Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Rule 3) Voting d) I think you should clarify "by close of round" do you mean a null vote is a missed vote only at the end of the round as in the end of the day or the round as in a runoff within a round? g) typo in second sentence - "round" should be singular, not plural
On the null deal, I don't totally get it or agree with it. When players just vote null in a round, it is often just another way of saying "I am not ready to vote yet" so why even do it? The only case I can see it being useful would be in a three way runoff in round two - 9 players voting on 3 players, 3 votes each. Moving from 3 to 2 players I can see the last player not voting only to allow the runoff to progress. That player could just vote for someone with three votes, leaving the two remaining to go ahead and make a move, but we do tend to eliminate one player at a time, allowing the runoff to reset and get the full 36 hours for new discussion.
Sample tally explaining this:
Day Two/Runoff 1
A - 3 - B, D, E B - 3 - C, F, G C - 3 - A, H, I
Just say a player voting for C wants A and B to be in the runoff - Player I. Player I could vote null, A and H reset when the runoff ends, starting runoff 2. Player I could just vote for A or B, but it may rush the round, they don't want to have their vote criticized for standing out or stacking or whatever. That is really the only way I see a "Null" being of any use.
I don't see any other changes off hand that I would make.
I was against the idea of multiple missed votes in a single day at first, but it really does help the flow of the game a lot, so I've come around.
I'm also against null votes. It seems the only people who benefit from them are the mafia, because it's an excellent stalling tactic and a good way to make yourself look like an uncertain townie. If you're having doubts, then change your vote, or at least say you're having doubts. None of this 11th hour wafflin' business (#TeamPancakesFTW).
Sorry I was late to the party on my tagging earlier in the thread. I like how it looks, including tagging was a good way to bring this up to date.
Quick point on the "null" vote. Rather than seeing it used indefinitely, I've seen the "lock your votes in" approach used. Fair to say that's an effective counter-move? I'm for the "null" in general, it's the abuse & overuse that needs reining in. Mend it, don't end it.
Sorry I was late to the party on my tagging earlier in the thread. I like how it looks, including tagging was a good way to bring this up to date.
Quick point on the "null" vote. Rather than seeing it used indefinitely, I've seen the "lock your votes in" approach used. Fair to say that's an effective counter-move? I'm for the "null" in general, it's the abuse & overuse that needs reining in. Mend it, don't end it.
Interesting solution to one aspect of the null vote. I was told that the "lock" is not binding - no such thing, anyone that locks can change later. Does this change your view on effectiveness as a counter in your case?
I think Null - when used reasonably/responsibly - serves purposes which are valuable enough to justify its existence.
Null allows Player A to change their mind about Player B, without requiring immediate judgment on Player C or D. There's a transitional value to it.
Null has been used as an olive branch extended between players reciprocating votes, a way of saying "I'll change my vote if you do too," and what Null does there is create a space for such agreement. Like a lubricant for defusing some of those tense situations & facilitating compromise.
Null can also have the benefit of keeping players on the same page. This isn't exactly like chess, where Player A takes a turn and Player B is automatically up to speed. Sometimes intervening events (think damning allegations or Inspector confessions) deserve everyone's consideration, and that might not always work under an existing deadline.
Yes, there are ways Null can be abused. But I think eliminating it altogether would be throwing out the baby along with the bathwater.
I think Null - when used reasonably/responsibly - serves purposes which are valuable enough to justify its existence.
Null allows Player A to change their mind about Player B, without requiring immediate judgment on Player C or D. There's a transitional value to it.
Null has been used as an olive branch extended between players reciprocating votes, a way of saying "I'll change my vote if you do too," and what Null does there is create a space for such agreement. Like a lubricant for defusing some of those tense situations & facilitating compromise.
Null can also have the benefit of keeping players on the same page. This isn't exactly like chess, where Player A takes a turn and Player B is automatically up to speed. Sometimes intervening events (think damning allegations or Inspector confessions) deserve everyone's consideration, and that might not always work under an existing deadline.
Yes, there are ways Null can be abused. But I think eliminating it altogether would be throwing out the baby along with the bathwater.
Well stated Kdogg. ^^^ This is my opinion as well as to how Null should be used.
I don't mind null as a placeholder and it does have it's own "character" both for the person you took your vote off of and the person you didn't immediately put your vote on. But to me at the end of a round (day or runoff) a null vote is a missed vote. You shouldn't be able to just leave your vote as null at the closing of a round. If you want to play then stay in touch and vote. If you know during the likely course of a game that you will be unable to participate for more than a day or so then you should not play that game and wait for the next one.
My reasoning for eliminating the end-of-round null vote is that it's like the DH rule in baseball. It takes away from the strategic aspect of the game. Sure, null means "something" but it doesn't mean as much as a vote on a player.
5) During the Night, the Mafia decide on the player they want to eliminate (assassinate), and inform the Referee via PM. Once the Referee receives this info, it is posted here in the thread, the player is eliminated, and the following Day begins.
I propose that we change the language of "Once the referee receives this info". I think this wording ("once") implies that the ref is obligated to post the whack as soon as both whack and guess are received, even though this is not the case. This was an area of contention in game 76. It is common for the ref to perhaps wait a bit after receiving both bits of info, so that way the timing posting of the whack cannot be used to sniff out Mafia - I think this makes sense, but that the wording of the rules should reflect this. I was thinking of something along the lines of "After the Referee receives this info, it is posted here in the thread, the player is eliminated, and the following Day begins. The time at which is whack is posted is at the ref's discretion." This removes the implication of immediacy given by the word "once" and makes it clear that the timing of the posting of the whack is up to the ref.
2.) Locking of votes. It should be made clear in the rules whether or not locked votes can be unlocked. It has been said to past refs that players are not required to keep their votes on the players they have locked on - which is fine if that's how it is - but this should be stated in the rules. To me, "locked" strongly implies that you have made up your mind and your vote is set. Personally I believe that a locked vote should be a permanent vote for that round - since the locking of votes can effectively expedite a round and eliminate a player, I think players should have to be certain that they want to vote for the player they are voting for. If a strong argument towards vote movement would cause me to move my vote, then I don't think I should consider my vote locked. If I'm open to hearing more argument regarding my vote, the round should continue so that argument can be made, not closed early because of locked votes. Regardless, I think the rules need some clarification on the role of locking a vote and what it means/doesn't mean. I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on this.
3. Talking during the Night. From the postscript to game 76:
My reasoning is that as ref, my job is to not affect the outcome of the game. After night one, Viking had good reason to believe that he would be whacked. Now, after receiving his guess and the Mafia's whack, I like to obscure the timing of when I post the whack, so that other players cannot look at timestamps and log-in times and stuff like that. This usually means waiting a little bit. However, during this wait time, Viking, sensing his imminent demise, was able to leave more breadcrumbs. Suppose he decided to come out as inspector over the night and say that JFG was mafia. If I decide to post the whack at say, midnight, he might not have a chance to get that in. If I post it at 12:15AM, maybe he gets to reveal his name right before getting whacked. As ref, I felt uncomfortable knowing that my decision on when to post could directly influence the outcome of the game, depending on what, when, and how much Viking wanted to say. In addition to this, Viking PMed me asking for me to hold off on posting the whack until he could say his bit. And while I did wait - for 100% my own reasons having nothing to do with what Viking wanted (because I wanted to obscure timing, and because I was waiting for a response from Fawn on something) - after the game it could easily be construed that I gave the townies and edge by listening to Viking and allowing him to post more before being whacked.
I believe that the ref should have flexibility on when to end the Night, both for obscuring purposes and because refs have lives too. However, when there is discussion during the Night - especially if that discussion is by a player that is being whacked - the timing of the Ref's post can directly influence the flow and outcome of the game. The timing of the whack could inadvertently give a direct advantage to either Mafia or town, even when all steps to preserve neutrality are taken. While I do think that we can trust our refs to be neutral and fair, eliminating talking during the Night relieves the ref from having to make a judgment call regarding timing that could effect the outcome of the game - if there is talking, such an effect might only be minimized, not eliminated. I think this renders the ref's creed of "Do not make decisions that effect the outcome of the game" impossible. If there were no talking, it becomes a nonissue.
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2015 14:41:02 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
5) During the Night, the Mafia decide on the player they want to eliminate (assassinate), and inform the Referee via PM. Once the Referee receives this info, it is posted here in the thread, the player is eliminated, and the following Day begins.
I propose that we change the language of "Once the referee receives this info". I think this wording ("once") implies that the ref is obligated to post the whack as soon as both whack and guess are received, even though this is not the case. This was an area of contention in game 76. It is common for the ref to perhaps wait a bit after receiving both bits of info, so that way the timing posting of the whack cannot be used to sniff out Mafia - I think this makes sense, but that the wording of the rules should reflect this. I was thinking of something along the lines of "After the Referee receives this info, it is posted here in the thread, the player is eliminated, and the following Day begins. The time at which is whack is posted is at the ref's discretion." This removes the implication of immediacy given by the word "once" and makes it clear that the timing of the posting of the whack is up to the ref.
2.) Locking of votes. It should be made clear in the rules whether or not locked votes can be unlocked. It has been said to past refs that players are not required to keep their votes on the players they have locked on - which is fine if that's how it is - but this should be stated in the rules. To me, "locked" strongly implies that you have made up your mind and your vote is set. Personally I believe that a locked vote should be a permanent vote for that round - since the locking of votes can effectively expedite a round and eliminate a player, I think players should have to be certain that they want to vote for the player they are voting for. If a strong argument towards vote movement would cause me to move my vote, then I don't think I should consider my vote locked. If I'm open to hearing more argument regarding my vote, the round should continue so that argument can be made, not closed early because of locked votes. Regardless, I think the rules need some clarification on the role of locking a vote and what it means/doesn't mean. I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on this.
3. Talking during the Night. From the postscript to game 76:
My reasoning is that as ref, my job is to not affect the outcome of the game. After night one, Viking had good reason to believe that he would be whacked. Now, after receiving his guess and the Mafia's whack, I like to obscure the timing of when I post the whack, so that other players cannot look at timestamps and log-in times and stuff like that. This usually means waiting a little bit. However, during this wait time, Viking, sensing his imminent demise, was able to leave more breadcrumbs. Suppose he decided to come out as inspector over the night and say that JFG was mafia. If I decide to post the whack at say, midnight, he might not have a chance to get that in. If I post it at 12:15AM, maybe he gets to reveal his name right before getting whacked. As ref, I felt uncomfortable knowing that my decision on when to post could directly influence the outcome of the game, depending on what, when, and how much Viking wanted to say. In addition to this, Viking PMed me asking for me to hold off on posting the whack until he could say his bit. And while I did wait - for 100% my own reasons having nothing to do with what Viking wanted (because I wanted to obscure timing, and because I was waiting for a response from Fawn on something) - after the game it could easily be construed that I gave the townies and edge by listening to Viking and allowing him to post more before being whacked.
I believe that the ref should have flexibility on when to end the Night, both for obscuring purposes and because refs have lives too. However, when there is discussion during the Night - especially if that discussion is by a player that is being whacked - the timing of the Ref's post can directly influence the flow and outcome of the game. The timing of the whack could inadvertently give a direct advantage to either Mafia or town, even when all steps to preserve neutrality are taken. While I do think that we can trust our refs to be neutral and fair, eliminating talking during the Night relieves the ref from having to make a judgment call regarding timing that could effect the outcome of the game - if there is talking, such an effect might only be minimized, not eliminated. I think this renders the ref's creed of "Do not make decisions that effect the outcome of the game" impossible. If there were no talking, it becomes a nonissue.
I agree , the ref should be allowed to have a life, but in this case jazmo, you were present, not absent.
Viking seems to have lobbied to extend the round; I lobbied to have it closed.
The rules were on our side in this one; the debate is if we should change the rules.
I propose that we change the language of "Once the referee receives this info". I think this wording ("once") implies that the ref is obligated to post the whack as soon as both whack and guess are received, even though this is not the case. This was an area of contention in game 76. It is common for the ref to perhaps wait a bit after receiving both bits of info, so that way the timing posting of the whack cannot be used to sniff out Mafia - I think this makes sense, but that the wording of the rules should reflect this. I was thinking of something along the lines of "After the Referee receives this info, it is posted here in the thread, the player is eliminated, and the following Day begins. The time at which is whack is posted is at the ref's discretion." This removes the implication of immediacy given by the word "once" and makes it clear that the timing of the posting of the whack is up to the ref.
2.) Locking of votes. It should be made clear in the rules whether or not locked votes can be unlocked. It has been said to past refs that players are not required to keep their votes on the players they have locked on - which is fine if that's how it is - but this should be stated in the rules. To me, "locked" strongly implies that you have made up your mind and your vote is set. Personally I believe that a locked vote should be a permanent vote for that round - since the locking of votes can effectively expedite a round and eliminate a player, I think players should have to be certain that they want to vote for the player they are voting for. If a strong argument towards vote movement would cause me to move my vote, then I don't think I should consider my vote locked. If I'm open to hearing more argument regarding my vote, the round should continue so that argument can be made, not closed early because of locked votes. Regardless, I think the rules need some clarification on the role of locking a vote and what it means/doesn't mean. I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on this.
3. Talking during the Night. From the postscript to game 76:
I believe that the ref should have flexibility on when to end the Night, both for obscuring purposes and because refs have lives too. However, when there is discussion during the Night - especially if that discussion is by a player that is being whacked - the timing of the Ref's post can directly influence the flow and outcome of the game. The timing of the whack could inadvertently give a direct advantage to either Mafia or town, even when all steps to preserve neutrality are taken. While I do think that we can trust our refs to be neutral and fair, eliminating talking during the Night relieves the ref from having to make a judgment call regarding timing that could effect the outcome of the game - if there is talking, such an effect might only be minimized, not eliminated. I think this renders the ref's creed of "Do not make decisions that effect the outcome of the game" impossible. If there were no talking, it becomes a nonissue.
I agree , the ref should be allowed to have a life, but in this case jazmo, you were present, not absent.
Viking seems to have lobbied to extend the round; I lobbied to have it closed.
The rules were on our side in this one; the debate is if we should change the rules.
I know...I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what you think I'm getting at? I was indeed present, and I posted the whack some time after receiving both the guess and whack, which was my plan before the Night started - that had nothing to do with your or Viking's lobbying. The rules weren't on anyone's side in this regard, so maybe I misunderstand you? Other than that I agree with everything you're saying, but the tone I'm reading in your suggest disagreement. I agree with you in that the wording as it stands makes it sound like the whack should be posted immediately (which isn't the case), which is why I'm proposing that the wording be changed. I think we're on the same page?
I agree , the ref should be allowed to have a life, but in this case jazmo, you were present, not absent.
Viking seems to have lobbied to extend the round; I lobbied to have it closed.
The rules were on our side in this one; the debate is if we should change the rules.
I know...I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what you think I'm getting at? I was indeed present, and I posted the whack some time after receiving both the guess and whack, which was my plan before the Night started - that had nothing to do with your or Viking's lobbying. The rules weren't on anyone's side in this regard, so maybe I misunderstand you? Other than that I agree with everything you're saying, but the tone I'm reading in your suggest disagreement. I agree with you in that the wording as it stands makes it sound like the whack should be posted immediately (which isn't the case), which is why I'm proposing that the wording be changed. I think we're on the same page?
We are. That was not meant as a criticism against you. That is my whole point. You were caught by the rules. ONCE the ref has BOTH the guess and the whack, according to the rules she/he has to post it.
I'm going to drink my tea once it is done; no, wait I'll drink it five hours later.
Once. If that is the problem,that is what we should change.
To make it clear, I am not trying to replay last game, and i think jaz was in a tough place and did well.
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2015 18:10:10 GMT -5 by jfg108: so many tyops - f*ck there is another one. Get em! - Back to Top
"When I hear music, I fear no danger. I am invulnerable. I see no foe. I am related to the earliest times, and to the latest.” -Thoreau
Jaz did just fine, and after reviewing rule 5 as well as 6 and 7, I think the rules are fine as they stand.
You cannot expect the ref to immediately post the whack in thread. That is an unrealistic expectation even if they are online, and the current verbiage does not state that he needs to. When I asked Jaz to extend it, it was in effect holding on my guess as inspector so he was within the right to hold it. I reconfirmed it right after I made my final post. Most of the time, the ref is NOT online and this is a mute point. This only ever is an issue when people try to play timing games on last posts and in an internet board game, it is not a realistic expectation.
Jaz did just fine, and after reviewing rule 5 as well as 6 and 7, I think the rules are fine as they stand.
You cannot expect the ref to immediately post the whack in thread. That is an unrealistic expectation even if they are online, and the current verbiage does not state that he needs to. When I asked Jaz to extend it, it was in effect holding on my guess as inspector so he was within the right to hold it. I reconfirmed it right after I made my final post. Most of the time, the ref is NOT online and this is a mute point. This only ever is an issue when people try to play timing games on last posts and in an internet board game, it is not a realistic expectation.
If the majority disagrees, then fine. We can make the adjustment. However, it is my belief that the onus is on the players to post and state their argument and for the ref to allow them to play. Same principle applies here as with the day: active discussion should be allowed to continue and closing the night is the ref's discretion.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Sept 17, 2015 18:17:25 GMT -5
Da Clink
I'm proposing a rule change to the current auto-lynch of players that miss two votes.
Potential problems:
It's obviously a waste of the participating players time to build up to a runoff and have it come to nothing-
Possibility of saving a mafia that's about to be voted off. The negative effects vary but this could cost the town the game in certain situations.
Possibility of saving a townie that the mafia have worked hard to set up and want out of the game as soon as possible( for reasons of experience, skill, level of suspicion, etc.)
In the event that a highly suspicious townie is 'saved" the mafia are given that advantage for another round.
Prevents information gathering, which in turn might hinder the player's ability to find mafia/the inspector. In other words, helps some players hide their true motives.
Potential solution:
Put the player in limbo. Where they can't completely throw the game into a tailspin at the end of the round by being ejected. Hell, there are living players that contribute almost nothing to the game. So it's not like this is some totally foreign concept. Let the round the player is missing in complete. If players want to vote off the missing player then let debate it in the following day. This will also give the player time to show back up and at least participate in the next round.
While in the clink:
- The player can be whacked or voted off next round.
- The player's absince will no longer have any effect on deadlines set by refs.
- The player's vote is put on them until they show back up.
- The player is allowed to vote once the next round's runoff begins?
The main problem with this is the odd voting at the end of the round the player's missing from... and the following rounds, if the player still doesn't show up. I think the game play involved in one round of odd voting is more preferable then completely ruining a day.
Another issue is the mafia taking advantage of the rule. That will be forbidden but will mostly be on the honor system not to hold the game up and be a shitty dickface, dickhole, dickhead.
If we adopt this rule then there certainly needs to be a caveat that the mafia can't outnumber the town with a member in Da Clink. Example: The mafia couldn't win in night 3 if all three are alive but one is in the clink... So on and so forth.
Again. This would hopefully not happen ever but I think this is a better solution then just shitting all over the game with the current rule. I know it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I just wanted to get the idea out there.
I'm proposing a rule change to the current auto-lynch of players that miss two votes.
Potential problems:
It's obviously a waste of the participating players time to build up to a runoff and have it come to nothing-
Possibility of saving a mafia that's about to be voted off. The negative effects vary but this could cost the town the game in certain situations.
Possibility of saving a townie that the mafia have worked hard to set up and want out of the game as soon as possible( for reasons of experience, skill, level of suspicion, etc.)
In the event that a highly suspicious townie is 'saved" the mafia are given that advantage for another round.
Prevents information gathering, which in turn might hinder the player's ability to find mafia/the inspector. In other words, helps some players hide their true motives.
Potential solution:
Put the player in limbo. Where they can't completely throw the game into a tailspin at the end of the round by being ejected. Hell, there are living players that contribute almost nothing to the game. So it's not like this is some totally foreign concept. Let the round the player is missing in complete. If players want to vote off the missing player then let debate it in the following day. This will also give the player time to show back up and at least participate in the next round.
While in the clink:
- The player can be whacked or voted off next round.
- The player's absince will no longer have any effect on deadlines set by refs.
- The player's vote is put on them until they show back up.
- The player is allowed to vote once the next round's runoff begins?
The main problem with this is the odd voting at the end of the round the player's missing from... and the following rounds, if the player still doesn't show up. I think the game play involved in one round of odd voting is more preferable then completely ruining a day.
Another issue is the mafia taking advantage of the rule. That will be forbidden but will mostly be on the honor system not to hold the game up and be a shitty dickface, dickhole, dickhead.
If we adopt this rule then there certainly needs to be a caveat that the mafia can't outnumber the town with a member in Da Clink. Example: The mafia couldn't win in night 3 if all three are alive but one is in the clink... So on and so forth.
Again. This would hopefully not happen ever but I think this is a better solution then just shitting all over the game with the current rule. I know it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I just wanted to get the idea out there.
Just wanted to bring this up again. I don't really have enough experience yet to offer much in the way of rules and how they should be interpreted, but wanted to see if we could come to a consensus before the next game starts.
And SFA, your great Office image appears to be broken
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
I agree with the problem but not the solution. I'm too busy right now to weigh in; I'll try to do that early next week since I'll be at a fest this weekend.
I agree with the problem but not the solution. I'm too busy right now to weigh in; I'll try to do that early next week since I'll be at a fest this weekend.
I've given this some thought, and I do think that the auto-lynch rule can cause a problem - mainly for the townies. This is because since the Mafia know who each other are, they are potentially able to communicate via other ways - Facebook, Snapchat, text, etc., if they have that information - in order to bring their teammate to the game. Of course, townies would be able to do the same, but in doing so they would not know if they are reaching out to another townie or a Mafia.
In trying to think of a solution, the main thing I want to avoid is a round of voting with an even number of players. This can result in a tie game and I want to avoid that at all costs.
My proposed solution is a sub-round. Let's say it's Round Two, runoff one. We've got 9 players in the game, four of which are in the runoff.
A - 2 (B, C) B - 2 (A, D) C - 2 (F, H) D - 2 (E, G)
Left to vote - I
Suppose Player I missed a first-round vote, and now that this first runoff has come to a deadline, he misses this one as well. Under the current rules, Player I would get lynched, and the Mafia would get a whack. I think this unfairly benefits the Mafia because they get more information to suss out who the Inspector is to base their whack on and gets to choose from the entire pool of active players, yet the townie being voted off (Player I) may not be on the town's radar at all and the town has no say in the matter. I think the town should have a bit more say.
So at this point the remaining players simply vote Yes/No on whether or not to vote out Player I. This can be a shortened round - 12 hours or so (TBD if necessary). If Player I returns, s/he may participate in this vote. If the player does not return, and the end result of the sub-round is tie, the player will be auto-lynched and the Mafia will get a whack. This way at least the town has a say in whether or not the inactive player gets lynched.
But suppose the town decides to keep Player I - what then? With an even number of players, there is the possibility of a hung round. Can't have that. Well then it sucks to be town, but the Mafia get a free whack - but only from the players currently in the Runoff (if they're currently in a runoff). I feel that this will hopefully reign in a bit of the Mafia's power, as well as motivate the town to REALLY consider whether or not they want to vote off the inactive player. Because knowing the Mafia will want to get a free whack, it's likely that the Mafia would lean towards voting to keep the inactive player for another round. This way the town still gets information from the whack as well as information regarding who votes to keep the inactive player, and if they've managed to corral two Mafia into a runoff, all that work won't be for naught since the Mafia have to whack from someone in the runoff.
Edit: Just reread this and noticed that this doesn't solve our even-number problem. Keeping the inactive player and giving the Mafia a whack would put us at ten players. Essentially, voting to keep the inactive player would just put us in the same exact position as before the sub-round. I'm open to suggestions on how to work with this.
I haven't completely flushed out the consequences of this idea or ways in which it could be abused, but it's all I can think of at the moment that maintains an odd number of players and hopefully is fair to both Mafia and town. Player inactivity is a rare enough event that hopefully this won't come into play too often. Criticisms are appreciated!
Last Edit: Oct 12, 2015 19:13:44 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Oct 12, 2015 22:49:10 GMT -5
Jaz How about if it's a two-tiered plan? First we look for a replacement. Then take something like one of our ideas as last means?
The ref would know if the person is in trouble and might could send a couple requiting PMs out early so the replacement player can jump in and be somewhat up to speed? Maybe extra precaution if the sub is coming into a Inspector or mafia role.
If that's not an option, we do step two.... whatever we decide.
Jaz How about if it's a two-tiered plan? First we look for a replacement. Then take something like one of our ideas as last means?
The ref would know if the person is in trouble and might could send a couple requiting PMs out early so the replacement player can jump in and be somewhat up to speed? Maybe extra precaution if the sub is coming into a Inspector or mafia role.
If that's not an option, we do step two.... whatever we decide.
Quote from Viking earlier in the thread:
4. On the subject of replacing players. Just don't do it, OK? I believe I was the first Referee to try it here, and I would not recommend it. In the opening round of a game, one of my players had a death in the family. Totally reasonable justification to let them out of the game, right? So, I recruited another player to fill in for the bereaved and gave them their same role... and my players freaked the fuck out about it. Comments/concerns such as: Did I switch player's roles? How can they trust me on that? Is it fair to everyone else to substitute mid-game? But they don't play the same way!
I wound up cancelling that game and doing a total restart. This was necessary, if memory serves correctly, because someone was so upset about the move that they opted out of my reboot in protest. So, yeah... I'll advise against that too.
Fawn also mentioned that a substitution could throw off the game dynamics, and I agree with that. I can't quite articulate why but it seems like it could just be messy.
Another idea for if they decide to keep the inactive player, using my same scenario from before:
We have the first part of the sub-round, and they decide to keep Player I. This gives us 8 active players and 1 inactive player. So now what if we had the Mafia whack first (again, only from those in the runoff), and then players are cleared from the runoff and the town votes again to lynch (with the inactive player ineligible to vote)? After a lynch the next day would start with no whack, with all 7 players considered "active". This preserves an odd number of votes for the lynch, as well as an odd number of players for the start of the next day.
Fawn also mentioned that a substitution could throw off the game dynamics, and I agree with that. I can't quite articulate why but it seems like it could just be messy.
Another idea for if they decide to keep the inactive player, using my same scenario from before:
We have the first part of the sub-round, and they decide to keep Player I. This gives us 8 active players and 1 inactive player. So now what if we had the Mafia whack first (again, only from those in the runoff), and then players are cleared from the runoff and the town votes again to lynch (with the inactive player ineligible to vote)? After a lynch the next day would start with no whack, with all 7 players considered "active". This preserves an odd number of votes for the lynch, as well as an odd number of players for the start of the next day.
Oh. I've read that at some point. Makes sense. I guess it just seems that when we run into this problem that player hasn't been an active part of the game anyway and this wouldn't be an issue. But, like you said earlier, it's happens so infrequently that it's hard to have much experience to base it off of. If Viking and Fawn said it didn't work....
This seems closer to fair but the mafia would be put at a disadvantage by that extra game time with no chance to lynch. Right?
But that's partially what my idea was. A way to make the player ineligible to vote, so the game carries on.
Ugggg. Everything I think of is just over-complicated bs. Maybe the ref can just flip a freaking coin and that counts as the vote?
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Oct 13, 2015 23:46:02 GMT -5
Maybe we could just do some varient of roles in other forms of this game? Like the doctor or nurse that can bring back a dead person? If a player goes missing, just replace them with a whacked or lynched player from earlier? Maybe the mafia can chose which?
That would save time and seems the most chance based way of doing it.
Maybe we could just do some varient of roles in other forms of this game? Like the doctor or nurse that can bring back a dead person? If a player goes missing, just replace them with a whacked or lynched player from earlier? Maybe the mafia can choice which?
That would save time and seems the most chance based way of doing it.
I'll reiterate my thoughts that the rule does not need to be changed.
But, if it is going to be changed, I actually think this is a decent idea. Create the role of "doctor", assigned to someone, don't have to use it if nobody disappears, but in the case where someone does, the ref consults with the doctor in private to resuscitate someone of the doctor's choosing. If the doctor is lynched or whacked, the role is gone, and the doctor is like the inspector in that they decide when to reveal themselves and the mafia choose whether that's deserving of a whack (in and of itself it probably generally wouldn't be).
This has the potential to lead to a tie vote, but in this case I think it is OK because it will encourage gameplay. The round can't end in a tie obviously so it would keep going until someone broke the stalemate. I am sure this won't be a popular aspect of my idea, but I like it
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Oct 14, 2015 14:23:59 GMT -5
I was more thinking of incorporating the function of one of those roles over going through the trouble of assigning it. Hopefully this would be rare enough that an assignment wouldn't be necessary.
I also think it's important that the inspector can't be resurrected. If the mafia make the right choice there then they certainly shouldn't be punished for it. Which means choosing a lynched player is best.
It's not perfect because it takes some of the mystery out of the game. I just think it might be the easiest option.