TempBan for Players Who Sign Up and Refuse To Play

[popsofctown]

I am a very dedicated player, and I don't always abide by that infamous "#2". I don't think it's because I and everyone else who said they wouldn't abide is a bad player, and I don't think it's because it's fundamentally impossible to have a mafia environment where every post gets read by every player, but rather a third possibility. Not every single word in a thread will be worth reading, but I have the extra energy to read the extra excess 25% "for kicks" in games that are functioning in a healthy way. In some games it's like there is 300% as much stuff there, and that's when I will stop reading every word as both alignments. I think that's just a symptom of bad site meta where really garbagey posting is acceptable from players and they need to be lynched. So yeah I think in an ideal utopia you should be able to chastise people who haven't read every word of the thread. Site meta would adjust to it and people who keep posting drivel would get lynched or shot. In fact, you can exempt a player from reading the posts the belong to a player he is voting. If you are either reading the game or working to excise the tumor that's making it unreadable, good job.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Separately, I really disagree that getting people to read the thread is "mod interference". Isn't requiring players to post in thread mod interference too? A player could post nothing but spacebars, all game, and all their actions would be legal, no night actions taken, no votes made. Heck, you could make a pretty decent argument that posting nothing but spacebars for an entire game is optimal Miller play in a certain environment under certain circumstances. But no mod in the history of ever would allow a player to play a full game of mafia posting nothing but spacebars. They will always "interfere" and tell the player at a minimum "you need to post words into the thread." It's just too fundamental to playing mafia that you post some words into the thread. By not posting words you are abstaining from gameplay.

Good mods require people to post words. It's literally the complement of that to require people to read the words that others have posted into the thread. Taken to the logical extreme, if requiring users to post words is not mod interference, but requiring users to read words IS mod interference, then all players post words as required, but then no players read any words, because they're not required to, and the requirement that each player post words was pointless because one of the critical 2 steps necessary for communication is missing.


Even if it is truly mod interference to require players to read the game, that's not a cardinal sin to be regarded in a principled manner. Mod interference is external and disrupts the sanctity of the game, that is very true, but the replacement process does so as well. If a few more people enjoy games enough to not replace out due to "mod intereference" requiring people to both read mafia posts and write mafia posts when they play mafia and thereby weeding out uberlow effort players, then the sanctity of games will overall go up.

[Ankamius]

Requiring people to post in the thread isn't mod interference because the game doesn't work at all if some people are in the game, but never play. I would say that penalizing posting but not playing the game at all is acceptable too.

The moment where a mod steps in because he or she isn't posting good enough content is where I draw the line. At that point, it's the players' jobs to fix the problem because they're still playing the game at that point. If the other players can't fix the problem themselves, then it's their fault, not the mod's. Don't join games with them again afterwards if it bugs you that much. If they get a bad enough reputation, they'll have a hard time joining games again anyways.

[ika]

the thing with mod prodding is that is in the rulesets so its a mods duty.

if a mod made a rule that they would put in hidden text to make sure they are reading then i would argue its not mod infringing on game (although i would disagree with that rule in general)

[Kagami]

There are a great many degenerate behaviors that hurt the sanctity of games far more than the uber-lurker.

In a perfect world the fix is to kill meta, which is the root of pretty much all intentionally anti-town behavior. Since we can't do that, we have to abide by certain degenerate playstyles.

I suppose another viable method would be for something like the BaM movement to re-emerge, with even stricter play erquirements (probably requiring a player whitelist instead of blacklist)

[Porochaz]

The issue was rare. It's become more of an issue recently. In my most recent game, there was a significant proportion of the game who I would describe as low content, and within that there were at least 2 or 3 I would want to have replaced. Despite them being within the limits.

[Porochaz]

Requiring people to post in the thread isn't mod interference because the game doesn't work at all if some people are in the game, but never play. I would say that penalizing posting but not playing the game at all is acceptable too.

The moment where a mod steps in because he or she isn't posting good enough content is where I draw the line. At that point, it's the players' jobs to fix the problem because they're still playing the game at that point. If the other players can't fix the problem themselves, then it's their fault, not the mod's. Don't join games with them again afterwards if it bugs you that much. If they get a bad enough reputation, they'll have a hard time joining games again anyways.

The issue I guess I have at the moment then is finding that line.

[Porochaz]

There are a great many degenerate behaviors that hurt the sanctity of games far more than the uber-lurker.

In a perfect world the fix is to kill meta, which is the root of pretty much all intentionally anti-town behavior. Since we can't do that, we have to abide by certain degenerate playstyles.

I suppose another viable method would be for something like the BaM movement to re-emerge, with even stricter play erquirements (probably requiring a player whitelist instead of blacklist)

Urgh triple post.

I always hated the BaM ruleset, I thought it was unnecessarily strict, but that was when I was running games a few years back. Now I am thinking about running games again I might have to have a look... (takes look) okay I see the rules I disagreed with, I disagree with less now, BUT I still disagree with things like the day deadlines (urgh, to even shorter days) and no replacements. It certainly shouldn't be stricter. I guess meta should curtail the issues we have. (beyond new players)