If you have any further questions, just PM the host of the game or .
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suggest as PM-reveal stuff is usually more serious raising the punishment to hostkill instantly. In this case right now it seems you have to reveal three PMs to be hostkilled, way too many.On the other hand, Panda pointed out a small flaw himself in the rules when it comes to penalties -as a lot of them are mostly based on the Host's perception of how penalties can affect the game. After hosting myself and co-hosting with you, with my own experience, I'd like to change the following so it's more precise:
The parts that I underlined could be changed. I'd like to have defined in the rules a 3 strikes system -seen first in the Naruto game you hosted IIRC?- in game as we do outside of it in the Hall of Shame. The first time you break a ¨minor¨ rule -a major one would be posting a PM, for example- you get a penalty vote. If you break one of those rules once again, you receive 3 penalties. If you break rules for the third time, you get hostkilled.
I also think that in these times -cause I'm not playing I guess '-'''' -the 100 posts rule is redundant, and could be either deleted or modified to an even smaller number -just in case WithinSpam becomes the new me.
ACTIVITY RULES
- Be active in every day phase and post at least three times. If you don't do that, you will be hostkilled and banned from future games (Hall of Shame). If you are going to miss out a period of time due to real life events make sure to inform the host, who is going to judge each situation individually and decide whether or not taking the player out of the game is necessary.
- Place at least one vote every day phase. If you forget to place a vote you will get a Penality Vote on the next day phase.
- Don't post more than 100 times per day phase. This is to reduce spam and the volume of posts per game. Nobody has time to go through hundreds of one liner posts with the same content over and over again (Imperium Copyright Rule). If you hit the volume restriction, you will get a Penality Vote per 10 additional posts you make.
- Dead people can't talk. So don't post once your character is dead; do not help others once you are dead. You can however, lurk the thread. If you post regardlessly, you will be banned from future games (Hall of Shame).
I agree though, in my example showing PMs was something major ^^' -not something minor like posting only twice or forgetting to vote.I would suggest as PM-reveal stuff is usually more serious raising the punishment to hostkill instantly. In this case right now it seems you have to reveal three PMs to be hostkilled, way too many.
Also, perhaps splitting up the phargraphs about posting three times and voting at least once. with that being absent giving the respective penalties individually
Idk I really like the locked-votes system. I don't have a better solution for it, but instead I would suggest remarking it in the rules so that it's not so easily missed -it's at the very bottom of it's own section, even if it's a very important rule. Maybe modifying the first sections -adding important rules like that one- of the rules would do the trick.@Hardy@digitaldude@Ustegius@xi0@Farfalla
Do we have a better solution to tie breakings? It appears the locked-votes system was criticized and discarded in the current game.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Tie votes should result in a single extension of the phase, then a majority of locked votes can determine who gets lynched. If the tie still isn't broken, both die.@Hardy @digitaldude @Ustegius @xi0 @Farfalla
Do we have a better solution to tie breakings? It appears the locked-votes system was criticized and discarded in the current game.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Politician needs to be revisited in general IMOEspecially if a politician forces a lock this way he would screw over ties.
The problem is that after a tie, usually, the day is prolonged for 1 more hour, and many people lose a part of their¨value¨ in their vote, as every vote gets unlocked during the extra time -we can't expect every player to be around at every single moment of the game.About ties, I don't agree that locked votes should count the first time the lock happens, since many locks are most commonly people who change their vote. Especially if a politician forces a lock this way he would screw over ties.
They should matter at the end of overtime instead.
Sigh you love to summon people...@Hardy @digitaldude @Ustegius @xi0 @Farfalla
Do we have a better solution to tie breakings? It appears the locked-votes system was criticized and discarded in the current game.
Yes it's not ideal in any case, both when they're counted higher than normal votes and when they're not.The problem is that after a tie, usually, the day is prolonged for 1 more hour, and many people lose a part of their¨value¨ in their vote, as every vote gets unlocked during the extra time -we can't expect every player to be around at every single moment of the game.
If we only count locked votes after the tie, that would mean that their votes never had that ¨value¨ in the first place, and that would give some players an advantage just for being luckier with their timezones -even bigger than the one they would already have.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Indeed, as do some other roles tbh..Politician needs to be revisited in general IMO
--- Double Post Merged, ---
But even with locked votes counting we can have cases where both tied players have the same number of locked votes too..My problem with the extra time for vote breaking is this:
All players expect the phase to be e.g. 24h, are aware of it and manage their time accordingly. Only a handful though will know about the extra time, namely those that were present at the end. It is an unfair advantage, and easily exploited with malicious intents.
From a practical perspective as a host the additional time is a nightmare. It completely disrupts the schedule not only for this one phase but for the rest of the game. Usually when dedicating your time to host a game, you sort of plan it according to your own time patterns, otherwise it's not possible at all, and those are then completely disrupted, when players force ties.
I mean, if you're okay with the sole determining factor on who's getting lynched being whether someone voted for someone already and voted again, fine. Because many times, the action of votelocking isn't being used in order to force the phase to end immediately, it just happens as a consequence of people placing something as simple as a placeholder vote and then voting for a reason later.My problem with the extra time for vote breaking is this:
All players expect the phase to be e.g. 24h, are aware of it and manage their time accordingly. Only a handful though will know about the extra time, namely those that were present at the end. It is an unfair advantage, and easily exploited with malicious intents.
From a practical perspective as a host the additional time is a nightmare. It completely disrupts the schedule not only for this one phase but for the rest of the game. Usually when dedicating your time to host a game, you sort of plan it according to your own time patterns, otherwise it's not possible at all, and those are then completely disrupted, when players force ties.
I fully agree with this. It was also why I let the game go in over time. There were enough people online at the time too. And the tie was resolved in the end as well. It's rare that people leave directly after the end of the day phase if they're around, as far as I can tell.Yes it's not ideal in any case, both when they're counted higher than normal votes and when they're not.
Ah and I think you misunderstood. We're not "only" counting locked votes in overtime, but normal votes too. the point of overtime is resolving the tie. It's rare that 2 are let to die, so people will eventually have 1 guy with most votes on him. Only when even after overtime it's still a tie should we count locked votes as more important.
Or we never count locked votes as anything special. They're primarily in the game so people are limited with their votes. A vote being locked could also mean just that: you can't change it anymore. Nothing more.
But this extra hour is only given to a handful people who stayed till the end or perhaps forced it to extend. Or as @TSPanda said enough people.I REALLY don't see the problem with the rule the way it is. If people have the same amount of votes, you use the locked ones as a criteria. I really think that ties should happen as eventual things, and changing that will favor ties to happen way more often, 'cause they'll be easier to manipulate. The consequences will be frequent phase extensions (and game extensions), with people having to reschedule their things more often... I mean, yday people didn't wanna go to sleep 'cause they wanted to see the end of it and I had plans I ended up cancelling xD. Then, if we have normal votes and locked votes tied, I agree with need a standard on how to proceed. I think that giving an extra hour and killing all the tied ones if things aren't solved by the end would be the best option.
Well, this is basically the issue. The locked votes in the initial phase prior to the end aren't really consequences of people legitimately making their final decisions. It's the arbitrary initial votes often playing a role to change the locked votes.I mean, if you're okay with the sole determining factor on who's getting lynched being whether someone voted for someone already and voted again, fine. Because many times, the action of votelocking isn't being used in order to force the phase to end immediately, it just happens as a consequence of people placing something as simple as a placeholder vote and then voting for a reason later.
I understand the practical nightmare it presents for people involved, but idk...