Policy re Flakes and No Shows

nzLARPS
#1

I would like to follow up on a topic we discussed at the most recent Auckland Regional Committee hui.

Most games require a certain level of attendance to ensure the game is a success. This is particularly true of larps with pre-generated characters, as some of the characters may be vital to one of more central plot threads. It can also be the difference between breaking even and making a loss.

A recurring issue that many GMs face is Flakes and No Shows. A flake is a participant who makes contact very near the event date to say they are going to pull. Typically, they have a sound reason, but the nearness to the game can mean it is a real headache for GMs to resolve.

No Shows, OTOH, simply do not show up. This causes significant problems because it breaks the plan the GMs have made around the game, and it is often impossible to mitigate the effects of a central character not showing up.

The optimal way to prevent flakes and no shows is to get people to pay in advance. This isn’t realistic for most daygames games because most are not oversubscribed and participants generally pay on the day.

So, we have decided create a thread in the GM-only forum where we can keep track of flakes and no shows. This will enable GMs to ensure they regularly contact participants who have a recent history of flaking or no showing.

Questions for the community: Is there anything else we can do to address this issue ? Are there any concerns around the keeping of the proposed register ?

#2

Just curious - why have it available for viewing by GMs only?

If someone doesn’t know GMs consider them a flake, they might want to be made aware of that so they can address the situation and hopefully see their name come off the list after a period of time.

#3

A public list could discourage people from attending future games, especially if they had a valid excuse for flaking (i.e. something came up that they could not get out of). Some could feel it is a form of punishment.

Also, flaking is only a problem if it is chronic, so keeping track in a GM-only forum is useful because it means the one-off flakes (i.e. were Life intervened) will generally be removed from the list over time.

No Shows will need to be dealt with more firmly, perhaps by asking that they pay first as a sign of commitment.

The idea is to provide GMs with information so they can encourage no shows and chronic flakers to engage positively (perhaps by paying first, thereby increasing commitment, or else by giving a good notice period if they are unable to attend a game).

#4

Honestly, I think this is a terrible idea. All it’s going to do is sow a level of distrust between the players and the GMs, and I’m really surprised that either NZLARPS or any of the regional bodies feel they need to start on such an underhanded path.

If you really want to get people committed - just engage with them directly. Talk to them about why they keep flaking and how you can work towards improving the situation, rather than put them on some unseen blacklist and start simply telling them they aren’t allowed to come to games. It’s entirely the wrong way to make people feel like this is an open, welcoming community that is about creating a positive environment for people to explore and enjoy the hobby, and anyone on the receiving end is just going to feel persecuted, even if it’s rightly so.

I appreciate that in many cases, dialogues have likey been opened and situations still not resolved, but I don’t believe there’s any reason for NZLARPS to start keeping documentation on the reliability - or indeed any other characteristic - of the members. You guys will already know who the problem cases are (if there are any), and in most cases the players probably do as well :wink:

Regarding planning and logistics, why not straight out change the approach in terms of pre-game player management? Go ahead and make people pay up-front, no exceptions - most games are announced well in advance, and anyone wanting to play can either pony up or make an arrangement to have the full balance paid by a certain date, end of story. Set a closing date for withdrawals for no refunds as well, and encourage people who need to pull out last minute to find another player who wants to buy their spot. It might all sound a bit harsh, but it’s open and honest, and won’t leave anyone feeling like they’re some sort of second-rate citizen within the community.

#5

I feel really, really uncomfortable with private blacklists for a number of reasons. I’m also uncomfortable labelling people as “flakes”. Both seem somewhat mean-spirited. And ending up on a list that may discourage other GMs from inviting you to attend/allowing you to play in their game already seems like a punishment of sorts.

I am more comfortable with all games having a pay-by date, and also non-refundable date whereby if you cancel after that date, you don’t get your money back, because that’s up-front and transparent.

#6

To be fair, that’s not what Mike wrote - what he describes is not a blacklist but a caution list, and he didn’t mention disallowing people from attending.

But otherwise, I’m inclined to agree that this approach doesn’t sound good for community spirit. Nobody likes to be talked about behind their back, but it’s even worse when it’s systemised.

Whether requiring payment for all games up front will fix the issue I don’t know. Depends whether people will still no-show after having paid in advance. It’s likely to discourage no-shows, but won’t halt them entirely, and still leaves GMs who aren’t in the know about a person being a repeat no-shower potentially in the lurch if they’ve cast them in a crucial role. You have to consider that day games are often cheap.

#7

That’s poor reasoning, as it doesn’t account for future growth. Sure, seasoned GMs probably have a fair idea of what to expect from the community regulars at this point in time - but as the community grows, keeping track of that sort of information becomes burdensome. It also creates a potential pitfall for new GMs, as they don’t necessarily know who may be unreliable.

I think the idea to track such data is sound; however, if it is to be done then the list should definitely be public knowledge. It would ideally state, for each person, the date and game of each infraction as well as (where known) their reason. Also, one would expect infractions to be removed after a certain amount of time; if someone has flaked on five games in the past two months without giving any explanations then it’s clearly a cause for concern, but if it stops there then those two months really shouldn’t be held against them five years in the future.
Of course, if someone only signed up for one game a year, but always flaked on that one game, then under such a system that wouldn’t show up… hmm… well, maybe some kind of percentage-based system, where if you flake on more than x of your last y games… bah, or maybe I’m overthinking this.

#8

I agree that it should be public, but probably in a locked thread to avoid arguments. It should state ONLY the facts: "Signed up for game , pulled out three days before due to " (if a reason is given).

To “solve” the problem of how long such things stay on the list - if it is an issue that needs to be solved - I’d say if you attend the next (pulling a number out of thin air) 3 games with no issues then you come off the list.

#9

One of the reasons this discussion is brought about is due to a really bad spate of people pulling out last minute of games, or of not showing up at all. The western larp run by visiting French larper Karuna suffered very badly - sold out the day before the game, and down five players on the day due to no-shows.

Everyone understands that real life of course comes first, and no one is blaming people for illness, unexpected work commitments or similar. But when this becomes a trend of last minute pull-outs, or there are people who simply don’t turn up without a word of notice, it becomes a problem.

Everyone in the game is disadvantaged when there are no-shows. It’s not about the financial reprecussions for a game, it’s about the fact that crucial roleplaying partners or plot-carriers for people are missing. The game suffers for it, and there needs to be an understanding in the community that if you make a commitment to attend something, it isn’t a light promise. You are saying you will be there to play the character that the GM and other players are counting on.

Currently, there seems to be a relaxed attitude that there are no consequences for letting everyone down and leaving GMs and fellow players in a lurch by not honouring commitments. I’m really keen to see a solution that pleases the community and solves the problem - I don’t think charging money up front for it is the solution, I think our culture needs to change to one where commitments to attend are more honoured than they are currently.

#10

I agree that asking people to pay up front, with dates for refunds is probably the best way forward. If you’ve paid you’ll be more inclined to turn up.

I also think people tend to respond better to positive stuff than negatives, this thread seems to have some crossover with the other thread of establishing a code of conduct, which again in principal sounds a good idea but could be seen as being negative.

I don’t know exactly how/what, but could we try something like “Ten reasons why the New Zealand Larping community is so great”.

So rather than saying “We expect people to turn up to events in costume” it could be “Quite often NZ Larps and even some of their members lends out costumes for games, and better still people are really keen to offer advice and help with making costumes.”

So concentrating on the positives and put the idea in peoples head that they can lend their stuff out or offer to help people.

Same for the ‘flake’ thing, rather than “GM’s find it difficult to run games when people cancel at the last minute” more like “When people have to cancel at the last minute it’s great when they find someone to take on their part. The GM’s are other players are really grateful, plus as you’ve paid already they get to game for free. Assuming they don’t offer to pay you back.”

Anyway, you’d need to find someone good-erer with words than me to write it, but basically it could become like a really positive code of conduct, without hopefully being patronising or divisive.

Just my two pennurth.

#11

Totally agree. Good points Bryn :slight_smile:

#12

And what if someone has to pull out of a game last-minute, for entirely legitimate yet personal (or just personally embarrassing) reasons they don’t want shared?

That’s poor reasoning, as it doesn’t account for future growth. Sure, seasoned GMs probably have a fair idea of what to expect from the community regulars at this point in time - but as the community grows, keeping track of that sort of information becomes burdensome. It also creates a potential pitfall for new GMs, as they don’t necessarily know who may be unreliable.[/quote]

Whereas the other suggested option creates an entirely unnecessary workload for the committees, who have other things to focus their time and energy on. The reasoning is also not that unsound, when you consider games being run by less experienced GMs will usually have an experienced GM onboard who can raise awareness of this, and that despite whatever rampant growth is occuring in the membership, the active community itself is surely not so large and unmanageable that the number of people repeatedly causing issue warrants this sort of monitoring.

The bottom line is that making a list, be it public or hidden, is singling out people because of negative perception and to some it will feel those people are being formally tagged “bad larpers”. Even if it’s warranted in a handful of cases, I don’t believe that’s going to be good for the community social dynamic.

[quote=“Anna K”]
…The game suffers for it, and there needs to be an understanding in the community that if you make a commitment to attend something, it isn’t a light promise. You are saying you will be there to play the character that the GM and other players are counting on.

Currently, there seems to be a relaxed attitude that there are no consequences for letting everyone down and leaving GMs and fellow players in a lurch by not honouring commitments. I’m really keen to see a solution that pleases the community and solves the problem - I don’t think charging money up front for it is the solution, I think our culture needs to change to one where commitments to attend are more honoured than they are currently.[/quote]

I think this angle is something that can be worked with a bit more readily, and as Bryn say perhaps falls towards the area of any sort of Code of Conduct. That said, LARP is a social activity, particularly in NZ where most of the community are friends, and I know I’m not the only one that thinks it should be afforded the same manners and courtesy as any other social engagement. I’d be happy to see that culture developed into something a bit more socially responsible, but I’m sure there’s other ways to do it without incriminating people - especially those that opt out with genuine reason.

#13

I agree its an issue, both for the reasons Anna notes, and because if someone flakes at the last minute, its impossible to haul a replacement in off the waitlist. There are often good reasons for doing so, but in this day and age, unless you’re hit by a bus on the way to the game, or otherwise in communications blackout, there’s not much excuse for not letting someone know that you won’t be able to make it.

I’m not sure however that a blacklist is the solution. I’m also concerned that sharing people’s reasons may distribute sensitive information (e.g. about people’s health) more widely than they would prefer.

Better solutions:
[ul]
[li] encourage pre-payment. Not always worthwhile with smaller, cheaper games, but moving away from “cash at the door” also removes a security worry (it may also deal with the payment problems I have heard that some games have)[/li]
[li] GMs should contact players to confirm attendance several days before the game. Hardarse GMs could couple this with a threat to dump players who do not respond and replace them with people from the waitlist.[/li]
[li] GMs should provide players with a contact email or cellphone number so they can be informed of any last-minute problems.[/li]
[li] make sure that players have a way of getting to the game. Publish public transport information and encourage car-pooling.[/li][/ul]

This won’t solve the problem overnight. But changing the culture from one where people think its OK to flake on a game to one where people understand that it is not is a long-term project. And its probably better to start with encouragement and enabling, rather than going nuclear.

#14

Snap.

As a GM, I would be deeply uncomfortable with sharing such private information given to me in confidence, especially when it will go on the internet where it will never be forgotten, and potentially be discoverable by future friends, partners, employers, stalkers, or random bystanders.

As a player (and one who is somewhat wary of my personal privacy), I would be deeply uncomfortable with providing such information, knowing it may become an article of gossip amongst GMs. Telling someone why I missed their game is one thing, but frankly, its none of the rest of your business. So I’d start responding in the way I do to every other overly-intrusive information request: lie.

#15

I see it as a process of cultural change too, and even having a discussion about it is a great start. I am really keen to see alternate suggestions mooted from the community, instead of the list :slight_smile: Preferably solutions that involve the community at large, and not ones that simply create more work and/or stress for the GMs :slight_smile:

#16

Oh yes, locked thread. I had a feeling I’d forgotten something important.

If you’re not willing to let others know your reasons, then you’ve no leg to stand on when they judge you as if you don’t have any. I’m sure “family emergency” or “medical reasons” or the like would be just as acceptable as “my dad’s colon burst” if you don’t want to get into the specifics of it; it’s just a matter of making sure that people know you didn’t just ‘forget’ or ‘feel lazy’ on the day of the game, and nobody who doesn’t know you closely is going to pry into the details of your reason regardless.

Next to all the other responsibilities of running a game, I’m not convinced that “making note of the people who didn’t show up” is even a blip on the radar. I guess maybe if nobody brought a pen and you have to leave to buy one…

Your argument essentially boils down to “it’s not necessary now, so it’s not needed.” The community is growing and it’s better to put systems in place before they’re needed - otherwise you wind up with a mess at the last minute.
On top of that, you can’t just assume that any given game is going to have at least one experienced GM on the team. I can see that as being a fairly reasonable assumption for campaign games (just on the premise that trying to run a decent-sized campaign without any help is tantamount to seppuku), but not at all for one-offs.

Perhaps if the list only featured those who flaked without giving their GMs a decent reason? With a couple of days’ grace period after the game, even, to allow for the eventuality of emergencies serious enough to drive the game from your mind altogether.

#17

The community is also a possible source of social pressure. As for how to get it applied: run cool games that are oversubscribed. Your players will know who flakes, and word will get around to the rest of the playerbase. Those waitlisted, who could have played but missed out because someone took the spot then didn’t even have the decency to turn up will do the rest >-)

#18

I don’t like the idea of secret lists either.
I honestly think the best thing to start with is require payment upfront and make it non-refundable once you get x-weeks out from the game. Maybe 2 weeks for day games and 4 weeks for weekend games and once you get to within that period the price goes up (to encourage the pre-payement)
Its the easiest system to implement, and it’s open and transparent.

I work in an industry requiring bookings and I can confirm that payment up front, non-refundability and discounted payments in advance all drive changes to customer behaviour.

#19

To clarify, I did not envision recording reasons given for flaking. It’s not important, and I was assuming that a flaker always has good reasons. I’ve flaked myself (and not from attending, but from running a larp at Chimera), and my reason was good. Flaking once is not an indicator of anything, really. It is chronic, repeated flaking that should ring alarm bells for a GM. The problem is that I wouldn’t have a clue if someone was a chronic flaker because I don’t have any information on attendance.

I agree that payment upfront is best, and while I have my reservations about whether we can get it to work, I think it would be worth trying this approach first because it seems to have some support in the discussion.

Questions: What should we do if a game does not have sufficient pre-payments by the cut-off date ? Cancel the game ? What if we’ve already paid a non-refundable deposit on a venue ?

Perhaps in a pre-gen larp, GMs could assign plot-central characters to pre-paid players only, so flakes/no-shows would have a less detrimental effect on the game.

#20

That is the obvious solution.