Dealing with Chronic Lurkers

[Thok]

One comment I'd like to add (and I seriously thought about adding a new thread for this), is that people need to realize that mafia, just like any other activity, is a nontrivial time commitment. For a single game, it's not unreasonable to expect people to spend a half hour every couple of days (it takes that much time to read the game, think about suspicions, and make a good post). That's about one and a half hours a week.

I see people sign up immediately for five or six games when they first arrive. That's potentially a seven to nine hour a week time commitment, on top of any work/homework/other activities you might have.

There are some people who have immediately jumped into 10 games. There is no reason one should do that unless you know you can handle the pressure/time commitment, and frankly no newbie knows that.

If you find yourself constantly having to say "I'm sorry, I don't have time to post because I need to do other things" perhaps that's a sign you should cut down your games. Getting a replacement is not a sign of weakness, or a reason to be mocked; in fact, I'd appreciate somebody more if they recognized a need to be replaced in some number of games so that they free up time to concentrate on their remaining ones.

[ShadowLurker]

There are some people who have immediately jumped into 10 games. There is no reason one should do that unless you know you can handle the pressure/time commitment, and frankly no newbie knows that.

I'm in way more than 10.

[ibaesha]

I wasn't sure if I should actually post this because it may come off as whining, but if it does, oh well. I agree with a lot of things that people have said in this thread (mith, Thok, and Yosarian off the top of my head). The problem is, this thread was made months ago and I've only seen the lurker problem become worse so it really did nothing to resolve it. I'm currently so discouraged by the amount of lurkers in past and current games that I'm considering a few things.

1. Limit my own games considerably in the future in hopes of having to deal with the lurker problem less. And being extremely picky about what games I sign up for based on the player list. If I see people on a list that I know to be chronic lurkers, I may just skip signing up so I don't have to deal with it.

2. Progressively taking a metagame stance to pressure and otherwise lynch lurkers in hopes that it'll do something to discourage the behavior. Unfortunately, the current stance of most people on the site is that lurking is allowable and not a good reason to vote for someone. Also, because of the general attitude towards lurkers, I think it'd just cause me more grief than it would do any good.

3. Quit MS all together when my current games are complete. This is rather sad, but my frustration over lurkers is such that I'm really beginning to not enjoy playing very much.

I'm curious as to how people feel about #2 because it seems to be the only option I have as a player if I want to continue playing. As a mod, I can do things to quash lurking in my own games, but to be honest it's more frustrating to me as a player than as a mod. Also, I agree that it's not really always the mod's responsibility to stop lurkers, it's up to the players. Players are the ones that can stop it by -doing- something about it, but I get the impression over and over that no one wants to actually do anything.

[al_kohaulec]

There are some people who have immediately jumped into 10 games. There is no reason one should do that unless you know you can handle the pressure/time commitment, and frankly no newbie knows that.

I'm in way more than 10.

I've got the same problem.

I stopped joining games for now so I can lower that number, especially now that college has started. I still try my best to keep updated, and lurkers are IMO a huge problem that we need to do something about.

I think we've been discussing solutions to the lurker problem on the other site I play on, and there are tons of other sites that all have different rules enforced. I'd hate to see people, especially people like ibby, leave because of lurkers.

They really hurt the game, especially when there are so many of them. Sometimes somebody may have a legitamtie excuse, but chronic lurkers don't help us at all, and I think something needs to be done about them.

[rajrhcpfreak]

do a combo of #1 and #2

i am personally sorry for any lurking you have seen me doing recently.

and i am in the process of cuting my games to a small number. and hopefully ill get to my usual spamtastic self in the few games im in.

[ShadowLurker]

There are some people who have immediately jumped into 10 games. There is no reason one should do that unless you know you can handle the pressure/time commitment, and frankly no newbie knows that.

I'm in way more than 10.

I've got the same problem.

I stopped joining games for now so I can lower that number, especially now that college has started. I still try my best to keep updated, and lurkers are IMO a huge problem that we need to do something about.

I think we've been discussing solutions to the lurker problem on the other site I play on, and there are tons of other sites that all have different rules enforced. I'd hate to see people, especially people like ibby, leave because of lurkers.

They really hurt the game, especially when there are so many of them. Sometimes somebody may have a legitamtie excuse, but chronic lurkers don't help us at all, and I think something needs to be done about them.

Oh I'm still joining games nonstop as I free up mini slots and new games accept signups

[al_kohaulec]

Ya... I can't do that UT, cause of everything I'm doing, I'm barely ever on a computer anymore. My time is starting to open up some more, but it's still not enough tiem to actually give enough focus on my games. I think I'm going to slide back down to about 3 or 4 games and work back from there.

[Zindaras]

I'm in 10 games or something at the moment. I only sign up for Minis here, and I play on three other sites (two of those sites only have one game running at any time, though). I've noticed that I lurk sometimes, usually when the game or my role bores me. Yes, that's bad, I know it. However, it's ridiculously easy to get me to stop lurking. One pressure vote or post and I'll usually get completely back into the game.

As for how I handle lurkers:

I kill them. If I'm a Vig, or a Serial Killer, or Mafia, I kill them. I won't let a claimed Cop (with a dead doc) live if I have the choice, but lurkers are just as likely to have a power role as anyone else. Besides, I want to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. I don't get a lot of satisfaction from beating a couple of lurkers.

[al_kohaulec]

haha, I do the same thing as zindie. I'll deliberately go out of my way to kill lurkers if I'm mafia just to keep the game alive. From a winning perspective, an abandoned game is not a win for the mafia. From a playing for fun perspective, lurkers don't make it fun, so killing them off makes the game more fun. I probably don't do it as much as vig, if at all, but as mafia or sk, I target lurkers.

[Nightson]

Heh, I do the same thing. They're just not fun.

[rajrhcpfreak]

im playing 4
mish mash is 5
and modding is 3

the 4 games im in are high tension.
i am at the end game of a new york game, the wifom league, then two other games one is a fun theme and another is a theme i dont know about.

then mish mash i have a balance of both
big brother which is always complicated. then i have TAR which is weekly, checkerboard which is bi-monthly, and deathwatch is just waiting. and 10,000 is when ever i feel like it.

modding is me trying to keep freaktown at a quick and enjoyable pace, survivor trying ot finish, and TAR is weekly taking choices.


the moral of the lesson is lowering your games doenst always help. because i did that earlier this year and i am in this position where im neglating some of my games because i just shifted my projects around to man things.

[Mgm]

A 48-hour rule is a bit harsh with the slow games on this particular board, but I would certainly not invite people back to my games who disappeared without warning me in advance. I just had someone quit on one of my games because the total lack of participation. If I can't find replacements I'll need to modkill about 3 of them on the spot.

It's not so much people need to post, but we need advance warning when you're planning to leave for a long time.

Sometimes you get sick or busy WITHOUT prior warning *gasp* I didn't have this fever on my 10 day planner, I better have someone drag me to the computer so I can post in all my mafia games!!!!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!!!

I've had several players who still haven't shown up for longer than you can be sick for. You can at least explain your absence afterwards or somewhere in between. Unless my illness is life-threatening, I'll be able to post a quick email to warn someone to post on my behalf. The problem is not occasional or strategic lurking, but not showing up for months at a time without explanation.

2. Mods need to enforce rules they have in place to handle lurkers (perhaps more importantly - they need to make sure they have rules in the first place!).

My rule was to replace inactive players, but I'm having trouble finding replacements. I was even happy when someone declined. They honestly said they didn't have the time (and thus would be a chronic lurker themselves. Now that's helpful. They didn't break my game because they know they couldn't help.

I think that with all the lurking and slow-paced games we have on this forum, any role or restriction that can force someone to post even less then they would is probably bad for the game

In "mostly mute monk mafia" where everyone could say only two words in a post without doubleposting, the post restriction didn't seem to inhibit activity. Just as long as everyone is affected.

In short, I mostly agree with what Thok says. Mafia is a time commitment. Don't sign up if you can't keep up.

I was too busy to respond to game too recently, but I did show up to tell them and found the time to reread on my return. Everyone still happy.

[Mgm]

There are some people who have immediately jumped into 10 games. There is no reason one should do that unless you know you can handle the pressure/time commitment, and frankly no newbie knows that.

I'm in way more than 10.

At least you're posting...

[Mgm]

That's 3 people who kill lurkers when they're scum. Perhaps I should start lynching them when I am playing with them and lurkers die.... Easy win!

[Zindaras]

That's 3 people who kill lurkers when they're scum. Perhaps I should start lynching them when I am playing with them and lurkers die.... Easy win!

The good part is that if everyone does it, that argument wouldn't be usable.

Also, I can't say I really see a lot of lurkers here.

[mith]

Still, we may eventually have to put into place some sort of system to deal with repeated participation problems - if we can get all Mods to be clear about their expectations, then I think it would be fair to "punish" those players who keep failing to live up to them, whether this takes the form of a limit on the number of games, a public list for Mods to possibly ban players from, or something else.

I find myself once again leaning toward a game limit. Possibly an exception could be made for replacements - then those few that are obsessively signing up for every game would be putting that obsession toward some good use (even if such a player isn't posting as much as

I

would like, it would be better than waiting weeks for a replacement).

Really, the Mini game limit is obsolete. When the site first started, big games were the "main" games, and I put in the one-at-a-time rule for Minis to give them a little different flavor - quick turnover, and a different mix of players every game. Now Minis are really the bread and butter of the site. I'd much rather see someone playing is a lot of small games and a couple big games than the other way around. (Of course, with the Open list being mostly small games so far, there's still probably not many who are in more big than small, but the point is that the game limit in the Minis is a bit arbitrary in the context of all the other lists.)

I'll also throw in an idea I've been bouncing around for a while, inspired by VM2. Can't remember if I've posted about it or not. Basically, the idea would be to have a usergroup with membership requiring "verbosity". Players would be expected to meet a certain standard with their posting frequency and posting "quality" (i.e. long posts vs. short-contentless posts) - probably nowhere near the VM2 rules, but even just something along the lines of "I agree to post at least 50 words every couple days" would suffice. The odd illness/vacation/etc. would be forgivable, but repeat offenses would get you removed from the group (whether temporarily or permanently). Then games could be run which were "Verbose only". I'm certain that there's enough players who essentially play like this already for a game or two at a time, and I suspect just having a group like this would encourage verbosity in *other* games.

Thoughts?

[Zindaras]

I

like

that idea.

It's a bit akin to what we do on an other site I play on. The Invitational. Basically, we take the 20 best players on the site and put them together in a game.

Verbose has the same filtering qualities. People who don't post a lot or contribute a lot are filtered out of those games.

[mith]

We've had invitationals in the past, and will in the future. But yeah, this would hopefully "filter" in a similar way.

[Zindaras]

We've had invitationals in the past, and will in the future. But yeah, this would hopefully "filter" in a similar way.

Oh. Didn't know about that.

Sucks to be a newbie.

As for the Mini thing, I'm afraid I'd sign up for way too many games if the cap would be removed. I don't play in big games either, but a cap there seems to make more sense, as they take up a lot more time than Minis.

[Rathyr]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing chronic lurkers banned.

QFT

[Fiasco]

I like the "verbose usergroup" idea too. How would you decide whether to admit people? Have one person look at people's posting records?

[ChannelDelibird]

I like the idea of the verbose-style 50 words agreement.

I also know I need to cut down on the amount of games I'm playing, particularly large ones. I'm beginning to lurk in some games and that annoys me just as much as it annoys other people.

[Fiasco]

Come to think of it, another approach I think has a lot of potential is the tag-team approach (as in Two-Headed).

Hey! You know what'd be fun? A game where everyone could play, with the whole site divided into a number of "players" based on something like the first letter of their username or their join month. Anyone making their first post in the game thread would be sent one of the roles. Team F for the win!

[Thok]

Hey! You know what'd be fun? A game where everyone could play, with the whole site divided into a number of "players" based on something like the first letter of their username or their join month. Anyone making their first post in the game thread would be sent one of the roles. Team F for the win!

Team T (aka Team "Stop confusing Twomz and Tamuz and Thok and Thoth!") support this idea.

[RangeroftheNorth]

I think the M's might be a little unbalanced. They have 3 of the top 5 posters.