I'm sorry, I thought I was sparing your feelings by simply telling you to quit it rather than publicly reaming you.
Go for it, I'm right here. There's nothing that needs be spared.
This is not boot camp. We are here to have fun.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I have said as much everytime some self-important blowhard quoted the "MAFIA IS SRS BSNS!" mantra, to which I do not subscribe. I'm here to have fun, and
lurkers are harshing my high. They be screwing with my joy of the game! So I have to tell them, make sure they hear it, and, if I want my future mellow/joy/high/whatever not spoiled, I may choose to not be around those known by spoiling others' fun.
The newbies know that they screwed up. You already called them out in the thread where they were played their game. I don't think it's at all necessary to come out here and say this batch of newbies is bad, or that you're boycotting certain players.
They do? Good. That was the intention. Only one has owned up to it so far, which gives me hopes for his atonement. The players in BMXXI were
objectively bad, in the sense that they let the game die instead of completing it. I reserve my right to remind them of this fact so they can, as you say, know they screwed up. If they mend their ways, or if I forget (it's not like I dedicate too many neurons to their individual achievements), then it'll be fine. Until then, it's like a dog with a poop on the carpet. Point their snout to it, and hit them with a rolled-up newspaper. They may or may not understand, but if they do, we'll all be better for it.
And I'm not boycotting players. I'm boycotting
known flakers as
mods. I will play with any of the above because diluted at 1/15 they can't do much damage; but if I know them to be unreliable, I at the moment choose not to give them control of a weeks-spawning chunk of my attention. It is
my attention, yes? I can choose to place it where I deem worthy, yes? And announce my choices too. Based maybe on my perception of their past behaviour, but ultimately on my whim, yes?
Basically, you can keep your negative opinions to yourself.
I can, but I can not as well, yes? I am free to express them regardless of whether you consider them negative or positive. In my opinion, negative reinforcement is a necessary part of building a robust gaming community, as expressed by the dings in the attendance board for flakers/prods, or instances of modkilling people for rules violations. It is not just a "gold star or silence" deal, there's a "you failed" part as well.
My only motivation is a good player base. The first and foremost danger to a good player base is flakers and lurkers killing a game. People signing up to play stuff they don't ultimately play.
They need to be told this is not OK. Clearly, repeatedly and with emphasis, until they understand it and either change or leave. The worst thing that can happen to a game is three or more people flaking out and needing to be replaced two or three days in. I'd rather those people hadn't joined at all.
If someone is running a game that you don't want to participate in, then don't participate in it.
That's what I said. "I won't participate in games ran by these people for these reasons, at this time". People, reasons, and time are subject to changing circumstances.
They are players who have been having issues in a couple of games, and this overreaction is entirely unnecessary.
"Overreaction" is your opinion, and I have my own (without the "over"), but I'll grant that emotions are fresh and may have triggered a stronger/faster reaction that cooler emotions would have. Is it not the case, however, that the game end was
particularly bad, and that attention needs to be called to it? Shaming them, even publicly, has the effect of the dog/carpet/newspaper thing: you don't like it? You wish it didn't happen? You wish people joined your games? Then how about you DON'T KILL GAMES BY LURKING!
Simple enough. Just saying my "negative opinions" are not only part of the "atmosphere here" but built in on prod mechanics, attendance boards, IC comments, and the like. We don't want people to lurk to the point where games die. If they do, they need to be told, forcefully, not to.
Yes?
PPE: Oh, the peanut gallery. Without the amusing big fonts:That was utterly atrocious and unthinkable conduct, Book.
What specifically: telling them lurking kills games? Telling them that the victory was hollow? Which part was "atrocious and unthinkable" and why?
The subforum has, frankly, come dangerously close to death in the past and I don't want to see it collapse because we can't attract new players.
It has, yes, and it stayed alive because there were
active new players, not because of the many (whose name I don't remember, but I can look up) who signed up, played for a week, and left games unfinished for others (new or old) to pick up. If the forum is still alive is because we have some players willing to see games to the end, not because we have a lot of passers-by. Sure, as I said earlier, we should always have a BM in sign ups, so we catch new active people, but those who choose to sign up and not be active... should they be pampered? Ignored, coddled, or whatever? Or told, in no unequivocal terms, that in order for them to join a game, they have to make a commitment to see it through?
Bah. I don't get you people's point. Is it not to tell lurkers not to lurk? Then I don't buy it and stand against it. I
will tell lurkers not to lurk,
at the top of my lungs, at every opportunity. Lurkers are what almost killed the board before. I post trackers so they can't hide away. I favour modkills instead of replaces for lurkers. I think lurkers kill games, and should be publicly shamed, shunned, and chastised until they learn better. Is this the position about which you think I am wrong? Or is it something else? If so, please elaborate.
Author
Topic: Games Threshold Discussion and List (Read 626549 times)