Auto-Retire Games

Now that retire is reversible, I think this suggestion is safe.

If a GM has been inactive for a month, a notification/message is sent to the GM and all players in the game. Something like:

"The GM has been inactive for a month. This game will be retired in one month if the GM does not return."

If the GM doesn't post in the game forum in the next month, then the game is retired.

If the GM ever returns, they can always restore the game if they wish.

If the players can agree on a new GM that is willing to take over, then they can message a Moderator to make the switch and continue the game.

***NOTE: this is different to the auto-close suggestion that I made in ANOTHER THREAD***

This doesn't seem too important to me. And even if we're going to implement it, it should only be if nobody is posting in there. Not just make it dependent on the GM

Yep, that's fine.

A month may be a bit too short a time, but this seems good to me. It also covers much of the player-controlled-retire use-case as it unclutters the My Games page.

Also true. A month could easily be an amount of time that someone goes on vacation or is in the hospital and they decide to put the game on hold for.
I guess even in that case, as long as the GM is still around, unretiring wouldn't be an issue. But it would be an unnecessary frustration

I don't believe GP has any background scheduled tasks. I think this would require changes to the server outside of changes to git repository code.

Good idea though.

I am not at all sure about this idea: But maybe, after 'the time' has elapsed, the players are allowed to Retire the game? This keeps it manual, and people can discuss it (without resetting the timer, or course) and leave it unretired if they all want it.

That's interesting. So if the GM (or GMs) have all gone Zzzz, then any player in that game can retire (& presumably unretire in case they made a mistake) the game. Is that the proposal?

Is it worth a poll, maybe even a community poll?

I don't find this feature that interesting or necessary. I guess there isn't any harm in it, though, so I would just vote "I don't care".

Pretty much.

Zzzz happens after two weeks, does it not? That seems a bit short, but since this is not automatic, that might not matter.

I like the Idea of giving players some control over the game if the GM is to leave for any reason, I've never had a time where a GM left the players hanging but I can see why people wouldn't want to close the game at that time and might want to keep playing, perhaps if the GM has been Inactive long enough there is some way to streamline the process of getting the game transferred over to a different GM along with the option of Retiring the game.

Perhaps a way to request GM permissions from a mod with a spot to leave a note about why you are requesting that permission.

This I definitely agree with. I've taken over two games after GM disappearance and the process has been a bit of a hassle

Mods aren't admins on GP. They have moderation powers over the public forums, but few other extra rights. If they're junior overlords, then they're very junior (baby overlords?). For example - mods can't edit the FAQs. I'm not even sure they can ban users.

I'm not saying that mods shouldn't have more rights, but that call would have to come from the gaffer.

Mod rights basically work like GM rights for the public forums. We can delete posts and threads and post in some places that regular users can't. If we want to have a spambot banned for example, we have to let Keleth know about it, and he is also the only one who can give GM rights to other people, for example.

We're unfortunately not all that powerful 😢

It is actually not a bad system to have Mods that look into things and decide what needs to be done but then have to go to another (not necessarily 'higher') person to execute that action. There is a level of accountability with separate groups both taking the action.

The Admins should probably not take these sorts of actions without Mod 'authorisation'. That way it remains two-party.

I'm just popping up to say that I've been wanting a way to retire or archive abandoned games for a long time, so this is definitely a feature I'd vote a hard yes on.
I never leave games (because I want access to old posts) so my forum list is full of inactive ones which I wish I could hide. Retiring them would solve it. C:

I agree, 1 month is too short, but my suggestion was 10 weeks. It takes 2 weeks to become inactive, then a month later (4 weeks), a notification is sent (to avoid mistakes), and then a month later (another 4 weeks) the game is retired. So 10 weeks total or 2.5 months. I figured that is quite a long absence without communicating with your players.
I'm sorry this would be frustrating for you. For some people, myself included, having old games with inactive GMs clutter the site is an unnecessary frustration. I feel like clicking one button to restore a game in the rare event of a 2+ month hiatus would be a small inconvenience, but I understand different things are frustrating to different people. I'm not trying to change your mind, just expressing mine and hoping to find a solution. If you have any suggestions for a solution that wouldn't be frustrating to you, then I'm all ears.
That's too bad, I guess that rules out this idea. So the only solution to retire old games of inactive GMs is a player-controlled solution.

---

What about this:

After a GM has been absent for 3 months, then players in the game can "Mark for Retirement". If all active players in the game mark it for retirement (inactive players are ignored), then the game is retired. If the GM ever returns, they can restore it.

---

I also like the idea of a streamlined way to transfer GM permissions.

How about this (similar to the above suggestion): After a GM has been absent for 3 months (or something), an option to "Nominate a new GM" appears on the Game Details Page similar to "Invite Player." That nominated user needs to "Accept the Nomination" similar to accepting a game invitation. Then all active players need to "Accept new GM" which would also be on the Game Details Page. Inactive players are ignored. If all active players accept the new GM, then the nominated user gains GM privileges for the game.
Thanks for checking in! I'm the same, I like to keep access to old game, but would like a solution to hide them. I was hoping this might be a solution.

It's not a big deal for me, but I'm imagining some new users playing at a slow place who after a break find that the site has declared their game to be too slow and retired it for them 😄
Also, that statement was still referring to the 1 month window, which I believe some games (not usually the ones I play in) can easily cross unintentionally. I don't really have a problem with 2.5 months.

I guess I don't really have this issue because there are very few games I've been in that die due to unexpected GM absence and that I want to keep around to look into again later. I usually just leave games if they get ghosted.
Like I said, I'd vote a clear "I don't care" on this feature. It doesn't really apply or appeal to me but I guess I have no problem with it either.
This seems like a lot of steps and a lot of things the site needs to check for. How about after a GM goes inactive (and maybe stays inactive for another certain amount of time, GM rights are automatically transferred to another player, maybe the one that has been in the game the longest, though who exactly doesn't matter. If they're not the right user, then they can just give GM rights to the user who is supposed to have them.

Yes. I think the player solution to inactive GMs is to visit the game and choose "Leave Game".