Proposed changes to phantom rules

[Tasselfoot]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

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.