TWC Rules, Policies, Etc.

[thunderstrike687]

Originally Posted by pntballa18

i promised to back this up and so i will

aTzUeLo1191, rsr2, and tupacodaman 1 game ban

thunder reporting in to support this too.

[hoochan]

Originally Posted by jump_the_bullet

except that it was an insta vote and phantoms arent given out on insta's

right? right?!?!

if this is the case then no they dont receive phantoms

[GamerShadow]

Yeah, I went back and counted the votes and they did get an insta. So hold off on the votes for now; everybody still has only one phantom.

I didn't check the thread until it was time to update, so I only checked to see who had the most votes, and people didn't vote for anybody but Bynary. Completely my fault that I didn't think of insta and the fact that nobody gets phantoms when it happens.

Sorry atz, rsr, and tupa.

[FictionJunction]

an unchangeable vote sounds exotic and pretty appealing. No, really. It's probably the best thing suggested. This and a system that subtly forces the player to vote would be a pretty good way to increase activity, as long as the players care to actually play. Truth be told, no matter how much we try to increase activity we will always lose to the players's unwillingness to keep playing. You can't literally force a vote if the player doesn't care about the game anymore.

as much as I'd hate to agree with rzr banning people for phantoms is pretty ridiculous. Banning for inactivity, however, is fine. All the same, really. You just can't ban a player for phantoms unless you were to find a replacement and then get them banned, I suppose. But whatever right?

adding a limit to phantoms will not raise activity. People who get phantoms rarely get them because they want to and much less because they need to. If a player gets a phantoms its more likely that they don't care about the game or simply cannot be as active as they thought they would have.

and what is this **** about changing rules midgame? jesus.

[pntballa18]

ok taking my votes off of them now >.>

[thunderstrike687]

well fic in most cases people who get enough phantoms to get game banned are usually inactive/dont give a ****, and therefore it doesnt really help the TWG group to have them keep playing and ****ing things up. otherwise i agree with you.

[devonin]

You could do something like
2 phantoms = replaced if a backup is available
2 replacements = 2 or 3 game ban

You get more chances before you're actually banned from playing (In that you have to get yourself replaced from inactivity twice) but then you're out for more games because of that.

[DarkManticoreX2]

I'm in agreement with the "2 phantoms = game ban" rule, If replacement cant be found then we ban them from the next game. Simple as that.

Also in agreement with the unchangable vote thing. If the player cares about the game at all, he/she will have to make an informed intelligent decision.

[rzr]

What good does it do to ban them if we leave them in the game because we can't find replacements? They still get to play the game. Replacements can always be found.

[FictionJunction]

It's all just how you want to write the rule down, I suppose. A 'two phantom' ban as opposed to an 'inactivity' ban. Doesn't make a difference in the long run.

The unchangeable vote is and should be an optional rule and should only be put into effect if the host chooses to include it in his game.

[FictionJunction]

oh yeah, I'll be playing again late feb if I have the time. If not late feb then early april. I might host too, if I decide to actually build a game. But I'm lazy so probably not.

Yeah, can't wait for you all to bring out the suicidal tendencies in me.

[Sullyman2007]

I think someone brought this up earlier in the thread, but I think in order to be a successful host, you should have prior game experience under your belt. I'm basically saying people who have only played one or two games shouldn't be allowed to host until they fulfill said requirement.

P.S. This had nothing to do with Gamers game, he did a pretty good job I thought. This is just for future reference, and looking at the current host sign-up thread.

[clarinet89]

If you're referring to, me, I have been in games, just not this most recent one.

[rzr]

I think it was just a suggestion.

[clarinet89]

Ok, no harm, no foul.

[rzr]

A pretty good suggestion, too. Though, they should be able to pitch ideas.

[pntballa18]

i disagree with that. bdn had only played 1 game i believe when he started hosting and he did perfectly fine

[clarinet89]

How about have them play in at least one game before hosting?

[jump_the_bullet]

isnt that basically the rules already?

and isnt that the least of our worries right now?

[Litodude]

how about: just be smart and not vote for the person we don't have a ****ing clue is.