why did I get a laugh out of the above
on topic: seems like an awesome idea. Will need a 3rd party staff member to audit to avoid host bias though.
Hopefully emergencies are super rare, but when they happen the game host can cc a staff member.
Made some wording corrections to in the system (more than 4 to at least 4) - to make it clear, if someone flakes once, theyâre automatically in bad standing.
Ehh I think more than 4 is okay. Flaking just once shouldnât make it automatically someone getting bad standing, but puts them very close!
Hard disagree. Outside of emergencies itâs not hard to pop in and at least say youâre replacing out.
If thatâs the case then we should have some guidelines regarding what constitutes flaking as well as an emergency â I donât think itâs an issue now but good for future proofing. Game hosts, at least new ones, shouldnât have absolute power over adding or deducting points for someoneâs standing level, which was why I suggested a staff member to audit and possibly handle dispute cases (if ever relevant, apply).
Iâve hate flakes and replacements as much as (or even more than) the next guy, but Iâve had ridiculous experiences on mafiascum where the game host force replaced players (ahem including me ahem) just because they felt like it. It was extremely unprofessional!
As a game host myself Iâve also sometimes had the desire to replace a player out of my game at the earliest possible opportunity!
Do you think that this may ever be a concern for our community?
I think emergencies can be treated case by case, hosts can cc staff for those.
If someone doesnât given any response to a prod for 24 hours a host has the right to claim that someone flaked. I think most hosts prod at reasonable times (e.g. at least 24 hours without posting, I think most even wait more).
If the accused player wants to say the host is acting unreasonably they should contact me or any staff member. I doubt thisâll happen often since if the host misread a timstamp, the player can just contact the host and sort it out, and if the host is purposefully trying to screw someone over, all the timestamps are there for a staff member to review.
I think most cases about whether someone flaked or not are pretty straightforward. If some corner cases happen, weâll deal with them as they come.
1 Like
I like this. I can only think of two improvements:
- The icon could be better and doesnât really indicate that the reason for it is because you flaked that one time 3 months ago. Maybe a tooltip or something would help.
- Harsher punishments for repeat offenders pls. Like maybe the number of points you get is multiplied by the # of times youâve flaked or replaced out in the past 5 years.
Also a general question: do you get 8 points if you flake out of two games at once?
Have we defined what flaking is?
If someone posts a couple of words, once every 24 hours?
Or just once when prodded?
Isnât this more annoying and disruptive to the game than disappearing completely?
Youâre thinking of lurking. Flaking is disappearing completely.
1 Like
@catspurr , this is our preliminary definition for flaking:
Most hosts have rules about how many times a player can get prodded before theyâll start looking for replacements (usually 3?). In the discrete-time games weâll be developing thisâll even be more concrete (missing a phase).
The content of a post is of 0 concern to us when it comes to this policy, we only look at posting vs. not posting.
-
We can make a better description appear on hover yeah. Iâll think of something. If you better ideas for the symbol let me knowâŚI donât want it to be one that players might want to get haha.
-
Sure. I optimisitically didnât draft stuff about repeat offenders with hope that it wonât happen. Thereâs obviously a point where it goes from bad standing to âyou canât play games here until you discuss why youâre more responsible now to a staff memberâ. So basically weâll consider increasing penalties when we get to needing them.
-
Eh. There are arguments for both sides isnât there? Iâm leaning just getting 4 for a single site flake.
Iâm hoping this stuff isnât something weâll have to spend a lot of time making super precise. I think just having this sort of policy makes it clear what our stance on replacements/flaking is in general and is hopefully already a sufficient detriment.
I also want to highlight the type of interaction between skitter and metal here, in metalâs game sign up, as what we encourage.
Most of the time just being fairly responsible and discussing your availability and potential issues with a host/other players BEFORE a game starts just solves a lot of problems.
Specifics aside, this is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to see from when 451 started. Replacements ruin games and are likely the #1 culprit at that, full stop. 
1 Like
Regarding tracking flaking:
It should just be like a mark on your account or something. Donât flake for a couple of games and it is removed.
Flaking isnât forever
I kinda dislike the borderline draconian measures (in my view, at least) being looked at here, but I understand Iâm probably in the minority on this subject.
I really am a big believer that, especially on a site like this where weâre starting small, a self-policing community is the way to go (and I think you see some of that already), with GMs empowered to say no to a player with a history of flaking or fill their game on a non-first come first served basis. I think that in the long run a self-policing community that establishes a culture of anti-flaking is going to be more effective than the site-dictated punishments discussed here.
But, Iâm in the minority with that opinion Iâm sure, so Iâm not putting up much of a fight.
Oh ha! You suggested exactly what I came up with. Iâd give them two flakes before x tho
The âpunishmentâ here is almost purely visual - if anything itâs to make it easier for players and hosts to recognize when a player has had a replacement/flaking history.
A big part of why I want a top-down policy like this is to make it clear to people that replacing out/flaking - save for in emergency scenarios - is not a good thing and shouldnât be acceptable. A lot of targetted long-form text mafia works strategies donât work just because replacement exists.
Most replacements not in the "emergencyâ category end up being because of 1) very poor planning (e.g. joining a long game when you have finals in a week) or 2) semi-game-related (Someone made me unhappy/mad). Both are usually preventable.
But yeah, I think policies like these will end up empowering the community and itâs culture to be more anti-replace/flake. If it makes everyone double check the playerlist or their schedule or the game theyâre joining - I think itâs a win.
Eh, my general opinion on non-emergency flakes is that it takes close to no time to inform someone that you need to replace out for whatever reason. Maybe we can lower threshold of time it takes for the X to disappear.
Probably just going to have this be our policy for now and see what happens. If it ends up causing problems or just âfeeling unfairâ for whatever reason weâll refine or iterate. The values/names/everything isnât set in stone.
Oh yeah, if a flake is just completely ghosting then I agree with that