Lock people into readying if they vote for the winning roundtype vote.

[Yonnimer]

What it says in the title. Ideally this'd be done to avoid people from meme voting then not joining the round. It'd also be good to add some sort of log for modmins saying a person logged out after voting to avoid that as well.

I do think this should only be put in place if it's locking people if they vote for the vote that wins, so people aren't forced to ready up if they vote for extended but secret or vice versa. 

[Kintsugi]

Seems reasonable. I'm sick of people voting for meme gamemodes and then sticking the rest of us with their mess. Borer voters, I'm looking at you

[KingOfThePing]

They will just immediately cryo, I dont think this.solves anything

[Shenaanigans]

I've seen discussions about this for a while now and I do think that it's necessary, given the amount of rounds we have actually seen swayed by "joke votes" or just votes by people who otherwise are not intending to play the round. It harms player population and causes a lot of frustration from people who were voting seriously. It's true that people can easily just cryo right after the round starts, but now mods and admins will be clearly able to see when someone is trying to dodge the lock-in and dole out punishments if players make a habit out of it.

I rarely ready up for rounds and I'm perfectly fine with giving up my right to vote for round types in exchange. If you want to decide what the round type is going to be, you should be obliged to play at least the beginning of it.

[VisVirific]

The detail that got my attention into supporting this suggestion is the "locking people if they vote for the mode that wins", as it'd give an option for other people who didn't vote for that gamemode to opt in or not. I've been wary of "all voters get locked regardless" that this type of suggestion can get sometimes, but this one in specific feels like a great one. At least in my opinion.

[Shadow]

8 hours ago, KingOfThePing said:

They will just immediately cryo, I dont think this.solves anything

 

Yes, but we can see that. If someone consistently votes for a gamemode and then instantly cryo's we are gonna have a talk with said person.

At the moment we have 5 people voting for a gamemode during deadhour and maybe 2 ready up, if at all.

Plus I really don't see the reason why someone should be allowed to decide what happens the next 2 hours and then just leave or lobbysit.

 

[NerdyVampire]

I see the usefulness in this, but would this prevent people from changing their characters before round-start? Like if you had a last-minute change of heart about who you want to play?

[KingOfThePing]

10 hours ago, Shadow said:

Yes, but we can see that.

Okay, sure you can, but is it against the rules? There isn't a rule that you have to play, right? 

[Shenaanigans]

I would assume that a new rule to that effect would be added. Like how we have rules against DCing for long periods of time.

[KingOfThePing]

This sounds like a long stretch that doesn't really solves anything now, does it?

[Carver]

There's an incredibly trivial workaround to avoid joining if this is added (Return to Lobby if role is unavailable), so it wouldn't change anything unless you opt to force people into random jobs when they ready, at which point you'll get hilarity such as Chefs in Security and Captains as Janitors.

You could figure some workaround to force them into Visitor or something ICly reasonable, but that won't really add to the round and they'd just cryo anyways (and who the fuck would ahelp a cryoing visitor of all things?).

Edited December 23, 2020 by Carver

[Shenaanigans]

It's true that workarounds for this exist, but the point of this isn't to introduce a bulletproof way of forcing more people to play rounds. It's to cut back on "meme voting" for roundtypes that no one plans to actually play and leaving the people who do want to stuck with a less than desirable roundtype. Sure someone can joke vote for wizard/malf/etc with this measure in place, be locked in, change their character's preference to visitor or a highly contested role and hope they get spit back into the lobby, but that's a lot of extra effort to go to just so that you can have your "haha funee joke vote". It's not a perfect fix, I'll admit, but it will at least encourage people to take voting seriously.

[KingOfThePing]

I don't think many people do votes like this with malicious intent in mind. Also, if it is the majority of the server and enough people for it are readied up - it sounds like it is what the majority of people want to play, just saying.

[Chen Yakumo]

We had a population 10 players late last night. Four people voted for Wizard. Only one person was readied up when the round started.

I 100% support this. Actually, I 100% support going further beyond from this. If you vote a round that wins and don't join it, you should be automatically banned from participating in the voting system for a period of time. Vote for the game mode you want to and will play, or don't vote at all. Note that this isn't me being in favor of voting to ban these players - just stop them from meme voting.

[Waff-AI]

12 hours ago, KingOfThePing said:

I don't think many people do votes like this with malicious intent in mind. 

It doesn't have to be malicious to be dumb.

12 hours ago, KingOfThePing said:

Also, if it is the majority of the server and enough people for it are readied up - it sounds like it is what the majority of people want to play, just saying.

The problem with this line of thought is that it implies the majority of people do really, truly want to play that gamemode, and it's not simply the most popular vote among secret and extended. It could be five secret, five extended, and six for, like, borer or something; That's still a ten to six comparison, and that's assuming all of those people actually want to play borer. Most of these gamemodes also have stupidly low required players- wizard being one, for instance.

22 hours ago, Carver said:

There's an incredibly trivial workaround to avoid joining if this is added (Return to Lobby if role is unavailable), so it wouldn't change anything unless you opt to force people into random jobs when they ready, at which point you'll get hilarity such as Chefs in Security and Captains as Janitors.

You could figure some workaround to force them into Visitor or something ICly reasonable, but that won't really add to the round and they'd just cryo anyways (and who the fuck would ahelp a cryoing visitor of all things?).

This seems like it would require too much effort to bother with. I have to create an entirely new profile, set all the statuses, and hope I get spat out? Or, better yet, create a visitor and walk all the way to cryo just to get my funny meme vote through? Antag drafting has been removed, so, even then, it'll just return to lobby if they're just pranking.

On 21/12/2020 at 16:02, KingOfThePing said:

Okay, sure you can, but is it against the rules? There isn't a rule that you have to play, right? 

See my first point: Just because something isn't explicitly against the rules doesn't mean it isn't violating the guidelines established and expected from people playing. There's no rule saying I can't launder money through the server, but if I was laundering money, that'd probably still earn me a talking-to.

I actually don't think we should vote for specific gamemodes at all. I think it should be between secret and extended, as those, really, are the only two good choices that encourage a variety of play and expectations of roundtype, thus encouraging more voting for what someone actually wants to happen, or, better yet, people to actually ready up so they can play the gamemodes they want.

i committed to responding to all the dissenting opinions in this thread but it's only you two sorry lmao

[Camellia]

I don't feel like there is anything wrong with voting for something like Wiz or Borer/Bughunt because I actually do like the round types, generally, not all of them hit.
Though yes, it is a problem if people vote and don't ready or worse, change their vote last second, it ruins my flow and is just rude.

[Carver]

3 hours ago, Cylean said:

Though yes, it is a problem if people vote and don't ready or worse, change their vote last second, it ruins my flow and is just rude.

On this note, I wouldn't mind a solid ten second vote lock-in or something to prevent those last second meme changes.

[Amunak]

On 21/12/2020 at 02:01, DanseMacabre said:

Borer voters, I'm looking at you

B-but unironically I think borer is great ?

Though I guess it doesn't work too well as a voted-in gamemode, and it isn't in secret either q.q

[Caelphon]

Please for the love of God. I hate people that do this on deadhour. What is the use of voting and then not joining. Makes my blood boil. 

[niennab]

There have been a few instances where I voted extended, it won, and only after it won I went "Wait why did I do that, I dont actually want to play". Which was honestly unfair of me to do.

I think by imposing this, it will mean the player has to decide "do I really want to play" or, "do I want to vote, not knowing the manifest". As such I think this would be a good change.

[Carver]

It just now occurred to me how trivial it is to dodge this if you just close the client after the vote is done.

[CampinKiller]

I think forcing people to play in any capacity is bad. To play devil's advocate, are we really going to be noting, warning, and/or banning people because they voted for a roundtype and then didn't want to play? Or perhaps even had some emergency pull them away? It's no different than the old proposal to prevent people from cryo'ing if they don't like the rountype - forcing people to play when they don't want to is bad.

I also don't think this is a widespread issue. Except maybe deadhour.

[DronzTheWolf]

On 08/01/2021 at 12:29, CampinKiller said:

I think forcing people to play in any capacity is bad. To play devil's advocate, are we really going to be noting, warning, and/or banning people because they voted for a roundtype and then didn't want to play? Or perhaps even had some emergency pull them away? It's no different than the old proposal to prevent people from cryo'ing if they don't like the rountype - forcing people to play when they don't want to is bad.

I also don't think this is a widespread issue. Except maybe deadhour.

I know it's anecdotal, but I've had rounds with 20-30 people on but only 5-10 people actually in the game playing. The rest were AFK or observing, after voting. 

[Alberyk]

On 08/01/2021 at 08:46, Carver said:

It just now occurred to me how trivial it is to dodge this if you just close the client after the vote is done.

This can be solved with logs and administrative punishment.

On 08/01/2021 at 14:29, CampinKiller said:

To play devil's advocate, are we really going to be noting, warning, and/or banning people because they voted for a roundtype and then didn't want to play?

Yes. Doing so is being a bad sport and acting in bad faith. Why are you voting if you don't want to play that gamemode?

[Carver]

11 hours ago, Alberyk said:

This can be solved with logs and administrative punishment.

Yes. Doing so is being a bad sport and acting in bad faith. Why are you voting if you don't want to play that gamemode?

Punishing people administratively for voting and not playing just seems silly, especially given that there's both always a workaround for this mechanic and numerous sudden+valid reasons to not play.