Mafiascum.net

Some things like repeated prod-dodging are grounds for force-replacement. The issue with such rules is that these afe often subjective as it is hard to define what a contentless post is, and it is hard to make an objective rule.

One idea I have is to shift the decision to the players rather than the moderator. The players can vote if they want to force replace a player. This removes the decision away from the moderator to the players so that now the mod’s ruling is objective: players get force replaced when they get X votes. This can be used to replace not only activelurker slots but also trolls and toxic players from the game.

However, I see such a system as easily abused. This is why I’m opening up this idea publicly: do you guys think this is workable?

No

Edit: *in a nice tone of voice*

I’d say do a mixed system?

Any system where players can officially vote on stuff is a system that scum are going to try and influence for their own benefit, and subsequently will become part of the game.

"Player didn't vote to boot obvious lurker X, he must want inactivity because he's scum."

I kinda figured out that this wouldn't work, but I wanted more constructive criticism than a "No".

I also know that people trying to replace players for their own benefit is probably not a good idea, but I want to see what other people think.

I would worry that this would end up being mid-game WOTC as well - if there was a player x number of people didn't like, they would be able to force-replace them.

But I'd never play a full game again

In post 6, Not_Mafia wrote:But I'd never play a full game again

He's targeting you, specifically, N_M.

I am fully against this idea, though. It's like Animal Farm if you do it this way. The mod is in charge, not the players. They can already choose to remove people from the game by lynching them.

Or the votes could happen secretly, like PMs to the mod.
And the requirement could be > a simple majority, maybe 66%.

Up to the mod imo.

I'd personally incorporate that into my game (obviously with my consent to avoid abuse).

Yeah the exact reason I suggested a mixed system was to avoid abuse.

No. Don't crowdsource moderation. There's enough situations with people trying to use the mod to aid their win condition as things are.

In post 5, Nexus wrote:I would worry that this would end up being mid-game WOTC as well - if there was a player x number of people didn't like, they would be able to force-replace them.

This too

Crazy suggestion: if you don't want to play with someone don't join games that they are in.

It's up to the mod to judge whether accept to force-replace or not.

I'd only force-replace someone if that player is being inactive.

Let's say someone is obviously town but pushing on scum in an obnoxious way. Scum can then all gang up on them and say "oh the way this guy is playing is awful let's remove them" and claim it was for their actions when they really just wanted to get rid of a threatening player.

Is there an issue with mods failing to force replace people that they ought to? Definitely. As a mod you really don't want to force replace a player. But this is not how you go about solving the problem.

By shifting the decision to the players, you are also passing the responsibility to them.

This actually happened in Overkill with NicoRobin where I basically convinced half the list to sign to replace the lurking slot so we could actually get game relevant information and it worked out well. It kinda helped that it was their second prod already, but still. Almost handled it well.

We basically sped up the process so the Moderator could make the game more enjoyable. It was like a fast-night request, only with a replacement. So I don't bash this idea considering I lead the charge for it as a Survivor of all things.

But giving that power particularly to get rid of someone you don't like? That's a no-go. If a player is that toxic in the game it's fully the Moderators desicion and theirs alone to save the game.

So where I stand on the matter is this is basically a fast-night version way to get rid of an established lurker doing more harm then good for the game.

In post 12, RadiantCowbells wrote:

In post 5, Nexus wrote:I would worry that this would end up being mid-game WOTC as well - if there was a player x number of people didn't like, they would be able to force-replace them.

This too

Crazy suggestion: if you don't want to play with someone don't join games that they are in.

Replacements exist. Replacements can be players you don't want to play with.

In post 3, Toomai wrote:Any system where players can officially vote on stuff is a system that scum are going to try and influence for their own benefit, and subsequently will become part of the game.

"Player didn't vote to boot obvious lurker X, he must want inactivity because he's scum."

I don't see why the vote can't be done privately in PMs with the mod whilst discussion on said vote is strictly forbidden.

In post 17, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 12, RadiantCowbells wrote:

In post 5, Nexus wrote:I would worry that this would end up being mid-game WOTC as well - if there was a player x number of people didn't like, they would be able to force-replace them.

This too

Crazy suggestion: if you don't want to play with someone don't join games that they are in.

Replacements exist. Replacements can be players you don't want to play with.

this issue is better solved by game mods doing a better job of not forcing players to play in situations that are toxic to them

not gonna name drop here

Can we force replace this idiot they’re so fucking shit at mafia.

If someone's acting scummy, force-replace them. If their replacement is scummy as well, the slot's scummy, lynch it. If the replacement is towny, figure it was a bad player and let them live.

tbh at the start of the game I would vote to force replace everyone I disliked playing with just so that I can make the game an invitational

In post 3, Toomai wrote:Any system where players can officially vote on stuff is a system that scum are going to try and influence for their own benefit, and subsequently will become part of the game.

"Player didn't vote to boot obvious lurker X, he must want inactivity because he's scum."

Interesting .. my first impression is that this would benefit town.
A series of forced replacements will make the playerbase much more active. And when the players are all active and participating and feeling the pressure to perform, scum can't hide. You can be a shit town player and eventually if you post enough you will reveal your towniness.

In post 18, mutantdevle wrote:

In post 3, Toomai wrote:Any system where players can officially vote on stuff is a system that scum are going to try and influence for their own benefit, and subsequently will become part of the game.

"Player didn't vote to boot obvious lurker X, he must want inactivity because he's scum."

I don't see why the vote can't be done privately in PMs with the mod whilst discussion on said vote is strictly forbidden.

This would be a way to avoid influencing the game balance I think. Could work.

In post 20, Alisae wrote:Can we force replace this idiot they’re so fucking shit at mafia.

Every time I join a game someone says this.