Replacing out

[Infinity 324]

Replacing out harms games, but so can staying in games that you don't want to play. Which of these is currently a bigger problem on site? What is the line for when a player should replace out if they're not feeling the game? Is there a way we can encourage players to play games all the way through?

[Ythan]

Ego obviously

[TemporalLich]

Players should not be compelled to play games they have no interest in playing - after all, that's why requesting to replace out is allowed in the first place.

Bad faith replacements are when it's a problem - if a player replaces out of a game then joins another of the same type quickly that would be a bad faith replacement - same with trying to use replacements to influence a game.

Replacements do harm the game a little from having an unoccupied slot, but the harm of compelling players to play games that are actively distressing said player is at least an order of magnitude greater than the harm of replacing out at an inconvenient time.

[Ythan]

Bad faith replacements are when it's a problem - if a player replaces out of a game then joins another quickly that would be a bad faith replacement - same with trying to use replacements to influence a game.

I try very hard not to replace out of games but theoretically speaking I can very much envision myself being burned out on one game but still wanting to start a new fresh one right away with no ulterior motive. But very theoretical.

[Infinity 324]

As in the situation that prompted this discussion, scum's plans can be disrupted by town replacing out. Also it could give AI info. I do agree that no one should feel obligated to play a game they don't want to, but the downside here is much more significant than having an unoccupied slot for a short period of time.

[Datisi]

ego

i feel like i've seen both "scum pockets townie to be their wrong vote in lylo, townie reps out, pocket gone" and "limbait townie close to yeet, reps out, replacement townspews, misyeet gone" situations happen because people lost interest in the game

there's most likely been "scum being scumread, reps out, great scum player reps in and saves slot" situations too, though i can't remember specific examples off the top of my head for that one

like i said in the other thread, replacements hurt the flow of the game, and there should be a system in that *strongly* encourages finishing games you signed up for, though again i don't know a way to properly implement that in practice

[Ythan]

there's most likely been "scum being scumread, reps out, great scum player reps in and saves slot" situations too, though i can't remember specific examples off the top of my head for that one

I speculate that not doomed scum is unlikely to rep out.

[Datisi]

maybe i'm bringing up a problem that doesn't exist then, but i wanted to illustrate that replacements due to not wanting to play the game don't necessarily only change the outcome in town's favour - like either faction can get damaged from what is basically oog influence, which makes it a bit more important to solve?

[Ythan]

No you're totally right I'm just venturing a tangentially related opinion because I like to hear myself talk.

[TemporalLich]

As in the situation that prompted this discussion, scum's plans can be disrupted by town replacing out. Also it could give AI info. I do agree that no one should feel obligated to play a game they don't want to, but the downside here is much more significant than having an unoccupied slot for a short period of time.

If you're replacing out to give AI info you are applying outside influences to a game. Such a "tactical replacement" would be considered bad faith and should be sanctioned (likely with a new game ban).

A good faith replacement at an inconvenient time can disrupt a game's plans or make the moderator have to do extra work. The former is more harmful to the game's health than a mere empty slot (and could be seen as harming a game's

integrity

) but I think we can agree even the worst case scenario of a good faith replacement (inadvertently altering who wins) is not worth forcing a player to remain in distressing situations.

Replacing out merely because your slot looks bad is a bad faith replacement.

[Infinity 324]

I'm talking about good faith replacements at inconvenient times, to be clear

[Ythan]

Replacing out merely because your slot looks bad is a bad faith replacement.

I think this is the really murky hard to moderate part though.

[OkaPoka]

even good faith replacements can give a lot of AI info which is the issue i think infinity is trying to describe. people who just got busy irl or really don't want to play and replaced out can directly change the outcome of the game and undermine a lot of effort

[TemporalLich]

In my opinion good faith replacements should not be punished. Whether you're forced to take a long V/LA or legitimately can't stand playing the game and have thought it through replacing out should be an option.

pedit: yeah, a good policy is "assume good faith" - a clear cut case of that is bad but you as a moderator will not know the whole story.

Also, too many replace outs even if in good faith is still not really good (as you probably should consider not playing games if you're regularly hit with V/LA or if Mafia in general distresses you).

The issue is translucent and it would be better to encourage playing games to full somehow (that isn't punishing to people with reasons to replace out).

It would also be worth outlining legitimate reasons to replace out so people will know if they have a legitimate reason to replace out or not.

pedit: if your replacement gives even a single iota of AI info it is bad faith. Period. Tactical replacements are tactical replacements, you can't say they're only even good faith replacements

[OkaPoka]

what if i told you the act of replacing out is AI because its statistically correlated with being scum?

[TemporalLich]

then you'd have to reconcile that all replace outs are in bad faith because you're actually arguing all replace outs harm game

integrity

(this is not the same thing as game health - a missing slot is definitely bad for game health but as long as it gets replaced in a timely manner (i.e. the slot isn't absent for an entire phase) it doesn't necessarily harm game integrity) by using outside influences to spew alignment.

Either that or you'd have to argue there are good faith tactical replacements.

I do believe there are NAI replace outs - these are the norm and replace outs are in good faith only if they are NAI.

[Dannflor]

replace outs should be avoided at all costs and always irrevocably damage the integrity of the game

I recognize they do and sometimes need to happen, I've had to replace out before and felt tremendously guilty about it, but I don't think there can ever exist a replace out that doesn't harm the game

[Infinity 324]

then you'd have to reconcile that all replace outs are in bad faith because you're actually arguing all replace outs harm game

integrity

(this is not the same thing as game health - a missing slot is definitely bad for game health but as long as it gets replaced in a timely manner (i.e. the slot isn't absent for an entire phase) it doesn't necessarily harm game integrity) by using outside influences to spew alignment.

Either that or you'd have to argue there are good faith tactical replacements.

I do believe there are NAI replace outs - these are the norm and replace outs are in good faith only if they are NAI.

I think the pretty simple answer to this is that there are replacements that can give AI info that are not tactical.

[OkaPoka]

every replacement hurts the integrity of the game no matter what. tactical replacements hurt them more but even a person who idk internet dies forever and disappears and is force replaced does lead to an integrity changing event because well, we the players don't really know what happened, all we really know is that slot x replaced out and statistically that is a bit more likely to come from scum and suddenly the integrity of that slot is compromised to an extent but nobody is going to say that person is a dirty little metagamer for not having better internet.

but i guess im fine with a replacement in that scenario? i know there are/were rulesets in the old days before my time that modkilled all replacements indiscriminately and that probably compromises the game more

[TemporalLich]

imo these are good reasons to replace out:

If you're on a long V/LA and aren't confident you will be able to post at all during V/LA
If you're getting distressed or traumatized over a game
If you can't stand playing a game at all (likely due to toxicity or otherwise poor game health)
If playing the game would come at personal risk to you

Games are a commitment, but if things go bad you shouldn't be locked into said commitment.

I know of the BaM ruleset where being force replaced for inactivity is instead modkillable, but idk if requesting replacement in a BaM game is modkillable or not.

Modkills irrevocably damage the integrity of the game - you're not getting that slot back and the faction who got modkilled is more likely to lose.

Replace outs I feel only do so if they are AI or if they are not resolved in a timely manner.

Replace outs will likely make people feel they don't want to play the game, but are unlikely to make people feel they

can't

play the game. Modkills are likely to do the latter.

[OkaPoka]

i agree

solutions to replacing out for v/la i think would be

harsher punishments for people who consistently replace out (probably should be more aware of your schedule) or shorter deadlines (i think we are at a weird crossroads on this site where we expect consistent, at the very least, daily activity but still maintain fragments of old standards of multi month games. that just might be an unreasonable commitment. other sites can have our activity levels but with 72/24 deadlines in some games but we want 7/2 or even 14/2 deadlines??)

[Infinity 324]

Good point about the deadlines. I don't think we should get rid of the longer deadlines since there are some people who appreciate a slower pace, but I think separating those two types of players might solve other problems in games.

[OkaPoka]

hmm, yeah i agree that long deadlines are pretty ingrained into this site. separating into blitz games and queues hasn't really taken off and i suspect that's possibly because the ms competitors have "taken" the blitz seeking populace so to speak.

some alternative solutions to short deadlines might be setup related solutions perhaps? like try and create setups that are less phases? more killing roles? maybe have some deadline formula based on number of players alive so you don't have a day 4 that lasts 2 weeks etc.

[T3]

hmm, yeah i agree that long deadlines are pretty ingrained into this site. separating into blitz games and queues hasn't really taken off and i suspect that's possibly because the ms competitors have "taken" the blitz seeking populace so to speak.

some alternative solutions to short deadlines might be setup related solutions perhaps? like try and create setups that are less phases? more killing roles? maybe have some deadline formula based on number of players alive so you don't have a day 4 that lasts 2 weeks etc.

+1 on the last idea.

[MURDERCAT]

there's most likely been "scum being scumread, reps out, great scum player reps in and saves slot" situations too, though i can't remember specific examples off the top of my head for that one

Mathblade just did it in Ircher's mini theme