Harsher Penalties for Replacing Out Of Large Games

[Psyche]

the solution is still a name-and-shame thread or some other record of replace-outs
the problem with WOTC is that information about replace-outs doesn't quite flow freely enough to ensure that more than just The Very Worst/Most Obvious Offenders are excluded from games; people aren't allowed to talk about them until games are over and no one cares, and in general it tends to be a boring subject that no one tends to discuss at length except with reference to The Very Worst/Most Obvious Offenders

having a thread that simply documents who has replaced out of which game and perhaps also has an OP that tabulates this informatively (for example, a karma system) would allow us to enjoy the nuance that WOTC makes possible while also

this would stil have the consequence of marginally increasing the number of people staying in games just to avoid this sort of documentation, but I think that the effect would be small and that anyone signing up for a game with recent replace-outs will be able calmly account for their behavior to a mod or playerlist during the sign-up process

i'm sure there are loads of people who would volunteer to spearhead such a documentation process (including me :S),
perhaps even a few that moderators would trust
i or someone else can even produce within a couple of days a mostly-complete record of replace-outs that have happened in the last six months in most queues, especially since this is already documented in a less helpful format to some extent in at least the Newbie and Normal Archives

[Psyche]

even supposing the administration isn't keen on the idea or needs a proof of concept in order to be convinced, i invite anyone who cares enough about this issue and favors the project idea to pm me so that we can collaborate on an implementation that tentatively 1) only includes finished games and 2) occurs in the MD subforum.

[Psyche]

FINE I'LL DO IT MYSELF

[Psyche]

To be honest, I haven't really had trouble with the status quo on replacements either. When someone gets replaced, I'm always glad, not disappointed. God forbid that they feel obligated to

stay

in the game I wish they would leave. The idea that punishing someone will stop them from being optimistic about how the next few months of their lives will go is childish and wrong. But the idea that players and moderators should be empowered with information to decide whether someone will just be a drain on their game or not — in principle it seems flawless. I also think a lot of scummers have a sense of integrity — even if no one will stop letting them into games, they don't want to be the sort of person who flakes. Documenting replace-outs will sort of create a tension between their ideal and actual selves that will motivate them to avoid games they're unsure they can play or even to change their behavior so that they flake less. No downsides, except someone has a job to do.

[Psyche]

and no effective way of maintaining this for a long period of time was determined.

it's really not so mysterious

[Psyche]

Mafia is a game, sure. But it's one that involves a long-term commitment to lots of people. Maybe you play League of Legends or something like League of Legends and I can make that analogy. Joining a game in LoL and not being sure that you won't be quitting 20 minutes in is an asshole move that denigrates the experience of everyone involved in the game. It's fundamentally selfish and wrong to do, but more importantly it makes the average game crappier to play. Mafia is just not possible as an consistently enjoyable game unless players take the commitment that signing up signifies seriously. LoL has a system that incentivizes staying in games without being draconian. People who can't help but leave suffer, but the vastly larger community of people who normally

can

responsibly handle their ability to make time commitments have a much better game-playing experience.

[Psyche]

And who is to be the arbiter of what constitutes "a good reason?"

there is already an arbiter of what constitutes "a good reason", even if no one is

ever

kept from playing a game for replacing out too much - and that's the community
the debate isn't over whether anyone should make these decisions because they're already made every single game
to focus on that issue is just to raise a red herring

[Psyche]

As I said in the old thread,

Is there really a difference between someone who habitually replaces out for real-life reasons and someone who habitually replaces out because they're terrible that matters to moderators who just want players who play games to completion?

The answer to that question is that there isn't. If someone is

regularly

replacing out for any combination of those reasons or because they're terrible people, there are still compelling reasons to keep them from signing up for new games. Whether they be bad luck, a shitty mood, an unreliable internet connection or a general disregard for the time of other human beings, if these get in the way of playing through 80% of the games they sign up for, then their play should be restricted until the issues are resolved.

[Psyche]

Okay, let's talk about empathy. When I first started playing League with my shitty laptop, I felt the same way. My computer would regularly force me to leave games, and eventually the system restricted my ability to play games. But deciding to keep playing league of legends while my computer kept doing this was

wrong

and

selfish

. It wasn't the LoL administrators without the empathy, it was me. I refused to consider how my participation was impacting the experience of other people whose joy mattered just as much as mine. The fact of the matter is that there are loads of great games in the world that one can play without the consistent internet access that League of Legends or Mafia requires - that there are loads of games out there one can play without actively diminishing the gaming experience of everyone else made to play with you. It's unfortunate that not everyone has the computing power or time needed to enjoy these Fruits of the First World, but that fact alone is not enough to justify imposing oneself so selfishly on a given gaming community.

It's just one of those examples where everyone can't have what they want. Of course, a community can make concerted trade-offs between "game quality" and "game accessibility" by being more or less tolerant of regular replace-outs, and ultimately must.

But to cast my argument as "morally soulless" compared to yours is just inaccurate; we're both trying to figure out which pattern of prioritizing improves the lives of the most people. I think there's a strong case for the position that we could value game quality a little more.

[Psyche]

you think lol is toxic because its administrators takes measures to control player flaking..?

and once again, my argument is based on empathy, not on whatever soulless construct you think it is

[Psyche]

No, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. LoL has a toxic community filled with strangers that hate one another.
MS has a much smaller community that is, for the most part, tight-knit.

And once again, my argument is that you're in favor of a wholly unenforceable rule. The merits of it are moot, because the flaws outweigh them. You can't expect a small, close community to say "Well fuck his cancer, shouldn't have signed up for my game. Off to the ban hammer!"

You're still not getting the point. And I'm not even advocating any sort of rule. You're clearly not even trying to understand where I'm coming from.

[Psyche]

oh okay then

also ms is not exactly the least toxic place to play a game either mr. fire and brimstone

[Psyche]

Psyche your analogy fails because you're comparing a 20-40 minute commitment, which is easy to predict to a high probability of success, to a game that can takes months, where you can't predict very well what you will be doing or what your situation is.

The two don't compare at all.

that really isn't a fatal difference between the two situations at all

[Psyche]

ok this is boring
i know the solution and will begin implementation once i find the time
maybe this fall break

[Psyche]

Sorry but you don't seem to understand much about how LoL's leaverbuster system works. The details aren't very important though.

[Psyche]

ok this is boring
i know the solution and will begin implementation once i find the time
maybe this fall break

[Psyche]

do i have you on record as believing that scum are more likely to replace out under pressure than town
can this "pressure" be characterized operationally in terms of the voting behavior of other players towards one?

[Psyche]

i think it would be a better use of time to focus on occasions where people habitually replace out of too many games too often than one-off scenarios where someone who otherwise replaces out rarely feels inclined to leave a game

it's just a better use of time, and is more likely to affect only people who don't have enough respect for the game

[Psyche]

What I'm saying is you're being really persistent in ignoring a lot of people who have been here longer than you saying "No really dude we know what we're talking about this isn't the first time it's come up."

That argument would only be relevant if it had been tried before and it didn't work. Saying that you've had this discussion before does not make your argument stronger, it simply means that it wasn't resolved in the past, and it continues to be a problem, which would seem to indicate that the current strategy for dealing with it isn't working in a fashion satisfactory to at least some portion of the community.

Let's try this exercise.

Please answer the following questions as truthfully as possible.

1. What will you be doing exactly four months from today?

2. Can you assure me that your current health will remain the same?

3. Can you asssure me that all of your relatives will remain healthy for the next four months?

5. Do you have a job? Are you 100% sure that your working hours will remain exactly the same for four months?

6. Are you in a relationship? Can you assure me that absolutely nothing will go wrong in that relationship for four months?

7. Do you have a home? Utilities? Can you assure me that absolutely nothing will interfere with that for the next four months?

8. Are you 100% sure that no one on the site hates you?

9. Are you 100% sure that you won't have personality conflicts with anyone?

Please answer completely and honestly

still missing the point

[Psyche]

ok
so people are still disagreeing that there's a problem at all

[Psyche]

yeah but what if you're the sort of person who will do that for half of the people who regularly play mafia

[Psyche]

yeah but what if you're the sort of person who will do that for half of the people who regularly play mafia

People: "this isn't a thing that should be punished unless people do it a lot"
Psyche: "but what if they do it a lot?"

Basically what I see in this response in context of the thread.

lots of people arguing that replace-outs shouldn't be punished ever at all period

[Psyche]

a "proper system" for punishing people who replace out is just as decentralized and moderator-focused as you say
like BAM but without the draconian terribleness

[Psyche]

(Again this is why secret alts are dumb and shouldn't be allowed)

said the secret alt

[Psyche]