When to drop out?

[Rubixxx]

This question has been banging around in my head for a while. I was wondering when it'd be the right thing to do, or at least socially acceptable, to drop out of a game. I ask because I've seen ban announcements for certain people because they "strategically replaced out" too many times. But what does that mean exactly? What's the difference between dropping out due to personal reasons or because you don't think you can be any help to your team anymore and strategic replacing out?

What do you guys think? What would you say is a good reason, and when would you say is a good point for someone to drop out of a game? When would you want someone you're playing with to just leave?

[Equinox]

"Strategic replacement" refers to requesting replacement in order to gain an advantage in a game. For example, if I feel like I am playing poorly, I might request replacement to make my own slot look better or to specifically find someone who plays my alignment better than I can. There is a difference between replacing out because you can't give the

game

the attention that it deserves and replacing out because you feel that

town

(or whatever your alignment happens to be) will be better off without you. Replacement requests are considered to be outside the scope of the game, so using it to gain an in-game advantage violates the rule against using outside influences in a game.

As either a player or a moderator, I would much rather be with players who are enjoying the game than someone who is clearly phoning it in. If you're only posting to avoid receiving prods, if you're in a toxic argument with someone else, or if the game is detrimental to your mental health, stop playing. If you're going to be on V/LA for longer than three or four days without any possibility of posting, let the moderator find someone else or arrange for a temporary replacement. Ideally, if you need to replace out and you know someone who would be willing to replace you, let the game moderator know so they can contact that person on your behalf.

When you sign up for a game, you are making a commitment to play in that game until your part in it ends. Don't take it lightly. On the other hand, it's also important to have fun and to make the game a fun environment.

[hiplop]

Equinox, so what about if you recognize you're playing poorly and just can't get a footing in the game, if you replace out is that "strategic"?

[Cromulent Simpsons Quote]

[Rubixxx]

"Strategic replacement" refers to requesting replacement in order to gain an advantage in a game. For example, if I feel like I am playing poorly, I might request replacement to make my own slot look better or to specifically find someone who plays my alignment better than I can. There is a difference between replacing out because you can't give the

game

the attention that it deserves and replacing out because you feel that

town

(or whatever your alignment happens to be) will be better off without you. Replacement requests are considered to be outside the scope of the game, so using it to gain an in-game advantage violates the rule against using outside influences in a game.

As either a player or a moderator, I would much rather be with players who are enjoying the game than someone who is clearly phoning it in. If you're only posting to avoid receiving prods, if you're in a toxic argument with someone else, or if the game is detrimental to your mental health, stop playing. If you're going to be on V/LA for longer than three or four days without any possibility of posting, let the moderator find someone else or arrange for a temporary replacement. Ideally, if you need to replace out and you know someone who would be willing to replace you, let the game moderator know so they can contact that person on your behalf.

When you sign up for a game, you are making a commitment to play in that game until your part in it ends. Don't take it lightly. On the other hand, it's also important to have fun and to make the game a fun environment.

Thanks, Equinox! I'm super glad that a staff member weighed in on the issue, since I couldn't find anything directly relating to this issue in the site rules.

[Equinox]

Equinox, so what about if you recognize you're playing poorly and just can't get a footing in the game, if you replace out is that "strategic"?

It depends. Are you replacing out for the health of the game or for the benefit of your faction? Is this replacement being used as leverage to achieve

[insert ulterior motive here]

?

That said, this is just my humble opinion; I'm not calling any shots now, so the current administration may have differing views on what constitutes tactical replacement.

Thanks, Equinox! I'm super glad that a staff member weighed in on the issue, since I couldn't find anything directly relating to this issue in the site rules.

I'm not a staff member. This username color is for unofficial contributors to the site. I just happen to be someone who fiddles with the list of replacement requests.

[Thestatusquo]

I explicitly have it in my rule set as a mod that if you're not enjoying the game you can and should replace out. Games are way more hurt by players who are only putting in the bare minimum of effort because they're not having fun than they are by replacements imo, and we have a culture here on the site that demonizes people for dropping out of games and it makes a lot of games really shitty to play.

Like, ok, I get it. Maybe if someone doesn't have time for the game they should never have signed up in the first place, but they did so you have to fix the problem you have instead of the problem you don't have. Bans for replacing out of games. "Flaker shame lists" and the like that I've seen around are all things that make mafia games worse by shaming people into playing games they really aren't enjoying anymore, and dragging everyones experience down with them.

If you're not enjoying the game, replace out. For your good. For everyones good.

[Quilford]

I explicitly have it in my rule set as a mod that if you're not enjoying the game you can and should replace out. Games are way more hurt by players who are only putting in the bare minimum of effort because they're not having fun than they are by replacements imo, and we have a culture here on the site that demonizes people for dropping out of games and it makes a lot of games really shitty to play.

Yes, this.

[Plotinus]

Yes, all of this. It makes me sad as a mod when my players are not having fun. I would rather them try to figure out how to make the game fun again but that's not always possible and I would much rather them replace out than stay and be hurt.

[PokerFace]

Strategic replacement is a weird thing. The moment you replace out you are no longer in that game, and thus have no win condition. Trying to find the right time to replace out is playing towards no win condition. So trying to replace out at a time you can better help your team, feels meaningless to me.

I have never done it and will never do it, but there are some players that strategic replace out to help their personal win-loss-ratio. As this site does not auto rank people or auto keep track of that sort of thing, I see no point in replacing out for this reason.

I have never done it and will never do it, but there are some players that strategic replace out to help their meta. If you are so concerned with your meta being a problem, create an alt account. You get the benefits of a fresh start without hurting the state of the game you were just in.

Let's say you are not having fun in a game. Then you should tell the mod. Have the mod give you advise on how to have more fun. If that can't be done in a way that does not upset the game balance. Then the Mod should start searching for a replacement for you. You should continue to play until that replacement comes and takes over. Signing up for games is a commitment after all.

If some crazy unexpected shit happens in real life, family member dies, you get sick and need to go to the hospital, etc, then replace out. You really can't time unexpected chaos. If someone does not respect you for unexpected chaos like that then they are trash. If you lie about unexpected chaos, then you are trash.

In my almost 9 years on site I have only replaced out once. It was a marathon game, I had a shitty phone at the time and the internet in my house went completely dead. As it was a real time marathon game this falls under the category of crazy unexpected shit. I replaced out as my phone was so crappy I could not really keep up or play the game at all

[callforjudgement]

If we did record win/loss ratio, I think we'd have to record replacing out as a loss no matter what the result of the game. Emergency replace-outs shouldn't really make a significant dent in that compared to the much more common situation of getting stuck with terrible team-mates and losing as a result of that, but it'd do wonders for punishing tactical replacements in some sort of statistical calculation.

FWIW, I've had players emergency-replace-out on me in addition to the more "normal" replacements, and they look clearly different from the mod's point of view. (One of the clearest differences is that if someone replaces out in an emergency, they normally come back later in the game and share their thoughts in the spectator thread.)

[mykonian]

I disagree with shea/plot/quilford. People get emotionally invested in a game that toys with interperson relations where the main interaction is discussion/debate. And that is cool, it makes the game more real. It does mean it's taxing psychologically. There is pressure from all sides and the game ending abruptly on death is a blow. Having fun in this game is a matter of managing your losses as well, getting used to personalities and handling your position amongst them. If that doesn't work out, that sucks and indeed you won't be enjoying yourself much.

But not having fun like that is part of the game. Mafia might be a "party game", but you are verbally fighting other players. If you can't accept that can affect you, maybe the game isn't for you. Having experienced playing with one of the bans for replacing out too often, I think that person should have realized that rather than replacing out everytime they faced the evidence. Got too invested, couldn't handle the emotional pressure, imploded under it consistently.

[callforjudgement]

I'm actually surprised that people get emotionally invested in Mafia. I can get quite invested in my games, but from a theoretical/psychological viewpoint rather than an emotional one. (In particular, although I'm trying to win, and doing so is of course needed to make the game function correctly, I don't mind losing due to being outplayed. What I dislike most is feeling helpless/unable to affect the situation. This is different from my actual ability to affect the situation; I had plenty of fun in an unwinnable game a while back because I didn't know at the time it was unwinnable, and when I discovered that it was that didn't change the fun I'd had in the past, although at that point there wasn't much point in continuing.)

A heated debate isn't (normally) disparaging on the people involved as people. You don't (normally) get to influence whether you're town or scum.

[Accountant]

EMOTIONS ARE FOR THE WEAK

[mykonian]

Nah, that's too simple. Emotions can be a lot of fun. This is a game, you get to experiment with how you act etc. But it should stay within those limits. You have to be able to step away again and not let those same emotions seep into your real life.

[OceanWind]

Having fun in this game is a matter of managing your losses as well, getting used to personalities and handling your position amongst them. If that doesn't work out, that sucks and indeed you won't be enjoying yourself much.

While this is true to an extent, the most frustrating thing in mafia for me is not when I'm faced with good players or am outplayed - those I can appreciate and admire. It's when I'm faced with really terrible players that I think there's nothing to learn and nothing to gain which makes the game drag. In almost all of my completed games, there are at least a few players that a) lurk, b) don't explain their reads, c) don't post content that allows the average player to accurately read them. If it's just one lurker among a group of active players with lots of content, you can just lynch them D1 and re-analyze if they flip town. When several players do it, games tend to end up in a hopeless state where you are just trying to squeeze content out of people. Perhaps the games you've played have been different. But the challenge for me on this site is to find games that fulfill all my criteria for a fun game which isn't much to ask:
1. Mid to high experience and skill level for the playerlist on average.
2. Insignificant number of lurkers (one or two at most).
3. Insignificant number of spammers (those people who are constantly on making one-liners with no in-depth posts or explanations).

[Egg]

My mentality is "if you might replace out, don't play", but I also know not everyone shares the same mentality.

[callforjudgement]

I share that mentality. As a result, I hardly play. (This isn't really a problem though.)

Most of what I do on mafiascum nowadays is setup reviewing, which is a much shorter time commitment because it's normally over in days rather than months.