Like many others, I would be for this in theory, however, I think that it might do more harm than good in practice. Ideally, I think we would do a practice run of around 2 months or so, just to see how it was working out.
Maybe one free pass per scummer per year. Those who play in more games will get penalized for flaking out all over the place, whereas someone who has an occasional lapse can keep up better without adding more games. I kinda like the idea of giving mods discretion to "waive" the requirement, but it would be damn hard to enforce anyway. Maybe a grey list of flakes where mods can determine whether or not to allow the player in until they replace (and complete the game!) at least once, at which point their nose becomes clean again.
This is dovetailing nicely with the "Banning Players" thread, as we said we wanted things to be fair and equitable across the entire site, not based on moderator spite. Moderator favor is of course harder to control, and I'm not so sure we should discourage it if the mod is willing.
Another possibility: if you left the game hanging for weeks or if the mod has to come up with a replacement for you, you owe the debt. If you provide fair warning and a warm body, and didn't disappear for three weeks before finding your replacement, you're off the hook.
The argument against this is that one of the things we're trying to promote is continuity and therefore every replacement should incur a debt. But I think the main reason we'd create the debt list is to encourage responsibility. Responsible behavior == no debt.
What about a weighted scale (similar to something I suggested, iirc)? I also like the sound of hot and cold dropping- short, sweet and conveys how you dropped-
Debt:
1 pt: You drop hot (you play right until the mod says stop)
2 pt: You drop cold (no notice)
3 pt: You replace in a game and then drop (hot or cold)
Repayment:
1 pt: You complete a game start to finish
2 pt: You replace in a game and finish it
This would reward people for replacing and finishing, although it could be gamed by playing poorly and getting yourself lynched...I'm guessing that has other effects on a player's respect and status, however.
I've replaced in around 15 games so far (I think) just to help the mod, it's really difficult on mods to find replacements for games with a lot of pages. Unfortunately, I've asked for replacement recently for 2 games due to site errors and other errors eating up my time.
I died in newbie 280 due to skilled scum BA, and I replaced back in as another player (town), and we won. On hindsight, I shouldn't have done that. Scum BA had a nice plan going that would have fooled the person I replaced. I basically ruined their whole plan by replacing in and not being fooled. Then again, would anyone be willing to replace in a 28 page newbie?
I still don't see any argument in favour of giving regular scummers a free pass. If you are a regular scummer and you never ever replace, then perhaps you ought to be a bit more altruistic. Especially if, for reasons beyond your control you have to be replaced yourself.
I agree - there is no reason to make distinctions. We're acting like replacement is a punishment - but really, it shouldn't be seen as such. It's rather sad that we have to resort to these measures, but many games (mine included) are desperate for replacements that just aren't there.
gorckat wrote:What about a weighted scale (similar to something I suggested, iirc)? I also like the sound of hot and cold dropping- short, sweet and conveys how you dropped-
Debt:
1 pt: You drop hot (you play right until the mod says stop)
2 pt: You drop cold (no notice)
3 pt: You replace in a game and then drop (hot or cold)
Repayment:
1 pt: You complete a game start to finish
2 pt: You replace in a game and finish it
3 pt: You replace a mod
I hate to say this (because I'm /out of normals) but should there be a distinction between minis (which is not likely to be a commitment by replacements of much more than a month) and bigger games (which
can
- see Best Of The Internet, which I replaced into very early on - go on for absolute yonks)?
The point system seems overly complicated. I'm not against removing the "free pass" concept mentioned earlier, but there should be some way for the moderator of "the" game to give the player a pass if they found their own replacement, etc (assuming the player only flaked on one; multiple moderators aren't all likely to give the player a pass). Maybe this can be combined somehow with the/a new Replacement List thread in the Queue?
Suggestion: Let's just try the system without any exceptions - if you are replaced, you must replace. It's not that big of a burden and if, as we run it we realize that it is not working then we can change the rules...
AndrewS wrote:I agree - there is no reason to make distinctions. We're acting like replacement is a punishment - but really, it shouldn't be seen as such. It's rather sad that we have to resort to these measures, but many games (mine included) are desperate for replacements that just aren't there.
