ThisIn post 49, Wisdom wrote:The problem is when you tell people not to replace in your games yet they do it anywayIn post 41, Plotinus wrote:If I announce "X replaces Y" and a player PMs me saying "Please no" then I'll be a little annoyed that they didn't speak to the person and tell them not to replace into their games, but I'll honour it.
Bob makes a thread in MD to cry in. Or they replace out and the mod blacklists them. Don't reward bad behavior.
I think people are hung up on getting the job done perfectly. All you need to do is create a new rule for it.In post 29, Dunnstral wrote:About the replacement thing, I think logistics wise it isn't feasible to take more time to verify with the players about a replacement - that's pretty disruptive, the game might need to be paused, etc, and will need to wait for the moderator and player to come online additional times (remember, prod timers are generally 48 hours on this site - it's not unreasonable to expect an extra 4 days for a replacement to come into the game if you have to verify with everyone, and then have the replacement online again at the right time
Blacklists don’t just affect the individuals involved, so that’s why I now view it differently.In post 53, Firebringer wrote:Thats a change of pace from you Nancy.
The kind of people who play very antitown as every alignment just kind of suck for the site in general. I don't think you should design around it. That'd be like not adding a certain character to a team video game you're developing because it's too powerful when someone on the losing team disconnects from the game.In post 42, BNL wrote:I remembered a problem with replacement wotming that doesn't apply to signup wotming:
Suppose there is a player I have blacklisted because they play in a very antitown manner. If that player were to replace into one of my games, I would replace out.
But suppose I'mscumin a game with that player replacing in, and I would rather have that player stay in the game and complete the game with that player, so decide not to wotm that player.
I derp irrespective of my alignment and I either falsely get accused of trying to get derpcleared or scum slipping. I mix up things all the time and it extends beyond games. I even had one player accuse me of doing it as some “strategy” to be underestimated, when the truth is, it’s not really something I can help.In post 58, callforjudgement wrote:For me wincons are about winning. If looking dumb worked as a strategy (including ability to convincingly pull it off), and wasn't banned or immoral or anything like that, I'd use it. That said, I don't think it does work as a town strategy, and you can't convincingly pull it off as scum once you've built up a bit of a reputation.
I do think that playing dumb can be surprisingly effective as scum, as long as it's not out of character for you. In fact, newbie scum tend to be fairly successful using that tactic in practice (often when you draw town, you discover that they're not nearly as terrible as you thought they were from watching the scumgame that they won because their apparent stupidity was an act to make them hard to read).
Incidentally, when a player actually does happen to be town with no idea what's going on, trying to make it look like they know what they're doing normally ends up making things worse (sometimes they'll end up getting lynched as a result of, e.g., having a fakeclaim disproved when there was no good reason to make it in the first place), and they end up looking even sillier than they would have if they'd just admitted their ignorance in the first place. Simply asking, and having someone explain to you what you're missing, is a much better way to fix the problem.
