Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules
I really agree with Iggy here. Like I mentioned earlier in an attempt at a solution to this problem, some players may intentionally post very little in the public thread in attempts to accomplish many things. These players may be the most active over AIM and other mediums and least active on the thread, and your proposal would hurt them, their team, and discourage them from putting in the serious effort they already are (via AIM, et al.) As I previously suggested, if other players can prove activity in some way, they player in question should be free from punishment. A strict and straight forward word count is only going to encourage superfluous wasting of forum space. People will make even larger attempts at getting their word in while actually saying nothing. There is already enough of that going on as it is. Introducing a count will only make this worse, which is, again, why I suggested it be up to the host and be something that occurs at post game. The player would still get phantoms like normal, for not voting, but then if further inactivity is in question the player could be examined in post game and dealt with accordingly. Secondly, I would prefer to see a player silenced at any two phantoms, not two in a row. One phantom is bad enough; the second one should have to be on the following day to attract more criticism to the player. Any two within one game should come with some serious repercussions. Thirdly, in reverse order, I apologize, reassigning roles is also, IMHO, a horrible idea. It gives a definite advantage to the humans should the inactive players be a blue to start out. This would no doubt be used in some form of strategic move somewhere down the line and that's one of the last things that needs to happen. I would like to see the inactive players special power be taken away entirely after being silenced (aka two phantoms in one game). This would not be revealed to the other players in order to prevent the problem noted above. Seer can no longer see, psychic no longer receives their visions, master wolf now comes up red upon being "seen", etc. This would certainly be a discouraging factor to the inactive player in question. I also think that a silenced player should count towards the insta count. I don't see how this is really relevant to change. It's nearly always uncertain whether the person you're voting for is a human or a wolf, so changing the number of votes it takes to insta someone doesn't terribly matter, nor is it really a punishment to the inactive player in question. Drop this, IMHO. As a better suggestion, I'd say that in the event of ties between players during the day's lynch, if a player is silenced on either side of the voting, the other votee is considered to have more votes and thusly is lynched, if that makes sense. I.E. if I have 3 votes and Iggy has 3, but minineo is silenced and has cast his vote to lynch Iggy, his vote still "counts" but because his vote resulted in a tie overall, the tie is "non-existent" and I am lynched over Iggy. This is actually a form of a punishment to the inactive player in question and another potential downfall to getting silenced. I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean by #1, so if you don't mind elaborating for my noobish self, I'd appreciate it.
So, to recap for the lazy people who hate how I rarely use paragraph breaks:
Explain 1; drop 2a, 2c, 2d; Alter (Merge) 2 & 3 in the way mentioned above; Possibly change 4 to be more similar to the way I suggested above.
A hard count is a bad idea, but personal examination by the host would not be a bad idea at all. Maybe if a person adds nothing more than their vote to any given game day's activity, they would deserve to be silenced for the next game day or the rest of the game even, preferably.
Those are my thoughts so far. I've thought about it for about 30 seconds plus however long it took me to write this, so I'll figure something more concrete out once a few more people voice some ideas. Take care.
Originally posted by iggymatrixcounter
So, to recap for the lazy people who hate how I rarely use paragraph breaks:
Explain 1; drop 2a, 2c, 2d; Alter (Merge) 2 & 3 in the way mentioned above; Possibly change 4 to be more similar to the way I suggested above.
A hard count is a bad idea, but personal examination by the host would not be a bad idea at all. Maybe if a person adds nothing more than their vote to any given game day's activity, they would deserve to be silenced for the next game day or the rest of the game even, preferably.
Those are my thoughts so far. I've thought about it for about 30 seconds plus however long it took me to write this, so I'll figure something more concrete out once a few more people voice some ideas. Take care.
Comment