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?
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."
This should be required reading for...everyone for anything, really.
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.
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
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.
I've only made one good post, and don't you dare accuse me of doing it again.
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.
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
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.
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
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.
I made a GTKAS. Go shitpost in it if you want. It's very lonely.
"Even when I leave mafia and play an entirely different game I can't escape you you menace." - North/Wenya
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 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
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
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.
"Who the fuck counts in Babylonian? I'm impressed sir. So impressed that I'm going to ruin your counting."—
xofelf
"This might be the worst hydra I've seen in all of mafiascum history."—
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 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.