Werewolf: The Stephen King Multiverse Edition FEEDBACK THREAD

Drumpot

I liked the break Saturday but foolishly spent the entire day working on some theories as by BR will show....

But it was very long. I wasn’t around Sunday but a speed day would of been good.

I’m not sure how or if dealing with app roles or roles swapped can be done much better. I mean the village won well but I found the non rolled not in OP roles difficult to believe. I suppose I would bring that up so maybe it’s just my blindspot.

Is there a better way for subs or switches (mod kills - re balances) to be announced particularly to be fairer on the person who is getting the role or “gift”? Abigail didn’t seem to get much of a shot if I remember correctly? (Can’t remember to be honest).

Like if a person is a sub and comes in their posting style could be very different and they could be killed or discussed a lot just because they are helping out... was frank replaced? Very difficult for the village to figure him out and if people had time could possibly of seen a difference in his posting...

duffman13

Drumpot wrote: »

I liked the break Saturday but foolishly spent the entire day working on some theories as by BR will show....

But it was very long. I wasn’t around Sunday but a speed day would of been good.

I’m not sure how or if dealing with app roles or roles swapped can be done much better. I mean the village won well but I found the non rolled not in OP roles difficult to believe. I suppose I would bring that up so maybe it’s just my blindspot.

Is there a better way for subs or switches (mod kills - re balances) to be announced particularly to be fairer on the person who is getting the role or “gift”? Abigail didn’t seem to get much of a shot if I remember correctly? (Can’t remember to be honest).

Like if a person is a sub and comes in their posting style could be very different and they could be killed or discussed a lot just because they are helping out... was frank replaced? Very difficult for the village to figure him out and if people had time could possibly of seen a difference in his posting...

I was Vernon, Frank was struggling to meet posting requirements so I stepped in around 7pm on Sunday and tried to get involved on that account. I literally hit posts required and then got stuck in once Vernon was lynched.

I love big complex games and the sub thing is an issue in all games. We had no bench so if a sub is announced Meta kicks in and you presume that must be important if they've got a sub. If you have a sub then you can announce it on thread and its less sussy but no subs bench makes you think the new guy is roled. Maybe that's just me though.

Drumpot

duffman13 wrote: »

I was Vernon, Frank was struggling to meet posting requirements so I stepped in around 7pm on Sunday and tried to get involved on that account. I literally hit posts required and then got stuck in once Vernon was lynched.

I love big complex games and the sub thing is an issue in all games. We had no bench so if a sub is announced Meta kicks in and you presume that must be important if they've got a sub. If you have a sub then you can announce it on thread and its less sussy but no subs bench makes you think the new guy is roled. Maybe that's just me though.

So that’s why I got on so well with Vernon and frank!!!

I like that though. A player who is bad and is familiar with the dynamics of the game takin over effectively a similar role. I didn’t know that but it worked really well..

As far as big complex games goes you can see how that worked out for me.. But I have to admit they are fun...

Necro

I see there's a good bit of debate regarding the Jack Moore play, I see both sides.

For one thing duffers, I 100% totally agree that the play wasn't going to work. I could see that from the get go but there comes a point when mods have to let players do what they feel is in the best interests of their team.

Likewise, the wolves attempting to munch one of their own - the mods could see the bigger picture here, but you guys couldn't so I was very conflicted:

A) Frank had yet to tell you the extra munch for killing Doris was not immediate.
Killing Cujo at night would have given Wendy Cujo's role, as the roleblock ends immediately.
C) Gertie was due to die that day at 2.40pm leaving you likely to be lynched and Frank all alone (in that case we would have just ended the game on a modkill more than likely).

However, you guys knew none of this. So the conflict I had was that you guys truly believed this was in the interest of your team, and who was I to stop you?

Hence why I relented and gave you Annie's PM info, as that should have been info your team mate shared. I hoped that would put you off the idea, but at the end of the day - had you put in Angus for the kill I would have allowed it to go through, same as we allowed Eva to make her play, despite me knowing both would not work at all.

That's all I'm really going to say about that tbh, hope you understand my perspective on it.

quickbeam

Drumpot wrote: »

I liked the break Saturday but foolishly spent the entire day working on some theories as by BR will show....

But it was very long. I wasn’t around Sunday but a speed day would of been good.

I’m not sure how or if dealing with app roles or roles swapped can be done much better. I mean the village won well but I found the non rolled not in OP roles difficult to believe. I suppose I would bring that up so maybe it’s just my blindspot.

Is there a better way for subs or switches (mod kills - re balances) to be announced particularly to be fairer on the person who is getting the role or “gift”? Abigail didn’t seem to get much of a shot if I remember correctly? (Can’t remember to be honest).

Like if a person is a sub and comes in their posting style could be very different and they could be killed or discussed a lot just because they are helping out... was frank replaced? Very difficult for the village to figure him out and if people had time could possibly of seen a difference in his posting...

Abigail did just fine, IMO. Did almost as much damage to the wolves as Eva did.

There are two types of subs.

(1) Where an account is taken over by a different player, be that a sub, or a dead player. This happened with Abigail (a sub) and with Frank (a dead player). In neither case can the person going in to the account have more information than they ought. In the case of Abigail, P* hadn't been in the Deadroom so was coming to it fresh. In the case of Frank, Duffman as Vernon had no more or no less information than Frank had as they had shared a back room. This, btw, wouldn't have worked for Molly stepping in to Ewan account. As much as Wendy believed Ewan, and vice versa, they can't have KNOWN that they were both on the up, but swapping her in to his account would have been just too much information for one player to KNOW.

(2) Where there is nobody suitable to take over the account, so the role is given to a different player. This is what happened when Conor couldn't play any more and there was nobody suitable to take over playing, so the role was given to Wendy/Sadie/Molly. We would have rathered a (1) option with Conor but there was nobody available to take over the role that didn't already have too much information. We debated about the extent of information Wendy would get - all previous and future Priest information; old information only; new information only - and plumped for the last option.

There are arguments to be made pro and con about what mods should do with announcements. Personally I thought saying Abigail had changed player was the way to go, but I didn't fight hard for it as there was arguments for letting P* proceed without this information. There was some criticism of our final decision, but as said above, P* did just fine even without mod clarifying this.

The biggest upside of using anon accounts is that (1) options above can be done smoothly without a mod announcement. Using our own accounts, mods would, of course, have to announce any change. But, as much as we like to think we don't take meta into consideration, once a mod makes an announcement, players will think - "this must be an important role, they'd not have swapped out a NRV". So, that is the biggest argument for NOT announcing a role swap where it can be avoided.

Jack Moore

Drumpot wrote: »

Well it confused me. I think some people might agree (if you twist their arm) that I brought chaos into the game... But I’m not sure they will thank either of us...

I wasn’t looking for thanks anymore than any other player is from the people not in his team I was looking to knock every other player out.

The post by Quickbeam in the wolves room confirming that I was bluffingvrater than being nine controlled ment I hadntva hope, I have no idea why she would post that after the mods had stated that what I was doing was legit.

Gordie Lachance
Mods discussed this, and (after a LENGTHY debate) felt he was not playing in the best interest of his team and gave him a warning to cut it out.

Fine fine my reaction is in my room something along the lines of “your the boss Necro I don’t ageee but I’ll do whatever you say “

It was also brought to the Deadroom, where the consensus seemed to be that he was trying something out, and not breaking any rules. We then gave leeway for him to continue.

If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck ....yes. We've known that ourselves since early in the game, but NOT pre-game. But no rules have been broken in that regard either.

It's kinda ****ty for you guys. I sympathise.

Oh ok so you allowed me continue but you told the wolves that it wasn’t because I was being mind controlled it was because I was trying something.


To reviterate
I did not rule break / cheat
I asked by pm before I came out
I stopped posting as soon as the mods changed their minds
I posted again after I was told I could

So say it was a good clever or bad stupid play and it’s irrelevant to me ( that’s what I ment Bounty hunter when I said it was irrelevant)

But say that it was a rule break when it clearly wasn’t after you’ve been shown the facts and it’s just insulting.

No one can say I didn’t contribute to the game and personally I feel it’s much more disrecpectful not to contribute but I see those posters get free ride while I have to read about how I’m a loose cannon at best and a cheat at worst.

Necro

I want to move onto something I've been dealing with since we took over COP up until around Friday of last week.

COP is currently (or was) under attack from spambots. Literally hundreds of accounts are being created each week. Players and dead room people alike (and especially the mods) will all have noticed the slow down of the site since the beginning of the game, and beforehand.

Initially to combat the issue I set the site settings for Admin accounts to activate new accounts, but it didn't stop the issue.

Banning IPs and users didn't work.

Finally, as was pointed out to me by sKeith, all of this traffic could end up costing Max - the site owner, money.

So, as a result I have shut off the ability to register new accounts on COP. It's likely this will have to remain that way for the forseeable future.



So with that in mind, I have a request for the boards mods:

Along with the WW Forum Access Request Thread, I wonder if in conjunction there could be a COP Account Access Request Thread.

New users can still be created through the Admin CP, anyone who's modded a game knows the process.

An account can be set up by the mods of the current game, with a generic email and password and PMed here on boards to the person who requested it.

Hopefully that will improve the site speed, and eventually the spambots will leave poor little COP alone again.

duffman13

Drumpot wrote: »

So that’s why I got on so well with Vernon and frank!!!

I like that though. A player who is bad and is familiar with the dynamics of the game takin over effectively a similar role. I didn’t know that but it worked really well..

As far as big complex games goes you can see how that worked out for me.. But I have to admit they are fun...

It was easy for me to sub in as I'd all the same info Frank had available to him, no advantage or disadvantage really. Thought I'd copped but just played it straight and tried not alter the post style.

You were bringing people around but there was too much info available to the village to shot down different aspects of the theories. Feckin information.

Something going forward I'd look at in a game of 24 plus is a double lynch, double munch scenario from Wendesday or Thursday if the expected kill rate doesn't materialise. People can still play the same game and timeframe but double the kill rate with no additional pressure to vote twice etc.

In one way it favours the munch as village needs to be coordinated, might also benefit the village with BG etc in play.

The only other thing I can think of is having 2 day, 2 night phase in a 24 hour period in the bigger games. That's a struggle for a lot of people though

Banjo

In fairness, at game launch even a single NRV can tip the scale enough to make another Wolf or power necessary for balance, depending on how you're modelling your village, so as long as mods consistently sub out the inactive accounts as a first preference across all games, and as long as in an individual game you either sub all inactives or no inactives, I think it would take a little stress out of the decision because there's nothing to interpret there. You'd have to announce in non-Anon, and only use an advertised subs list from the first post, but as long as there's consistency with regards to when it's used and no positive discrimination towards roled players it should be grand.

Won't stop people arguing about the significance of the event, then arguing about the significance of arguing about the significance, then killing each-other, but then that's village life, innit? #19

Edit :
For double lynch / double munch, the problem with that is it makes the lynch less telling if you run 1 vote and the top two lose, and if you run 2 separate lynches it might as well be a speed day in terms of the required level of engagement for Village.
Bullets! Wild Wednesday, where everyone gets a bullet, but it takes multiple shots to kill you so there's a degree of consensus to it.

sullivlo

Necrominus wrote: »

I want to move onto something I've been dealing with since we took over COP up until around Friday of last week.

COP is currently (or was) under attack from spambots. Literally hundreds of accounts are being created each week. Players and dead room people alike (and especially the mods) will all have noticed the slow down of the site since the beginning of the game, and beforehand.

Initially to combat the issue I set the site settings for Admin accounts to activate new accounts, but it didn't stop the issue.

Banning IPs and users didn't work.

Finally, as was pointed out to me by sKeith, all of this traffic could end up costing Max - the site owner, money.

So, as a result I have shut off the ability to register new accounts on COP. It's likely this will have to remain that way for the forseeable future.



So with that in mind, I have a request for the boards mods:

Along with the WW Forum Access Request Thread, I wonder if in conjunction there could be a COP Account Access Request Thread.

New users can still be created through the Admin CP, anyone who's modded a game knows the process.

An account can be set up by the mods of the current game, with a generic email and password and PMed here on boards to the person who requested it.

Hopefully that will improve the site speed, and eventually the spambots will leave poor little COP alone again.

Thanks Necro for your work on this. Myself and Pedro are working through the list of posts that mention COP and breaking the link; hopefully this will help in some way.

But absolutely no issue whatsoever about having a COP request thread alongside the WW request forum. We will need to be vigilant about posting links to COP also. If anyone sees an active link on the site, can you let a mod know and we can edit accordingly.

Baggly

Necrominus wrote: »

I want to move onto something I've been dealing with since we took over COP up until around Friday of last week.

COP is currently (or was) under attack from spambots. Literally hundreds of accounts are being created each week. Players and dead room people alike (and especially the mods) will all have noticed the slow down of the site since the beginning of the game, and beforehand.

Initially to combat the issue I set the site settings for Admin accounts to activate new accounts, but it didn't stop the issue.

Banning IPs and users didn't work.

Finally, as was pointed out to me by sKeith, all of this traffic could end up costing Max - the site owner, money.

So, as a result I have shut off the ability to register new accounts on COP. It's likely this will have to remain that way for the forseeable future.



So with that in mind, I have a request for the boards mods:

Along with the WW Forum Access Request Thread, I wonder if in conjunction there could be a COP Account Access Request Thread.

New users can still be created through the Admin CP, anyone who's modded a game knows the process.

An account can be set up by the mods of the current game, with a generic email and password and PMed here on boards to the person who requested it.

Hopefully that will improve the site speed, and eventually the spambots will leave poor little COP alone again.

This is grand but obviously open for discussion. Digi provided Sully and I with a comprehensive list of all the COP links in the forum and we will be working through them to remove direct link.

If we do go ahead with the above suggestion of a COP access request thread, its important to note it wont be 'owned/operated' by the forum mods like the WW forum access thread.

Whomever is the current game admin needs to own making and distributing the accounts.

EDIT: DAMMIT SULLY SNAP

Drumpot

@Jack

You said you wanted to cause chaos by your actions. I was saying that part of your plan worked cause I caused chaos very much because of your confusing play.. I wasn’t debating the merits of your strategy just that your chaos bit sort of worked....

Edit: The chaos strategy was fair and perfectly sound.. I’m agreeing with this part of your strategy ....

Necro

Banjo wrote: »

In fairness, at game launch even a single NRV can tip the scale enough to make another Wolf or power necessary for balance, depending on how you're modelling your village, so as long as mods consistently sub out the inactive accounts as a first preference across all games, and as long as in an individual game you either sub all inactives or no inactives, I think it would take a little stress out of the decision because there's nothing to interpret there. You'd have to announce in non-Anon, and only use an advertised subs list from the first post, but as long as there's consistency with regards to when it's used and no positive discrimination towards roled players it should be grand.

Won't stop people arguing about the significance of the event, then arguing about the significance of arguing about the significance, then killing each-other, but then that's village life, innit? #19

Regarding subbing mid-game, I see two ways to approach the issue in future:

Delaying access to the Dead Room for a couple of days for dead players, in order to slot them in for a low poster or a mid-game drop out, in the case of anon games. Unless the dead players are wolves, or a seer/priest with extra info, most players are able to get a second bite of the cherry.

Non-spoiler deadrooms would also help a little in this regard (but that's a whole different argument tbh).


Secondly is to have a subs bench, although with sub benches the rules have to be followed to the absolute letter of the law imo so low posting (if there's a rule in place), or other rule breaches would have to be strictly adhered to.


I want to stress that no game mod EVER wants to modkill a player under any circumstances, and when the decisions are made to do so, they are not done so lightly.

MAYBE we should have been stricter and modkilled Frank, Clodagh, Isla, Liam... others who did not vote or voted incorrectly, or indeed broke rules by discussing mod decisions on thread, deleting posts, editing in their backrooms despite it implicitly being stated in the OP not to do so - but we decided warnings for first offences were the fairest way to go, and I stand by that decision. To use so many modkills would have deeply unbalanced the game.

I stand by the decisions we as a team made throughout the game though.

Drumpot

duffman13 wrote: »

It was easy for me to sub in as I'd all the same info Frank had available to him, no advantage or disadvantage really. Thought I'd copped but just played it straight and tried not alter the post style.

You were bringing people around but there was too much info available to the village to shot down different aspects of the theories. Feckin information.

Something going forward I'd look at in a game of 24 plus is a double lynch, double munch scenario from Wendesday or Thursday if the expected kill rate doesn't materialise. People can still play the same game and timeframe but double the kill rate with no additional pressure to vote twice etc.

In one way it favours the munch as village needs to be coordinated, might also benefit the village with BG etc in play.

The only other thing I can think of is having 2 day, 2 night phase in a 24 hour period in the bigger games. That's a struggle for a lot of people though

I think the double munch and double lycnh is a brilliant Idea. It means people don’t have to spend any more time working out different strategies in between 4 seperatley planned kill events in one day.

Baggly

Jack Moore wrote: »

I wasn’t looking for thanks anymore than any other player is from the people not in his team I was looking to knock every other player out.

The post by Quickbeam in the wolves room confirming that I was bluffingvrater than being nine controlled ment I hadntva hope, I have no idea why she would post that after the mods had stated that what I was doing was legit.


Fine fine my reaction is in my room something along the lines of “your the boss Necro I don’t ageee but I’ll do whatever you say “



Oh ok so you allowed me continue but you told the wolves that it wasn’t because I was being mind controlled it was because I was trying something.


To reviterate
I did not rule break / cheat
I asked by pm before I came out
I stopped posting as soon as the mods changed their minds
I posted again after I was told I could

So say it was a good clever or bad stupid play and it’s irrelevant to me ( that’s what I ment Bounty hunter when I said it was irrelevant)

But say that it was a rule break when it clearly wasn’t after you’ve been shown the facts and it’s just insulting.

No one can say I didn’t contribute to the game and personally I feel it’s much more disrecpectful not to contribute but I see those posters get free ride while I have to read about how I’m a loose cannon at best and a cheat at worst.

I dont read QBs post as confirmation you were bluffing but i understand how you read it that way.

Agree dont think you did rule break. I think we have established that here. Dont think anyone is calling you a cheat now we have all talked it through.

Why did you ask via pm and not using your backroom? Just curious.

Dont disagree, you did follow mod commands. Also thank you for clarification on 'thats irrelevant'.

Drumpot

Necrominus wrote: »

Regarding subbing mid-game, I see two ways to approach the issue in future:

Delaying access to the Dead Room for a couple of days for dead players, in order to slot them in for a low poster or a mid-game drop out, in the case of anon games. Unless the dead players are wolves, or a seer/priest with extra info, most players are able to get a second bite of the cherry.

Non-spoiler deadrooms would also help a little in this regard (but that's a whole different argument tbh).


Secondly is to have a subs bench, although with sub benches the rules have to be followed to the absolute letter of the law imo so low posting (if there's a rule in place), or other rule breaches would have to be strictly adhered to.


I want to stress that no game mod EVER wants to modkill a player under any circumstances, and when the decisions are made to do so, they are not done so lightly.

MAYBE we should have been stricter and modkilled Frank, Clodagh, Isla, Liam... others who did not vote or voted incorrectly, or indeed broke rules by discussing mod decisions on thread, deleting posts, editing in their backrooms despite it implicitly being stated in the OP not to do so - but we decided warnings for first offences were the fairest way to go, and I stand by that decision. To use so many modkills would have deeply unbalanced the game.

I stand by the decisions we as a team made throughout the game though.

Yeh I think mod flexibility on discipline is important. There are different reasons why people may miss votes or make ill advised comments on thread. If there is a zero tolerance applied I don’t think I would last too many games.

Perhaps have an auto self vote for those who don’t vote? It means that even if they don’t vote everybody knows and at least they may end up lynching themselves? And for every vote they miss thereafter their vote for themselves doubles? Is that too harsh?

Necro

Jack Moore wrote: »

I wasn’t looking for thanks anymore than any other player is from the people not in his team I was looking to knock every other player out.

The post by Quickbeam in the wolves room confirming that I was bluffingvrater than being nine controlled ment I hadntva hope, I have no idea why she would post that after the mods had stated that what I was doing was legit.


Fine fine my reaction is in my room something along the lines of “your the boss Necro I don’t ageee but I’ll do whatever you say “



Oh ok so you allowed me continue but you told the wolves that it wasn’t because I was being mind controlled it was because I was trying something.


To reviterate
I did not rule break / cheat
I asked by pm before I came out
I stopped posting as soon as the mods changed their minds
I posted again after I was told I could

So say it was a good clever or bad stupid play and it’s irrelevant to me ( that’s what I ment Bounty hunter when I said it was irrelevant)

But say that it was a rule break when it clearly wasn’t after you’ve been shown the facts and it’s just insulting.

No one can say I didn’t contribute to the game and personally I feel it’s much more disrecpectful not to contribute but I see those posters get free ride while I have to read about how I’m a loose cannon at best and a cheat at worst.

Loose Cannon - Probably :pac:

Cheat? Nope, no way. I don't think personally that's a fair argument to level at you at all, you did what you felt was the best course of action for your team at the time.

Whether it's a good play or bad play, or anything else is, as you said irrelevant.

Ultimately though it's not a rule breach, in my eyes anyways.

I think the issue was when we discussed this via PM I made the mistake - and that is on me - of not asking for details of your play before you made it.

Hence the mods getting involved to stop it mid-flow as we were unsure of the best course of action to proceed with.

So, in that regard, I probably owe yourself and others an apology, there were ten things going on through my mind at the time and I overlooked that one step.

Banjo

Pter wrote: »

I dont read QBs post as confirmation you were bluffing but i understand how you read it that way.

If Eva were mind controlled there would have been no discussion about whether the action was in the best interest of his team. There would have just been an Ascii Shrug.

On voting : Case sensitivity is a bad idea. Voting on mobile, it automatically capitalises your password in Google forms.

Baggly

Banjo wrote: »

If Eva were mind controlled there would have been no discussion about whether the action was in the best interest of his team. There would have just been an Ascii Shrug.

On voting : Case sensitivity is a bad idea. Voting on mobile, it automatically capitalises your password in Google forms.

I need to reread that wolf thread in fairness to Jack.

Baggly

Yeah thats a bit messy alright. No offense mods but i think you got it right the first time in saying that you wouldnt share interactions with other players. Not to worry live and learn.

Necro

Drumpot wrote: »

Yeh I think mod flexibility on discipline is important. There are different reasons why people may miss votes or make ill advised comments on thread. If there is a zero tolerance applied I don’t think I would last too many games.

Perhaps have an auto self vote for those who don’t vote? It means that even if they don’t vote everybody knows and at least they may end up lynching themselves? And for every vote they miss thereafter their vote for themselves doubles? Is that too harsh?

My point I suppose is that primarily, these games are for fun for the most part, from my perspective anyways. If mods start operating a zero tolerance policy then it will take away from both the game, and the fun factor for a lot of players.

At the end of the day it's a community spirit we try and foster here, and being rule-Nazis and looking to punish people for every little mistake flies in the face of what this place is about for me.

So, TLDR: Yes, by the letter of the law more people should have met Jack's axe up close and personal, but for the sake of both the game - and the forum community spirit here, mods deigned against it on many occasions in this game.

TheValeyard

This is meant to be fun and having some craic. Fine line between that and the game becoming to clinical and boring.

duffman13

Banjo wrote: »

If Eva were mind controlled there would have been no discussion about whether the action was in the best interest of his team. There would have just been an Ascii Shrug.

I said it in the wolf thread that if hes the last SK it's mental, but with clarification in BR that it was in the best interest of his team I fully expected an SK kill then next morning even after he got lynched.

I'm dropping it now, I've said my piece on it.

Necro with COP is it purely down to all these bots? The number of players using it didn't affect it, it was ****e early in the week but got better from Thursday onwards for me!

Jack Moore

Pter wrote: »

I dont read QBs post as confirmation you were bluffing but i understand how you read it that way.

Agree dont think you did rule break. I think we have established that here. Dont think anyone is calling you a cheat now we have all talked it through.

Why did you ask via pm and not using your backroom? Just curious.

Dont disagree, you did follow mod commands. Also thank you for clarification on 'thats irrelevant'.

It’s not allowed to edit the backrooms so if I was told no I didn’t want any discussion on the merits of the play. Ie: I didn’t want to be laughed at.

Necro

duffman13 wrote: »

Necro with COP is it purely down to all these bots? The number of players using it didn't affect it, it was ****e early in the week but got better from Thursday onwards for me!

From Thursday onwards I shut off registration. Could have been the traffic contributing, but primarily it's the bots.

Stupid bots :mad:

Jack Moore

Drumpot wrote: »

Yeh I think mod flexibility on discipline is important. There are different reasons why people may miss votes or make ill advised comments on thread. If there is a zero tolerance applied I don’t think I would last too many games.

Perhaps have an auto self vote for those who don’t vote? It means that even if they don’t vote everybody knows and at least they may end up lynching themselves? And for every vote they miss thereafter their vote for themselves doubles? Is that too harsh?

I’d game it.
I like no vote as a voting option but I don’t like not voting as an option.

Baggly

Well i think its always good to be able to read back at the thinking behind plays whether they go ahead or not.

Why would anyone laugh at you for asking to try something? I mean you went ahead with the play anyway, so if anyone was gonna laugh it still would have happened now.

Anyway, it doesnt matter i suppose!

sKeith

duffman13 wrote: »

Here lies the issue IMO, if its not going to work and nail you the cross then why do it? You said never going to work but Eva's goose was cooked. Eva had two days before she'd have been lynched IMO. A lot happens in two days.

Timing is critical and context was key. Angus was getting lynched, the whole thing was bizarre.

On your point about people's playing past, I actually don't have an issue on Jack or his previous incarnation. He was fairly helpful to me in my first game. I never had an issue with him, I had an issue with his tactics. I was pissed off at the time and I didn't know who it was till later in the afternoon.

Why did you come out as coffey with 3 mislynches left?
With 3 mislynches left, it was never going to work and just nails you to the cross, why do it!


When two people come out as coffey, with no priest, those two will be lynched. One of them is a wolf.


Don't you see the hypocrisy you are spouting?

duffman13

Jack Moore wrote: »

It’s not allowed to edit the backrooms so if I was told no I didn’t want any discussion on the merits of the play. Ie: I didn’t want to be laughed at.

I didn't know a pm had been sent, I read the backrooms quickly and just seen you being told to stop and then given permission to go again. So apolgies for that

Jack Moore

Pter wrote: »

Well i think its always good to be able to read back at the thinking behind plays whether they go ahead or not.

Why would anyone laugh at you for asking to try something? I mean you went ahead with the play anyway, so if anyone was gonna laugh it still would have happened now.

Anyway, it doesnt matter i suppose!

Yeah but I did it after asking if I was allowed

“Absolutely it’s allowed, it’s your role and you can do whatever you feel is in your best interest!!”

And I went along with it .

“Jesus no you clown (sic) what are you even thinking about “
And I’d want that to be the end.


I would like to say on crazy ideas that i feel the idea that wolves can’t self munch is an intrinsic rule and should not be changed in a game calling it self werewolf
A serial killer killing a player that helps him is different