Replacing out

[OkaPoka]

even good faith replacements can give a lot of AI info which is the issue i think infinity is trying to describe. people who just got busy irl or really don't want to play and replaced out can directly change the outcome of the game and undermine a lot of effort

[OkaPoka]

what if i told you the act of replacing out is AI because its statistically correlated with being scum?

[OkaPoka]

every replacement hurts the integrity of the game no matter what. tactical replacements hurt them more but even a person who idk internet dies forever and disappears and is force replaced does lead to an integrity changing event because well, we the players don't really know what happened, all we really know is that slot x replaced out and statistically that is a bit more likely to come from scum and suddenly the integrity of that slot is compromised to an extent but nobody is going to say that person is a dirty little metagamer for not having better internet.

but i guess im fine with a replacement in that scenario? i know there are/were rulesets in the old days before my time that modkilled all replacements indiscriminately and that probably compromises the game more

[OkaPoka]

i agree

solutions to replacing out for v/la i think would be

harsher punishments for people who consistently replace out (probably should be more aware of your schedule) or shorter deadlines (i think we are at a weird crossroads on this site where we expect consistent, at the very least, daily activity but still maintain fragments of old standards of multi month games. that just might be an unreasonable commitment. other sites can have our activity levels but with 72/24 deadlines in some games but we want 7/2 or even 14/2 deadlines??)

[OkaPoka]

hmm, yeah i agree that long deadlines are pretty ingrained into this site. separating into blitz games and queues hasn't really taken off and i suspect that's possibly because the ms competitors have "taken" the blitz seeking populace so to speak.

some alternative solutions to short deadlines might be setup related solutions perhaps? like try and create setups that are less phases? more killing roles? maybe have some deadline formula based on number of players alive so you don't have a day 4 that lasts 2 weeks etc.

[OkaPoka]

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?)

[OkaPoka]

it probably is closer to 100% than 50% and most games have multiple replacements

[OkaPoka]

hard to know tbh its always been like this from my experience, we could pull from other sites but i don't know about them enough to really speak about it other than vague handwavy stuff

[OkaPoka]

there's most likely been "scum being scumread, reps out, great scum player reps in and saves slot" situations too, though i can't remember specific examples off the top of my head for that one

I speculate that not doomed scum is unlikely to rep out.

From what I’ve observed players of either alignment can lose interest when they get run up but really no good way to policethat.

Public replacing out is against the rules like Saudade did in Nancy v Titus.

Spoiler:

I was shamed (and now probably unfairly anonymously bl’d) for doing that in a game but I feared getting a temp ban in that, had I not. \_0_/

I am trying extremely hard not to be toxic in games, so that’s a huge influencer, if I’m not confident I can control it.

I’m a helluva a lot better now at avoiding doing that in general, so being punished for that is hurtfully ironic.

I find flaking to be the most destabilizing to games in general - especially when the mod lets the game drag on for days without a prod or necessary replacement.

anecdotally i find it so cheaty, but i still can't help myself when it happens in the scenario where person in question gets run up, reps out, and then me/collective town gives the replacement time to 'townspew' themselves.

i do wonder whats the correct thing to do? lim players who replace out to preserve integrity of the game or play to win by getting all info possible? i think most people do the latter choice and its happened enough where ive thought about whether im crossing any lines

[OkaPoka]

categorizing some solutions that came up in thread + my own:

Punitive Measures

-Some restriction on either a) excessive replacing out through a karma system or b) any replacing out with a temp ban
-Numbers can very, use a combination of the two, probably should not create a scenario in which its impossible to get 'unbanned' because of shortages
-Pros: Should theoretically discourage any more trivial replacements where there is a tangible consequence the replace-ee has to weight
-Cons: Might slow down the queues, requires extra moderator work (perhaps would lead to a new position where somebody has to monitor temp bans and/or a karma system to enforce)

Site Culture

-Right now, replacing out is not seen as a big deal. Not only that, there is an attitude where you should replace out if you aren't having fun and well, we also live in a meta where people just generally don't enjoy playing scum as much so they might pick up a scum pm and rep out or get burned out of the game and sub out to the point where there is a noticeable harming of game integrity. Many people have taken note of how sub-outs are scum indicative generally and there are stats to back this up, and while replacements will always happen, we should try and make them NAI

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.

Pros: Nobody gets punished, no extra resources needed on an administration side, makes games more interesting for everyone, directed specifically at preserving game integrity rather than just reducing the rate at which slots rep out.
Cons: How do you even go about changing site culture? Additionally scum coaches might be an infraction on game integrity.

Deadlines

Right now, deadlines are quite long while the daily effort requirements remain quite high. I believe the standard is 10/2 at this point, whereas other sites with perhaps similar activity expectations and effort burdens have something like 72/24 deadlines. It may be unreasonable to have commit ~13 players to a high intensity game that might draw their attention from a week to a few months, people can get busy unexpectedly and with long (and variable) game lengths, perhaps replacements are just a necessary byproduct.

Solutions include just shortening down deadlines to 7/2 and eventually perhaps 5/2 or 96/36 perhaps. Or reducing deadlines as game progress so whether you make it to day 6 or day 3, the time frame is similar rather than the difference of many weeks. Or designing setups around certain game lengths (advertise that this game will last 1 month etc so people can plan better).

Pros: Tackles the V/LA issue of replacements in a way because less game time means less chances for someone to have something come up. Additionally people might have a better idea of how much time they need to commit, rather than guessing the commitment is going to be a certain time and then needing to replace out later when they miss.

Cons: MS.net's selling point is long deadlines and moving to short is a contradiction of that and might annoy its base. Advertising game lengths can leak info about closed setups. It takes game moderator effort to develop a system for variable deadline lengths.

idk anything i missed