Replacing out

[Ircher]

like i said in the other thread, replacements hurt the flow of the game, and there should be a system in that *strongly* encourages finishing games you signed up for, though again i don't know a way to properly implement that in practice

This definitely needs to be a thing.

I think something as lenient as a 3-day ban on joining new games after replacing out of a game would work. It's not very punitive (3 days is rather short), but it does serve as a consequence and deterrent to nonchalantly replacing out. I think replacements happen a bit too much on this site, and that in turn has greatly influenced the outcomes of various games.

[Ircher]

I don't think it's fair to punish people who have good reasons to replace out.

While you can view it as a punishment, it's not really that. It's more of assigning a tangible consequence to your actions. Also, even if a replace out is in good faith, it will still impact a game. This in itself is one of the primary problems with replacements as they are handled right now.

I am of course assuming replacements are strictly NAI and in good faith for this system.

I think you are going to have to change your assumption. In my experience, this is practically never true regardless of the underlying reason for the replacement.

[Ircher]

Yeah, the number of games without replacements is probably 90% or higher. I've had a couple games with no replacements though (one was fairly recent); those are always nice to mod.

[Ircher]

Report players to the listmods if they replace out to spew alignment.

This isn't practical. The vast majority of these cases are going to go unpunished because while they might spew a slot scum (or town), there's a reasonable level of doubt as to the underlying motives. The number of bans issued for tactical replacement is very low; furthermore, even the best of faith replace outs can still be rather alignment indicative.

Players should be at liberty to replace out of games they legitimately can't bear to play or are unable to play

I don't necessarily disagree, but in a lot of cases, this is influenced by their current position in the game. Players who are currently suspected have a much higher chance of replacing out as well as finding the game unbearable.

if the game is truly so toxic that it's unplayable... that's not a "i need to replace out" problem, that's a "what the fuck is the moderator doing" problem.

Not necessarily. Moderators cannot be present all the time, and reading the thread to spot toxicity is an even harder task (than the typical tasks). Mods could probably be more proactive in preventing toxicity, but I wouldn't necessarily blame it all on the moderator if the game does become toxic. That said, I think a lot of people have different definitions of toxic games, and for some people, that definition is much less than for others.