Proposed changes to phantom rules

[iggymatrixcounter]

Originally Posted by sertman

Seriously, if you think that FFR matters when you have an ugly divorce like that, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

lol real life is never more important than ffr forums. Seriously if there's a conflict between the two then I go with real life.

But just because your life is crazy doesn't mean the rest of the game should be affected by those who have the time to play. Get a couple game bans, straighten your life out, then come back ready to go... simple.


Ultimately, if you think about it, if someone is too busy to play in the first place then what's a couple games to sit away from? A two game ban may hurt someone who has time for it, but if you're already not posting, then two games isn't a big deal at all.

I like my rules a lot better, frankly. Even if someone gets punished for getting two phantoms it still gives the humans one less day because the wolves can just keep that person alive and then insta them on the last day.

My rules create a scenario where people who choose not to play the game through the accrual of phantoms become a non-issue. I forgot to mention in my first post that people who are silenced can no longer post or vote for the rest of the game (in exchange for their role being revealed.)

It's like if you and your buddies are playing a game of cards and your friend leaves and doesn't come back and you don't know when he's going to be back, you flip over his hand so you can keep on playing. You don't sit there and keep on betting even while his hand is still hidden, and then award him all the chips if he happens to win.

Would people use this as a strategic ploy? Never. If you get withdrawn from the game, lose the game, and can't play for 2 more games (4 if this has already happened once), you're not going to do that just so your teammates can win.

As for the 200 word requirement, I think that it's necessary. In real Mafia if someone's being quiet you can force them to speak up or else get lynched (because what reason is there to not say anything otherwise?) In TWG if someone's being quiet you can't force them to speak because they might just be an inactive human and lynching someone you don't know about is a foolish option. We need to give people a reason to speak up. 200 words is not difficult - again, this post is 349 words and I'm making it before going to work for the day.

As for the Jurs situation, lay off her. If anyone, Kilga and Randumb should be blamed for turning the end of the game into a brainless charade. If I were in Jurs's shoes, I would have done the same thing.

[Tasselfoot]

TWC will be getting together, hopefully tonight, to hammer this out.

[sertman]

Originally Posted by chardish

I like my rules a lot better, frankly. Even if someone gets punished for getting two phantoms it still gives the humans one less day because the wolves can just keep that person alive and then insta them on the last day.

Of course you like your rules a lot better. You also liked your last proposal a lot too, in order to "increase activity", and that did nothing but accelerate the inactivity and make it extremely overwhelming for new players to come into the game who haven't played before.

Originally Posted by chardish

My rules create a scenario where people who choose not to play the game through the accrual of phantoms become a non-issue. I forgot to mention in my first post that people who are silenced can no longer post or vote for the rest of the game (in exchange for their role being revealed.)

The only rules that make sense that you put forth are the ones that iggy lined out in his "revised rules". Instead, you have a scenerio where inactive players hurts their team a LOT more than before, and that isn't fair to the active players.

Originally Posted by chardish

It's like if you and your buddies are playing a game of cards and your friend leaves and doesn't come back and you don't know when he's going to be back, you flip over his hand so you can keep on playing. You don't sit there and keep on betting even while his hand is still hidden, and then award him all the chips if he happens to win.

I know it's a hypothetical situation, but wouldn't you just continue playing without him? You did say "buddies" after all, so there would be more than one. You wouldn't flip his hand over... you'd just remove him from the game, and that's it. That's one of the rules that makes sense, the ejections. But silencing is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by chardish

Would people use this as a strategic ploy? Never. If you get withdrawn from the game, lose the game, and can't play for 2 more games (4 if this has already happened once), you're not going to do that just so your teammates can win.

God forbid you actually use TEAMWORK in trying to win the game. It's all about the individual, apparently. It definitely makes the games more interesting, from what I've read.

Originally Posted by chardish

As for the 200 word requirement, I think that it's necessary. In real Mafia if someone's being quiet you can force them to speak up or else get lynched (because what reason is there to not say anything otherwise?) In TWG if someone's being quiet you can't force them to speak because they might just be an inactive human and lynching someone you don't know about is a foolish option. We need to give people a reason to speak up. 200 words is not difficult - again, this post is 349 words and I'm making it before going to work for the day.

No, it just makes posts more meaningless, because some situations don't NEED to be explained in 200 words. Like what happened last game, when the wolf accidently revealed himself over AIM... does everyone have to use 200 words in explaining why they're going to lynch that wolf? It's overkill.

Originally Posted by chardish

As for the Jurs situation, lay off her. If anyone, Kilga and Randumb should be blamed for turning the end of the game into a brainless charade. If I were in Jurs's shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Agreed

[DiscoBobbyPARANOiA]

Originally Posted by chardish

I like my rules a lot better, frankly. Even if someone gets punished for getting two phantoms it still gives the humans one less day because the wolves can just keep that person alive and then insta them on the last day.

My rules create a scenario where people who choose not to play the game through the accrual of phantoms become a non-issue. I forgot to mention in my first post that people who are silenced can no longer post or vote for the rest of the game (in exchange for their role being revealed.)

It's like if you and your buddies are playing a game of cards and your friend leaves and doesn't come back and you don't know when he's going to be back, you flip over his hand so you can keep on playing. You don't sit there and keep on betting even while his hand is still hidden, and then award him all the chips if he happens to win.

Would people use this as a strategic ploy? Never. If you get withdrawn from the game, lose the game, and can't play for 2 more games (4 if this has already happened once), you're not going to do that just so your teammates can win.

As for the 200 word requirement, I think that it's necessary. In real Mafia if someone's being quiet you can force them to speak up or else get lynched (because what reason is there to not say anything otherwise?) In TWG if someone's being quiet you can't force them to speak because they might just be an inactive human and lynching someone you don't know about is a foolish option. We need to give people a reason to speak up. 200 words is not difficult - again, this post is 349 words and I'm making it before going to work for the day.

As for the Jurs situation, lay off her. If anyone, Kilga and Randumb should be blamed for turning the end of the game into a brainless charade. If I were in Jurs's shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Lol @ being 348.

I'M KIDDING.

At first I thought the word count was a bad Idea, but honestly, I make multiple 2,3,400 word plus posts when I have things to talk about. It may be because I just ramble on, but at least I won't have to worry.

I do, although, see this word count idea affecting alot of people. Moreso the jTWGers, and *possibly* one or two TWGers. I don't like thinking 'hmm, so the psychic I'm in an aliance with is going to get silenced for typing 3 less words than he should have '

I Don't know, it just seems to... strict. I REALLY like the idea of the host looking over the game afterwards (or during and writing stuff down) and him doing most of the banning or suggesting people to the TWC for banning.

About revealing roles. Chardish, you're right. No one will ever get 2 phantoms in a row to help their team win, especially if they are blue. Who wants to give up a blue role? No one, but, it could happen the way phantoms happen now.

Player X has a manditory 'lol we're going to indy for the weekend kids, c'mon' Or some bullcrap, router/modem problems, etc. Say people get phantoms (which happens now) it'll silence them, ban them, they'll be pissed. Well, if they care about the game, that is, but it would help their team. It'd give them a confirmed human that the wolves aren't going to kill until end game, and one more person that the humans don't have to worry about trying to lynch.

I think that a player should be punished for being inactive. I hated the game I hosted, even though I did a horrible job and wasn't there for all of it. It just made me sad to type out that phantom list every day. But, I don't think that it should affect the rest of the game, at all.

I would suggest:

Every day you:
write 150 words
Vote

Or you:

get a phantom

Get one phantom:

Warning shot

Get two phantoms:

Kicked from the game, 1 game ban.


Now, it'll come up endgame what your role was, and not mid game. If you were a wolf, your partners will be like 'What the ****, you screwed it for us.' If you're a human, or god forbid a blue, your team will react the same. Now the people you played with will realize that you messed it up, and they will let you have it, hopefully :-p

Another thing, I agree with the doubling, But make it 1,2,4,8, etc. (As in, start with one.)

I dunno, just my two cents.

[Tasselfoot]

Small note... I believe Chardish's initial post DID comment that the 200 word thing was thrown out when there is an Insta. So that covers any scenario which results in an insta.

[sertman]

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

Small note... I believe Chardish's initial post DID comment that the 200 word thing was thrown out when there is an Insta. So that covers any scenario which results in an insta.

However, I just can't imagine being called "inactive" because I only wrote, say, 150 words.

EDIT: And also, people don't know if theres for sure going to be an insta or not, so they're going to have to write 200 words anyways.

[talisman]

I was asked to replace roles twice but couldn't btw, as I knew the roles. And guido and stretchy couldn't play together.

Mainly I agree with chardish here on the silencing thing and phantoms not counting towards instalynches. That's been too huge of a factor lately.

Word limit... meh. I think a post quota of say two solid posts (solid to be at the host's lenient discretion) would be the best thing to start with if anything.

edit: oh **** there was a whole page there I didn't see when I wrote this...

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by chardish

As for the Jurs situation, lay off her. If anyone, Kilga and Randumb should be blamed for turning the end of the game into a brainless charade. If I were in Jurs's shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Hey hey hey, the idea was all me. randumb was just along for the ride.

[Tasselfoot]

How come I was never asked to replace anyone this game? I made it clear that I would... and clearly I was as available as anyone else who was playing.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

How come I was never asked to replace anyone this game? I made it clear that I would... and clearly I was as available as anyone else who was playing.

More available than most, I'd say, especially in the second half of the game.

Regarding the silencing: rather than "silencing" a person, they should simply be ejected from the game. This way, you can reveal the person's role as human without HORRIBLY slanting the game toward the humans by giving everyone a confirmed human to start an alliance through.

And really, if a person does bad enough that they get 2 phantoms, there can't be a single one of you who would say that the person would deserve to play after that anyway. Even sertman can see, I'm sure, that 2 phantoms is especially bad, and if anything, that should deserve a kick from the game, if not a ban.

[ddrdanc3r55]

Why can't they just be immediately replaced with somebody, instead? I'm sure you could get a lot of players that could sign up as replacements.

[sertman]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

More available than most, I'd say, especially in the second half of the game.

Regarding the silencing: rather than "silencing" a person, they should simply be ejected from the game. This way, you can reveal the person's role as human without HORRIBLY slanting the game toward the humans by giving everyone a confirmed human to start an alliance through.

And really, if a person does bad enough that they get 2 phantoms, there can't be a single one of you who would say that the person would deserve to play after that anyway. Even sertman can see, I'm sure, that 2 phantoms is especially bad, and if anything, that should deserve a kick from the game, if not a ban.

Pretty much... you should get ejected if you get 2 phantoms... but if the TWC has a supreme lapse of judgment and allows the 200-word rule to take effect, then there may have to be exceptions... because if someone writes 150 words for 2 days, they're obviously active, but they'd have 2 phantoms, which is really, truly dumb.

[Necamus]

About being ejected after two phantoms, would your replacement start the game with two phantoms? Or would the replacement start with a clean slate?

If the replacement comes in with a clean slate, it could make sense for a person who has a phantom to take another just so someone could come in with a clean slate.

So I assume that the person enters with the number of phantoms the person they're replacing had. And then they can get punished if they get two phantoms of their own, not including the ones they started with.


I don't like this whole silencing thing. So if you get two phantoms, instead of being kicked out of the game, you are simply not allowed to post or vote? And your role is revealed.. This is crap. If you get phantoms, it should affect you individually through game bans and phantom votes. Obviously, this will hurt your team, but it would be of such a small magnitude it would mostly just hurt the individual. With silencing and, more importantly, revealing roles, it could hurt or help your team in such a large way (Comparitively) that it would no longer simply be about punishing the individual. It would have too large of an effect on the game.

Sure, this could give people the motivation to get online and vote, but if they forget (As I did, twice) their team should not be punished (Or possibly helped) because of this. And things do come up in real life that keep people from being online. For example, I brought my laptop up to the Cape, thinking I could keep up with the game. Unfortunately, my laptop was horribly tempermental and would only start up occasionally.

I'm all for replacement and game bans at two phantoms and beyond, and totally against all this silencing stuff. As for the two hundred word requirement, I don't like that. As people have said, some stay quiet as a strategy. It's harder to lay low when you have to be there every day with a two hundred word post. And it's not like you can just repeat things everyone else has said, because people will get suspicious of that as well.

And for anyone who is mad at me for not being here at 10 P.M. sharp, shove it up your ass. I'm at a family reunion. I could be easily once every day, but I can't stick to tight schedules when I'm going out to dinner and spending time with my relatives all the time. And I'm not going to come back to the house I'm saying at just to post my vote instead of having a good time with my relatives.

[JurseyRider734]

I didn't even know I was being talked about. Anyway, I posted what I thought about the whole not-voting-at-10 thing in the Postgame. I pretty much agree with sertman on the topic.

I think Afro's an idiot. He just doesn't have friends and doesn't understand that no one will interrupt spending time with their friends to get home before 10, make a post, then sit on their ass the rest of the night.

[GuidoHunter]

I regularly detach myself from social situations to vote. Granted, this is only when internet is readily available, but still, if you don't have to, say, drive anywhere to do so, there's no reason to not vote since it takes such little time.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[sertman]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I regularly detach myself from social situations to vote. Granted, this is only when internet is readily available, but still, if you don't have to, say, drive anywhere to do so, there's no reason to not vote since it takes such little time.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

...which could change if you have to write 200 words

[GuidoHunter]

Remember, that word limit applies to an ENTIRE DAY, not each post. A lot of y'all seem to have missed that. Being out for an entire game day is only very rarely excusable, so you can still discuss the game, go away, then sneak back for a one-word vote post and be just fine.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[FishFishRevolution]

I agree with everything chardish initially said entirely. I do think the 200 word minimum is a great idea, but I think it should be more of a guideline than a rule with a punishment if not kept. I think every good player will have 200 words in a day, and we won't need to exclude those who don't solely on how many words they post, but just by their lack of general activity as a player.

[talisman]

look the silencing makes sense. You guys are just missing the big picture. Right now phantoms are hurting the team more than the player being inactive. If we just kicked out an inactive player, then that would still be hurting their team, as it would move end of game up a day or back a day (depending on if the player was human or wolf). That's why they're just silenced instead of kicked out, it keeps the numbers the same. This is what chardish said, as well, I don't know why everyone missed it in the first place.