I've been told there was a misreference and I should delete this.
Last edited by saulres on Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"SAULRES you are THE man! Fav mod eva, no contest!" - Bert; "Saulres is a fantastic mod, if he is running a game everyone needs to join it." - FuDuzn
Nominated for Paperback Writer Scummie 2013 and 2014!
On permanent
I honestly don't see how I haven't been WotC'd out of a game yet.
You're not going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. S*Gaiden will not make long cases, write stunning insights, or sugar coat his words. He is not the man for multi-paragraph eloquence. He is, however, being honest to a fault, and it comes across in his writing.
If someone is doing that, then take note of it and spread the word. That sort of behavior is destructive to games and cheapens the experience for everyone. It should be dealt with with WotM and WotC.
A lot of people have very different ideas about what constitutes Mafia play.
I've played IRL with people who will basically active lurk and socialize until voting time and are still among the most accurate scumhunters I know.
Point being, working towards wincon isn't easily defined and I for one will admit to constantly fluffposting even in my most invested games.
Maybe there are players who simply don't care about the game, but there's infrastructure in place to deal with them without passing any global rules that will ruin play experience for legitimate players.
We give out temp bans for mafia players who out their partners or play against wincon (see most recent ban). This is strictly to players of the mafia alignment, because it doesn't apply to town players. Yet, it's unreasonable to discuss temp-banning town players who refuse to actually play to wincon in this manner?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there are town players that *don't* read and *don't* vote, even if they self-profess to "not give a fuck about the game". It's just that quality is really low
In post 86, RadiantCowbells wrote:A lot of people have very different ideas about what constitutes Mafia play.
I've played IRL with people who will basically active lurk and socialize until voting time and are still among the most accurate scumhunters I know.
Point being, working towards wincon isn't easily defined and I for one will admit to constantly fluffposting even in my most invested games.
Maybe there are players who simply don't care about the game, but there's infrastructure in place to deal with them without passing any global rules that will ruin play experience for legitimate players.
f2f is very different in the amount and quality of time you spend on a game. in f2f games are pretty short (even tho some might take an hour or 2) in comparison to forum games which can take months. after a big chunk of spare time is spent, there is nothing more frusating than when some1 replaces in and derp votes w/o bothering to read any part of the game or pay attention to the tl;dr version that they asked for and votes (or doesn't vote at all) recklessly while saying "I don't care LULZ" cos this has happened in games that I have been in.
In post 91, pirate mollie wrote:nothing more frusating than when some1 replaces in and derp votes w/o bothering to read any part of the game or pay attention to the tl;dr version that they asked for and votes (or doesn't vote at all) recklessly while saying "I don't care LULZ"
In post 92, Wisdom wrote:It is frustrating sure, but you can't ask for bans on people because you don't like how they're playing. Just avoid playing with them.
How do you avoid playing with someone who replaces in? Replace out and give up all the work you've done while making the job harder for the mod?
I did in one game ask for all the player's blacklists before the game started to prevent that sort of thing. The response wasn't great so I didn't repeat but maybe I should.
"SAULRES you are THE man! Fav mod eva, no contest!" - Bert; "Saulres is a fantastic mod, if he is running a game everyone needs to join it." - FuDuzn
Nominated for Paperback Writer Scummie 2013 and 2014!
On permanent
yeah I don't think there are that many town players who don't read and don't vote - for the rare instances that do exist, blacklist/wotc them and move on.
I understand the problem of them replacing in, but there's nothing you can do about that except hope your mod cares about their playerlist and doesn't let such players get into their games.
Except that the action that is proposed to be banned is a valid strategy both for scum and potentially for strong town PRs.
The play described is certainly suboptimal in most cases, but that alone doesn't make it any more ban-worthy than, say, faking guilties as town or self-hammering as scum. Furthermore, immediate enforcement is likely alignment indicative.
If the skittles find this kind of behavior sufficiently prevalent and repugnant, I would think the best solution is to have a "problem scummer" forum in which mods can posit specific people as flakes/trolls/whatever together with links to the offensive behavior. Other mods could use the forum to more effectively WotM the problem players.
Last time I saw WotC can still happen mid-game for a force-replacement.
But yeah even then as people said even though someone go "lol sorry I'm not really playing this" it could be because that person wanted to lurk and not attract attention because he has a godlike PR or something.
Even if he was just loitering around you don't really know and can't really know the motivation of it until post-game. EVEN then it just could've been a result of the bad play such as "I wanted to pretend to be a PR so I can eat NK or something", or even an apathy gained from the first few pages of the game he happened to stumbled when one woke up.
We can't really ban someone for playing specific way because the Mafia game in general is a variable game that doesn't have a specific play for each alignment/role/etc.
Also as others said, the only way the such play can be taken action is by body of work to prove that this certain player has continuously played this way regardless of alignment and playing against win con.
(Also, "Not playing to the win con" vs "Playing against win con" etc etc)
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
I think there is a difference between active lurking and not engaging the game.
I do think a player not engaging the game should be replaced as it is simply not fun for the other players in the game. Good games thrive off engagement (well maybe scum like non engaging games).
The problem with this is how a moderator judges non engagement as they have to be willing to treat a scum player and a town player the same way in this situation. I would probably warn the player by PM (probably count it as a prod) and replace them if nothing changed as a moderator. Not every moderator would have some kind of policy like this though.
As a player in this game I would try to coax engagement out of the player. If the player still refused to engage the game, I would lynch the player as a calculated risk. Either they are scum and going to get away with it if not lynched or they are town and they are a bigger threat end game than someone who has followed the game and participated throughout the game and I think the correct play would be to lynch them. Optimally you coax them into engaging through questions and get them in the game so everyone can get into the game.
I don't think wisdom of the crowds mid game should have any input. The moderator should be the only one making any decisions about replacing anyone. As a player in game you must play the hand you are dealt whether it is pocket rockets or a 7 and a 2.