TempBan for Players Who Sign Up and Refuse To Play

[Wake1]

We should make a public black-list.

Is it against the rules to make one on this forum?

As a game mod, I've been burnt more than once with players who were like this. I actively seek out and invite players who play: those who

engage

in the game.

[Faraday]

It's not against the rules. Just start a thread about it. there have been blacklist threads before

[Wake1]

It's not against the rules. Just start a thread about it. there have been blacklist threads before

I don't know if that would go over well.

Mainly I want to know who not to invite so I don't have to modkill/force-replace troublesome players, or deal with players who don't really play. If a main blacklist thread is made I wouldn't want it to be abused, which I can see happening. There would have to be a strict way in doing that, provided with links, etc, without any sort of personal attacks in it.

[quadz08]

it starts, there's minor drama, and then people stop using it

there's just generally no actual community interest in such a thing because 99/100 the community opinion on a given individual is not going to be even close to a majority of "blacklist"

the occasional exceptions make themselves quite clear without a public list

[Dessew]

We should make a public black-list.

Is it against the rules to make one on this forum?

As a game mod, I've been burnt more than once with players who were like this. I actively seek out and invite players who play: those who

engage

in the game.

You can just put your blacklist on your wikipage & encourage other mods you trust to do likewise. (?)

[Axxle]

I've never seen a public blacklist end well.

[Vampirate]

I'll repeat, if the player is saying they aren't playing 'in the thread' as a Mod, go PM that player and ask them privately, you might get a different answer.

If you don't, then yeah as a Mod you have a problem to deal with.

[Sajin]

I'll repeat, if the player is saying they aren't playing 'in the thread' as a Mod, go PM that player and ask them privately, you might get a different answer.

If you don't, then yeah as a Mod you have a problem to deal with.

Poor logic, if a mod replaces only people who really quit the game they must also replace people who fake quit the game otherwise mod influences the game by informing the player base by non action. Therefore the correct move as a mod is to prod/replace a player who appears or claims in thread to not be playing the game regardless of alignment and circumstances. The only alternative is to never do anything in either case or to introduce mod bias....neither of which seem like good options.

[ika]

frankly this is one of those issues that cant be resloved once a game begins. theres so many wifom/meta/smatics thing that would go into it then that its more strai on a mod then to let it go and let players deal with it

[Axxle]

I'll repeat, if the player is saying they aren't playing 'in the thread' as a Mod, go PM that player and ask them privately, you might get a different answer.

If you don't, then yeah as a Mod you have a problem to deal with.

Poor logic, if a mod replaces only people who really quit the game they must also replace people who fake quit the game otherwise mod influences the game by informing the player base by non action. Therefore the correct move as a mod is to prod/replace a player who appears or claims in thread to not be playing the game regardless of alignment and circumstances. The only alternative is to never do anything in either case or to introduce mod bias....neither of which seem like good options.

That's assuming we want fake quitting to be a valid strategy

[Sajin]

I'll repeat, if the player is saying they aren't playing 'in the thread' as a Mod, go PM that player and ask them privately, you might get a different answer.

If you don't, then yeah as a Mod you have a problem to deal with.

Poor logic, if a mod replaces only people who really quit the game they must also replace people who fake quit the game otherwise mod influences the game by informing the player base by non action. Therefore the correct move as a mod is to prod/replace a player who appears or claims in thread to not be playing the game regardless of alignment and circumstances. The only alternative is to never do anything in either case or to introduce mod bias....neither of which seem like good options.

That's assuming we want fake quitting to be a valid strategy

Which I don't but I am pointing our the problem with wanting fake quitting to be a valid strategy when added with wanting to replace people which are not playing. Have to be consistent. It is also why this entire thing should always be up to the individual moderator and not the players in the game or the mafia discussion board plurality.

[Porochaz]

This starts getting too much in the territory of telling other people how to play a game though, not to mention playing like you described IS a legitimate way to play as scum in that it deliberately makes you difficult to read. You can't punish a behavior as town that's a legitimate style as another alignment. That makes it too obvious then that a player who is active lurking is scum because otherwise they'll get banned. Can you see how that's a problem?

I've read the first page and I will continue reading but I've been thinking about this.

Rule 0 is don't be a dick.

If you are posting every couple of days with a one liner which contributes nothing to the game, you are being a dick.

You are being a dick to the mod who has spent time creating the set up and wants to see it played out.

You are being a dick to the players who are actually playing the game.

And you are also ruining other peoples fun and potentially playing against your win condition.

I was going to write up my own thread about this, but I will be looking to implement a rule into my ruleset to prevent this style. At this point, I don't give a shit about how much mod interference it is. As a mod, I'm looking for the best experience for my players and provided I am not revealing anything and I make it clear before I start the game, I don't have any problem potentially force-replacing these players. Obviously I'd hope to subvert that by not allowing these players in my game in the first place.

The only issue is the one I already see in this thread and that is how to accurately define the problem and how much leeway to give people.

[Porochaz]

Hmm... playstyle argument doesn't hold up much weight to me. If we go to the extreme of having all the players in the game play that way then you don't have a game. If you are a super powerful role that you want to draw attention to yourself/scum doing the same thing/town doing the same thing then that is fine. I have regularly taken that strategy in my games, but I haven't lurked my way through. It requires a bit more skill than "I'll post later, lulz not really" and it's a valid strategy. What I'm purely looking at is people who post purely those types of posts or cat gifs (for instance) and have only joined the game to metaphorically take a dump in the game thread.

I mean preferably for me I'd be looking at open the lines of communication up first, asking people whether they are going to play or they are wasting my time. However, that's potentially when mod interference starts to be come an issue.

[EspeciallyTheLies]

Rule 0 is don't be a dick.

If you are posting every couple of days with a one liner which contributes nothing to the game, you are being a dick.

You are being a dick to the mod who has spent time creating the set up and wants to see it played out.

You are being a dick to the players who are actually playing the game.

And you are also ruining other peoples fun and potentially playing against your win condition.

so much this ^ is exactly the point.

[elusive]

Yeah totally in agreement with ETL and Porochaz.

Don't fucking post "prod dodges" to get out of posting. Don't use "Active lurking is a strategy" to justify not posting. Its not a strategy, its an excuse.

Instead of dealing with 1, 2, 3 or more players just being AWOL and not being force replaced, I just replace out. At this point, I'm winding down to replacing out ASAP instead of investing time\energy\emotions\etc and getting worked\riled up.

Is there any other game where players can get away with lurking? No you get benched or cut or laughed out of existence.

[Iecerint]

I endorse divine justice.

[pirate mollie]

I endorse divine justice.

[elusive]

Divine intervention said Zeus to Prometheus, if the humans want fire they should wait for divine intervention. And yet Prometheus thought that fate and destiny should not be such fickle things and he did what he had to do.

[popsofctown]

If you think it needs to be defined better, then, please, help me define it better.

Based on what I've read here, I conjecture a couple objective rules you can create to mitigate this issue without creating mod interference in an unhealthy way. I do think you really want to avoid having a mod define what is "content" and what is not. What if the game of thrones scenes are a metaphor for what is going on in the game.

1. If the mod pms you to ask if you're playing to your wincon, honestly answer. If you say no, the mod will replace you. If you say kinda, the mod will replace you.
I imagine some nonplayers might be surprisingly honest about it.

2. If you haven't read the thread, you get replaced. You can't satisfy a prod until you have read the thread.
If you suspect certain players of lying about whether they have read the thread, you could use modpowers to edit arbitrary players' posts and insert an instruction to PM the mod a secret word or whatever. Players that don't catch it obviously aren't reading the thread. And for sure, most players that aren't motivated enough to genuinely participate in the mafia game aren't motivated enough to skim every single post and find the secret words.


Those two rules might help a bit.

[Kagami]

I get pretty involved in my games, and could easily fail at #2.

[Wisdom]

Yep. Players can play to their wincon just fine even without having read a single word.

[popsofctown]

I could fail at #2 as well, a lot of games have too much posting. But usually I'm reading like 80% of the thread so if I had to buck up and read the other 20% just so problem players could get removed maybe that would be worth it.

Not necessarily advocating, I don't mod at all, just suggesting an idea

[Ankamius]

I would replace out regardless on principle if I was hit with #2. Telling the player to read the thread is mod interference, and it wouldn't even work. Almost all of them would just mod edit hunt.

Plus, I read the thread when I feel like it. If I'm skipping things, generally it means the game has a lot of meaningless drivel in it and I don't want to read even more of it.

[Porochaz]

I like the idea of 118 in principle but a. I think what's been said since is true and b. I don't think it has to be as complex as that.

A rule at the start that you expect all players to be participating and then keeping on top of that and being aware that some absences (and posts saying, sorry "was washing my hair tonight will get to this soon") is expected and that provided that players rectify it that's fine. What I propose is either extending the 48 hour posting period (which imo is possibly too short, but thats oldy me speaking) but not accepting that kind of post as such or maintaining the 48 hours but if they post in such a way then an extension of 24 hours is allowed before an "official prod" goes out. (and the three prods to a replacement rule stands)

Also while I maintain that one liners is not really playing I have seen it used by people who do play the game (empking I think is an example I remember, sleepykrew as well?) so I guess, I would only really consider doing the above to the extreme ends where people are constantly delaying playing the game ("will post tomorrow") rather than vaguely playing it ("Ankamius is scum" - although I hate that as well). I think it's a difficult one, but for me, having the game run effectively and ensuring the players are enjoying the game are the most important things and if there is a tiny bit of mod interference, Im not so sure thats as bad as the alternative.

The other thing, may be to keep WotC running through the game (edit: at least until 50% of the players are left), there still has to be a valid reason to replace and their has to be some sort of procedure. (a few PM's = a warning, a simple majority means a replacement, you may withdraw a PM if a player improves) I'm not saying I would implement any of this in my upcoming game, but Im interested in others opinions?

[Kagami]

My opinion remains that the problem as described is exceptionally rare, to the extent that WotC seems like a fine solution.

If the problem statement is extended to low content posters, as some people have brought up, there already exist in-game mechanisms of handling them.