Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webadict]

Gonna go ahead and drop this here:

Ideally the whole rank system would be passive and hidden so that nobody worries about their rank. In fact, it's not a measure of skill, it's a measure of attendance. Really it's actually a measure of failure to attend properly, so there's no reason to divide up "A" from "S" from "B", really, since only the most demanding of mods would bother with ranks that high. At that point, you might as well be invite-only from who you think is a good player.

Here's what matters with rules infractions; how fucked up the game was. There's no reason to try and put them into categories when the answer is simply to divide them based on what the mod had to do to continue the game.

Warnings: Not major enough to warrent any action other than the mod issuing a warning. Prods are warnings. Might also be about revealing too much info in a "bah" post, threatening to break the rules, or whatever else you kids are going to come up with next.
Minor rules infractions: Major enough to warrant a modkill or force replace, but minor enough that the game can continue in some fashion. This includes flaking!
Major rules infractions: Major enough that the mod deems the game ruined and decides to stop it prematurely. Only given out if one particular person or aligned group were directly responsible for the game stoppage. If many people were involved but none of them did anything bad enough to stop the game on their own, they get minor rules infractions only. This is so that, for instance, a bunch of flakers don't all get stuck with major rules infractions, but a group of players all teaming up to make another player lose for out of game reasons do get major rules infractions.

So personally, I think there's should be only 4 categories.

Good:
No problems whatsoever or extremely infrequent problems. 1 or 0 warnings

Average:
No major issues, but does need warnings every so often. 3 to 5 warnings OR a single minor rules infraction with 1 or 0 warnings

Not good:
Probably going to be a nuisance, but the game will be fine even if they do fuck up.. 6 or more warnings OR a minor rules infraction with 2 or more warnings OR a single major rules infraction with 1 or 0 warnings and 0 minor rules infractions

Horrible:
Probably going to ruin the game. 3 or more minor rules infractions OR a major rules infraction with 2 or more warnings OR a major rules infraction and a minor rules infraction.

Rankings should be measured in semesters. They should roll over onto new ones, but the conditions that gave the rank out in the first place should not. For instance, if in 6 months Pandarsenic gets 3 warnings for lurking, he drops to Average the moment the third warning is issued. However, when the new semester starts, Pandarsenic stays at Average but has no warnings. If he keeps having no warnings for the new semester, his rank will become Good again for the following semester. I hope this makes sense.

PPE: STOP POSTING SO FAST, JEEZ

I just would prefer to read into the system in a quick and efficient manner.

"Checking Vector's Grade... A+, good"
"Checking Archangel's Grade... F, bad"

It's easy to search through and find. Plus, making series of categories is STILL a grading system.

And my reply...

Firstly, I've never seen anyone cheat besides Breadbocks pretty flimsy attempt in VM2, which was hardly gamebreaking. The only thing I can see as a problem is flaking. In every game I've played recently, people just stop posting, so I try to post more to avoid the game dying, end up dropping a logical fallacy because I'm posting so much compared to anyone else and then get jumped by two or three lurkers.

It's bullshit.

But so is a ranking system. If this board had more than... uhh... A dozen or so people who post regularly, it might be feasable, but as it stands, it would just be a way for people to stroke their e-peens about how good they are at mafia based on their rank. There just aren't enough people to justify seperating us all out.

The important point is that it's not a skill ranking board, separating "good/skilled" vs. "bad/unskilled" players. It's attendance, separating "active" and "lurky". This is an explicit distinction in the setup of the board. The intention is to avoid the situation when people, as you say, just stop posting.

Instead, if you really need a way to stick it to people, just let GMs choose who they will and will not accept into the game, just like how players can choose which game they want to join based on the GM (hahaha never again Org). To compliment this, just make a thread called "these people suck" or something a little more polite. In it, you can say "hey this player didn't do shit except lurk, complain about schoolwork, then show up three minutes before day ends to OMGUS a town to death" and then GMs reading can think to themselves "oh well that doesn't sound like the kind of player I want!"

That's exactly what the ranking board does. You say in your game you want "C rank or above" means that only players who have never flaked out and been forcefully replaced for lurking are allowed. But it's only about activity and reliability (non-flaky), not skill.

Also, who decides rank? I love web and vector or whoever the fuck is considered good at this game, but I don't think anyone should have the authority to decide what level another forum goer is on.

That's another point. It's objective and numerically determined. No one person sits in judgement of others, it merely tracks "so and so has been prodded twice, and flaked once"; "so-and-so has always been active and never needed a prod". Objectively and numerically. No authority figure needed.

But anyway. I'll be continued on the new thread.

Right. I'm gonna move that second post to first because: It's NOT about skill. It's about activity. This is meant to deter people from being inactive AND give mods a list of people's activity or lack thereof. I do not plan to change them or determine them myself. I will be given information and, using that information with an OUTLINED detail of ranks, post the grade of their activity.

Face -->Palm

Don't continue arguments from a modlocked topic, just don't.

In fact I'd delete your post.

As long as my thread stays clean.

[Zathras]

I'll use your quote of it as a clue that I don't need to scrub it then.

But yes, in short it must be:
* About activity, not skill.
* Unobtrusive.
* Objectively measured.
* Clear, concise, and unambiguous.

[webadict]

I'll use your quote of it as a clue that I don't need to scrub it then.

But yes, in short it must be:
* About activity, not skill.
* Unobtrusive.
* Objectively measured.
* Clear, concise, and unambiguous.

I'll objectively layout the ranks in a bit, but it is most certainly past my bedtime. I am going to sleep. See y'all.

[Vector]

No authority figure needed.

To expand on this, whoever's running the attendance board is basically a glorified maid (Yes, Webby, that's you).  The ranking system is generally built by everyone who participates in the subforum, and is in no way meant to imply a player is worse than another.  It's just a categorization system to effectively remind us of how we're doing as a collection of people playing this game.  We can say "Hm, 20 people have flaked on a game so far this quarter.  Maybe the system isn't working," and so on.

The main reason why we're reinstating this system is because before we had it, things kind of sucked.  Once we had it, after arguing for a couple of months about the very things you're worried about, things got quite good.  Games were active, we needed very few replacements, and no one seemed to be at all unhappy about it.

As far as I can tell, the basic idea is an agreed-upon concept of how much player participation is needed to make this game worth playing.  It's a social contract, written by the governed--and the only punishment for non-adherence is loss of the benefits provided by those who act under the rules of that contract.

This is a very Rousseau moment, I guess.

* About activity, not skill.

I'll note here that everything but the S rank has always been about mod-established rule violations/activity, while S rank was more about that +some attitude requirements.  That's it.

Incidentally, my next nomination after Zathras is SirBayer.  Consider them both my favorite candidates if they continue to improve their games for the next few months.


Finally: I don't know if we caught this, because I'm exhausted, but I'd like to maintain the old rank upgrade for replacing into games.  That really, really helped things from just being a penalty system.

[Zathras]

The main reason why we're reinstating this system is because before we had it, things kind of sucked.  Once we had it, after arguing for a couple of months about the very things you're worried about, things got quite good.  Games were active, we needed very few replacements, and no one seemed to be at all unhappy about it.

Quoted for Truth.

Finally: I don't know if we caught this, because I'm exhausted, but I'd like to maintain the old rank upgrade for replacing into games.  That really, really helped things from just being a penalty system.

Seconded. Giving people a cookie for helping out a struggling game is a very good idea. That being said, I do want to rehash the discussion of forced-replace vs. modkill for severe lurkers/flakers. I think that, along with the cookies, a few lashes are also needed to whip people into shape. But it's late, so we'll do that another day.

[Solifuge]

Thank you for becoming the glorified Mafia Maid, Webby dearest. I'm afraid I have nothing constructive to add at this time, but it's good to see this back in business.

[Vector]

That being said, I do want to rehash the discussion of forced-replace vs. modkill for severe lurkers/flakers. I think that, along with the cookies, a few lashes are also needed to whip people into shape.

The thing is, if someone's flaking from a game so hard that they're going to be force-replaced and thus be banned from some future games, mod-killing him won't just punish that player.  It punishes everyone.  A replacement punishes everyone, to be sure, but it punishes them less.

In the end, though, I think that the time between force-replace and modkill should be decided by the mod, the way it always has been.  Outline it clearly in the OP, if you want an auto-modkill: "Lurkers will be shot."  There doesn't need to be a universal policy for this, especially because it's always so circumstantial.  The best course of action is generally determined by the mod and the players, simultaneously.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Thank you for becoming the glorified Mafia Maid, Webby dearest. I'm afraid I have nothing constructive to add at this time, but it's good to see this back in business.

This.

[Pandarsenic]

From these, Pandar, Toony and maybe Leafsnail are still quite active in games, yes? Maybe decide between themselves and end up with a top three or so that would be the new S ranks? (Wuba, Vector, plus one of the other three, maybe?)

Before I read any further, I decline any nominations for S-rank pre-emptively until school is more stable for me.

Edit since this isn't a game an it's therefore allowed: I second OMNOMNOMination on Zathras and SirBayer.

[Zathras]

Thanks again, but I also decline for the time being. Maybe later.

[ToonyMan]

TAKE THE S RANK OR YOU CAN JUST GO SUCK A LEMON

[Ottofar]

TAKE THE S RANK OR YOU CAN JUST GO SUCK A LEMON

Agreed.

[Zathras]

TAKE THE S RANK OR YOU CAN JUST GO SUCK A LEMON

Go suck a llama.  :-P

How about we table the S rank discussion until later, when the rest of the board is well established and has a couple of games under its belt?

^{But thanks, guys. 8-)}

[Org]

Org is here.
And suggests his S-rank.

[Vector]

Org is here.
And suggests his S-rank.

BANNED

How about we table the S rank discussion until later, when the rest of the board is well established and has a couple of games under its belt?

Yeah, this.  I do agree that if there's really only five eligible people, and three of those people aren't yet eligible for the "title," then we should skip it.

Personally, I suggest rediscussing the issue in three months.