played in this game in a way I haven't been for quite a while.

Night 2 was when the game really got interesting for me, but unfortunately, it was also the night I died. Fifth PM'ed me saying he's the Seeker, he scanned me and knows I'm a Villager Lurcher, and is paranoid of Maill (also being paranoid of Maill at that moment, correctly, I buy this completely). Oh, and by the way, could I protect him that night?

If it had been most people, I'd have probably been way more cautious than I was, but I was feeling really good about Fifth - his posts in thread sounded so damn villagery, and his PM only reinforced that, so he was my strongest trust read (the Spiked knew that, since I'd told Maill my reads list, and I'd ruled out a Fifth-Maill team because I thought Fifth would be unlikely to tunnel so hard on Maill in that case both in thread and even stronger in my PM, but at that stage, I was slated for death so Fifth felt free to tell me whatever he liked... *sigh*). So, I go along with it.

Actually, I meant to do a trust read list at the end of Night 2, but simply lost track of time and rollover happened before I got to it. Part of me wonders if it would have made a difference on the amount of trust on either Fifth (at the top of my list, and therefore most likely to be my protect target) or Maill (at the bottom of the list, and therefore worth looking into as suspicious according to a confirmed villager). I certainly don't think it would have made any difference in Maill's case - I was far from the only person to be suspicious of him, and he managed to pull through anyway. As for Fifth, it would probably have been a stretch to go from "Bard trusts Fifth" -> "Bard was protecting Fifth" -> "Fifth baited Bard into protecting him in order to draw away his protect and attack him."

Oh, and also, I set up a PM with both Tani and Quinn that cycle in which my paranoia on Maill made me recommend them to change Tani's kill target away from Illwei, thinking Maill wouldn't be so gutsy as to agree to a fellow Spiked for the Mistborn kill.

 

Fifth, I take my hat off to you. Though now I know not to underestimate you, it won't be as easy to fool me next time.

---

Thanks so much to Kas for running this game and for the amazing writeups. And congratulations to the Elim team for your victory, and especially to Fifth for that gambit which I completely fell for.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Young Bard

[Mailliw73 he/him]

1 hour ago, Young Bard said:

Oh, man. I got played in this game in a way I haven't been for quite a while.

Night 2 was when the game really got interesting for me, but unfortunately, it was also the night I died. Fifth PM'ed me saying he's the Seeker, he scanned me and knows I'm a Villager Lurcher, and is paranoid of Maill (also being paranoid of Maill at that moment, correctly, I buy this completely). Oh, and by the way, could I protect him that night?

If it had been most people, I'd have probably been way more cautious than I was, but I was feeling really good about Fifth - his posts in thread sounded so damn villagery, and his PM only reinforced that, so he was my strongest trust read (the Spiked knew that, since I'd told Maill my reads list, and I'd ruled out a Fifth-Maill team because I thought Fifth would be unlikely to tunnel so hard on Maill in that case both in thread and even stronger in my PM, but at that stage, I was slated for death so Fifth felt free to tell me whatever he liked... *sigh*). So, I go along with it.

Actually, I meant to do a trust read list at the end of Night 2, but simply lost track of time and rollover happened before I got to it. Part of me wonders if it would have made a difference on the amount of trust on either Fifth (at the top of my list, and therefore most likely to be my protect target) or Maill (at the bottom of the list, and therefore worth looking into as suspicious according to a confirmed villager). I certainly don't think it would have made any difference in Maill's case - I was far from the only person to be suspicious of him, and he managed to pull through anyway. As for Fifth, it would probably have been a stretch to go from "Bard trusts Fifth" -> "Bard was protecting Fifth" -> "Fifth baited Bard into protecting him in order to draw away his protect and attack him."

Oh, and also, I set up a PM with both Tani and Quinn that cycle in which my paranoia on Maill made me recommend them to change Tani's kill target away from Illwei, thinking Maill wouldn't be so gutsy as to agree to a fellow Spiked for the Mistborn kill.

  Reveal hidden contents

Fifth, I take my hat off to you. Though now I know not to underestimate you, it won't be as easy to fool me next time.

---

Thanks so much to Kas for running this game and for the amazing writeups. And congratulations to the Elim team for your victory, and especially to Fifth for that gambit which I completely fell for.

I'll admit that I was kinda surprised that it worked on you. I still mostly suspected you to self-protect and just tell Fifth you were protecting him. So when you actually did, I was shocked, pleasantly, but still shocked. You broke down the gambit above pretty well, that's exactly how we figured it. 

[Straw he/him]

21 hours ago, Wyrmhero said:

An idea I had in the spec/dead doc was to scrap our current ideas of LG/MR/QF, as they're really old and probably not fit for purpose as descriptions anymore? It would probably be better to redesign these games in terms of both complexity and expected level of activity needed to keep up, though that's hard to enforce.

IMO, cycle length is a pretty good way to split up games compared to complexity and activity level. Activity level is very difficult to enforce, as you said. Complexity is easier to enforce but seems less helpful than dividing by cycle length. For example, if you divided by complexity and had both current games be QF speed, that could lock out a lot of players.

On 3/16/2021 at 7:15 PM, Kasimir said:

Smoking - by this point, I'm just going to say it's a done deal. No amount of cajoling is going to get players to Smoke despite how badly the Village needed an active Smoker in the endgame (Dannex came back one Turn too late.) GMs need to find a completely different niche/thing for Smokers to do, for the role to be viable/attractive. If the GM really wants to run a proper Tyrian ruleset, you may want to factor in low player willingness to Smoke into the bargain - do not balance it on the assumption some of the players will Smoke.

Ideas for alternative Tyrian ruleset:

• Coinshots -> one shot kill (alt: even night kills) (alt2: X shot kills)
  Coinshots are a bit too swingy as is in my opinion (one player has lots of power, and can seriously change the game balance on their own). I think that the best way to solve this is to just limit the number of kills that can happen. One shot kills are best IMO, but even night kills could also be good if you want to make the role a bit stronger. You could also up the number of shots, so that they'd have a limit on how many kills they can shoot off.
• Seekers -> always have role scan, one shot alignment scan
  Seekers are definitely too swingy without enough Smokers, and alignment scanners aren't very popular regardless. One alignment scan seems reasonable enough to keep the role powerful while not making it too swingy. Having no alignment scans would mean there'd be too many non-impactful roles IMO.
• Smokers -> X shot universal vote manipulation block (blocks all vote manip that day)
  Honestly not super sure what to do here. Since I nerfed Seekers I'm just dropping the Seeker block bit entirely. Blocking vote manip on yourself and one other seems too weak and is also a bit random. Being able to stop all vote manip a few times could help stop gambits that are very reliant on vote manip (ex: second elim hammer this game). It's also a decent enough ability for both teams, since you can make sure a vote goes the predicted way.
  Smoker as a roleblocker could also maybe work, but it'd be going outside of proper flavor from Mistborn.
• Mistborn -> ???
  With the above changes I feel like Mistborn would need changes, but not sure how. Current way would be reasonable enough but would also make Mistborn arguably the strongest role. Having the normal random rotation between the non-one-shot abilities could also work, but would make Mistborn a bit weak. A decent middle ground might be to have the Mistborn rotate as it is currently but using any one shot ability makes all the one shot abilities unusable (so they'd have a 3/8 chance of getting nothing).

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Illwei]

7 hours ago, Straw said:

Coinshots -> one shot kill (alt: even night kills) (alt2: X shot kills)

you and your X-shots smh

[dannnex male]

I feel like I should make some sort of comment on the inactivity rates of this game, seeing as how I was one of the inactives, but I don’t think I have much to say. 

I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum, been extremely inactive, (this game and the recent AG) and extremely talkative. (QF50. Cycle one of that game was longer than any other QF in its entirety. I believe I am partially to blame for that.) 

I think both of situations are somewhat of a problem honestly, inactivity is bad for obvious reasons, and hyperactivity is bad because it can cause other players to become inactive.

I can’t really think of a solution to fix any of this though. I don’t think that having some sort of standard ’summary post’ is a good idea, how would we regulate something like that? The only person qualified to do something like that without bias would be the GM, and they already work their butts off for the players. No need to add more work for them.

I think hyperactivity is something that can really only be solved by time, as we newer players get better at the game and learn to be more concise.

Inactivity might be able to be fixed a bit by having a more developed pinch-hitter system. Maybe we should start making rulesets designed for less players, and have a player number limit for those games. First come first serve. Anyone who is too late could sign up as a pinch-hitter, and the inactivity filter could be a lot more strict. Like, a single cycle without any actual input and you’d be replaced. 

I dunno, there’s a lot of problems with that idea. But maybe it would help a little.

[Elandera she/her]

Metals. Yes, metals. There was more need for it now. Now that the spiked were taking over. Spikes for everyone.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

I swallow more pewter. Must live. Must stay alive.

But I do not need to act any longer. The misties won't be a problem.

The spiked will have their retribution regardless of my sanity. Or insanity.

---

Hello! Amazing game, @Kasimir. Even though I wasn't entirely engaged in the whole thing, it was still a ton of fun. I especially loved the chance to RP in this game. The mad metallurgist was great. Thanks to those who defended my change in playstyle to be more RP inclined. I plan to continue that in the future because I simply don't have the time/energy it takes to maintain my deep analysis style with the sheer quantity of posts in recent meta. Hopefully I won't be so pocketed in the future. My three main PMs were all elims...

@Mailliw73, I'm not sure what pocketed me either, but a lot had to do with my inability to really track the thread and what was happening there. You seemed so honest in the PM.  I should know better than that. 

[Mailliw73 he/him]

7 hours ago, Elandera said:

@Mailliw73, I'm not sure what pocketed me either, but a lot had to do with my inability to really track the thread and what was happening there. You seemed so honest in the PM.  I should know better than that.

Probably because I was honest in it. I just read over it and the only lie in it is that I included myself in a "we" referring to villagers in the last cycle. Everything else is true. After the first hammer, I even reminded you of Illwei being evil. So I guess the reason you read it as honest is because it was. 

[The Young Pyromancer he/him]

21 hours ago, Dannex said:

I can’t really think of a solution to fix any of this though. I don’t think that having some sort of standard ’summary post’ is a good idea, how would we regulate something like that? The only person qualified to do something like that without bias would be the GM, and they already work their butts off for the players. No need to add more work for them.

You say that like a biased summary post is a bad thing.