Games being killed by inactivity

[dapianoplay3r]

The issue is town cant afford to waste lynches on inactives

 

mafia inactives get replaced or pressured by teammates

 

so it ends up town doing mafias job for them

[bgrishinko]

The issue is town cant afford to waste lynches on inactives

 

mafia inactives get replaced or pressured by teammates

 

so it ends up town doing mafias job for them

 

 

Eh, I treat inactivity on mafia and town the same. Its much more damaging to mafia when one of them is inactive.

[Nolder]

The issue is town cant afford to waste lynches on inactives

 

mafia inactives get replaced or pressured by teammates

 

so it ends up town doing mafias job for them

This. Inactives need to be modkilled. People that WERE active but drop out for whatever reason can be replaced because the actions of the previous player can still be analyzed.

If you're going to replace someone for inactivity make sure it's in the first day or two at the most.

[LilyElizabeth]

There was one time that Jack_D and I were on a mafia team together. One of the team was totally inactive, so Jack gave him over to the town and claimed cop. It won the game for us and was one of the most creative ways I've ever seen to deal with an inactive. 

[bgrishinko]

Nice. I'm all for modkilling inactive people. After the first day or two or if the player requests to be replaced.

[Darthe]

You want to get rid of inactives?  Their is a reason that it is not effectively happening so far.

 

Basically, there exists no standardized and impartial way to remove someone from a game.  No moderator wants to be the one that got a person banned from playing, especially not when you have known people for over a year.  Thus, it should be established as a mafia rule that people have to post within a certain time limit and if not the moderator messages them.  After missing a post within that limit so many times they are replaced.  If no replacement can be found within a certain time they die.

 

An example:

 

Darthe didn't post within 48 hours.  The minimum guideline for DM is that a player must post every 48 hours, and failure to do so at any time causes that player to be prodded.  Failure to do so three times gets them replaced.  Thus you send a message to darthe saying "prod, pick up the pace in the game" and put an asterisk beside his name in the game roster.  Darthe doesn't return for another four days.  He was on a beach trip and didn't tell the mod.  In that time you prodded darthe twice more and his name got two more asterisks.  It is announced in the thread that Darthe has been replaced.  Though he is unhappy about it, you are simply following the standard method and explain this to him with a reminder that he should inform moderators of extended travel plans in the future.  

[WolfbrotherKronos]

You want to get rid of inactives?  Their is a reason that it is not effectively happening so far.

 

Basically, there exists no standardized and impartial way to remove someone from a game.  No moderator wants to be the one that got a person banned from playing, especially not when you have known people for over a year.  Thus, it should be established as a mafia rule that people have to post within a certain time limit and if not the moderator messages them.  After missing a post within that limit so many times they are replaced.  If no replacement can be found within a certain time they die.

 

An example:

 

Darthe didn't post within 48 hours.  The minimum guideline for DM is that a player must post every 48 hours, and failure to do so at any time causes that player to be prodded.  Failure to do so three times gets them replaced.  Thus you send a message to darthe saying "prod, pick up the pace in the game" and put an asterisk beside his name in the game roster.  Darthe doesn't return for another four days.  He was on a beach trip and didn't tell the mod.  In that time you prodded darthe twice more and his name got two more asterisks.  It is announced in the thread that Darthe has been replaced.  Though he is unhappy about it, you are simply following the standard method and explain this to him with a reminder that he should inform moderators of extended travel plans in the future.  

 

I like this - DM should have a set of guidelines for the mod to follow regarding inactivity - it would be site wide.

[bgrishinko]

I vote in favor of Darthe's proposal. I will implement that into any games I moderate.

[lolguy26]

i like the idea darthe 

[Niniel]

Most mods have a rule about activity although it varies how active you need to be. I have mod killed inactive players. If there are rules they are ment to be followed. I don't think we should have a general DM rule. It's up to the mod how she/he want to design a game.

[Tiinker]

Inactives being replaced wouldn't have anything to do with the games design though

[Niniel]

I mean that I think that the mods should be allowed to decide the rules by themselves. 

[bgrishinko]

I mean that I think that the mods should be allowed to decide the rules by themselves. 

 

Agreed. I still like the idea and will implement something like it in my future games.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

 

I mean that I think that the mods should be allowed to decide the rules by themselves. 

 

Agreed. I still like the idea and will implement something like it in my future games.

 

 

This - I will be implementing this as well.

[LilyElizabeth]

I mean that I think that the mods should be allowed to decide the rules by themselves. 

 

I agree, Tina

[Verbal32]

Here is some clarification and a suggestion:

 

Clarification - there will not be a DM rule on mafia game activity levels.  The mods may enforce whatever rules they see fit for their games - they are the boss.

 

Suggestion - if players feel another player is just skating by in a game and they don't like it.....LYNCH THEM.  Use your lynch to drive that activity.  Nobody wants to sign up for a game and get killed early because they didn't participate.  If it happens, it will become obvious and mods won't let that player join their games - this is how you drive accountability and get results.

[WWWwombat]

Or you can just always give Wombat the vig role. That works too.

[Verbal32]

Definitely not.  You'd shoot yourself in the foot.

[Nolder]

I tried to make a big post here the other day but the computer I was using died so uhh screw that. I just want to respond to one thing real quick though.

 

 

if players feel another player is just skating by in a game and they don't like it.....LYNCH THEM.  Use your lynch to drive that activity.  Nobody wants to sign up for a game and get killed early because they didn't participate.  If it happens, it will become obvious and mods won't let that player join their games - this is how you drive accountability and get results.

I'd agree but that only works on a small scale. That is, maybe 2 or 3 people in a game once in awhile. The problem is more like 4 or 5+ people almost every game.

It's a large scale problem and I think it needs more hands on solutions. Things like modkills, temp bans from joining games here, actual warnings sent by PM, etc. I'm not sure anything else would actually help.

[ReleaseTheEvil]

Temp bans might work.

 

You need a punishment that people will actually care about.

[csarmi]

Suggestion - if players feel another player is just skating by in a game and they don't like it.....LYNCH THEM.

Verbal, I'm afraid that won't work. You would have to policy lynch 10-30% of the players almost every single game and that is just too much to do. Games are usually long and people invest a lot of time into it. Spending half of the game (or most of the game) chasing inactives just takes the fun away.

 

Use your lynch to drive that activity.  Nobody wants to sign up for a game and get killed early because they didn't participate.

See, I'm not so sure of that. I think some of the players who don't put the effort into the game wouldn't even mind that. They get sent to the dead thread and read for their enjoyment.

[csarmi]

I mean, it's quite usual that in a game you get, say, 15 players.

 

3 of them deserve policy lynching (or whatever) based on just inactivity

2-3 more are borderline on that account.

 

In the middle of the game, 1-2 more will just get lazy and stop doing much besides voting.

 

How do you fight that with lynching?

[ReleaseTheEvil]

I mean, it's quite usual that in a game you get, say, 15 players.

 

3 of them deserve policy lynching (or whatever) based on just inactivity

2-3 more are borderline on that account.

 

In the middle of the game, 1-2 more will just get lazy and stop doing much besides voting.

 

How do you fight that with lynching?

 

I agree with that pattern.

[Verbal32]

I mean, it's quite usual that in a game you get, say, 15 players.

 

3 of them deserve policy lynching (or whatever) based on just inactivity

2-3 more are borderline on that account.

 

In the middle of the game, 1-2 more will just get lazy and stop doing much besides voting.

 

How do you fight that with lynching?

You don't when numbers are that high. Mods need to take care of that. Player X always drops or is inactive? STOP ALLOWING THEM IN YOUR GAMES!

 

The answer is always simple. The small numbers after that can be dealt with as I mentioned before.

[Nolder]

Ok, but mods aren't taking care of it. So what do we do?