I wasn't in the Zoom chat, so some general thoughts:
I'm a fan of long, leisurely days personally. The longer days can be useful when a player or players has a real life obligation leading them to be absent for a significant period.
...But that approach doesn't really work in a high post volume environment, and FFR is definitely that. Rather than eschew 72 hour days altogether, I'd eliminate them provisionally, banning them outside of certain situations. Those situations will probably occur only infrequently, if at all, so in most cases the effect would be the same.
I'm definitely against reducing D0 to 24 hours though. The game needs at least
a little time to breathe, and gives everyone a chance to at least sort of participate or contribute.
***
Regarding post volume in general, it's a mixed bag. For me, it can be frustrating, because my personal playstyle and meta tend to revolve around reading/parsing every post, at least as best I can. And that's simply impractical in a game with 3790857493205 posts. But part of the reason I developed that playstyle is that I cut my teeth at a very different community, one notorious for
extremely low activity (to the point that games would be cancelled/abandoned mid-game due to apparent lack of interest). While it would probably contribute to overall readability if the post volume was a little lower, I don't see any way to achieve that without potentially introducing a much larger problem. I doubt FFR would ever run into extreme inactivity problems, but I'm not sure there's a good way to control post volume without adversely affecting the community overmeta. Believe me, too much is a better problem than too little.
In other words, Charu gonna Charu, I guess.
***
I feel like people only complained about the ITAs because I was doing this all game:
Honestly, the format worked pretty well. It abruptly but temporarily changed everyone's playstyle, forcing kinds of interactions that weren't otherwise seen. This is one area where post volume might have been more of an issue, because the overall thread content seemed too overwhelming for people to want to go back and really analyze the ITAs.
Purple text definitely worked well.
***
I'm a little hesitant to introduce
too many straightforward killing powers to even a very large game. A few, sure, but things can get out of hand quickly. I kind of like the idea of conditional killing powers though, similar to the name/ID assassination. I once saw on another forum a proposed game with a lot of killing powers--but all were designed to punish behavior (someone could kill a low poster, someone could kill a harassing-type player, someone could kill a liar, and so on). Such conditional KPs would be interesting in a lot of games, imo.
***
I liked the events, ITAs, and shop. I pretty much always like anything that expands the game state from the basics. I thought the events were largely well done. The portrait challenge was fun; the jeopardy mini-thread was hilarious.
I do feel like there were some issues with the shop. Several people have noted that it was too difficult to promote, and obviously all items weren't created equal. I think a possible solution would be to give each item a "price" that could be earned in several different ways, and applied both individually or by vote consensus. Maybe the "group" could vote on coins earned for killing wolves, for example. Just a thought!