Hi! Can someone please tell me how to leave a game when the GM has ghosted? The other players are occasionally still posting in the OOC thread. Every time I see the notification, I get excited, thinking it's the GM back posting. Of course, I am then disappointed when I find out otherwise. If I can't leave without the GM's help, is there a way to turn notifications off then?

If you go to user preferences -> manage the games you monitor, you should be able to select the game in question and then click "clear the selected message indicators"

I think this will stop showing you the notifications for the game. As far as leaving it I don't know, sorry!
This message was last edited by the user at 12:31, Thu 22 July 2021.

If you've asked the GM to remove you and it hasn't been done in a reasonable period like two weeks, I believe you can rmail the moderators to be removed. That's the only way.

I'm not sure if it works? But if you click the little box on you  main page, that is next to the GM's name. That will take  it off your front page? I don't know if  it will 'come back' if there is another post. Give it  a try.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 3):

It's as Gaffer said.  You request to leave the game.  If the GM has not removed you in a week, you rmail the admin with a link to your message in the game where you asked to be removed.  They'll deal with it then.

The ability to leave a game might not be a bad feature.

In reply to Jobe00 (msg # 6):

It constantly comes up, and it is constantly refused.

The reasoning that the GM needs to have a warning before a person leaves, as a character's leaving may have detrimental effects to a GM's game.  So a player sending a PM asking to leave is not unreasonable to ask.

It's possible to code it, maybe?  But you'd have to convince the admin.

In reply to Jobe00 (msg # 6):

It would be a terrible feature, allowing players to quit a game without letting the GM know first.  Not going to happen.

As others have mentioned, a player who wants to leave a game just has to send a PM to the GM of that game asking to be removed - doesn't have to give any explanation or anything.  If the GM doesn't comply with the request within seven days (one week), then an rMail to the Mods (with a link to the PM thread) will see the player removed from the game as soon as one of us sees it (usually within a couple of hours).
This message was last edited by the user at 14:31, Thu 22 July 2021.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 8):

Players leave a game without telling the GM all the time. At least of the player actually was auto removed from the game they'd know before spending a couple weeks trying to see if it was a bit of Reality intruding, or actually leaving the game.

If you're worried about the character stats disappearing code it to change the tag to NPC< rather than delete it.

Frankly, I think it would be kinder to the GM to KNOW.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 9):

I doubt that would solve the ghosting problem. Many would still just fade away.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 10):

Sure, but we would KNOW when we logged in and it had an NC tag suddenly, as was a GM character.

We wouldn't wait two weeks wondering if it was life intruding and could take whatever measures were needed to adjust things find a replacement player or whatever.

Exactly as Gaffer says above.

Players ghost out on games because they can't/won't sack up and make the decision to actually leave it because they (for whatever reason) don't want the GM/other players to know they've decided they're done and they've bailed. They want to go idle long enough for the GM to remove them (so they can blame the GM in the future, if asked) or for the other players to decide that something 'must have happened to them' and they weren't able to play, instead of being jerks that bailed on their game-mates, or they're lingering in limbo waiting for something 'fun' to happen.

No one that isn't willing to PM a GM to say 'remove me, please' is going to willingly remove themselves via a checkbox just to be courteous to others.

...and moving the character to NPC status to save the character isn't the answer, because that gives away to the other players that the person in question has been removed/quit, and that's not something that they necessarily need to know, depending on the game/character/circumstances in question.

Edit: And let's not even get into the disaster that happens when people fat-finger that checkbox and accidentally remove themselves. There's a system in place already that works. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:55, Thu 22 July 2021.

In the end? this isn't a big thing.

You want to leave a game, tell the GM..GM should  step up and honor  the player's wishes.

I have had ghosted players. I give the  'x' amount  a time, basing  it on my 'interview' when they started..then the  character becomes  and NPC.. and is used to help  with the flow of the gameand meets , whatever  fate its  destined for.

 I have had  players  i removed, because  of conduct that effects players, or flat out harrasses them..they don't get a choice.

I have  had player who  wanted to leave, for whatever  reason ( Game too fast..Game not to thier liking, ect )... They get all the respect i can muster, and   those  Characters go off board..into the realm, just in case that player ever wishes to come back.

  You want to.leave a Game..Tell the GM.... GM ghosting?  you never  know what folks are goign through in life..I am in one game the GM  makes tons of  excused, once a month or  so...but on anoither site, runs  games  and a horde of characters..That's the kind of GM, the Admins  neet to help you escape.

I disagree,based on the original OP's point: GMs that fade and players that keep using the game to post.

The system doesn't actually work for all cases, which was the OP's point. There are other reasons in my opinion too let a player leave, rather than depend on a GM that may fade away or be unwilling to remove them, but leaving players at the the mercy of a GM hat may or may not be willing to do the right thing isn't  "working" system, it's just a system. Maybe even the best of less than perfect choices, but not always ideal.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 14):

I think that's what people are saying the mods are for though :)

In reply to Aryiea (msg # 15):

Yes, but they also say the system works. And yet...the topic of a little player control of a player's options keeps coming up, so it doesn't seem like it IS working as well as folks think.

Waiting for a GM, then waiting for a Mod is not ideal by a long shot.

I still have games pop up after months because a GM faded (or just left the game and started a new one. You folks realize we can SEE the Player's Wanted, right?) and a player wanted to use the old thread to advertise their own game, or just complain to others that had moved on that the game was dead.

It would be nice to be able to leave on my own, rather than send a list of dead games to the mods.

There are a couple 'dead' games on my list..some players still check in, i offer the ones  who RPed  well, places in my game, with the caveat that we all return as soon as (if)  the  GM  comes back...there is a game that has been dead  for , closing in on three years..I'll post holiday greetings  and stuff.

 GMs  ghosting, whether they are flightly...run too many games, or have had RL hit them very hard (the game above, that i mentioned. I thing the GM passed, his last OOC post was  about  health issues)

 I feel if you  take these  steps...1..send a PM...2, wait a week,maybe two..if you aren't satisfied..send the Admins a Rmail and they'll take care of it...

 it may cause you some disgruntlement to see the thign light up ( i still think removing it from stickly list helps)..bit..hey?  it doesn't cost you any money> doesn't eat up data.

don't stress.. ask the Admins...

You can make the decision to leave a game on your own as it is, there's just (essentially) a mandatory 7-day waiting period. I don't think that's too much of a hardship, especially if the game is dead and nothing's happening, and it prevents players leaving in a temporary fit of pique that they might have gotten over otherwise. Is typing 'Remove me please' in your PM with the GM (which everyone already has, so you don't even have to make a new one!) that much more difficult than clicking a box? Is shooting an rMail to the mods with 'This GM didn't remove me, can you take care of that please?' that much of a hardship? The Mods are *very* quick to respond, so the likelihood of waiting any meaningful time is practically nil - and if a game's dead, what's another few hours of nothing happening?

Players get grumpy all the time, at each other and at the GM, and often it's either a misunderstanding that gets worked out or it just blows over - but can you imagine how much of a headache it would be for GMs if players could just willy-nilly click a box and remove themselves from a game? GMs would constantly be looking for new players, or having to re-add old ones, just because people often exhibit no manners on the internet.

If - and I do mean IF, because it's one of those things that's often listed as a hardline 'Never Gonna Happen' - the feature to remove yourself from a game was somehow implemented, I think the only reasonable thing to do with that check-box would be to *also* put in a 7-day waiting period after the first 'Yes, remove me from this game' (which triggers a notification for the GM that a player has requested that), and then re-issue a confirmation 'Are you SURE you want to leave this game?' after the 7 days are up.

...personally, I don't get the issue. People use the argument 'the game is dead, I want to leave' all the time, but if the game is *actually* dead nothing is happening in it, and all you have to do is uncheck the box on the front page to keep from being reminded about it existing. It's not like players are limited in how many games they can be in. What people actually want is the ability to remove themselves from a game that -isn't- dead, because it's still active and popping up on their screen, without taking any accountability for checking out.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:00, Thu 22 July 2021.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 18):



It is likely that a means for this to happen could be coded in, one which still gives the GM fair warning.

For example, a two factor means of doing so.  A button that says, "I want to leave.".  Clicking it causes an rmail, or a private message in game, to be sent to the GM.  "So-and-so wants to leave the game."  The GM is free to remove them, or let the timer lapse.  After a week, a second button shows up, "Leave game.".  Click it and it's done.  The player doesn't have to type anything, just has to wait to push the second button.  They have a week to change their mind, unless the GM decides to expedite.

I see where you're coming from, but it's a lot of effort for little tangible benefit to a system that already works.  The mods respond quickly as SunRuanEr already noted. All you have to do is ask; they are a responsive team.  Site devs need time and space to focus on materially valuable changes, not so much on fixing stuff that isn't really broken, I think is the message here.  At least that's IMHO, anyhow.

So, basically, you are saying it's not a problem for YOU, so you don't see why it should be for others. But, as I said earlier, the topic keeps coming up, so, obviously, it is a problem for some folks. Other people may have different experiences than you.

Truthfully I can live with it as is, mostly. That doesn't mean I don't understand how it could be an issue for folks, and I wouldn't mind a fix, myself, simply because some players DO make dead games into undead games.

In reply to Warrax (msg # 20):



I fully understand, I'm not pushing for the coders to do such.  Simply stating that it is possible to code something that will satisfy most who post to complain about it.

Yes, let's code a button.

Because it's too hard for people on a site that requires communication (you can't play a game without typing messages) to say "Hey, please remove me."

We have a system in place for dealing with that, as explained previously.  If that system breaks, it will be repaired.  For now, though, it's working exactly as intended, so no fix is necessary.

Yes, sarcasm is very helpful too.

Ah... see... in the event that the GM isn't prepared to "do the right thing", we will still remove the player, and maybe have a quiet word with the GM about his responsibilities.

Not ideal, no.  Ideally all games would run for ever, and players would never want to leave.

But, since that doesn't happen, we require players to make at least a minimal effort to let the GM know that they want to leave.  Just like they have to let the GM know that they want to join.

And I disagree unequivocally.  No need to get into here, just countering this so if anyone else reads it and disagrees they know they aren't the only ones.

Look, I know the mods are going to fix this for the players.

And it's clear that folks that don't have an issue with the existing system seem to think that no one else should have an issue with it, either.

But the fact that it keeps coming up, over and over, every couple of months means that there IS an issue for some folks.

The fact that the mods won't even acknowledge that is disappointing. The fact that some others refuse to see alternative viewpoints is just unfortunate.

The fact of the matter is: GMs can do pretty much what they want with no notice. But the players have to jump through hoops, and even go crying to the Mods if a GM doesn't remove folks promptly enough.

It is unequal. But I really don't expect it to change. However, the Mods should be more understanding when this comes up again, and again, and again, as it does. If hey won't even consider changing it a bit, they should expect the same complaints to arise periodically. After all, those complaints are not being addressed, just ignored.

Actually there's no need to make the character an NPC to preserve it.  Just transfer it to the GM.  It will keep it's "Player" tag, and the system will automatically adjust it's log in times to conceal that it's always in game at the same time as the GM.

If the player shows up again later, you can always transfer the character back.

Note that, when Mods remove a player, we always move their character to the GM.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:49, Thu 22 July 2021.

No, it's not that.  We just don't think it's a large enough issue to request it from jase when we know that it will entail work on his end for the very minimal value of not having to interact with the GM and mods for an extremely small group of individuals.

No one here has said "stop having an issue", they've just to explain why it's not an issue for anyone else.


They're addressed again and again and again.  As they were here.

Just not with the conclusion that satisfies you.

I get it.  There's a list of things I don't like about this site, but I understand it's done the way it is for the reasons that it is, even if I disagree, don't understand, or have never been told the reasons.  And yes, like you here today, I occasionally shake the bars to see if I can rattle something loose.  I don't expect to, but maybe eventually the culture will shift.

In reply to evileeyore (msg # 30):

No they are not being addressed. Sarcasm from a Mod is not "addressing"

Also, two weeks for a GM to jerk someone around before dumping them? 2 Days makes better sense.

THAt would be 'addressing". Telling folks to live with it multiple times a year without considering the fact that is COME S UP multiple times a year isn't "addressing" it's "ignoring".

And the fact that some folks think it doesn't need addressed and can't understand why some folks disagree is IS minimizing the issues others are having. You're discounting other's issues because they aren't yours. That doesn't mean they aren't worth addressing.

The fact the is comes up so often means something needs to be tweaked in the system. It may not be a big tweak, but it needs to be SOMETHING. At least some consideration from the mods rather than a knee jerk discounting of the issue and Ron's sarcasm.

It truly is NOT being addressed, just ignored. There is plenty of room for improvement that doesn't require coding. Like that 2 week window.

90% of my time as GM is massaging egos to stop players from just losing their streudel and quitting over something someone else said here, or the sheer fact that they've made something up that is incongruous with the setting/scene. It is a thankless job, where the only payoff is to keep hot bodies so I can actually see my game get somewhere rather than constantly recruiting players. Giving them a rage quit button will either have me having to replace people on the fly, have to wait a week of my own time to see if they'll come back after cooling down, or having players cool down and be too embarrassed to come back.

Honestly, on the players part it takes minimal effort. One PM saying "Please remove me." Three words. Seven days. An rmail going "Please remove me from this game [gives link to PM]" to the moderators. That's it.

GM has a recruiting post, selection process, scene management, possible puppeting, replacement recruiting, catching new players up on a character if they are taking it over, or having to engineer that character leaving and a new one appearing. And that's if a player has straight out quit, and not ghosted on the GM instead.

tmagann, you are right. It is absolutely unequal.

By the way, it's a one week window... which is perfectly reasonable considering the way many people are able to even check this site.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:29, Thu 22 July 2021.

yeah, well, I remember a active GM that kept multiple posts a day up for the 3 or 4 days I kept posting "please remove me". It got to the point where I was posting after every time the game popped back up on my window, close to a dozen a day that last day.

That isn't "minimal effort". And it made me, not the GM who refused to drop me, the bad guy to the players.

3 days is more than enough, doesn't require coding, and shows that Mods are actually listening, rather than just blowing us off.

Players are people too. Aren't we entitled to the same respect from the Mods as GMs?

And yes, some GMs may experience the same discomfort in logistics as players have been through from GMs. So what?

Were you posting publicly? If so, I can see why that was the result. (If it wasn't public, I'm not sure how the other players knew anything at all about it.) I can imagine that is also precisely the scenario that BBR refers to when he says that the mods might have a chat with a GM about their responsibilities, when the mods are called in to remove someone from a game. Of course, that was also you by choice choosing to expend more effort than was necessary...

I'm going to ask a legitimate question here, because I truly don't understand so please explain it to me: Why couldn't you have just PM'd the GM once (as required), and then ignored the red numbers for 7 days? Once you've already said to the GM 'I quit', is there any need to click on the game when it lights up on your dashboard at all?

Why is ignoring the numbers lighting up so difficult that you need a means to make that stop immediately?


A good many people don't even check into this site but once a week. A GM deserves the right to have a reasonable amount of time to ask a player WHY they are quitting (if they want to). Clearly at some point in the past, a week was determined to be a reasonable amount of time to let a GM know/deal with a quitting player.


Players are entitled to the same respect in this regard, and they get it - Mods will remove them from games if a GM won't, if asked.

So what, you say? The potential ramifications on games themselves by allowing players to, as was phrased above, 'rage quit' far outweigh the inconvenience of ignoring red numbers on the dashboard for seven days. GMs have to deal with the fallout each and every time a player quits, and without any notice that it's coming that fallout is exponentially increased. The player just has to ignore the game entirely for a week - which shouldn't be hard, if they've already decided to quit.

Sarcasm this time, yes.  Because this matter has been addressed on multiple occasions previously.  We have a system, and it works.  We are not going to code an automated "quit game" button.


Actually, as I mentioned above, it isn't "two weeks", it's one.



As mentioned above, it has been addressed on multiple occasions, without my sarcasm (which was, I admit, possibly uncalled for).  However, without sarcasm, the current system merely requires a PM to the GM saying, "I quit.  Remove me."  No need for reasons, apologies, or anything.  Then give him a reasonable amount of time to deal with it (seven days, not fourteen) before contacting us.


No, it isn't being ignored - after all, if it was being ignored, I wouldn't even be posting here.  Also, one week window.  Not two.

By the definition of the word it is.  It's just not being addressed in the manner you want it to be.

Ignoring it would simply be not responding at all.  That has never happened.


As Locke1221 said, it's 7 days.

It gives the GM time to deal with the request themselves.  Some GMs do not post daily.  Heck some barely post monthly, but seven days is perfectly adequate time period to be removed within.  At worst it will take a mod another day to remove the Player once they've made a request via rmail.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but they really don't matter to me, that one is the most important.  Because personally if a Player says "Please remove me", they are gone.  I'll ask why in an rmail afterwards, but they are gone and not likely coming ever being allowed back (there are reasons I'd be willing to remove a Player and then bring them back in later, but the reasons are singular).


Not being able to understand the problem isn't minimizing, it's not understanding.  Stop inflating the issue.

Telling you "it's nothing to worry about" is minimizing (and yes, some have done this).


Yes, that is true.  It's going to keep happening for the rest of your life.  Get used to it and stop getting angry about it.  Anger doesn't help get things changed.


No it doesn't.  Does it come up that often?  In seven years I think I've seen the issue raised like once a year on average.  And yes, other people do agree with you.

But only one person needs to agree with you and so far that one person doesn't.


"The mods" can't do anything about it.  All they can do is as they've done, tell you why they've been told it won't be happening.





Yes, this is true (in both measures).  But so what?  Life isn't fair, it isn't equal, and it's just something we have to put up with occasionally.





Okay?  And?  It's happened to me.  I'm sure it's happened to a bunch is us Players.  So?

You ask once and after seven days request the mods remove you.  I can see maybe asking a second time after a few days (I do this just in case the GM has forgotten after the first request).


Why?  They were clearly either ignoring you or trying to antagonize you.  Just ignore the notice, and after 7 days get a mod involved.  Unless you've got crazy notifications set up and you're getting spam in your email over it, I can't see how a red coloured number on the opening screen is an issue that requires recoding over it.


Oh yeah, you went to maximal effort for some reason.


Them responding shows they are listening, but not swayed.  "Blowing you off" would be completely ignoring the thread or telling you that you are the one making the problem, not trying to explain why giving you a "Ditch Immediately" (or even within 3 days) button simply isn't going to happen.


Like look, I get it, kinda.  It's annoying to request being removed, remove the game from your list, and then see it pop back into the list on it's own accord.

The best way froward is adjust your expectations.  Instead of removing it immediately, make the request and wait seven days, then check it.  If you're removed you'll know.  If not, rmail the mods and check it the next day.  Worst I've ever seen was a holiday where it took two whole days for a mod to deal with it, and I've ditched out of a lot of games, I'm a picky [EXPLICATIVE DELETED] player.  There is a lot of... "garbage" I simply won't put up with at all.

But like I said, maybe in a decade the culture here will shift and jase'll decide to change things to accommodate the new normal.  I doubt it, but [/shrug] you never know.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:18, Thu 22 July 2021.

You have a system. It works for YOU. That is why it keeps coming up, because it doesn't work as well as you tell yourselves. Or it wouldn't keep coming up. You seem to ignore the rather obvious logic of that point.

And if ignoring the red light is so simple, why isn't a prompt removal just a simple? It is in my experience.

It cuts both ways. You are expecting more out of players than GMs. Why not expect a bit more promptness from a GM?

Sarcasm is always uncalled for from a Mod when it's a topic that KEEPS coming up and never changes. What IS called for is some consideration as to WHY it keeps coming up, and the possibility of actually doing something so that it is improved, at least, if not eliminated.

You have a tendancy to get short tempered and sarcastic with folks, Ron. I actually asked to talk to someone else about you years ago, and you refused.

All I am asking this time is that you at least CONSIDER if something could be doen, even a shorter window. But what you give is the same knee jerk responses every time it comes up.

Consider, just CONSIDER whether something COULD be done to improve things a tiny bit for players in this area. Maybe even ask other mods for an opinion.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 31):

2 days is nothing in the grand scheme of life.  A minor illness, a crisis at work, a lost internet connection - just to mention a few things that might cause a 2 day absence.  Much too soon to allow random leaving!  Also the current system does work reasonably well, once people become aware of the rules.  I moderate at a similar site where players can just leave, and it has caused a lot of confusion when even the GM doesn't necessarily realise that has happened, often over a minor issue that could have been resolved with a little discussion.

That's absolutely 100% false.

The system works exactly as it's intended to work.

What it doesn't do is work in the manner you want it to work.

Why do you think that your (and other's) wants need to overrule the majority who find the system is working exactly the way they need it to?

And for the record, I'd be perfectly fine with a "Ditch Immediately" button.  I don't care.  Player wants to go, let them go.  There are more Players than GMs, a GM can always afford to let a Player go.

However, I also understand that a lot of Players are emotional tinder boxes that may flare and push the eject button over nothing.  And that many GMs, for some inexplicable to me reason*, want to coddle these types and try to win them back over.  So they want, or at least use, the seven day grace period to do this in.


* Don't explain it Locke1221, I get it logically, but emotionally I'll never understand your position.  Those Players are just too much emotional work, I'd rather have "a revolving door for [EXPLICATIVE]s" (as Christian Slater put it) than try to woo one back.


See above reason as others have put it, they want the time to try to figure out why the player is leaving and see if they can woo them back.


No, you really don't understand the work that goes into a game if you think the Players are under anywhere near the onus of a GM.

In this one regard, yes, they are expecting the Players to put up with a bit more than the GMs.  Even as someone who isn't opposed to your idea, I understand why it is set up as it is.



Mods opinions don't really matter*, only jase's.


* I mean, if enough mods were to agree with you and make an appeal, I'm sure jase would strongly consider it.  Might even make a poll to take the temperature of the board over it.  But the mods have no control over this.  There is a vast abyss like gulf between what the Mods can do and what the Admin can do.

Because it doesn't affect that "majority that finds the system working". It doesn't affect them much at all.

So why should those unaffected have their needs overrule those who ARE affected? To use your logic, a bit parpaphrased.

And, as I see this topic come up two or three times a year, I think you may be minimizing the number of folks that actually want the current system changed.

It affects them enough that the powers that be decided a long, long time ago that the current system is the best system. Whether or not you think that's 'much at all' isn't really relevant. Other people (including those responsible for actually making the things) think that the detriments of a rage-quit button being implemented outweigh the benefits it might confer.


Just because you think that others aren't affected doesn't make that true. Clearly, the scales tip in favor of NOT giving players an instant rage-quit button BECAUSE other people would be affected by that decision. You're acting like jase is sitting around going 'You know what - this won't potentially harm anyone's game at all, but I'm just not going to give tmagann what he wants out of spite!' There's zero chance that's the case.


9 times out of 10, when it's mentioned, it's because someone new or someone who's never needed to leave a game before is asking 'how do I leave a game?' - not people asking to actually *have* an instant-quit button. If anything at all needs to be done to solve that issue, it's making the answer of what needs to be done to leave a game in the absence of a GM/lack of GM compliance more visible so that fewer people need to ask about it.

(For all I know, this is actually in the FAQs already - I've never needed to look for it, so I haven't the foggiest idea...)
Edit: Yup! It's in there under the Player's FAQs already.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:26, Thu 22 July 2021.

Exactly.  And that's why I said "about once a year".  I think I've see new face arguing for the change roughly that often.

Actually, it's not clear at all that it is what the majority wants, just that it is all the Mods will consider (well, one of them, anyhow). As far as I know, no one has actuully taken a poll to find out the majority opinion.

And the point isn't that i want to do something out of spite, but that some GMs already are, and I'd like to prevent it. Which requires an opt out button, or a shorter window of time for GM spite. Or both.

And I don't think it's Jase. It's not Jase to blows it off with sarcasm, it's Ron.

Jase is the Man Who Makes Things, tmagann, not the mods.

If the majority of people wanted it (anything, not just a rage-quit button) AND jase thought it was a good idea AND he was able to code it AND he had the time...it would be a site feature already. That it isn't says in a way that might not be clear to you, but probably is to most, that at least one of the above things is a no-go.

been here alot of years. Seen folks complain and compliment the site.

I ranged sites  a long time, years,  until i found this one. I have been here, for years.. its sturdy, the tools are there, you don't have to travel through mindless pages  to find your games.

 They stream lined it...extra buttons won't make the site  better.  just relax..Hit that little  remove  button for games you want to 'quit'..if it pops up? hit it again. Pretend its an ad on You Tube.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 44):

Right, but if the mods don't tell him their is an issue for some players, he can hardly be expected to consider if a fix is feasible, which is why i earlier asked Ron to at least discuss it with others rather than simply make the same old excuses.

Again, we have no idea what the majority wants, because no one has tried to find out.

We don't know if Jase even realizes it comes up as often as it does. he may be able to do something and not even know it's wanted. Nor by how many.

What you are saying is clear enough to me, just upsubstantiated. it that clear to YOU?

Some of the "facts" being tossed out could use some verification. Right now they are just opinion. Which makes them just as valid or as invalid as my own.

The difference? I realize that.

Actually the Mods discuss this just about every time it comes up.  So yes, we are all (including jase) well aware that a few people don't like the current system.

Also, as has been mentioned, when it does come up it's very rarely as a complaint, it's usually because somebody is asking how they can remove themselves from a game.  The OP in this thread is just such an example.

And...

        /help/?t=faqs&page=frf

That last line should probably be reworded to "If they do not respect your wishes within a reasonable time (a minimum of seven days), contact the Moderators about the issue."

Just to clarify what the site considers to be "a reasonable time" for anyone not a veteran of these types of threads.

In reply to evileeyore (msg # 48):

And all I've asked for was that it be considered that 7 days be shortened to something closer to 2 or 3. If a GM is active enough to post over that time period, they don't need a full week to remove someone who has asked for it. it's not that hard, and there's no excuse to stretch it out if they are active.

I fail to see what is unreasonable in asking it be considered

Okay, here's the thing.  Not every GM is that active.   A GM of a game that you are in might post every day, while another might only check his game once a week (or less).  Then there are holidays, illness, family emergencies... all of which can cause activity to fluctuate.

We consider seven days to be a reasonable compromise.  Two or three days does not allow less active GMs time to deal with the request before it gets bumped up to us, but longer than seven days will just irritate players who are in a hurry to leave the game.

I should mention that we also allow people seven days to reply to Moderator rMails regarding breaches of site rules, and for the same reason.  Seven days is reasonable when considering the wide variation in activity levels.

And some GMs ARE there and actively posting and refusing to drop players.

One size doesn't always fit all. Perhaps, as you won't consider a blanket reduction in wait time, you'll look into requests on a case by case, and if ti IS a case of an active GM not make the player wait?

You see, you just said you DO consider all these requests when they pop up, then followed with why you wouldn't be considering mine this time.

It's contradictory and shows that things don't always get the consideration you claimed.

Hell, man, at least pretend to think about it, rather than discounting out of hand, as you just did. well, when you're claiming to consider it every time, anyhow.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 49):

I think the bottom line is that the current system works fine, even if it is sometimes inconvenient. Most importantly, it preserves GM control over who is or isn’t in THEIR game. Jase has made clear several times is this element is paramount in his site philosophy. It doesn’t matter if a majority votes differently. Besides, it is a relatively minor issue.

If a GM is intractable in removing a player, the mods will step in after a week. You consider a week’s wait onerous, but consider that the GM needs time to decide how to remove the player while preserving or removing the character in a way that respects the integrity and continuity of the story.

The alternative is the possibility that a player can remove themself without notice, leaving the GM to reconstruct the character in a hurry.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 51):

It seems with rules one size must fit all, if they are to be equitable.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 52):

No, actually, a GM doesn't need to to think how to remove a PLAYER, just a Character. No reason for the player to be there at all. The GM will be controlling the character either way.

This aspect is invalid on the face of it.


And if a player wants to leave, they are going to stop playing. The mods have already said they transfer to player to the GM. A quit button can be set to do that. I remember enough from when I was a programmer to know you can put multiple commands in a script or subroutine.

Your second point is invalid by the Mods' own statements earlier in the thread.

The actual bottom line is: The GM will have the character and be the one controlling it either way. The only reason for a GM to keep the player is to be an ass about it.

And one size doesn't fit all, and it is NOT equitable.

There have been a couple of cases (well, okay 1 in all the years that I've been a moderator) where I've removed a player when a GM was refusing to remove them because of an in-game dispute even though it hadn't been a week.

We do consider requests when there are extenuating circumstances WHEN those circumstances happen.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 55):

It is nice to hear that it CAN happen, at least. Thank you.

Just clarifying to add that the above is the ONLY instance I'm aware of where a GM was refusing to delete a player in more than a decade.  It was handled quickly and easily with a simple 'rmail' and an acknowledgement that the player had been removed per their request. Granted, my memory isn't 100%, but this has been far from a common occurrence.

If there is an actual problem where the GM has refused to delete a player, rmail the moderators.

For those who would like to be removed from a game if a GM hasn't acted within a week, to speed up the process, include a link to the thread or PM where you've asked to be removed.    One of us will nip over to the game, confirm that it's been a week, and take care of it, and let you know via reply that it's been done.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 57):

"Refused" and "Failed to act when online and active" are likely different in your opinion?

As I said, I've had an active GM failed to respond or acknowledge requests before. After a day i took my requests public to the game, and it STILL took 3 more days, with never a word from the GM.

Yes, not good for the game, but the ONLY mechanism allowed us to get it done quicker than 7 days.

To me, this is a Refusal to drop a player.

Even if the GM is on line and active, there is nothing to indicate whether or not he has checked the PM threads.

In the case that Shannara mentions, the GM basically told the player, "I'll remove you when I'm good and ready, and not before.  And there's nothing you can do about it." in the PM thread.  So we had solid evidence to work with, rather than just having to guess that the GM had actually looked at the thread, and was aware of the request.

In those circumstances, it was an easy decision to remove the player early.  Without the comment from the GM, it would not have been so clear cut.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 59):

NO,, but as OI said, I took it to the public threads and it still took days. If he's posting to them, it's a safe bet he's checking them.

If  GM is active, he shouldn't need more than a day. If he takes more than a day, it's because he ants to.

He or she.

In reply to Yozi (msg # 61):

I apologize for being grammatically correct rather than politicly correct.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 60):

In which case, you contact us by rMail and let us deal with it.

Actually, your use of the masculine third person pronoun is no longer considered correct in cases where the gender of the noun for which you are substituting is not known.  It is now correct to use what used to be the third person plural pronoun.  When the subjective form is used, it is paired with a singular verb.  In other words, the third person plural pronouns now also serve as the gender-unknown third person singular pronouns.

Then I apologize for being old enough to have learned different rules of grammar.

Yeesh.

Unless you're older than "Grade School in the 70s", it has been an acceptable alternate form for the unknown gender third person for a long time. We're just making it the preferred form now, out of consideration for others. Mister Rogers would likely approve, and that's one of the best litmus tests around for whether or not something should be done.

Mods, since the thread is waaay off the topic and the answer to the OP has been made, can this thread be locked so it doesn't get more... cranky?

In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 66):

I am, as it happens.

There isn't a choice between grammar and inclusivity.
And I don't know when what happened in the American school system, but I know Shakespeare used the singular 'they', so unless you're older than Will (in which case, wow!) you had inclusive and grammatical options.

Back on topic, I understand that you were in a frustrating situation where you wanted to leave a game and the site rules left you feeling trapped in an uncomfortable situation.
Which, I'm sorry that happened to you. I value this site, and I know that when things go wrong here it's upsetting.
I empathize with that.
But, while I know 7 days isn't perfect in every case, I can understand the logic behind why it was chosen.

No, I get that you were annoyed, but you shouldn't assume that an active GM is going to do something inside a particular amount of time.  You're attributing to malice what is more likely simply being busy.

In reply to Low Key (msg # 68):

Shakespeare was English. I went to an American school. There ARE differences. That's why Noah Webster wrote an American Dictionary: Because there are differences, and were back then.

He couldn't have been too busy if he was actively posting. It isn't really all that hard to remove someone.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 70):

As I acknowledged :)

But, I maintain, there isn't a need to choose between inclusive language and grammatical correctness, as you implied.
You can have both, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 70):

Shakespeare was English before the US was imagined, let alone existed.  Modern English has many, many, many Shakespearian terms.  I'll bet you a good lunch you think or say at least a couple Shakespearian terms a day. :3

As for the neutral gender third person term, it's been a thing for a while now.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 71):

I agree, it isn't hard to remove someone.  It is easy to miss that you have a private message, though.

I didn't say there was a need to choose, I simply said I learned a different set of rules than those that are considered correct by many currently.

As it happens I didn't choose so much as went by reflex and habit.

And to the other point: Yes, many modern terms come from Shakespeare? So what? He's been 400 years, and was from another country. Noah Webster wrote An American Dictionary over 195 years ago. Because English dictionaries didn't reflect American English of the time.

Hell, the whole reason America exists as a country is so that we wouldn't have to do things the English way. I would assume that would include linguistic drift. So "because that's how Shakespeare did it 400 years ago in England" is hardly an argument for how it should be done today in America.

Seriously, it feels a bit like trolling to start taking exception with my grammar, folks, just to keep things going here. Yeesh.

You said you chose grammar over inclusive language which does imply a choice.
And implies that one has to chose between the two (which, again, I maintain one doesn't need to do).

And, yeah, I (and I suspect everyone) have been there where habit means I say something that isn't as inclusive as I meant.
I apologise, correct myself, and try to do better next time.

Not trolling, I address the original point before. You didn't address what I said on that, only the grammar stuff, so not sure what else I can add on the game removal issue at this point.

I'm not sure what there was to address. I've made clear I think 3-4 days is more than enough, you said you understand 7 days might be needed.

Restating my position on that would just keep a pointless topic alive (as it is now) so I read it and left it alone.

I was trying to let it go. Truly, I'm not clear on what you think I should have addressed.

Yeah.  I'm an old white guy, too.

As old white guys, we both should be especially suspicious of ourselves before we whine about "political correctness."  While it is true that it can be -- and sometimes is -- overdone, performing a double check to avoid speaking rudely from a position of privilege is a smart idea.  Having lived on the top of the hill of privilege for so long, it is often hard to see that so much of our instinctive behavior is born of that elevation.

Interesting. I mentioned my age. I said nothing about either my gender nor my race.

Might be your "elevation" making assumptions.

And yet, was I wrong?