TWC Rules, Policies, Etc.

[rzr]

Damn, I was hoping it wouldn't be. Now I'm going to have to argue with sc.
Ok, thanks, pnt.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by rzr

Also, with phantoms I have a question:
If insta is more than half of the amount of people to votes ratio, and a player has exactly half the votes and one phantom, is it insta?

This seems to be the rule, but I'm not entirely sure it should be.

It seems to me that the thematic explanation for a phantom reads like "Because you didn't attend the meeting to decide who was a wolf, we now view you with increased suspicion because you must have something to hide"

I still don't see why less than a majority of live players should have to vote for an insta to happen. The increased suspicion about the person suggests that if the town is torn between two suspects, they'd opt for the suspicious one (IE. Phantoms break ties, and punish inactive players) not that they'd jump the gun on less than a clear majority, these are people voting to MURDER someone after all.

[flawofhumanity]

Originally Posted by devonin

This seems to be the rule, but I'm not entirely sure it should be.

It seems to me that the thematic explanation for a phantom reads like "Because you didn't attend the meeting to decide who was a wolf, we now view you with increased suspicion because you must have something to hide"

I still don't see why less than a majority of live players should have to vote for an insta to happen. The increased suspicion about the person suggests that if the town is torn between two suspects, they'd opt for the suspicious one (IE. Phantoms break ties, and punish inactive players) not that they'd jump the gun on less than a clear majority, these are people voting to MURDER someone after all.

Well, from a story stand point a lot of things don't make sense. But, from a mechanics standpoint, we can look at it like this:

6 people

3 people vote for x, who has a phantom
he now has 3.00000000000...1

Now, if the remaining three people vote on a different person person, they won't be lynched and it will be the same as an insta.

The phantom is in essence supposed to be a vote, albeit worth less than any other.

[rzr]

Again with the freaking rule changing? You guys are seriously killing this game.

Look, phantoms are in place to attempt to force activity with a penalty. If player x never posts and gets 3 phantoms then player x is banned. If player x rarely posts and gets 2 phantoms they'll most likely be instad because 2 phantoms = 1.001 votes. If player x usually posts but missed once and got 1 phantom they'll accidently get instad. Like with sc.

Honestly guys, all this rule changing is making the game unenjoyable. There's no need to customize the rules because certain new players feel it should. It's worked for us all along, there's no reason it shouldn't continue to.

[Makilaz]

How is this rule changing? If anything, it's rule clarification, since a lot of people weren't too certain what the rules for different things were.

[rzr]

I'm just saying that if the idea of changing phantoms doesn't get tossed around this thread I'll be shocked.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by rzr

Again with the freaking rule changing? You guys are seriously killing this game.

Look, phantoms are in place to attempt to force activity with a penalty. If player x never posts and gets 3 phantoms then player x is banned. If player x rarely posts and gets 2 phantoms they'll most likely be instad because 2 phantoms = 1.001 votes. If player x usually posts but missed once and got 1 phantom they'll accidently get instad. Like with sc.

Honestly guys, all this rule changing is making the game unenjoyable. There's no need to customize the rules because certain new players feel it should. It's worked for us all along, there's no reason it shouldn't continue to.

Appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. People spent a long time thinking the earth was flat, women were property, and whites were better than blacks. Just because it "had always" been that way doesn't mean it was right or good.

Making a clear and comprehensive ruleset is what will make the game enjoyable. Constantly having to try and see whether a given host is screwing something up, or changing something around "cuz" makes me want to not play with anybody I haven't already established plays the same way I do. It's like sitting down to play scrabble with someone to discover that they always play so that you re-use double/triple word/letter score tiles. The game becomes a chore as you constantly have to pay attention to something that was never part of the existing rules.

Having a clear ruleset that is always in force that everyone communally follows makes it much easier for people to get started, and to get skilled because the system around them remains consistant.

Don't take a suggestion that "something being done the way you like it might not be the best way" as a personal attack. It isn't.

And as to the insta/phantom thing.

Okay, 6 people, 3 vote for someone with 1 phantom 3.001

What happens when someone else in the game has 2 phantoms? If the other three people vote for THEM, suddenly they have 4.001 and MORE votes than the person you just Instad.

This is why an actual physical majority of players should have to vote for someone to be insta killed regardless of phantoms. The purpose of an insta seems to be to keep the game moving faster when someone dying is a foregone conclusion, not to screw someone over into dying. When there are three players with phantoms, and one player with -more- phantoms than the person currently just skinning over a "50%+1" percentage of the vote, I don't see how an insta is justified.

If you add up the total votes (6 players = 6.00, 1 phantom = 0.001, 2 phantoms = 1.001, 1 phantom = 0.001) you have 7.003 votes, which says to me that the "majority" requires you to have >3.5016 votes.

IE, with 6 players, and 4 total phantoms on 3 people, someone who got a) 4 votes or b) 3 votes on the 2 phantom person should be instakilled.

The statistical possibility existed for someone else to be lynched without anyone who voted for the instakilled person having to change their votes, so I don't think they should have been insta'd

[thunderstrike687]

argo rzr

[rzr]

Due to post 47 of jTWG XLV Player Sign-ups here I am. Let's do this thing.

[DarkManticoreX2]

Rzr wants to appeal his ban on the basis that there is no absolute proof he logged onto argo's account, Although tass's IP check said they have both been on each others account multiple times.

So here's the facts.

Rzr and argo both knew each other's passwords at the start of the current TWG. It is alledged rzr signed onto Argo's account during the game and Looked at argo's PM to figure out his role. Argo claims to have messed with Rzr's account in retribution. and also may or may not have seen rzr's PM. Reguardless, they have both been on each others account during the course of the game and the opportunity to cheat was there.

The current motion is for a game ban on both Argo and rzr, seeing as how they both acted in a fashion not suitable for TWG.

* as an aside, can we have the votes in a row to make them easier to tally? all the posts inbetween make it hard to keep track *

Im for the game ban personally. They'll learn their lesson and not do it again.

[rzr]

Hold on, let's toss this around before we vote. Get some opinions out there.
Ok, incorrect about me knowing his password at the game start. (Since he changed it I'll give specifics) his password was rcbilly. I thought it was rubixcubebilly which was what he told me the acronym stood for. My password was dlssuaa. It stood for dangerous lonely suicidal squirrels united across America.

Also, just because the oppurtunity was existant doesn't mean the action was made. For example: you find your girl cheating and you're alone with her one night. You could kill her and nobody would know. There's the oppurtunity. But you don't kill her. The oppurtunity was there but the action didn't happen.

[Makilaz]

We don't have proof that it didn't happen though. It's bad enough that the opportunity was there. Don't give your password out to TWG players, especially ones in the same game as you, and don't let others give you their password. I support the game ban for both, because this sort of thing needs to be kept in check. Rzr: hit me up on AIM or PM if you want to talk to me about it.

rzr
argo

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Makilaz

We don't have proof that it didn't happen though. It's bad enough that the opportunity was there. Don't give your password out to TWG players, especially ones in the same game as you, and don't let others give you their password. I support the game ban for both, because this sort of thing needs to be kept in check. Rzr: hit me up on AIM or PM if you want to talk to me about it.

rzr
argo

And it is being put in check. Hence why we are no longer allowed to play together. That's adequate enough. Banning me is pointless because there is no evidence against me. It'd be like going into court with heresay. There's no reason to convict a case with no evidence behind it.

[rzr]

Let me finish for you guys:

BDN: I support the game ban because I don't like rzr but let me put some stupid excuse in it.

Trav: I support the game ban because I'm mad and going to be biased because he might have figured out my role.

pnt: I support the game ban because everyone else is doing it.

thunder: ok, he's banned, I have no input.

roundbox: (I don't know you well enough to make a judgement).

[roundbox]

Ok
You're only going to be gone for one game so just suck it up and live with it
I'm not attempting to come off harsh or anything but it's nothing like bans from the past

[rzr]

Originally Posted by roundbox

Ok
You're only going to be gone for one game so just suck it up and live with it
I'm not attempting to come off harsh or anything but it's nothing like bans from the past

I'm only appealing it because vash is playing this one and I want to play with him

[Makilaz]

Removing my vote for rzr/argo. Figured it's not good to make decisions when I'm really tired. I'll make a final decision sometime tomorrow about this whole thing.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Makilaz

Removing my vote for rzr/argo.

<3 You should keep it removed

[Sullyman2007]

I know I'm not on the Council or anything, but I'm putting my opinion out there anyway. I think rzr should recieve a 1 game TWG/jTWG ban. The -fact- is, he had the opportunity to cheat. Regardless of wether or not his account was hacked, or argo really did have the password, his account is his responsibility.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Sullyman2007

I know I'm not on the Council or anything, but I'm putting my opinion out there anyway. I think rzr should recieve a 1 game TWG/jTWG ban. The -fact- is, he had the opportunity to cheat. Regardless of wether or not his account was hacked, or argo really did have the password, his account is his responsibility.

I was hoping this would play between the Council, argo, and myself. But never mind.

Granted, we both had the OPPURTUNITY but did not ACTUALLY cheat.
Because we can is why we're being seperated. That's taking it far enough.