Proposed changes to phantom rules

1) Phantoms only affect tiebreakers, and do not affect instas or end-of-day votes.

2) Any player who accumulates 2 phantoms in a row is "silenced." This involves:
- they can no longer post or vote for the rest of the game
- their team (human/wolf) but not their role (guardian/MW/etc), gets publicly revealed
- they are still considered an active player for their team (if they are a wolf, the humans must still lynch them; if they are a human, they count towards the total number of humans in terms of calculating wolf victory)
- if they have a special role (MW, guardian, etc.) it gets randomly re-assigned to another player on their team
- the silenced player does not count in determining the number of votes to insta someone
- the game gets counted as a loss for them (for record keeping purposes, ohi Tass)
- they get an automatic 2-game ban from TWG (this number doubles every time they repeat the offense, so third-time offenders get a 8-game ban)

3) Any player who accumulates 3 phantoms in one game is silenced, regardless of whether those phantoms were consecutive or not.

4) A player gets a phantom if they type less than 200 words in any given day, regardless of whether they voted or not. Quotes and AIM logs do not count towards the 200 word limit. Like phantoms, they don't apply if someone got insta'd that day. Obvious attempts to bypass this rule (for example, C+Ping the same sentence ten times in a row, or typing "I vote for Kilga" fifty times in row) will be treated like a quote or an AIM log. For comparison purposes, this post is 292 words long. There's a JavaScript c+p word counter here if you're unsure: http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/...untwords.shtml

This is my own proposal, and not yet the opinion of the TWC. I just wanted to open a dialogue.

Thoughts?

[iggymatrixcounter]

1) Take out the 200 word count limit and 2) Do not reveal publically any roles (I'm referring to 2a on your post). Obviously if a wolf is revealed then yes it's good for the humans, but if a human gets revealed then if there is a guardian then it can actually help the humans rather than hurt them. 3) Don't reassign roles either, this tells the person that got the role that the person with two phantoms was the role you just got and therefore proves humanity. (With the wolves I don't see a problem but for the humans it could be an advantage)

I don't understand point 2d. Does this mean that even though they vote it doesn't count? Or does it mean that if someone has 2 phantoms it doesn't equal 1.001 votes? I kind of like them both, I mean if you're silenced and can't count your vote... BUT STILL HAVE TO VOTE... that would be super fun and a sweet punishment. And if it's the latter of the two then it would make games like this last one it more fair for the humans. (Because you don't have 1 or 2 humans messing it up for the rest of the team.) Both are kool I just want to know what you mean there.

I actually think that inactivity is a strategy. Shouldn't prevent people from bringing in strategy but I do hate the fact that phantoms from one or two people hurt the rest of the team. Those rules should definitely help, even if only to filter out inactives every once in awhile. That's why I don't think a word count should be implimented. If people want to be inactive but still vote and talk every once in awhile, I think that's fine and a good way to slide under the radar on the beginning days.

So really: drop 2a, 2c, and 4. The rest looks fine IMO.

[MiniNeo]

I don't think the word limit is that much of a good idea... >_>

[ddrdanc3r55]

Well, to you because your above post is your average post for everyday. You should actually get out and put some content on the game instead of just saying "oh hi i'm stil here just ignore me i'll be right back tomorrow".

[Afrobean]

I like the idea of revealing roles.

However, there should be a clause on there saying "cannot be guarded or affected by any blue action." Otherwise, someone could not vote on purpose just to be confirmed human and lead an alliance, then take the ban like a man knowing they just manhandled a win for the humans.

[MiniNeo]

I am glad you saw what I did in the above post.

It is because I am never good at elaborating stuff so I just resort to using one-liners and simplifying everything. Sure it makes my posts short but I didn't care about it because I got my point across.

PS when did I say that? =<

Edit because I saw afro's post after I hit reply: I don't think anyone would want to take a 2 game ban just to get the role security.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MiniNeo

I don't think anyone would want to take a 2 game ban just to get the role security.

It doesn't matter if they wouldn't. The fact remains that they could.

Just imagine if someone knew they'd be going on vacation or something and be unnable to play anyway.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Originally Posted by ddrdanc3r55

Well, to you because your above post is your average post for everyday. You should actually get out and put some content on the game instead of just saying "oh hi i'm stil here just ignore me i'll be right back tomorrow".

Umm you can not insult people who are being inactive AT ALL. You are definitely under this 200 word limit per day that you just riped mini on.

[MiniNeo]

Yeah afro, but how often would someone actually do that? Besides TWC can always do something about it in case someone did use the two phantoms to their advantage.

PS I did use inactivity as a strategy for the games I've played. Keeps me alive, selfish, I know =D

[iggymatrixcounter]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I like the idea of revealing roles.

However, there should be a cause on there saying "cannot be guarded or affected by any blue action." Otherwise, someone could not vote on purpose just to be confirmed human and lead an alliance, then take the ban like a man knowing they just manhandled a win for the humans.

That helps, but you still know that that person was a confirmed human. And could therefore set up the other blues in an alliance or something before he was wolfed. (or something of the sort)

[sertman]

The 200 word rule is stupid. What happens when you get a situation like when a wolf accidently tells a human he's a wolf, and the human posts the AIM convo? Does everyone who votes have to explain in 200 words why they're going to vote that wolf off? Come on now.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Originally Posted by sertman

The 200 word rule is stupid. What happens when you get a situation like when a wolf accidently tells a human he's a wolf, and the human posts the AIM convo? Does everyone who votes have to explain in 200 words why they're going to vote that wolf off? Come on now.

lol which happened last game.

[Afrobean]

How about this:

Instead of anything, getting a phantom is an instant game kick and ban for the next game with higher ban lengths for subsequent offenses.

There is no reason for any person to ever get a phantom, and if they do, then they deserve a ban.

I'm not even trying to be mean or anything. I know people have things going on in real life sometimes. It's just that everyone else who signed up to play the game shouldn't have to lose just because someone else had something going on in real life.

The ban could even be at the discretion of TWC or the host if there is a more legit reason (death in the family compared to "was out with friends and didn't wanna come back home lol").

[sertman]

I posted this in the postgame thread, but it's more relevant here (in response to afro)

Originally Posted by sertman

Banning someone for one phantom is overkill. Certain situations arise (i.e internet going out, unnanounced day trip, etc.) that people who sign up for TWG can't control, and banning them for 1 game is ridiculous. Jurs shouldn't be punished for not being there EXACTLY at 10pm... people have lives. I don't know a single person who, while out with friends, is actually going to say "guys i have to go home because I need to make a post on a message board"

[Afrobean]

I stand firmly by my "if someone can't make time for the game, then they don't deserve to play" mentality.

[StoicRoivaS]

Originally Posted by iggymatrixcounter

I actually think that inactivity is a strategy.

I really agree with Iggy here. Like I mentioned earlier in an attempt at a solution to this problem, some players may intentionally post very little in the public thread in attempts to accomplish many things. These players may be the most active over AIM and other mediums and least active on the thread, and your proposal would hurt them, their team, and discourage them from putting in the serious effort they already are (via AIM, et al.) As I previously suggested, if other players can prove activity in some way, they player in question should be free from punishment. A strict and straight forward word count is only going to encourage superfluous wasting of forum space. People will make even larger attempts at getting their word in while actually saying nothing. There is already enough of that going on as it is. Introducing a count will only make this worse, which is, again, why I suggested it be up to the host and be something that occurs at post game. The player would still get phantoms like normal, for not voting, but then if further inactivity is in question the player could be examined in post game and dealt with accordingly. Secondly, I would prefer to see a player silenced at any two phantoms, not two in a row. One phantom is bad enough; the second one should have to be on the following day to attract more criticism to the player. Any two within one game should come with some serious repercussions. Thirdly, in reverse order, I apologize, reassigning roles is also, IMHO, a horrible idea. It gives a definite advantage to the humans should the inactive players be a blue to start out. This would no doubt be used in some form of strategic move somewhere down the line and that's one of the last things that needs to happen. I would like to see the inactive players special power be taken away entirely after being silenced (aka two phantoms in one game). This would not be revealed to the other players in order to prevent the problem noted above. Seer can no longer see, psychic no longer receives their visions, master wolf now comes up red upon being "seen", etc. This would certainly be a discouraging factor to the inactive player in question. I also think that a silenced player should count towards the insta count. I don't see how this is really relevant to change. It's nearly always uncertain whether the person you're voting for is a human or a wolf, so changing the number of votes it takes to insta someone doesn't terribly matter, nor is it really a punishment to the inactive player in question. Drop this, IMHO. As a better suggestion, I'd say that in the event of ties between players during the day's lynch, if a player is silenced on either side of the voting, the other votee is considered to have more votes and thusly is lynched, if that makes sense. I.E. if I have 3 votes and Iggy has 3, but minineo is silenced and has cast his vote to lynch Iggy, his vote still "counts" but because his vote resulted in a tie overall, the tie is "non-existent" and I am lynched over Iggy. This is actually a form of a punishment to the inactive player in question and another potential downfall to getting silenced. I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean by #1, so if you don't mind elaborating for my noobish self, I'd appreciate it.

So, to recap for the lazy people who hate how I rarely use paragraph breaks:
Explain 1; drop 2a, 2c, 2d; Alter (Merge) 2 & 3 in the way mentioned above; Possibly change 4 to be more similar to the way I suggested above.

A hard count is a bad idea, but personal examination by the host would not be a bad idea at all. Maybe if a person adds nothing more than their vote to any given game day's activity, they would deserve to be silenced for the next game day or the rest of the game even, preferably.

Those are my thoughts so far. I've thought about it for about 30 seconds plus however long it took me to write this, so I'll figure something more concrete out once a few more people voice some ideas. Take care.

[sertman]

You don't get out much, do you.

EDIT: @afro

[MiniNeo]

Afro, I think the TWC made it 2 phantoms for a ban because the first phantom is basically a wake up call for the player to start participating. People slip up sometimes and forget to vote (read: me, twice in like the twg 29) and bant because of a one time fault seems a *little* too harsh for me.

[StoicRoivaS]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I stand firmly by my "if someone can't make time for the game, then they don't deserve to play" mentality.

2nd.

[Tps222]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I stand firmly by my "if someone can't make time for the game, then they don't deserve to play" mentality.

Bull****. Sometimes things come up that you have no control over and have no time to access a computer.