Proposed changes to phantom rules

[User6773]

1) Phantoms only affect tiebreakers, and do not affect instas or end-of-day votes.

2) Any player who accumulates 2 phantoms in a row is "silenced." This involves:
- they can no longer post or vote for the rest of the game
- their team (human/wolf) but not their role (guardian/MW/etc), gets publicly revealed
- they are still considered an active player for their team (if they are a wolf, the humans must still lynch them; if they are a human, they count towards the total number of humans in terms of calculating wolf victory)
- if they have a special role (MW, guardian, etc.) it gets randomly re-assigned to another player on their team
- the silenced player does not count in determining the number of votes to insta someone
- the game gets counted as a loss for them (for record keeping purposes, ohi Tass)
- they get an automatic 2-game ban from TWG (this number doubles every time they repeat the offense, so third-time offenders get a 8-game ban)

3) Any player who accumulates 3 phantoms in one game is silenced, regardless of whether those phantoms were consecutive or not.

4) A player gets a phantom if they type less than 200 words in any given day, regardless of whether they voted or not. Quotes and AIM logs do not count towards the 200 word limit. Like phantoms, they don't apply if someone got insta'd that day. Obvious attempts to bypass this rule (for example, C+Ping the same sentence ten times in a row, or typing "I vote for Kilga" fifty times in row) will be treated like a quote or an AIM log. For comparison purposes, this post is 292 words long. There's a JavaScript c+p word counter here if you're unsure: http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/...untwords.shtml

This is my own proposal, and not yet the opinion of the TWC. I just wanted to open a dialogue.

Thoughts?

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

1) Take out the 200 word count limit and 2) Do not reveal publically any roles (I'm referring to 2a on your post). Obviously if a wolf is revealed then yes it's good for the humans, but if a human gets revealed then if there is a guardian then it can actually help the humans rather than hurt them. 3) Don't reassign roles either, this tells the person that got the role that the person with two phantoms was the role you just got and therefore proves humanity. (With the wolves I don't see a problem but for the humans it could be an advantage)

I don't understand point 2d. Does this mean that even though they vote it doesn't count? Or does it mean that if someone has 2 phantoms it doesn't equal 1.001 votes? I kind of like them both, I mean if you're silenced and can't count your vote... BUT STILL HAVE TO VOTE... that would be super fun and a sweet punishment. And if it's the latter of the two then it would make games like this last one it more fair for the humans. (Because you don't have 1 or 2 humans messing it up for the rest of the team.) Both are kool I just want to know what you mean there.

I actually think that inactivity is a strategy. Shouldn't prevent people from bringing in strategy but I do hate the fact that phantoms from one or two people hurt the rest of the team. Those rules should definitely help, even if only to filter out inactives every once in awhile. That's why I don't think a word count should be implimented. If people want to be inactive but still vote and talk every once in awhile, I think that's fine and a good way to slide under the radar on the beginning days.

So really: drop 2a, 2c, and 4. The rest looks fine IMO.

[MiniNeo]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I don't think the word limit is that much of a good idea... >_>

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Well, to you because your above post is your average post for everyday. You should actually get out and put some content on the game instead of just saying "oh hi i'm stil here just ignore me i'll be right back tomorrow".

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I like the idea of revealing roles.

However, there should be a clause on there saying "cannot be guarded or affected by any blue action." Otherwise, someone could not vote on purpose just to be confirmed human and lead an alliance, then take the ban like a man knowing they just manhandled a win for the humans.

[MiniNeo]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I am glad you saw what I did in the above post.

It is because I am never good at elaborating stuff so I just resort to using one-liners and simplifying everything. Sure it makes my posts short but I didn't care about it because I got my point across.

PS when did I say that? =<

Edit because I saw afro's post after I hit reply: I don't think anyone would want to take a 2 game ban just to get the role security.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I don't think anyone would want to take a 2 game ban just to get the role security.

It doesn't matter if they wouldn't. The fact remains that they could.

Just imagine if someone knew they'd be going on vacation or something and be unnable to play anyway.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Well, to you because your above post is your average post for everyday. You should actually get out and put some content on the game instead of just saying "oh hi i'm stil here just ignore me i'll be right back tomorrow".

Umm you can not insult people who are being inactive AT ALL. You are definitely under this 200 word limit per day that you just riped mini on.

[MiniNeo]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Yeah afro, but how often would someone actually do that? Besides TWC can always do something about it in case someone did use the two phantoms to their advantage.

PS I did use inactivity as a strategy for the games I've played. Keeps me alive, selfish, I know =D

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I like the idea of revealing roles.

However, there should be a cause on there saying "cannot be guarded or affected by any blue action." Otherwise, someone could not vote on purpose just to be confirmed human and lead an alliance, then take the ban like a man knowing they just manhandled a win for the humans.

That helps, but you still know that that person was a confirmed human. And could therefore set up the other blues in an alliance or something before he was wolfed. (or something of the sort)

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

The 200 word rule is stupid. What happens when you get a situation like when a wolf accidently tells a human he's a wolf, and the human posts the AIM convo? Does everyone who votes have to explain in 200 words why they're going to vote that wolf off? Come on now.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

The 200 word rule is stupid. What happens when you get a situation like when a wolf accidently tells a human he's a wolf, and the human posts the AIM convo? Does everyone who votes have to explain in 200 words why they're going to vote that wolf off? Come on now.

lol which happened last game.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

How about this:

Instead of anything, getting a phantom is an instant game kick and ban for the next game with higher ban lengths for subsequent offenses.

There is no reason for any person to ever get a phantom, and if they do, then they deserve a ban.

I'm not even trying to be mean or anything. I know people have things going on in real life sometimes. It's just that everyone else who signed up to play the game shouldn't have to lose just because someone else had something going on in real life.

The ban could even be at the discretion of TWC or the host if there is a more legit reason (death in the family compared to "was out with friends and didn't wanna come back home lol").

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I posted this in the postgame thread, but it's more relevant here (in response to afro)

Banning someone for one phantom is overkill. Certain situations arise (i.e internet going out, unnanounced day trip, etc.) that people who sign up for TWG can't control, and banning them for 1 game is ridiculous. Jurs shouldn't be punished for not being there EXACTLY at 10pm... people have lives. I don't know a single person who, while out with friends, is actually going to say "guys i have to go home because I need to make a post on a message board"

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I stand firmly by my "if someone can't make time for the game, then they don't deserve to play" mentality.