LaS - Lynch all Shitposters / Lynch all Spammers?

[davesaz]

I see a disturbing trend toward trying to reach "longest game" milestones, and unending shitposting.
Yes, this is a game and it should be fun, but should site meta shift toward a stricter standard?
As you can see from the thread title I'm not suggesting we make it a rule enforced by moderators.
Perhaps a wisdom of the crowd approach is better. If your noise to signal ratio is too high you're being antitown and deserve rope.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

[Lycanfire]

accept that theme park isn't mafia. if people don't want nice things, let them swim in what they make of it.

[Creature]

If you wish to create a mafia game for just non-spammers, feel free to, though, remember there'll be less players to join.

[Flubbernugget]

Yeah this is a WOTC/M thing

I think the wiki even introduces WOTC as a way to cut down on policy lynches

[Flubbernugget]

That being said, the normal queue seems to be getting buffed in favor of town (someone more knowledgeable should comment on this) which could suggest WOTC/M isn't actually promoting good town play

[Randomnamechange]

large theme is the only area where it happens mainly.

[Randomnamechange]

although i agree that shitposting is a bit of an issue atm when people have ISOs that are 80% shitposts and have the highest post counts in the game.

[gigabyteTroubadour]

wotc approach is better because i can usually tolerate it or get reads out of it or skim the game enough to not need it

i can understand why others might not though and i dont think it's a bad opinion to have

[mastina]

That being said, the normal queue seems to be getting buffed in favor of town (someone more knowledgeable should comment on this) which could suggest WOTC/M isn't actually promoting good town play

No, we're not. We're balancing games to the level of balance they should be at period--it's just that sitewide, people's expectations of balance are an absolute piece of shit so our normal games which have ACTUAL PROPER BALANCE are considered townsided because people have no fucking idea how scumsided the game of forum mafia inherently is. (See also: the many many many prior topics on the subject; literally ANY mountainous game where town's EV never is up to par with the setup in question.)

[mastina]

large theme is the only area where it happens mainly.

Key word:
Mainly.

[LlamaFluff]

large theme is the only area where it happens mainly.

Its basically universal at this point. Just far more noticeable in large games where you can have ten people posting like that. Probably the biggest reason I don't play much anymore, its simply not fun.

If you wish to create a mafia game for just non-spammers, feel free to, though, remember there'll be less players to join.

Im actually working on a game that basically punishes spam posting I hope to run by the end of the month(shameless plug)

[petroleumjelly]

I don't think such a policy for lynching would be feasible -- even players who do not spam presumably would prefer to win the game over attempting to lynch every player who posts too much.

That said, I agree with the general thought that people need to post less and say more. I check the site probably once a week for a game I might play in or replace into, but games are

so long

and/or argumentative that I rarely bother. My guess for the site change is the introduction of people posting on their phones, but who knows.

[Ircher]

I see a disturbing trend toward trying to reach "longest game" milestones, and unending shitposting.
Yes, this is a game and it should be fun, but should site meta shift toward a stricter standard?
As you can see from the thread title I'm not suggesting we make it a rule enforced by moderators.
Perhaps a wisdom of the crowd approach is better. If your noise to signal ratio is too high you're being antitown and deserve rope.

/against

[Ranmaru]

No never must always have activity

Kidding aside I'd rather not lynch active posters. I also lean away from walling. I'd rather not get into a wall war either. I'd rather just be concise so people can easily see what I say in shorter posts, plus it seems neater. I would think a balance would be a better compromise. But don't expect me to clump everything into one whole post. It'll come in three instead.

Example:

Two cases
Reads

All in three posts.

Could do what Llama is doing though. Plus I feel it would be fun to play.

[davesaz]

My main beef is with people who post 10:1 spam to content ratio and have 5 page iso's. Ordinary content is fine with me.

[drealmerz7]

lurkers are a far more serious issue

STU - slaughter the useless

[Ankamius]

Lurkers are far more likely to lurk when games are being shat on.

Plus I've been called a lurker multiple times when I have >10 posts per real life day before. These days, it's hard not to be called one if you're not spam posting.

[wgeurts]

lurkers are a far more serious issue

STU - slaughter the useless

Disagree, spamposters drown out voices. Lurkers can always return and be useful.

Spamposters also create lurkers, so there's that too.

Let's face it, most lurkers are doing so because they're overwhelmed or deprived of time, guess what contributes to this? If it's due to IRL stuff they should replace out. Game related things aren't as easily accepted as a reason to replace out though.

[drealmerz7]

I see many more lurkers coasting through the game and getting to points in the game where there should be absolutely zero lurking and being given a "pass" for it than I do shitposters. I'm not saying shitposting isn't a problem, but I encounter it and issues stemming from it much less frequently than I do lurkers who are getting by by contributing diddlysquat and not giving enough content to generate good reads from. I can also at least generate some reads from ppl who shitpost whereas when someone isn't posting anything but the most vagues of reads and prod-dodges I've got nothing to go on, and that is more of a problem. I'm also not saying that shitposters don't cause apathy and cause other players to become more lurky than they would be, which I guess is why I ended my post with STU

STU envelopes many players - lurkers, shitposters, and crap players all, and on a D1, removing a shitposter or a known crap-player is much preferred to removing a lurker, so it's all really something to be taken on a case-by-case basis and a good town should police their game accordingly.

ie: "look, if you don't stop shitting up the thread we're just going to lynch you" or "if you don't start contributing more meaningful content, we're going to lynch you"

more games need more vigs!!!

[zakk]

Lurkers are worse than spammers by far

[Ankamius]

I see many more lurkers coasting through the game and getting to points in the game where there should be absolutely zero lurking and being given a "pass" for it than I do shitposters. I'm not saying shitposting isn't a problem, but I encounter it and issues stemming from it much less frequently than I do lurkers who are getting by by contributing diddlysquat and not giving enough content to generate good reads from. I can also at least generate some reads from ppl who shitpost whereas when someone isn't posting anything but the most vagues of reads and prod-dodges I've got nothing to go on, and that is more of a problem. I'm also not saying that shitposters don't cause apathy and cause other players to become more lurky than they would be, which I guess is why I ended my post with STU

STU envelopes many players - lurkers, shitposters, and crap players all, and on a D1, removing a shitposter or a known crap-player is much preferred to removing a lurker, so it's all really something to be taken on a case-by-case basis and a good town should police their game accordingly.

ie: "look, if you don't stop shitting up the thread we're just going to lynch you" or "if you don't start contributing more meaningful content, we're going to lynch you"

more games need more vigs!!!

Mafia nowadays is encouraging a meta where if you're not a spamposter, you're a lurker.

[drealmerz7]

Mafia nowadays is encouraging a meta where if you're not a spamposter, you're a lurker.

ummm, no

that's both an oversimplification and misrepresentation of a lot of things

anyway, it's pretty simple

if you don't want shitposters in your games, encourage the rest of the players to lynch them, those not interested in lynching the shitposters are more likely to be scum

if you don't want lurkers in your games, encourage the rest of the players to lynch them, those not interested in lynching the lurkers (D2 and beyond) are more likely to be scum

if you're encouraging lynching lurkers on D1 you're more likely scum

[MarioManiac4]

can we do lynch all players yet

[Creature]

The good thing about shitposting is because a shitpost is a tiny post while a non-shitpost is a somewhat lenghty post, so it's not that hard to find a non-shitpost post.