Proposed changes to phantom rules

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

no.



this is the exact same thing as silencing.

You're saying then that the rules of talking for a silenced player would be identicle to the rules of talking with dead or people not playing?

If so, I have no problem with this silencing plan, as the one hole in it is the possibility of information getting passed through them.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

yeah I thought that was the whole point? maybe I misread chardish's first post I was skimming a bit.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

yeah I thought that was the whole point? maybe I misread chardish's first post I was skimming a bit.

Just re-read it. It only says no more posting or voting. This implies that the person can still communicate with the other players.

One more thing: even though I'll back the idea of silencing (assuming AIM isn't allowed), I must say this. I don't like roles being reassigned. It'd be better if the person is silenced that the special role is simply lost.

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Why not just kick them out of the game? Why keep them around, if they can't do anything

[User6773]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Just re-read it. It only says no more posting or voting. This implies that the person can still communicate with the other players.

If you can't post or vote you're not part of the ****ing game now are you? Duh. Silencing makes sense; it keeps the numbers the same but doesn't allow someone's inactivity to influence the game.

Replacements don't make sense either. The entire point of the game is that you should be able to detect human from wolf (from blue) by the way that the person acts. If you swap one person out for another it is a huge penalty to the humans because now it's Day 3 or Day 4 and they have to start from square one in terms of deducing someone's role by their post history, demeanor, and reasoning. That is grievously harmful to the humans (and perhaps only barely to the wolves.)

I can't possibly see any strategy that would involve giving yourself a 2-game ban and a loss so that your team could win the game. Especially since if you've been silenced and you're remaining a part of any alliance or otherwise involving yourself with the game in any way, I'd give you a forum ban for several weeks because that's obvious antisocial behavior.

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Why not just kick them out of the game? Why keep them around, if they can't do anything

To keep the numbers. This way human victory or wolf victory can't come early. They would still have to kill that player.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Ok if silencing = no posting no voting no communication between other players, but they are still alive I'm fine with that. I'd assume that player wouldn't get more phantoms after being silenced.

But as far as revealing or reassigning roles, that should not happen.

[User6773]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

But as far as revealing or reassigning roles, that should not happen.

Why not?
1) No fair to the humans if a seer or guardian goes inactive.
2) Otherwise not doing anything becomes a viable wolf strategy.
3) Let's say there are 3 wolves (A, B, and C) and C has dropped out due to phantoms. A and B get lynched. What then? Do we have there be no wolf kill until C gets lynched by chance? Or do we have random people get wolfed until C gets lynched by chance? (unfair, since wolf patterns are often used to find wolves) Should it be possible for the inactive twit to win the game for his team?

It's necessary for teams to be revealed, but not roles.

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

That sounds fine. but I still agree with nforcer about the 200 post limit

[MiniNeo]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

In response to chardish's 3)

Then people would know that it is one of the players that got silenced and lynch accordingly.

edit so I can respond to 2) too

Didn't you just say no one would give up a 2 game ban just to win the game?

edit again, answering 1) rofl aren't I random

If a person got these roles and are still not caring about the game, banhammer please.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

EDIT: deleted because I didn't agree with what I said after I read it again.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Otherwise not doing anything becomes a viable wolf strategy.

If roles aren't revealed, it could just be that if a wolf is silenced, he becomes human (in other words, he doesn't have to be lynched for humans to win).

[StoicRoivaS]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

If the idea were' all trying to stick to here is to punish the individual entirely and the team none, then role revealing is obviously a very very poor idea. I think as much punishment as possible should stay on the individual and the individual alone. 2 phantoms is an automatic ejection from the game, a replacement is found asap, the replacement comes in with zero phantoms. The ejected player's team (and aux role if any) is not revealed. The player gets a 2 game ban. The word count is also a bad idea. If the host and/or TWC want to privately examine posts, that's fine, but a solid number will ruin the game, guarenteed.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Replacing roles is a terribly bad idea. In this game we like to base or judgements on the behavior of others and if someone is replaced, you start back at the beginning in terms of reading they're behavior.

[StoicRoivaS]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I was referring to a replacement player, not someone else to give the role away to, if you were confused. I'd rather have someone else come in and have eveyone else have to readjust a little, than to throw the entire game out of sync and punish the player's entire team for their screw up.