Topic: Friday's Wolf Games: House Rules (Read 4864 times)

Kazz · « **Reply #40 on:** June 04, 2008, 05:53:14 AM »

Guild, a dead player can have access to information or scries that he didn't tell anybody when he was alive. Revealing those after your death is completely illegal. You're just not allowed to affect the game in any way. It's really best if you keep your thoughts to yourself until the game ends. Most people don't do that, though, so just be careful.

Burrito: Nobody did it successfully before you sent those messages to me last game. However, in Pyoko vs WFE, when Friday pretended that she believed that Guild had received anonymous messages, she implied that she was okay with the practice... it's a confused issue that I suppose Friday wants to outlaw now that it has been used. (I'm hoping she's not just upset that it was used to beat her.)

Lady Duke · « **Reply #41 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:02:26 AM »

Imbalance is part of the gameplay guild. Kazz was a Koopa twice in a row by chance. In fact, I mean, cmoffit. Envy was fucking Mario the first run of the game. Random chance is how I roll usually, and if a rng says someone's on the same team twice in a row, big deal. No one will assume someone has the same role in two different games, especially since someone would believe that due to chance, it's more unlikely that they'd be on the same team.

And yeah, kazz asked me what my role is in person, and I totally thought that was gay, but I'm a terrible liar. That was the ONLY time he's ever done that during a game, and he knew I was annoyed at him for it. We hardly ever play in games together since Kazz is usually the one running the game, and when we aren't on the same team, we're usually using our night powers on each other (see WvsV1).

But you should understand that even when dead, your comments are still unfairly influencing the game, whether you think so or not. Your logical out-loud thoughts might seem harmless in channel, but it does bother other players and it will influence some players to possibly change their votes based on your comments.

Guild · « **Reply #42 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:03:58 AM »

Ok, that's what I was looking for. It wouldn't occur to me to not vote for a wolf I'd scried, but no matter who I asked I couldn't get an answer as to WHY dead folk don't talk..

Kazz · « **Reply #43 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:20:44 AM »

Frankly, it should be far more strictly enforced than it is. The thing is, it wasn't a cause for concern before you started playing.

When you kill a player, that player is supposed to be removed from the game. Part of the reason that you kill a player is so that he will stop influencing the game with his information or tactical input; if Friday could still call the shots postmortem, why even bother killing her?

Dead players aren't restricted from commenting on the game's happenings, but they are absolutely restricted from saying anything remotely influential or suggestive, and I'd permanently ban anybody who PM'd inside information after his death.

I think I've been too lenient on this issue. Probably because it was never suggested that it should be allowed, because it was sort of understood that you're out of the game after you die.

jsnlxndrlv · « **Reply #44 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:33:43 AM »

Quote from: Kazz on June 04, 2008, 05:53:14 AM

Burrito: Nobody did it successfully before you sent those messages to me last game. However, in Pyoko vs WFE, when Friday pretended that she believed that Guild had received anonymous messages, she implied that she was okay with the practice... it's a confused issue that I suppose Friday wants to outlaw now that it has been used. (I'm hoping she's not just upset that it was used to beat her.)

My main problem with allowing anonymous communication is that it lets dead players influence the game and we have no way of knowing whether it was a legal disclosure or not. Otherwise I'd be fine with it.

Kazz · « **Reply #45 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:39:45 AM »

It isn't so much a question of what's allowed and what isn't; any GM can state that thus-and-such is illegal in their games.

I have two concerns: one, how should we go about enforcing these rules? I'd love to say that we're all honorable enough to never break these rules, but I'd rather have an idea of how to deal with a violation than not.

Two, how do we determine that something is unfair, if it wasn't explicitly outlawed? We never stated "dead people can't talk," so Guildenstern didn't understand that that's how we play. Can we enforce a rule that we didn't write?

Okay, I have a third concern: How seriously are we going to take Werewolf from now on?

jsnlxndrlv · « **Reply #46 on:** June 04, 2008, 06:48:25 AM »

Personally, I plan to point misbehaving players to this thread and say that I'm very disappointed in them. But yeah, the running theme of this thread is that if you're not willing to go all Friday and keep lists of players you won't permit in your games, there's not a whole lot you can do.

Friday · « **Reply #47 on:** June 04, 2008, 07:59:31 AM »

Quote

(I'm hoping she's not just upset that it was used to beat her.)

Quote

go all Friday and keep lists of players you won't permit in your games,

Quote

but really you're trying to pin your bad behavior on me.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #48 on:** June 04, 2008, 08:00:51 AM »

So wait, why are we supposed to have a problem with Guild? (Or, for that matter, anybody?)

Friday · « **Reply #49 on:** June 04, 2008, 08:01:25 AM »

I don't care anymore.

Lady Duke · « **Reply #50 on:** June 04, 2008, 08:03:10 AM »

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #51 on:** June 04, 2008, 08:18:54 AM »

I must have missed something.

Guild · « **Reply #52 on:** June 04, 2008, 11:34:41 AM »

Attn: I will not break any rules that I am aware of. I'm not a prick and I love playing games.

I am, however, an exploitative bastard, so I will probably find something new to be chastized for eventually.

Actually I can't really offhand think of any new slimy tricks. I just about tapped myself out on PvW.

Brentai · « **Reply #53 on:** June 04, 2008, 11:40:25 AM »

Thank God.

Guild · « **Reply #54 on:** June 04, 2008, 11:44:11 AM »

Guild · « **Reply #55 on:** June 06, 2008, 09:09:30 AM »

Quote from: Brentai

* [Do not] Ask the GM to reveal someone's role to prove that he's the GM (even if it is theoretically yours)

I did this because I was afraid you might be an innocent posing as you. The best fix for this, I think, would be just don't answer, like you did.

Log:

<Guild> If you're really Brentai tell me my role.
<Brentai> If you're really Guildenstern fuck off.
<Guild> Ok, you're Brentai.

Brentai · « **Reply #56 on:** June 06, 2008, 10:07:02 AM »

Well, the reason I answered that way is because it's equally as likely that you could be someone else posing as Guildenstern.

Which is why I'm saying, don't ask that question.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #57 on:** June 06, 2008, 10:10:11 AM »

Impersonating others to gain metagame information is, in general, uncool.

Guild · « **Reply #58 on:** June 06, 2008, 11:13:46 AM »

Agreed. It didn't occur to me that someone might meta game like that.

Guild · « **Reply #59 on:** June 07, 2008, 04:43:50 PM »

This post has been moved to the game-tracking thread.

News:

Author Topic: Friday's Wolf Games: House Rules (Read 4864 times)