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.