Print

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

[webadict]

Honestly, the B rank is a buffer. It let's some leeway before hitting C or lower. Removing it makes the system even harsher.

But planned absences can help, but if it's for an extended time, you might want to add in needing a replacement.

[Mr.Person]

Honestly, the B rank is a buffer. It let's some leeway before hitting C or lower. Removing it makes the system even harsher.

But planned absences can help, but if it's for an extended time, you might want to add in needing a replacement.

Well obviously I'd want to fold it into the A-rank side and not the C-rank side.

I figured you'd handle the details. Apparently you're very detail-oriented (or I suck with details, probably both) which is why you're doing the attendance and I'm not.

[webadict]

I hate to break this to you Webadict, but you're very elitist. We all are. Bay12 is a very elitist place, mafia is a very elitist game, and skilled people are elitist over less skilled people. Add it all together and we have an elitist group of players playing an elitist game on an elitist site. We've tried pretty hard to be more inclusive but honestly, I don't think we're doing enough. Attendance rankings are not going to magically improve the player counts, NSBM and other segue-way games will. The attendance board will reduce flaking, so it is important. It's just not enough, that's all.

To be fair, there's not much we can do to not be elitist. We're either elitist and tracking everyone's attendance, or we're not elitist and letting things go to crap. I mean, the system isn't meant to be punishing. It's meant to stop people from joining and then not playing. And, we could go by reputation, but isn't that more elitist? I'm trying to quantify attendance here. If it comes at the cost of elitism, I'm not all that worried.

And, yes, some of those games might help. But, then we need more mods, too. What's stopping you from modding? We need to give to receive. Usually, it's all good, but if there's a void, I think you could make a game. I mean, look at Ottofar's little contributions? It's a small 5-player game. It lasts a couple of days. But, it's increasing activity, for sure.

Elitism causes either a decrease in new players or a big rush of new players thinking the elite place is... well, for the elite and cool and they want to be elite and cool. Let's just say that the B12 Mafia forum is not particularly cool. So logically if we want to attract new players, we need to be less elitist and do more stuff to encourage new players to stay by helping new players to start playing and making them feel welcome. Having a super-harsh ranking system that severely punishes minor mistakes is the pinnacle of exclusive. New players don't care about their rank but they won't be happy to find they've been rejected from the game they wanted to play because of a prod or two. So logically the ranking system should be very generous, particularly about prods and other warnings.

Well, I'm not going to worry about new players. We've got a good set of us here. People flow in and out, and I'm glad to except them. Remember that newbies aren't excluded from joining games in this system. However, we will advise them not to join certain games.

I think the punishment is rather light. So long as people can remind us they'll be away (Say, with at least day's notice), I think the system is rather lenient. The mods are the ones in control. They can make the rules as strict or as lenient as they want. And they'll be upfront about which one it is, too. So, this system will do it's job. I think a single prod every 36/48 hours (Excluding weekends) isn't anywhere strict. Especially since the games are faster in pace then some forums.

However, this is a mod-controlled rule. I think a singe rank reduction isn't harsh, especially with a B rank buffer and the replacement plus system. Perhaps I could make it easier to regain rank, but I think dropping fast might be necessary.

Here's the craziest part, however. I want somebody planning on modding a game besides Webadict who plans on excluding B-rankers from their game. Anybody at all? Nobody but Webadict excludes B-rankers? Then why are we even drawing a line there? It just divides the community and makes B-rankers feel bad about things that may not even be in their control. We should take this to a vote. All in favor of abolishing the B-rank, speak up. All in favor of keeping the B-rank, also speak up. If you're neutral, continue having no strong feelings one way or the other but do speak up that you don't care.

I think the B rank is nice. It's not A, it's not C. It's in between. Mostly, it stopped people from falling too fast. If you make a mistake, you can get back to that A rank. The B rank is a "good but not great" rank, while C is an "okay" rank. D is the "potential hazard" and E is the "danger, danger Will Robinson" rank. They all have their uses and meanings, and B fits.

One major problem with the old system was that forced replaces were very harshly punished, yet if you came up with an excuse you basically got a free pass. How about three kinds of absence? Planned absence (you told the mod beforehand, no punishment if at least 12 hours in advance, warning if 11 hours in advance or less), complete absence (not logging into B12 at all, minor punishment independent of # of games taking part in), and selective absence (logging into B12 but not posting in the mafia game(s) the player's in. Major punishment per game).

I think this could work.

[Org]

Here is a question:
What about scum? Sometimes, scum use the strategy of lurking to throw people off their trails, and should they be punished for it?

[Pandarsenic]

Here is a question:
What about scum? Sometimes, scum use the strategy of lurking to throw people off their trails, and should they be punished for it?

What I got away with in PYS was bullshit.

[Mephansteras]

Here is a question:
What about scum? Sometimes, scum use the strategy of lurking to throw people off their trails, and should they be punished for it?

I agree that this looks like a problem when using this sort of system. Lurking is horrible for town and too much of it can kill a game, but it's also a perfectly valid tactic for scum.

In theory, this would make it obvious that the lurker is scum and people wouldn't use that tactic. But since lurking is so prevalent I think that's a moot point. Until we actually have such great attendance that scum start complaining about not being able to actually use that tactic, I don't think it's actually a problem.

Generally, as mod, I tend to allow lurking as long as the player is active in the scum chat or at least PMs me letting me know what they're doing.

I think the best compromise it to simply keep that as the rule. Scum don't get punished for lurking as long as they are active behind the scenes. Actual lurking is punished normally.

[webadict]

Here is a question:
What about scum? Sometimes, scum use the strategy of lurking to throw people off their trails, and should they be punished for it?

I agree that this looks like a problem when using this sort of system. Lurking is horrible for town and too much of it can kill a game, but it's also a perfectly valid tactic for scum.

In theory, this would make it obvious that the lurker is scum and people wouldn't use that tactic. But since lurking is so prevalent I think that's a moot point. Until we actually have such great attendance that scum start complaining about not being able to actually use that tactic, I don't think it's actually a problem.

Generally, as mod, I tend to allow lurking as long as the player is active in the scum chat or at least PMs me letting me know what they're doing.

I think the best compromise it to simply keep that as the rule. Scum don't get punished for lurking as long as they are active behind the scenes. Actual lurking is punished normally.

I think a lurking scum is a really terrible scum. It means you have nothing and your lack of skill makes minimizing your presence as necessary to win the game. Here's the thing, it does work. Because it makes town players lurk too. So, basically, the game eventually dies due to rampant lurk cycles. Does anyone want to post in a game where everyone is lurking? No. If I ask a player a question, and they don't answer, it's okay for them because they're scum? No. That's stupid. We're all playing the game, so I don't want any player to lurk. They don't need special treatment. They're scum!

I mean, what if someone wants them prodded? What will you say? They were prodded? They don't need to be prodded? Special circumstances? These are just misleading for players, and I wouldn't want them to be special. Vector can fill up a Quicktopic and still find time to post. I'm not going to give her bonus points for essentially talking to her team or to herself.

If you want to lurk, do it without needing a prod. It's 36 hours. Can you really not think of anything to post?

Here is a question:
What about scum? Sometimes, scum use the strategy of lurking to throw people off their trails, and should they be punished for it?

Yes. It's still detracting from the game to not post. If you want to lurk, then do it selectively. Make a post every 24 hours. That's not a lot, considering Day lengths, plus you're actually here.

[Vector]

Vector can fill up a Quicktopic and still find time to post. I'm not going to give her bonus points for essentially talking to her team or to herself.

I type fast

The last part is the important one, though.  Attendance is about "are you playing the game."  Posting in the main thread is playing the game.  Chatting with your scumbuddies may be conducive to playing the game, but it cannot be confused with actually playing.  If what we're working on is "removing lurkers," then we should remove the lurkers.

It's not like it's going to actually damage the B12 scumgame, either.

[Mr.Person]

I have a nasty habit of abandoning projects half-way through. That doesn't make for satisfying hosting.

Agree'd on punishing mafia-lurkers with the same criteria as town-lurkers. Active lurking is ok. Flat out disappearing is not.

[GlyphGryph]

Do you think we might get a separate rank for mods? As, like Meph, I've not really got much interest in playing anymore, but I do enjoy the modding... and I guess it would mostly be a feel good measure. Of course, with all my mistakes and late updates, I'd probably be like a C, but whatever.

Or perhaps allow mods who are super reliable to be honorary S-rank, like you reffered to Meph, which allows them to be "on the board" even if they aren't technically S, at least until there's enough real S-rank players.

Also, for those saying this wouldn't be useful - I'd probably end up just allowing A-ranks into my quick bastards. Or at least leaving a guaranteed slot open for A-ranks and S-ranks to push others out, as attendance is super-extreme important when you've got 24 hour days and no extensions.

[Mr.Person]

Ironically, those kind of low-PR small games are the exact ones that low ranking players should be delegated to so they can reform. It's hard to get better at attendance in a giant clusterfuck like Paranormal since nobody's really keeping track of lurking.

GlyphGryph, I hate to break this to you, but very few people have the time to be active for more than an hour or two a day. It's perfectly fine to be selective about who can join a game with very strict posting requirements, it's just that A-rankers are not all going to meet them. You're trying to use the attendance rank system to measure activity, which are two separate things.

[Ottofar]

So, VM 3 is over. There were neither prods nor replaces.
The players were Archangel, JanusTwoface, Pandarsenic, ToonyMan and Zathras.
Am I doing it right?

[webadict]

Yessir. I'll put it up when I can.

[GlyphGryph]

Mr. Person, don't mind if they only post an hour or two a day. Its people that let a day go by without posting that I have a problem with...

[Zathras]

Hey Web, I've been told that the first post of the thread does not make it clear enough that it's an attendance, not skill, ranking system. Yeah, we've had the conversation, and all agree that's what it is, but for a new person casually looking through the forum, the first post of this thread doesn't clarify it and it's still confusing/intimidating.

I'd suggest adding at the top of the first message something along the lines of "The Mafia Attendance Ranking System is intended to encourage activity and participation, discouraging disruptive lurking or flakiness, and giving Game Moderators a common toolset for these purposes. It is most definitely about game attendance only, and rank is in no way reflective of player skill, popularity, good looks, or any subjective criteria. All players are encouraged to play in the games, participate in discussions, and to pay as much or as little attention to their rank as they wish. For definitions, clarifications and details, please see the FAQs below".

...or something.