Replacing out

[TemporalLich]

Players should not be compelled to play games they have no interest in playing - after all, that's why requesting to replace out is allowed in the first place.

Bad faith replacements are when it's a problem - if a player replaces out of a game then joins another of the same type quickly that would be a bad faith replacement - same with trying to use replacements to influence a game.

Replacements do harm the game a little from having an unoccupied slot, but the harm of compelling players to play games that are actively distressing said player is at least an order of magnitude greater than the harm of replacing out at an inconvenient time.

[TemporalLich]

As in the situation that prompted this discussion, scum's plans can be disrupted by town replacing out. Also it could give AI info. I do agree that no one should feel obligated to play a game they don't want to, but the downside here is much more significant than having an unoccupied slot for a short period of time.

If you're replacing out to give AI info you are applying outside influences to a game. Such a "tactical replacement" would be considered bad faith and should be sanctioned (likely with a new game ban).

A good faith replacement at an inconvenient time can disrupt a game's plans or make the moderator have to do extra work. The former is more harmful to the game's health than a mere empty slot (and could be seen as harming a game's

integrity

) but I think we can agree even the worst case scenario of a good faith replacement (inadvertently altering who wins) is not worth forcing a player to remain in distressing situations.

Replacing out merely because your slot looks bad is a bad faith replacement.

[TemporalLich]

In my opinion good faith replacements should not be punished. Whether you're forced to take a long V/LA or legitimately can't stand playing the game and have thought it through replacing out should be an option.

pedit: yeah, a good policy is "assume good faith" - a clear cut case of that is bad but you as a moderator will not know the whole story.

Also, too many replace outs even if in good faith is still not really good (as you probably should consider not playing games if you're regularly hit with V/LA or if Mafia in general distresses you).

The issue is translucent and it would be better to encourage playing games to full somehow (that isn't punishing to people with reasons to replace out).

It would also be worth outlining legitimate reasons to replace out so people will know if they have a legitimate reason to replace out or not.

pedit: if your replacement gives even a single iota of AI info it is bad faith. Period. Tactical replacements are tactical replacements, you can't say they're only even good faith replacements

[TemporalLich]

then you'd have to reconcile that all replace outs are in bad faith because you're actually arguing all replace outs harm game

integrity

(this is not the same thing as game health - a missing slot is definitely bad for game health but as long as it gets replaced in a timely manner (i.e. the slot isn't absent for an entire phase) it doesn't necessarily harm game integrity) by using outside influences to spew alignment.

Either that or you'd have to argue there are good faith tactical replacements.

I do believe there are NAI replace outs - these are the norm and replace outs are in good faith only if they are NAI.

[TemporalLich]

imo these are good reasons to replace out:

If you're on a long V/LA and aren't confident you will be able to post at all during V/LA
If you're getting distressed or traumatized over a game
If you can't stand playing a game at all (likely due to toxicity or otherwise poor game health)
If playing the game would come at personal risk to you

Games are a commitment, but if things go bad you shouldn't be locked into said commitment.

I know of the BaM ruleset where being force replaced for inactivity is instead modkillable, but idk if requesting replacement in a BaM game is modkillable or not.

Modkills irrevocably damage the integrity of the game - you're not getting that slot back and the faction who got modkilled is more likely to lose.

Replace outs I feel only do so if they are AI or if they are not resolved in a timely manner.

Replace outs will likely make people feel they don't want to play the game, but are unlikely to make people feel they

can't

play the game. Modkills are likely to do the latter.

[TemporalLich]

like i said in the other thread, replacements hurt the flow of the game, and there should be a system in that *strongly* encourages finishing games you signed up for, though again i don't know a way to properly implement that in practice

This definitely needs to be a thing.

I think something as lenient as a 3-day ban on joining new games after replacing out of a game would work. It's not very punitive (3 days is rather short), but it does serve as a consequence and deterrent to nonchalantly replacing out. I think replacements happen a bit too much on this site, and that in turn has greatly influenced the outcomes of various games.

I don't think it's fair to punish people who have good reasons to replace out. 3 days is a slap on the wrist but potentially missing a game in signups is not worth repping out of a game you honestly can't stand (a 3 day V/LA is not worth replacing out over).

same applies to a "karma" system where those who are replaced out too much are banned from joining new games

I am of course assuming replacements are

strictly

NAI and in good faith for this system.

[TemporalLich]

I don't think it's fair to punish people who have good reasons to replace out.

While you can view it as a punishment, it's not really that. It's more of assigning a tangible consequence to your actions. Also, even if a replace out is in good faith, it will still impact a game. This in itself is one of the primary problems with replacements as they are handled right now.

yeah, a NAI and good faith replacement will still affect a game mostly due to the slot being replaced with a different person who plays differently.

A 3 day new game ban should probably be phrased as a "cooldown" period instead of a ban to highlight it is not punitive but rather administrative in nature and also encourage players to stay in games they don't like playing. However this would require more oversight when it comes to force replacements for breaking game rules, as those will trigger the cooldown period as well (flaking should definitely warrant the cooldown period imo, I consider it worse than repping out of a game you can't bear to play).

[TemporalLich]

I am of course assuming replacements are strictly NAI and in good faith for this system.

I think you are going to have to change your assumption. In my experience, this is practically never true regardless of the underlying reason for the replacement.

Bad faith replacements can get warnings and new game bans as usual.

Good faith AI replacements are accidental breaches of game integrity. No laxity would be given in such cases but it would be a good idea to be notified why your replacement was bad so you can avoid such a problem in the future. (in fact, AI replacements are technically modkillable!)

[TemporalLich]

meh, indiscriminate punitive consequences might have the unintentional consequence of slowing down the queues and it might be worth letting game integrity be sabotaged a bit so we get better queue times (oh my god am i riot?)

This is part of why I insist on a blanket new game ban policy on repping out be called a "cooldown" period - it's administrative in nature and also prevents selfish replace outs.

But yeah new game bans for having too many replace outs that will only be listed on repping into games is extremely punitive (imagine if you had such punishment applied to you) but also basically amounts to an indefinite new game ban in a just world. By basically removing players from the queues it will slow down queues and just snowball to those such banned having to appeal their /in bans to zoraster.

A cooldown still is punitive, but it is a slap on the wrist and is a good deterrent. Cooldowns are probably the best "stick" when it comes to handling the problem of replacments. I don't really have a good idea for "carrots" but these should encourage playing games to completion whether you /in or rep in.

pedit: My two modded game that didn't have a replacement to this date were one that had a modkill because of Twilight Extender shenanigans, and one that was incredibly short due to quickhammers

[TemporalLich]

part of why I don't think replacements are a big deal when it comes to game integrity or game health is because they're so common I don't put much weight on them

this is a site meta issue though - all replace outs impact game health and some impact game integrity - but the perceived impact is low and honestly I don't put much weight on players repping out, though I would like to not rep out if I could because I don't count games you rep out of as games you have played.

[TemporalLich]

In my experience, replacements are strongly AI.

If you want to hone your scum game, hit up the replacement thread and chances are you're going to end up with a scum slot.

I believe that the situation has gotten much worse over the history of the site. I would say that about 60-70% of my personal replacements were scum slots recently.

Report players to the listmods if they replace out to spew alignment.

This is a site meta issue but this still puts the onus on the players.

Why do players give up the moment they get a red role PM?

What can we do to fix it?

• Allow one or more scum coaches who aren't playing the game to motivate scum players in the PT
  
  
• Foster a culture of good sportsmanship where being scum means "giving the town a good game."
  
• Do you prefer playing town? Remember that you owe your pleasure playing town to the scum team
  trying to win
  .
  
• Townies should make it a tradition to thank the scum for a good game whether they won or lost.
  
• Scum isn't "evil" they are the game's unsung heroes. Let's remove the "unsung" part.

Report the player to the listmods if they are replacing out upon seeing a red Role PM and not giving a good reason. That is a bad faith replacement. That player is not only making an AI replacement but also practicing unsportsmanlike conduct.

1 - Should not be considered Normal as you're allowing outside influences to coach players. Probably acceptable in non-bastard Themes as long as it is clearly marked. This was workshopped for Newbie games, but I think the proposal fell through.
2 - I would not know how to do that myself, besides that is a cultural shift that would likely take a while to implement.
3 - Good idea, gamethrowing makes games unfun.
4 - Probably another cultural shift is required for this but we can at least not be sore winners or sore losers. Mafia with no third parties could be flavored as a zero-sum game, and those aren't fun.
5 - This would require fundamentally changing the language we define to use in Mafia to the point of changing the name of the game itself.

All in all I suggest making losing fun. Losing should be preferable to replacing out even if you're one who cares about winrate or ELO (not the same thing as ELo - ELO is a rating system) in Mafia.

[TemporalLich]

I'll compose my thoughts:

Players should be at liberty to replace out of games they legitimately can't bear to play or are unable to play

Alignment indicative replacements and replacements that are not replaced in in a timely matter harm game integrity
All replacements harm game health
A sign of bad game health is you as a player not wanting to play the game because of something that happened in the game
A sign of bad game integrity is you as a player feeling the game doesn't matter because of something that happened in the game
A 3 day new game cooldown period for replacing out should be considered in a separate thread
A /in ban is likely to result in a de facto indefinite new game ban
Clearly bad faith replacements should be reported to the list mods

[TemporalLich]

Clearly bad faith replacements should be reported to the list mods

How do you prove that someone got a red PM, stewed for a few days with lame posting, then noped out of playing scum?

You can't.

That's why we need to brand playing scum as noble and selfless.

Since you can't, you should assume good faith. It's not clear in that case.

What we should do is brand playing scum as being on a highly cohesive team - that's what scum is and the difference between scum and town is that you know who your friends are as scum. Going as far as to brand it as noble and selfless would give the wrong implications to those who want to play town, and make playing scum sound like a chore instead of fun.

pedit: You'd need to convince the NRG that that is Normal, and either way I'd probably just use a boilerplate if I had to. I prefer having the first post of the scum PT to have a short description of how the PT works and a list of all the players who have access to it.

ppedit: yeah - though for me having access to a PT with daytalk is what makes scum fun

[TemporalLich]

This isn't practical. The vast majority of these cases are going to go unpunished because while they might spew a slot scum (or town), there's a reasonable level of doubt as to the underlying motives. The number of bans issued for tactical replacement is very low; furthermore, even the best of faith replace outs can still be rather alignment indicative.

Yeah, policy should still be to assume good faith. In clear cut cases you should report. In murky cases it's better to just accept the replacement without resistance.

I don't necessarily disagree, but in a lot of cases, this is influenced by their current position in the game. Players who are currently suspected have a much higher chance of replacing out as well as finding the game unbearable.

Yeah being suspected (regardless of alignment, so this isn't AI, but might be argued as scummy but this is considered angleshooting) might influence replace outs, this is what a cooldown is intended to prevent. If a game is actually unbearable a cooldown is just a small hurdle. There should always be an option to replace out without fear of eating a long term ban or other punishment (or a modkill, which is an administrative action but more drastic than a force replacement) in case things go bad.

[TemporalLich]

Karma systems could be based on

games played until completion

and

replace outs

- that way a player who doesn't like replacing into games can gain good karma by not replacing out.

Games played until completion

is how many games you have played until the game finishes, whether you replaced in or /inned. Dying (unless it is modkill) will count as completing a game when the game finishes.

Replace outs

is how many games you have replaced out of or been force replaced out. Modkill counts as a replace out for karma purposes.

A Karma system like this can still encourage Jester-like play when suspected and not wanting to play the game however. Poor karma can lead to scrutiny of replace outs and longer cooldown periods when replacing out.

For a more complex karma system, replace ins can give a bonus, and flaking replace outs and modkills give a penalty.

[TemporalLich]

I still believe replacement requests should have good faith assumed unless good faith cannot be assumed.

I also believe players should be able to contact the game moderator if someone is being toxic and making the game unfun for them.