Harsher Penalties for Replacing Out Of Large Games

[Cerberus v666]

Vetting players is great, but I don't see the harm in preventing people from signing up for new games for, say, a week(2?), after replacing out of a game, regardless of the reason why they replaced out. Worst case scenario they don't get to sign up for a game they wanted to, and they have to follow it and hope to replace in(which basically works to, in the worst case where it actually causes them to miss a game, make that player work to resolve a replacement issue like the one they caused themselves.

That is, of course, on top of any sort of greater penalty for a pattern of flaking on games.

[Cerberus v666]

Vetting players is great, but I don't see the harm in preventing people from signing up for new games for, say, a week(2?), after replacing out of a game, regardless of the reason why they replaced out. Worst case scenario they don't get to sign up for a game they wanted to, and they have to follow it and hope to replace in(which basically works to, in the worst case where it actually causes them to miss a game, make that player work to resolve a replacement issue like the one they caused themselves.

That is, of course, on top of any sort of greater penalty for a pattern of flaking on games.

You don't see the harm in harming people?

Look if you want to exclude people from playing a game because they replaced out of another game then you need to have a sit-down talk with the person and find out why they replaced.

Why? If you do that, you run into the issue of this particular penalty being applied unfairly. When you take their reason for replacing out into account, as stated earlier in this thread, you force people to make determinations about the merit of other's reasons, while simultaneously encouraging people to lie. Any system used to discourage people from replacing out has to be applied fairly and consistently, and the only way to apply it in such a fashion, is to ALWAYS apply it, regardless of circumstances.

I fail to see how preventing people from signing up for mafia games for a very short period of time harms them. For those who replaced out for a reason beyond " Oh, I just don't feel like playing this anymore and that one mod I really like has a game that'll be starting soon...", I doubt this will do anything. In such a long format game, replacing out due to lack of time is likely to be reserved for a situation where you don't expect to have more time for a good while. In that case, the community shouldn't be okay with you signing up for another game. If you replaced out because you just want to play in another game, the community shouldn't be okay with that either.

The only situation I can think of where someone replaces out of a game, and could reasonably want to play in another, is in the case of that individual being harassed by someone else in a game they're currently in, and in that case the harassing person(s) should be removed, with no effect on the individual who would have potentially replaced out.

[Cerberus v666]

You misunderstand me. I'm saying the two situations aren't the same. In a situation where a claim could be made that one is replacing out because of someone's harassment, that person shouldn't need to replace out, instead the other person should be the one sanctioned, allowing the first person to never replace out in the first place, and thus never bringing that issue of determining the relative value of their reason for replacing out into question.

[Cerberus v666]

And, here's the thing psyche: there are already rules about harassment here (at least, I assume there are, considering how I've seen people sanctioned for it). Obviously the harassment in such a situation would be determined by the same parties who would be involved in any such situation. As a matter of fact, by encouraging people to report those who are having a toxic effect on the community, rather than just replacing out of games with those players and leaving their behavior unaddressed, it improves the experience for everyone in the long run.

[Cerberus v666]

No, I am. I feel the argument that an extremely minor inconvenience (not being allowed to sign up for new games for a week or so) 2) will discourage people from signing up for longer games to any meaningful degree to be a ridiculous one. I find it extremely unlikely that any discouragement that occurs will outweigh the numerous benefits I've outlined in my posts above.

I don't believe anyone feels that replacing out should be a regular occurrence, or that it should be encouraged. I also feel the tacit approval of the practice the current lack of penalty signifies is inappropriate, given that we don't want to encourage it.

[Cerberus v666]

Also, sorry psyche, that post above should have been directed at kuribo, whose incendiary and abrasive style arguably makes him wholly undeserving of participation in a conversation about harassment. Or maybe it makes his voice especially significant. Not sure. And I know it's mostly an act, Kuribo....I just don't think you're the person to speak on behalf of victims of such behavior. Neither am I.

I do know that the question of harassment is not what this thread is about though, and that I only mentioned it because it's the obvious point someone would have made if I hadn't brought it up myself, and I had to make it clear that it's unrelated to this issue...though somehow me mentioning it was read out of context, and somehow thought to indicate that I did believe it was somehow essential to the question of penalizing people for replacing out.

[Cerberus v666]

This is the difficult thing about this discussion. There are several intersecting issues.

1)Strategic replace outs
2)Replacing out due to someone elses violation of proper conduct on the site.
3)Replacing out for whatever wholly internal reason you have for replacing out, that isn't strategic.

1 isn't okay, and is already addressed by the rules. 2 also isn't okay, and the behavior of other parties is also already addressed by the rules. 3 is the question at hand, and is not addressed by the rules, except in the case of constant replace outs, when some(like myself, and whoever started this thread), feel it should be addressed whenever someone replaces out of a game.

[Cerberus v666]

Where on Earth do you get so much confidence in your speculations.

Which speculations are you referring to?

[Cerberus v666]

And that point isn't without merit; however, I don't feel someone who is "being the bigger man" would let such a minor inconvenience change their mind. I also don't have any sympathy for people who get in screaming matches in the first place. If something like that is going on they should probably both be force replaced, in my opinion. This also brings me back to my point that discouraging people from replacing out for such reasons, and giving them cause to get the mods involved, and the offending party sanctioned, does more to improve the play environment than them simply replacing out would.

About your perspective: yes, that's why I said I wasn't sure if your opinion was valuable or not. I can see arguments both ways. And again, this topic really shouldn't be about harassment, if someone is being harassed it should never be the victim who leaves a game, and so any penalty would never be applied to the victim. I'm sure there are corner cases one can point to where people simply don't want to deal with that hassle, and would prefer to replace out, and thus this would penalize those who don't deserve it, but I feel that such an occurrence isn't going to be common enough to hobble the system over.

[Cerberus v666]

I feel as though everyone is greatly overestimating the damage of a 1 week ban on signing up for new games. I only see it notably punishing someone who was just going to go sign up for a new game, immediately after having shown that they can't be trusted to play one to completion.

[Cerberus v666]

A 1 week ban on signing up for new games is the weakest punishment I can imagine that isn't wholly worthless. Can someone give me an example of a punishment that's weaker than that, and not negligible? I understand the argument about not wanting to punish someone on principle for wanting to get away from a toxic situation. Really I do. Though personally I think they should just get over whatever their problem is with the other person, I understand that not everyone is capable of approaching the game with the necessary emotional distance to do that, which is why I suggested that the punishment be the least damaging thing I could imagine that would actually serve a positive purpose, while having minimal negative effect on those who are undeservingly affected by it.

[Cerberus v666]

The lack of punishment for the minor, occasional offense, leads to a belief that it's acceptable behavior, and thus causes the more serious habitual offense.

I feel they're both worthy uses of time and the one does not preclude the other.

[Cerberus v666]

This site has a long history stretching back before November of last year and this isn't the first time anyone has ever had this idea?

This....isn't even my thread Ythan. I fail to see the relevance of that post, unless it was a petty attempt to minimize the value of my words by implying that I just haven't been here long enough to "get it," especially given that within this thread there has been mention of precious discussions on this same topic. I get it, and I think it's ridiculous. It's absurd that this site is apparently filled with prima donnas who are incapable of working out their issues with one another in a mature fashion, through civil discourse, and instead choose to run around avoiding one another. It's even more absurd that this behavior is condoned, nay, even encouraged, under the guise of "taking the high road."

Whoever it was who mentioned three strikes, talah I believe it was: It just irritates me that every game I play in has SEVERAL replace outs by the end. In a large, I can expect a quarter to a third of the players to just drop the game, leading to a very real change in the flow of the game. Is your irritation more important than mine? No, it isn't.

There is a very real manpower and equality issue that comes into play when you attempt to directly adjudicate the punishment for minor offenses. My suggestion was in response to the fact that the primary argument against suggested penalties was that it wouldn't be feasible to judge every replace out individually and ensure just application of punishments. That's the point of fairly applying punishment x to behavior y.

The community comes from the interactions between members, not from the rules that curtail undesirable behavior. I feel your point is wholly lacking in merit because you're basing the health of the entire community on the rules that apply to mafia games, when in reality that community really exists and grows only in the scum pts and masonries of an actual game, and the rest of it comes from the conversation outside of the games themselves, whether on this board or others.

[Cerberus v666]

What I'm saying is you're being really persistent in ignoring a lot of people who have been here longer than you saying "No really dude we know what we're talking about this isn't the first time it's come up."

That argument would only be relevant if it had been tried before and it didn't work. Saying that you've had this discussion before does not make your argument stronger, it simply means that it wasn't resolved in the past, and it continues to be a problem, which would seem to indicate that the current strategy for dealing with it isn't working in a fashion satisfactory to at least some portion of the community.

[Cerberus v666]

We know that your solution isn't the right one and that's good enough for me re: this thread.

Do you have some sort of empirical evidence you can point me to that demonstrates my suggestion isn't the right one?

[Cerberus v666]

I agree with that antihero, but he's not actually engaging about it, he's just saying that "we" know it's not correct, without telling me why they know it's not correct. I've given my reasons why I believe this would be helpful, and he dismissed me by attempting to say my argument has been made before, which is insufficient for the reasons I gave above.

Kuribo:

1-7: None of the implied problems that could cause me to replace out of a game would be ones where I'd want to sign up for a new game before the current day phase is even over. However, I'm in a stable enough situation in my life that none of those things are potentially concerns, other than health, simply because I can't predict when I may be struck by a vehicle or something like that.
8: doesn't matter to me if someone hates me, my character is such that I'll just continue to do what I'm doing and derive as much pleasure as possible from it. I don't let other people detract from the joy in my life.
9: See 8.

[Cerberus v666]

So knowledge is only worth sharing with people who have the power to effect change in the matter being discussed?

[Cerberus v666]

Actually, don't answer that, it's a digression. You've established the value which I should give your opinion because you refuse to elaborate on it in a meaningful fashion, and that's fine.

Pedit: darn, he already answered. Okay. Again it's a digression.

[Cerberus v666]

(I'm not taking issue with other arguments raised, I'm taking issue with the stance that prior discussion means further discussion is without value, even in the face of evidence that the result of the prior discussion did not resolve the problem. )

[Cerberus v666]

I'm really not obstinate at all. I just function off facts, and most arguments made rely on suppositions which have neither more nor less value than my own points, in the absence of evidence of the veracity of the statements made.

[Cerberus v666]

How about "the shit you're suggesting is shit that has been suggested before and everyone is tired of having the same arguments"?

Irrelevant. Your lack of desire to engage in the process of discussing a viable solution to the problem doesn't make rhe problem go away, and it doesn't reduce my desire to seek said solution.

[Cerberus v666]

I don't think this belongs in MD anymore.

Why not? Kuribo at least is still talking about ths rationally from the other side of the discussion.

[Cerberus v666]

replacements aren't a problem unless you think people have no excuse for replacing out of games under any circumstance?

Like...if GreyICE replaces into a game that I'm in I will replace out bc id rather spare everyone the drama. PENALIZE PENALIZE PENALIZE

Well, yes, because you should both just learn how to get along, in my opinion.

I like the idea someone had of mandating that people replace in to other games to make up for the games they've replaced out of. Obviously there are details to work out, but it's at least productive.

[Cerberus v666]

*sigh*

This is the problem with me talking about this subject I suppose. I really, really don't understand what's so difficult about getting along with other people. The idea of another person having such an effect on my psyche that I just have to avoid them is completetely foreign to me.

About the replacement thing: yes, the things you all said are some of the practical problems with it. The idea, that is, to make it easier to fnx replacements going forward because the people who have previously replaced out will be available to help out, is a good one. It might not be practical though, for a number of reasons..