Minimum amount of posting per Day Phase

[FictionJunction]

I did this in every game I hosted just to stay in the loop of all the backchanneling but it also helped me identify who was invested and who wasn't.

[Charu]

Oh, I like that.

But fictiooooooooooooooooon, don't tell me you actually don't mind if a player goes about being silent for the entire game! You know that's not fun, because it isn't!

Plus, who's to say if we do that the person in question will post at all? They could just keep saying to the host that they're paying attention via what has happened (I guess) and not have to say anything.

That's cancer play and you know it!

[V-Ormix]

Your unwelcome in a community when you don't communicate, that's actually not as unreasonable as I thought it sounded when I really thought about it :V

[FictionJunction]

*shrug* the way I see it is that if a player is choosing not to post on purpose he's doing so at his own risk. As long as it isn't silence due to inactivity it's 10000% ok with me. Players could kill him for being silent if they wanted to. That's part of the game.

What I think we struggle with isn't silent players. We struggle with identifying whether or not people are even active. When we have to ask questions about people's activity in the game we choose to jump out of the roleplaying, bringing in foreign elements into the game. It sucks.

If the host can guarantee that everyone in the game is active then this doesn't have to happen anymore. Activity isn't defined by your posts/phase. It's defined by whether or not you're thinking about the game.

[FictionJunction]

I actually don't think a player who remains silent for 4+ phases will actually live long enough to win the game. But I can give you this very common case:

More often than not, we use inactivity to filter out greens from reds using context clues to determine whether the inactivity is more red then green and viceversa. This also ruins the game. A required posts/day doesn't solve for this because I should be allowed to remain silent if I choose to albeit at risk of whatever consequences the roster might deem applicable in response to my behavior.

That's all TWG is

[Charu]

I just think it's cheap is all. Makes for a boring game if everyone started doing it.

Oh well, to each their own.

[FictionJunction]

To solve this we have to not think about inactivity by trusting that the host is going to take care of it (and the host should keep an eye out and be in constant communication with the players).

By doing this we can stop asking whether or not this guy is inactive and instead ask 'why is he not speaking up?'

[FictionJunction]

That's like a much better question to ask

[V-Ormix]

holy double and tripple posts with cheese batman

edit: If everyone pentagon posted in threads they'd be fine

[Charu]

I wish we could be like that. It's rare, but we do ask that questions sometimes, but usually if they've shown they posted a bit beforehand.

I think asking that question when they haven't said anything and purposely make it look like they have not even checked the thread is silly, because when you ask that, what's stopping them from making a BS excuse?

"Oh, I was busy, you know?"

And it's totally valid because they haven't done anything in the game.

Bleh, bleeeeeeh, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

[Charu]

Like, imagine, you're playing LIVE TWG with friends.

Are you going to be the douchebag that becomes silent? At least like LIVE TWG, players can prod the person being silent, which that's what should be happening. If a host has to do it, it defeats some of the game, y'know?

[FictionJunction]

well that's part of what makes TWG good - can't solve an activity problem by forcing people to be active the way you want them to be.

If such a rule was instated I would make posts like this just to reach the minimum:

[FictionJunction]

..

[FictionJunction]

Originally Posted by Charu

Like, imagine, you're playing LIVE TWG with friends.

Are you going to be the douchebag that becomes silent? At least like LIVE TWG, players can prod the person being silent, which that's what should be happening. If a host has to do it, it defeats some of the game, y'know?

I don't know man - I could see myself doing that. I could also see the roster lynch me for it.

We forget the roster has 10000% control over everyone else in the game. The whole point is to influence behavior.

[mellonxcollie]

Originally Posted by Charu

That's cancer play and you know it!

I know you didn't mean anything but like... lol ;_; </3

[Charu]

Oh. ooooh...

Nononoononononono, I didn't mean when there's serious stuff happening in the background.

Oh my goodness, I'm sorry.

[j-rodd123]

I definitely agree with minimum post requirements, but it should ultimately be up to the host and be clear when they give their game for host signups so people know a requirement will be in place. if someone is just super utr and not posting as a human they are sabotaging their team and prob will get mislynched, as a wolf they can slank their way through a few days and maybe scrap their way by at the end. it's lazy

some games on 2+2 have used various systems along these lines to try and force activity, if you sign up you need to be posting. it's slightly different here though because on their there's literally a new post like every minute so it's not fair to the people playing if you don't post.

some of the systems included:
0 posting in a day phase = modkill
0 posting in a day phase = try and find a replacement (if not either keep them in the game or modkill)
set a limit of posts (big games on their they have had a minimum of 10 posts per day) and you have a percentage of being modkilled for every post under 10 you are (i think the game had like 0 posters have 50% chance of being modkilled after that phase, then 45% with 1 post, 40% with 2 posts, etc.)

i think it definitely helps the game because when people don't post it makes me lose interest so fast and it honestly makes the game suck

[mellonxcollie]

Originally Posted by Charu

Oh my goodness, I'm sorry.

It's OK <3

I disagree with minimum posting requirements, I don't agree with restricting people's play in any way really. That said I see inactivity killing games and agree that it's not really fun.

I think maybe a one post per phase requirement makes more sense, or Fiction's idea about PMing the host.

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by Charu

Like, imagine, you're playing LIVE TWG with friends.

Are you going to be the douchebag that becomes silent?

#me erry ltwg game

[j-rodd123]

i guess ultimately i think it should be up to the host to set their requirement and mention it before game voting begins, seems like the best compromise solution. if you dont like the requirement (if one is in place), then don't sign up for that game. forcing a posting requirement when a few people don't like it or not allowing a requirement ever don't seem reasonable to me