Inactivity

[#HBC | ѕoup]

As we all know, Inactivity is a huge burden to any mafia game and shouldn't be tolerated, so why is it? Far too many games have gone down the wrong path simply because people decided to not contribute or didn't feel like putting in the effort to win, to where people were just more willing to lynch someone instead of wait on a player to respond sufficiently. This is a problem, and not only is it a problem but it's a growing one. How do we stop this? How can we force players to play more often?

I think the solution is simple, but it takes effort, moderators need to be more diligent about inactivity and push players to post, and for the players who happen to be V/LA should be put on a very short leash, at least one week minimum. I think the quality of games has dropped because of inactivity, and it simply doesn't help, far too many games have been lost because nobody put the effort in to win. I also believe that we should limit players to the amount of games they can be in, I know it seems a bit strict but I know for certain a player in 5 on-going games is not going to be willing to give all of his/her effort in each game. I think 2 is a good cap to be honest, and 3 slightly pushing it.

Discuss.

P.S I am aware that lurking/coasting is a mafia tactic overused on this site but I believe that even if you're mafia you need to put effort in and resorting to inactivity is bull.

 

[ranmaru]

I really wish there was a way to tell how much time players have gone without posting.

I agree that mods should replace/prod people to the best of their ability, but that's it. That's really the most they should get involved. I don't think V/LA should be put on a minimum, but of course if they are v/la for too long, they should be replaced regardless of warning because it's for the better of the integrity of the game.

The rest lies in the hands of town. For one, if there are more people then possible scum being inactive, GET YOUR **** STRAIGHT and do some work. Then, just lynch inactives to make a point. I wouldn't say the scummiest lurker, just a random lurker so there is a chance for any of them to get lynched.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

I really wish there was a way to tell how much time players have gone without posting.

MafiaScum has a feature like this, maybe we should talk to xiivii about something of the alike?

 

[ranmaru]

Yeah we should. It would be very helpful from a mod and player pov. (That's how I know who to prod in ms, dunno how mods do it here)

 

[#HBC | Kary]

On this topic:

I'm going to limit myself to 2 games from now on, I think. I've not been inactive per se in any game, but some have not had my full attention.

Saying towns have to punish inactives is, in my view, pretty daft. Yeah you can waggon/lynch inactives, but there's no guarantee that it will make them post.

The other thing that I can find grating is when a player is 'active' in the sense that they're posting, but they haven't really been following the game.

I feel like mods should punish inactivity not just with prods, but potentially denying players from signing up, and/or being quicker/harsher in replacing players. And before you ask, I haven't completely thought through this stance.

I've been in games with inactive/ low-activity players that have been fine overall. But then there's games where all but a couple of slots are getting a prod a Day. And they, are crapshoots.

 

[Shun Goku Satsu Rake]

I'm a fan of lynch a random inactive, I mean , even in a small game , you can afford to show the other players that your not gonna let em coast hardbody all game

 

[Mad Scummy]

I'm a fan of lynch a random inactive, I mean , even in a small game , you can afford to show the other players that your not gonna let em coast hardbody all game

I really don't think lynching random inactives has any benefits, we start the next day with no bonus info and probably two less townies. Its not even gonna scare the other inactives into playing because they're not invested in the game so they don't really care if they get lynched.

 

[Shun Goku Satsu Rake]

True enough.

Maybe there needs to be some sort of kick feature on DGames ?

Mods could "kick" inactives profile so the first thing they see is the prod's / threads they should be active in ?


It'd be like an advanced prod type deal

 

[ranmaru]

I really don't think lynching random inactives has any benefits, we start the next day with no bonus info and probably two less townies. Its not even gonna scare the other inactives into playing because they're not invested in the game so they don't really care if they get lynched.

Well, about the 'info'. I think lynching a random inactive is good for D2. D1 you can lynch for info etc etc.

Scum lurk too, and it's not about scaring them, it's about being pro-active and getting one person who wasn't even going to get invested out of the damn game.

Keep in mind getting 'info' within the active players won't do ANYTHING if one of the scum is lurking, because then we are getting 'wrong' info.

 

[Shun Goku Satsu Rake]

perfect example of inactivity would be Breaking Bad newbie

2 / 3 scum were barely posting (shotty dropped in once or twice ) and by the time town got it's act together , it was almost too late

 

[ranmaru]

>_> I think they were using the tactic to their advantage. Specially Kuz. He just voted me and left forever. D: <

 

[Shun Goku Satsu Rake]

I lold end game when i went back and saw

Zen : "yo kuz you scum ?"
Kuz: "yep"
Zen : " K cool "

J(kuz's replacement ) flips scum

*throws hands in air

Also wrt inactivity: I always try to be active but at the same time , real life comes first, i'm certainly not going to be hella active during college exams or something else important

 

[BSP]

I really wish there was a way to tell how much time players have gone without posting.

If you're talking about in the game thread, isn't that pretty simple? Just look at the posts in the thread from the user and look at the current time.

Anyway, I agree with this. Inactivity kills the game >_>

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I suggest punishments be handed out to players with continued problems of activity.

 

[T-block]

I approve of this discussion

I feel like mods should punish inactivity not just with prods, but potentially denying players from signing up, and/or being quicker/harsher in replacing players. And before you ask, I haven't completely thought through this stance.

I think something to this effect is the best solution. Some sort "blacklist" type system where if you reach some level of inactivity, you're denied from playing for a certain amount of time. It could either be take things on a case by case basis, or implement a strict system and just say "too bad" if a player has legitimate reason for being inactive.

That or just make some sort of record of inactivity, without a formal way of denying sign-up, and then we just agree as mods to be more reluctant to let known inactives into the game.

 

[ranmaru]

If you're talking about in the game thread, isn't that pretty simple? Just look at the posts in the thread from the user and look at the current time.

Anyway, I agree with this. Inactivity kills the game >_>

That's the 'manual' way to do it, yes. But you first have to go to the user's last post, and to keep up with every user in that way to make sure they didn't pass the 72 hour prod range... Is tedious. : P

I'm talking about something like this:

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22466&activity_overview=1

I approve of this discussion



I think something to this effect is the best solution. Some sort "blacklist" type system where if you reach some level of inactivity, you're denied from playing for a certain amount of time. It could either be take things on a case by case basis, or implement a strict system and just say "too bad" if a player has legitimate reason for being inactive.

That or just make some sort of record of inactivity, without a formal way of denying sign-up, and then we just agree as mods to be more reluctant to let known inactives into the game.

I agree to that in the underlined.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

I suggest punishments be handed out to players with continued problems of activity.

Agreed with this.

I think something to this effect is the best solution. Some sort "blacklist" type system where if you reach some level of inactivity, you're denied from playing for a certain amount of time. It could either be take things on a case by case basis, or implement a strict system and just say "too bad" if a player has legitimate reason for being inactive.

That or just make some sort of record of inactivity, without a formal way of denying sign-up, and then we just agree as mods to be more reluctant to let known inactives into the game.

This too. I believe that a backlist might be harsh but people need to learn to stay active, I think it has gotten to the level of where something like this needs be enforced, people need to have reprecussions and inactivity just simply ruins the game for everyone.

 

[ranmaru]

Yeah I agree, a blacklist would be too harsh because we are a small community and it would really hurt us. Deff need to have people acknowledge this.

 

[BSP]

Gotcha.

That underlined thing sounds like AIB's dishonor points. Why not do something like that?

How about if you surpass the Mod's posting requirements without discussing it with them, they issue you a...uh, inactivity point I guess? There could be a thread that keeps track of players that have gotten inactivity points. From there, mods could see who has inactivity history and deny them access.

If you know you've got important things coming up, don't join a game imo.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

I really like the idea of that BSP, just following through would take some effort.

 

[#HBC | Kary]

related to this topic:
if you sign up to replace into a game, you should read (or at least skim) the game as it goes along.

arguably on this topic:
you shouldn't confirm your place in a game if you're going to be too busy to play. Sign up and hope you have time, maybe. But if it turns out you don't, bow out gracefully.

and I don't need a points system to tell you
a) whether a player has a history of inactivity
b) whether a player is being inactive in a given game

/opinions

 

[BSP]

Yes it would, but I imagine it'd be effective. Just have a usually active Dgames player make the thread, and he/she plus the Dgames Mods could update players' inactivity points in the OP as Hosts post them in the thread.

You hit some point threshold, bam. You can't join games. Harsh, but better that then let games die to inactivity.

 

[ranmaru]

Same. Also, what do you think of a game having a 'purge' rule?

Discussion on this here:

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22451&hilit=Inactivity

I was just looking at it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The problem with purge is that It pretty much gives you a second lynch.

Either that, or that the only people that would pick their game up are scum who were strategically lurking, as anyone who's not investe probably won't care if they get purged.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

Gotcha.

That underlined thing sounds like AIB's dishonor points.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm a regular there.

Unless it was something ladder-related. If that's the case, I never gave a ****.

Regardless, inactivity's kind of a problem in a community this small with such an aged playerbase. It'd be easier to manage if most of us were still high schoolers without much in the way of commitments but we're all mostly in our 20's with a few still lagging behind. It's easy to start capping players at games based on what they prove they can handle (i.e., I'd do best in one or two at the most, Drew can handle 4 games or so, Swiss and Jerkus both seem to limit each other to one game), but whenever cool games come up in the queue, no one seems to care about that.

You can't just start blacklisting notoriously inactive players because we don't have a large enough playerbase to start doing that without running a major risk of stalling the queue for months if an unpopular flavor surfaces (and we'd have to get rid of larges altogether). If we had more players, this'd be fine. We don't. It's tough.

 

[BSP]

It's ladder related. When you lie about match reports and you get busted, you get points tacked on to your account that hurt your credibility in future disputes.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

I suggest punishments be handed out to players with continued problems of activity.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm a regular there.

Unless it was something ladder-related. If that's the case, I never gave a ****.

Regardless, inactivity's kind of a problem in a community this small with such an aged playerbase. It'd be easier to manage if most of us were still high schoolers without much in the way of commitments but we're all mostly in our 20's with a few still lagging behind. It's easy to start capping players at games based on what they prove they can handle (i.e., I'd do best in one or two at the most, Drew can handle 4 games or so, Swiss and Jerkus both seem to limit each other to one game), but whenever cool games come up in the queue, no one seems to care about that.

You can't just start blacklisting notoriously inactive players because we don't have a large enough playerbase to start doing that without running a major risk of stalling the queue for months if an unpopular flavor surfaces (and we'd have to get rid of larges altogether). If we had more players, this'd be fine. We don't. It's tough.

Then how about limiting the amount of games run if we can't go this route? I think inactivity stems from that also seeing how you mentioned our playerbase is small and we basically have the same players playing in each game.

 

[#HBC | Kary]

I only post here so much because I have no life.

oh lordy

what I did want to mention is that i'm definitely against blacklisting players who have a history of inactivity. When i talked about potentially denying players from signing up, I was thinking more along the lines of mods saying things like 'well actually you're in 2 games already, so, no, sorry' or 'well actually you were inactive in my last game so i want to give someone else a chance first' etc.

the above applies particularly to games where there's notably more people interested than playerslots. obviously if you're struggling to fill a game you may have to take a chance on someone.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

Whitelists would be great also, meaning reccomendations for players that have shown good activity in games, along with game history or amount of prods/replacements they have made.

e.g

Whitelist
Soup (41+ games completed) 9 Replacements, 2 Prods accumulated, Currently in: Newbie 20, Utrick'd3, G3S #3.

That includes if a player is V/LA also. I'm not trying to snuff out the players who are inactive, i'm just giving them a goal to have and promoting positives might make them be more active and this can help Moderators be more specific in sign-ups if they wish. I think making Activity requirements and specific game requirements also mesh into this. Like I said, I know it's work, but i'm merely brainstorming.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

It's ladder related. When you lie about match reports and you get busted, you get points tacked on to your account that hurt your credibility in future disputes.

Okay, now it sounds familiar.

 

[ranmaru]

Whitelists would be great also, meaning reccomendations for players that have shown good activity in games, along with game history or amount of prods/replacements they have made.

e.g

Whitelist
Soup (41+ games completed) 9 Replacements, 2 Prods accumulated, Currently in: Newbie 20, Utrick'd3, G3S #3.

That includes if a player is V/LA also. I'm not trying to snuff out the players who are inactive, i'm just giving them a goal to have and promoting positives might make them be more active and this can help Moderators be more specific in sign-ups if they wish. I think making Activity requirements and specific game requirements also mesh into this. Like I said, I know it's work, but i'm merely brainstorming.

Yeah would be cool to have it in a thread that is stickied, or in a wiki. Also knowing the reason for replacing out in each time they replaced is good to know.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

Then how about limiting the amount of games run if we can't go this route? I think inactivity stems from that also seeing how you mentioned our playerbase is small and we basically have the same players playing in each game.

That should be on the player to decide, not the mods. I shouldn't have to be arsed to look through every active game in order to form a checklist of what players are playing which games and then decide if I should let them enter my game based on how many games they are currently in. That's a lot of additional work.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

I understand, but surely you're not satisfied with how things are going on right now? Don't you feel frustrated when you're in a game and the activity isn't just all there and making the call is harder because either the person you want is not responding or there is an inactive who isn't responding when needed?

I know that most of this will fall under the category of self-effort but sometimes it's needed.

 

[Shun Goku Satsu Rake]

Maybe as a requirement to get in on a game, a player has to include a list of the games they are active in (i.e. playing in at the time ) to the mod who's game they are inning for ?


Also Soups white list sounds like an interesting idea

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

I understand, but surely you're not satisfied with how things are going on right now? Don't you feel frustrated when you're in a game and the activity isn't just all there and making the call is harder because either the person you want is not responding or there is an inactive who isn't responding when needed?

I know that most of this will fall under the category of self-effort but sometimes it's needed.

For queue games, yes, it's frustrating, but they're queue games for a reason. We mods have a right to deny players but if you start denying players for activity, games can and will start stalling and we already have enough issues with the queue as it is. For privates, no, I'm usually putting in enough work to make sure that my playerlist is quality and I'll get active players for them.

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

I like a white list idea. Make each player log in their activity for each game. Like have:
Badwolf- GS3 198 posts lynched D1.
Newb 19- 400 posts lynched D4.
ect.

 

[BarDulL]

People who are generally inactive should definitely take a hit, but for those of us who end up getting swamped in school/jury duty/vacation unexpectedly (like me lol), I'd say "excused absences" should be fine.

But yeah, people prolly shouldn't join games if they aren't going to commit to them? Easiest way to settle that problem, really.

Another idea is that inactivity guidelines should fall under game mod jurisdiction (like it usually does), but maybe have all game mods enforce harsher inactivity rules from this point forward? (btw, do we have 'universal' game rules for all mafia games outside of basic mechanics [i.e. voting mechanic or phase mechanic]? I'd imagine that "universal rules" outside of normal mechanics wouldn't be that popular.)

 

[Rockin]

Guys. The solution is simple.

Just don't have them play your future games. Nuff said.

 

[Circus]

Guys. The solution is simple....

That this was not immediately followed by "we kill the Batman" is astounding to me.

Ideally, townies just wouldn't ever do anti-town things, like going inactive. But it happens, and if it becomes chronic for certain players, then the host does have the right to bar them access from their games. It's been that way since time was time. I think that's the fairest solution to the problem that we've had, in addition to the "prods if you don't post" rule that pretty much every host utilizes in some variation. The trick here is for hosts to actually enforce both of these things. If you see a player ruin a game by coasting to lylo on ten posts or posting their role PM to intentionally get modkilled or whatever, take a stand against that. When you say "you are required to post every 48 hours," take that seriously. Deliver a prod. Make your thresholds for punishment once the prod has been given shallow to make sure people know the threat is real. The inactives are ultimately the people at fault here, but I do think hosts could do more to stamp this problem out.

As I side note, I think 48 hours should be the absolute minimum amount of time given to a player to avoid a prod, especially since receiving a prod on its own doesn't have any real consequences. I don't know if I would necessarily suggest imposing it on the entire community as a hard and fast rule, but it's an opinion I hold strongly. Really, every player should be posting once a day. If they can't commit to that, then they don't really have time to play. I think 48 hours is pretty much the standard for games now, but I remember when it was 72 hours instead, and that was hell. Really, if we could get it even lower than 48, that would probably be best.

V/LA's make everything trickier, of course.

 

[Rockin]

That this was not immediately followed by "we kill the Batman" is astounding to me.

Ideally, townies just wouldn't ever do anti-town things, like going inactive. But it happens, and if it becomes chronic for certain players, then the host does have the right to bar them access from their games. It's been that way since time was time. I think that's the fairest solution to the problem that we've had, in addition to the "prods if you don't post" rule that pretty much every host utilizes in some variation. The trick here is for hosts to actually enforce both of these things. If you see a player ruin a game by coasting to lylo on ten posts or posting their role PM to intentionally get modkilled or whatever, take a stand against that. When you say "you are required to post every 48 hours," take that seriously. Deliver a prod. Make your thresholds for punishment once the prod has been given shallow to make sure people know the threat is real. The inactives are ultimately the people at fault here, but I do think hosts could do more to stamp this problem out.

As I side note, I think 48 hours should be the absolute minimum amount of time given to a player to avoid a prod, especially since receiving a prod on its own doesn't have any real consequences. I don't know if I would necessarily suggest imposing it on the entire community as a hard and fast rule, but it's an opinion I hold strongly. Really, every player should be posting once a day. If they can't commit to that, then they don't really have time to play. I think 48 hours is pretty much the standard for games now, but I remember when it was 72 hours instead, and that was hell. Really, if we could get it even lower than 48, that would probably be best.

V/LA's make everything trickier, of course.

I've been doing my best to enforce activity in my games, as well as giving the neccessary prods. Any person I'm unfamiliar with, I usually ask others what their thoughts were about the particular person as well as ask what were the last 3 games they played. If they've been inactive or replaced recently, then I usually don't put them in my game (but are given the option to be replacements). Any person who be inactive in my last game (to where they have to be replaced/modkilled) then they don't play in my future game till I feel it's needed.

It's just that simple. Yes, sounds asshol-ish, but I want my game to run at it's best, as well as make sure the people that do play have fun.

As far as V/LAs are concern, that should be entirely up to the host. If they're going to be away for more then 7 days, then I would reccommand doing a modkill or replacement. If they're contstantly V/LA, same rules should apply.

I tend to give my games 72 hours to post since people do have lives and not alwyas consistantly on the computer. 48 hours is good, but may best work for small games.

Blacklist should only be used for people who just becomes a jerk to you. I'm talking about constant inactivities, trying to destroy the game (in a bad way) by breaking the rules, not respecting the other players, that sort of thing. A list of who's inactive usually helps, as well as asking people BY EITHER PMs or Instant messaging. Don't do it on the threads, plz. 'Whitelist' should be treated the same.