I wanted to be hard on inactives, but I only had 4 reserves and all the bad guys were active, so I couldn't just hang the inactives right away or the active villagers would have been fucked.
I'm thinking of doing a 30-member game with 10 reserves and strictly enforcing activity. Two days of no posting/less than a preset volume? Kthxbai.
Truf. The only thing is if I set it to one day, someone will "have something happen" in the realz world and complain that they would have been active.
Yeah, that's the problem with forum games.
I think the two day allowance could work just fine. To be clear, it would be with no warnings. Two days of a pre-determined (at sign up) level of inactivity and you get the big ugly boot.
Truf. The only thing is if I set it to one day, someone will "have something happen" in the realz world and complain that they would have been active.
Yeah, that's the problem with forum games.
I think the two day allowance could work just fine. To be clear, it would be with no warnings. Two days of a pre-determined (at sign up) level of inactivity and you get the big ugly boot.
Maybe make it two non-continuous days. So there's no one again off again participation, which is almost as bad as nothing at all.
Truf. The only thing is if I set it to one day, someone will "have something happen" in the realz world and complain that they would have been active.
So? If they have something happening in the real world that's preventing them from participating in the game, what's the problem with replacing them with someone who's available to play?
Besides, there's no problem granting a day off to someone who PMs a narrator to inform that he'll be away for real-world reasons. That shouldn't happen all that often anyway. It's the many unexplained inactives that I'm looking to weed out as fast as possible.
And I too think that two days is too much. The villagers need a few days to organise themselves, while the bad guys hit the ground running. Bringing some more villagers in on the third day doesn't help them.
Just count votes. If they miss two votes in a row, they're gone, or if they miss three votes total, they're gone.
Adjust those numbers how you see fit, 'cause I don't know how realistic they are. I've only been in a few Phallas, so I don't know what numbers would encourage the most activity while also not be merciless.
Truf. The only thing is if I set it to one day, someone will "have something happen" in the realz world and complain that they would have been active.
So? If they have something happening in the real world that's preventing them from participating in the game, what's the problem with replacing them with someone who's available to play?
Besides, there's no problem granting a day off to someone who PMs a narrator to inform that he'll be away for real-world reasons. That shouldn't happen all that often anyway. It's the many unexplained inactives that I'm looking to weed out as fast as possible.
And I too think that two days is too much. The villagers need a few days to organise themselves, while the bad guys hit the ground running. Bringing some more villagers in on the third day doesn't help them.
That's a good point. I was afraid of coming off as too harsh, leading to a low turnout in the first place. What do people think? One day of nothing and you get the boot? Narrator's discretion for excuses?
I think we should keep a Phalla blacklist to discourage inactivity. The host of the current game can add names to the blacklist at his discretion, and then people on the blacklist are barred from signing up for the next two games.
Eh. It's been discussed before over in CF. It's somewhat of a sticky issue. Really if it's done it needs to not be binding, just a name and links to why they're questionable to participate in future games.
Eh. It's been discussed before over in CF. It's somewhat of a sticky issue. Really if it's done it needs to not be binding, just a name and links to why they're questionable to participate in future games.
Sure, that could work. I know it would come off as a hard-ass tactic, but nothing's going to change if there isn't some way to filter out the inactives, either by discouraging inactivity by some negative consequence, or by giving hosts a way to selectively fill the roster instead of having to take everyone in order.
IreneDAdler on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
Eh. It's been discussed before over in CF. It's somewhat of a sticky issue. Really if it's done it needs to not be binding, just a name and links to why they're questionable to participate in future games.
Sure, that could work. I know it would come off as a hard-ass tactic, but nothing's going to change if there isn't some way to filter out the inactives, either by discouraging inactivity by some negative consequence, or by giving hosts a way to selectively fill the roster instead of having to take everyone in order.
Hosts can do that if they want anyway, though. I know I did it for the Phalla-themed Phalla, and I remember that somebody else did it too (ElJeffe in Phalliad?).
Eh. It's been discussed before over in CF. It's somewhat of a sticky issue. Really if it's done it needs to not be binding, just a name and links to why they're questionable to participate in future games.
Sure, that could work. I know it would come off as a hard-ass tactic, but nothing's going to change if there isn't some way to filter out the inactives, either by discouraging inactivity by some negative consequence, or by giving hosts a way to selectively fill the roster instead of having to take everyone in order.
Hosts can do that if they want anyway, though. I know I did it for the Phalla-themed Phalla, and I remember that somebody else did it too (ElJeffe in Phalliad?).
Ah, I just haven't seen it being done since I've started playing, so I thought it was an unwritten rule that the hosts are supposed to be completely passive when doing signups. I doubt I'd be ballsy enough to just ignore certain people's signups without being able to point to something and say "Look, you don't deserve to be in this game."
Hosts can do that if they want anyway, though. I know I did it for the Phalla-themed Phalla, and I remember that somebody else did it too (ElJeffe in Phalliad?).
I've gone the extreme way for a few mini-phalla's where the participants were are specifically invited.
I'm a proponent of harshly monitoring who you allow to play your game. I just don't want the drama an "official" binding list would create. This way it'd be a name, a series of links and possibly a link to where they have a chance to explain their action.
Of course, it may well just become a de facto ban list since the easiest thing to do would be to say "I'm using all names on the list" rather than go through and individually judge them yourself.
I despise blacklists, it would be such a drama to deal with, not something I would wish upon the community we've got going here.
I am all for honesty and communication, though. When Variable signed up I knew that he has a bit of tendency of being very silent, so I kept an eye on him. But hey, whaddayaknow, he PM'ed me to tell me that he would not be able to vote for that day and apologized. After that he was active.
Someone else PM'ed me to ask if he could be replaced once he figured he didn't have the time to play. Yay, thanks for letting me know!
Zot told me right away that he was in too many phallas but that he wanted to play in mine. He said he would try to keep up, but that he wouldn't be as active as he had been in some other games. Again, no problem.
Church lost his internet connection and is stuck somewhere in bumfuck USA, there was no way he could have contacted me, so I can't blame him for anything, I gave him about a day to return, he didn't, Inquisitor got his spot and all was well. Only a minor setback for the village, really. And I learned of the reason of his absence when he returned. That's good, I hold no grudges and I hope he'll join in another phalla sooner or later.
Its the people like Daedalus who ruin the games, I don't mind if you're incapable of participating, but nothing is stopping you from telling me before OR after it happens.
tl;dr: Talk to me, be honest! I spent a lot of time making this game, there's other people trying to win. Don't ruin anyone's fun, please.
On inactives: You'll never get rid of them. They've been there since game one, but because you've all played the game for so long they're now easier to notice/pin the blame on when you lose. Shit happens, and a lot of people will prioritize RL over an internet game. You could write a sternly worded warning in the signup thread about how inactivity is baaaad, but that will probably drive most new players away.
Hosts can do that if they want anyway, though. I know I did it for the Phalla-themed Phalla, and I remember that somebody else did it too (ElJeffe in Phalliad?).
I've gone the extreme way for a few mini-phalla's where the participants were are specifically invited.
I'm a proponent of harshly monitoring who you allow to play your game. I just don't want the drama an "official" binding list would create. This way it'd be a name, a series of links and possibly a link to where they have a chance to explain their action.
Of course, it may well just become a de facto ban list since the easiest thing to do would be to say "I'm using all names on the list" rather than go through and individually judge them yourself.
I like the idea of a list of names with explanations of different narrators explaining why they wouldn't welcome that person in a future phalla run by them. Future narrators can say up front "this list is law" or invest the time to comb the list. If, for some reason, I hate how James/Aldo ran this game (I didn't!) I could choose to disregard their choices for the list. This allows for explanation as well as discretion. Hell, future narrators could choose to not use the list and set their own inactivity rules. This way it doesn't seem militaristic and allows for flexibility. Think of it like eBay ratings. Could even allow for a defense of inactivity.
So, James/Aldo... from this game, who would you add to such a list? I know some people were yanked for inactivity but I'm curious to know anyone else you'd add.
EDIT for Elki's post: It doesn't have to be a hard and fast list enforced by moderators. Are you saying that narrators would not be allowed per forum rules to ban someone from signing up? I know we'll never get rid of inactive players but why not take some mild steps to reduce their numbers?
I would be opposed to a black list for all but the worst offenders. People who are consistently signing up and not playing, or people who break the game (like outing their roles or secret game mechanics). Those are the ones who should be banned from any future participation.
Because, let's face it, game hosts will use the list in only one of two ways: to ban systematically everyone on it from signing up, or by ignoring it completely. And for that first, drastic use, we should limit it only to the worst offenders.
Signing up and not playing is generally more an annoyance than a game-breaker, and can generally be fixed by, say, requiring the players to PM the host the day before play, or booting anyone who doesn't participate on the first day, and so on.
If someone has actively done something to sabotage the game, it'll probably be so readily apparent that a list isn't needed.
While I can sympathize with the sentiment behind a list, I think it'd do more harm than good. It would just be a drama-fountain.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Since you run the disco (well, the game hosting thread) would you be willing to include a blacklist there of the design you mentioned?
If D&D generally agrees to a black list (of any kind), I have no problem keeping it in the OP of the Upcoming Games Thread and updating it as needed. But so far it seems public opinion is divided at best.
If someone has actively done something to sabotage the game, it'll probably be so readily apparent that a list isn't needed.
Well I don't know for anyone else, but my memory's not all that good. People will remember someone doing something game-breaking right away, but after a few more Phallas it will be a vague rumor.
On the other hand, the difference between willful game-breaking and a poorly thought-out strategy backfiring can be subtle, so even maintaining a black list of the former could be controversial.
Posts
I have no idea how that would work, but if that plays at all like how I've heard the game described I'm so looking forward to this.
I'm thinking of doing a 30-member game with 10 reserves and strictly enforcing activity. Two days of no posting/less than a preset volume? Kthxbai.
Truf. The only thing is if I set it to one day, someone will "have something happen" in the realz world and complain that they would have been active.
I think the two day allowance could work just fine. To be clear, it would be with no warnings. Two days of a pre-determined (at sign up) level of inactivity and you get the big ugly boot.
Maybe make it two non-continuous days. So there's no one again off again participation, which is almost as bad as nothing at all.
Besides, there's no problem granting a day off to someone who PMs a narrator to inform that he'll be away for real-world reasons. That shouldn't happen all that often anyway. It's the many unexplained inactives that I'm looking to weed out as fast as possible.
And I too think that two days is too much. The villagers need a few days to organise themselves, while the bad guys hit the ground running. Bringing some more villagers in on the third day doesn't help them.
Adjust those numbers how you see fit, 'cause I don't know how realistic they are. I've only been in a few Phallas, so I don't know what numbers would encourage the most activity while also not be merciless.
That's a good point. I was afraid of coming off as too harsh, leading to a low turnout in the first place. What do people think? One day of nothing and you get the boot? Narrator's discretion for excuses?
Sure, that could work. I know it would come off as a hard-ass tactic, but nothing's going to change if there isn't some way to filter out the inactives, either by discouraging inactivity by some negative consequence, or by giving hosts a way to selectively fill the roster instead of having to take everyone in order.
Hosts can do that if they want anyway, though. I know I did it for the Phalla-themed Phalla, and I remember that somebody else did it too (ElJeffe in Phalliad?).
Ah, I just haven't seen it being done since I've started playing, so I thought it was an unwritten rule that the hosts are supposed to be completely passive when doing signups. I doubt I'd be ballsy enough to just ignore certain people's signups without being able to point to something and say "Look, you don't deserve to be in this game."
I've gone the extreme way for a few mini-phalla's where the participants were are specifically invited.
I'm a proponent of harshly monitoring who you allow to play your game. I just don't want the drama an "official" binding list would create. This way it'd be a name, a series of links and possibly a link to where they have a chance to explain their action.
Of course, it may well just become a de facto ban list since the easiest thing to do would be to say "I'm using all names on the list" rather than go through and individually judge them yourself.
I am all for honesty and communication, though. When Variable signed up I knew that he has a bit of tendency of being very silent, so I kept an eye on him. But hey, whaddayaknow, he PM'ed me to tell me that he would not be able to vote for that day and apologized. After that he was active.
Someone else PM'ed me to ask if he could be replaced once he figured he didn't have the time to play. Yay, thanks for letting me know!
Zot told me right away that he was in too many phallas but that he wanted to play in mine. He said he would try to keep up, but that he wouldn't be as active as he had been in some other games. Again, no problem.
Church lost his internet connection and is stuck somewhere in bumfuck USA, there was no way he could have contacted me, so I can't blame him for anything, I gave him about a day to return, he didn't, Inquisitor got his spot and all was well. Only a minor setback for the village, really. And I learned of the reason of his absence when he returned. That's good, I hold no grudges and I hope he'll join in another phalla sooner or later.
Its the people like Daedalus who ruin the games, I don't mind if you're incapable of participating, but nothing is stopping you from telling me before OR after it happens.
tl;dr: Talk to me, be honest! I spent a lot of time making this game, there's other people trying to win. Don't ruin anyone's fun, please.
Blacklists: Very much not wild on those.
I like the idea of a list of names with explanations of different narrators explaining why they wouldn't welcome that person in a future phalla run by them. Future narrators can say up front "this list is law" or invest the time to comb the list. If, for some reason, I hate how James/Aldo ran this game (I didn't!) I could choose to disregard their choices for the list. This allows for explanation as well as discretion. Hell, future narrators could choose to not use the list and set their own inactivity rules. This way it doesn't seem militaristic and allows for flexibility. Think of it like eBay ratings. Could even allow for a defense of inactivity.
So, James/Aldo... from this game, who would you add to such a list? I know some people were yanked for inactivity but I'm curious to know anyone else you'd add.
EDIT for Elki's post: It doesn't have to be a hard and fast list enforced by moderators. Are you saying that narrators would not be allowed per forum rules to ban someone from signing up? I know we'll never get rid of inactive players but why not take some mild steps to reduce their numbers?
Because, let's face it, game hosts will use the list in only one of two ways: to ban systematically everyone on it from signing up, or by ignoring it completely. And for that first, drastic use, we should limit it only to the worst offenders.
If someone has actively done something to sabotage the game, it'll probably be so readily apparent that a list isn't needed.
While I can sympathize with the sentiment behind a list, I think it'd do more harm than good. It would just be a drama-fountain.
Well I don't know for anyone else, but my memory's not all that good. People will remember someone doing something game-breaking right away, but after a few more Phallas it will be a vague rumor.
On the other hand, the difference between willful game-breaking and a poorly thought-out strategy backfiring can be subtle, so even maintaining a black list of the former could be controversial.