2026 TWG Rules Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charu
    replied
    Re: 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    #MakeDeathpostsGreatAgain

    Leave a comment:


  • Charu
    replied
    Re: 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    Can't stop the deathposts!

    Leave a comment:


  • j-rodd123
    replied
    Re: 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    @roundbox

    Leave a comment:


  • j-rodd123
    replied
    Re: 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    Minimum post requirements duhhh

    Leave a comment:


  • ShadoWolfe
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Originally posted by thesunfan
    I am considering adding a rule banning timing of death posts, as this could give game-related information if several people post death posts after certain events

    I would like input on this.
    It's not a huge issue, but I agree. The timing should be a random time picked by the mod at the start of the phase.

    EDIT: players could even simply be required to send their deathpost to the mod, who would post them at an arbitrary time of his/her choosing
    Last edited by ShadoWolfe; 01-3-2017, 09:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • roundbox
    replied
    Re: 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    I guess this is where I do my SALT posting and say we really need to enforce a more strict policy on inactivity. At the moment, there is a very observable exponential decay of posting after D0 finishes. D0 is usually great, but everything falls into pieces afterwards and you usually don't see activity until f3, almost regardless of players.

    Inactivity is one of the things pushing me away from playing TWG on here because it really does ruin games. TWG is a giant puzzle to solve, and when you are missing pieces, you just have to assume what's there instead of actually trying to solve. Inactivity can be used as a strat (which I think was advocated in the Fire Emblem game), but good lord is it dirty. Policy lynching inactives is a really bad way to deal with the problem, because it still accepts inactivity rather than trying to curb the behavior completely.

    No, I'm not asking people to move heaven and earth to play some silly whodunnit game on a forum. I had lots of negative experiences this year related to inactivity and I truly want this place to improve.

    Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • thesunfan
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Originally posted by inDheart
    the way you said this on discord i understand it as timed coordination between 2+ people on when to death post

    in which case i'll say yeah
    this is right

    Leave a comment:


  • inDheart
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Originally posted by thesunfan
    I am considering adding a rule banning timing of death posts, as this could give game-related information if several people post death posts after certain events

    I would like input on this.
    the way you said this on discord i understand it as timed coordination between 2+ people on when to death post

    in which case i'll say yeah

    Leave a comment:


  • thesunfan
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    I am considering adding a rule banning timing of death posts, as this could give game-related information if several people post death posts after certain events

    I would like input on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • thesunfan
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Changelog

    Updated title to 2017 TWG Rules Thread

    Changed multiple uses of the word "you" into "a player," as well as syntax to match these changes

    Fixed a few small grammatical errors.

    Expanded Rule 11 to more clearly define what is and is not acceptable regarding deathposts that inhibit the ability of players to play the game.

    Expanded Rule 13d to include knowingly playing against your own win condition for clarification.

    Changed wording of Rule 19 to specify game-related emotional manipulation only.

    Leave a comment:


  • thesunfan
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Originally posted by XelNya
    But why is this the case? The intention to vote is clearly there.
    I mean no disrespect and believe you made the right decision when modding the game I am about to talk about but

    wasn't there a game where V was a wolf and was rather clear about his intent on who he wanted to kill, but V didn't actually send in a PM to you and you didn't make a kill?

    I believe that the same thing applies to voting here.
    Apologies if my memory is wrong

    Leave a comment:


  • XelNya
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Originally posted by YoshL
    exactly. if you fuck up the tags and it comes out like [twgv[mml[/twgv]
    it's not a vote
    But why is this the case? The intention to vote is clearly there.

    Leave a comment:


  • thesunfan
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    in games where an automated vote counter is used, you can set up aliases for players like Mashi, who have names that are not at all similar to their usernames, so votes for Mashi can be read

    Leave a comment:


  • MixMasterLar
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    Oh, I wasn't really talking about if the tags where right but the name was typo'd. Maybe I wasn't clear in that. Rather it's MixMasterLar, MML, Lar, or MixMeisterLard as long as the tags are correct I'm pretty ok with it assuming the name is close enough.


    I think we pretty much agree on the issue, YoshL.

    Leave a comment:


  • YoshL
    replied
    Re: 2016 TWG Rules Thread

    saying thessunfan is fine. it's very clear who they're voting for.

    for example, the vote counter has trouble with votes that are AA but there's only one current player that that could be referring to. That's still fine though, you're able to edit that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...