Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Nogrod]

There seems to be a long enough que for me to join it...

So put me on the wanna-be mod-line too.

[Gurthang]

Yes, thank you Sleepy. I was thinking about what all my game would entail, and then it occured to me that I was going to be gone for the next two weekends. (not this coming one, but the next two.) I figured it'd be better to push it back so that I can actually be here. And I haven't done any of the preparing I really want to do.

So, yeah, I still do want to mod, and will plan on doing it right after Sleepy is done.

[Sleepy Ranger]

Righty-o, just in case you wanted to know you can now sign up for the next game which shall be known as... Tol-In-Gauroth XXIV: Battle Of The Band[wagon]s

Ahem, details and other yadda yadda shall be up eventually, probably tomorrow though since I'm kind of tired.

[Sleepy Ranger]

Props to the Panman for making that thread. I agree with him wholeheartedly and remember a while back when I tried to make a similar suggestion people were pretty quick to attack me which led to me pretty much giving up since the games were no fun anymore... but nevermind, now that its been made official hopefully it'll be taken into practice.

Also note, I have something a bit special/weird/new planned for my game but I need a sub-mod so if anybody is interested get in touch with me ASAP.

[Roa_Aoife]

Saucie's new rules beg a few questions.

What do we deem crossing the line? Where is the line? Does this mean we can't point out where things went wrong? Is all critical rhetoric banned, or only that which is designed to be insulting?

I am aware that many people misunderstand my attempts to be helpful as insult. I've always been of the view that if something doesn't go well, wether it is a game or anything else, then it is in everyone's best interest to figure why it didn't go so well. Are we not supposed to do that? Is the post discussion now going to be reserved for half-hearted compliments and rosy talk? Am I not supposed to say what I think? I've never insisted that my opinion is fact, but I do expect that if someone is going to disagree with me that they at least come up with a good reason why.

I'd also like to point out that many people who are so insulted over post-game discussion are the very ones who toss out "stupid," "foolish," and other such insults in game. So, it's okay to be rude and insulting during the game where everyone's trying to have fun, but after the game is over, we can't even say, "We didn't do well this game, and I think it was because...?" Am I to be banned from stating my opinion because some people have their panties in a bunch and can't handle it?

I thought the great thing about an online community is that we are free to state our opnion with in reasonable bounds. I had thought I did stay in bounds. In fact, I dare anyone to find me explicitly throwing an insult at someone. You won't. I have never called anyone here stupid because I don't believe it to be the case. Some people just have a tendency to over-react and read into what's being said when you really shouldn't.

In werewolf, when people over-react to an accusation, it's usually taken as a sign of guilt. It's basic psychology, really. Maybe those who are feeling so insulted that someone would dare insinuate that they didn't do so well have a guilty conscience.

EDIT: Before anyone starts freaking out and thinking that the thread will get closed for this, Saucepan Man told me to post my responses here. He thinks actually discussing the problem may help us find the best possible solution. What a novel concept.

[Sleepy Ranger]

I suggest we let the mod of that game decide. If the mod thinks its in limit then it is, if the mod thinks its getting out of hand it is.

[mormegil]

*sigh*

It's slightly upsetting to see so many people getting over heated. I think the point that is attempting to be made is that we all have different playing styles and all have been used effectively at one point or another. I've been in 20 something games and have seen quiet wolves win and vocal wolves claiming to be wolves win. I've seen quiet villagers end up being great seers and vocal seers being killed by their hunters and vocal seers making a great game. I've seen ordo's play the whole range and contribute in one game and not another. The point is that everybody contributes what they can when they can. I've personally used quietness during a game as a cause of suspicion, however I generally make it well known that I don't hold well with overly quiet villagers they are more than welcome to play and add a great dynamic to the game.

I think crossing the line is when we point fingers at particular people or styles for loosing the game. After so many games I'm tired of being known everytime for the same thing so I try different styles, some work and some don't, but I, or anybody else, should not be told that it cost us the game because of the way I played. We all try and we all succeed and fail at one point.

What do we deem crossing the line? Where is the line? Does this mean we can't point out where things went wrong?

Perfect example from the game in question would be Formendacil. Did he loose the ordo's the game? Heaven's no. He was killed the first night because he was forced to proclaim himself. It was a huge detriment to loose our seer the first night and certainly contributed to our loss but was it Formendacil's fault? NO! Was it the innocents fault? No, they found him legitimately suspicious and decided to lynch him. During game play I am very vocal and forward about things like this attempted lynching being silly but afterwards I don't think finger pointing is required or acceptable. Why was Formen almost lynched because he has choosen a playing style of hating DAY 1's and sticking to it. I've never held to that style myself and somethings I do bother Formendacil but we get along and don't critize each other. I think we could say something like "It was rather difficult to win after having lost our seer on night one and having only one known innocent to go on"

I've rambled a bit and I'm sorry but it was in haste and with the best intentions.

[Kath]

This is all a little disturbing, I think I've only ever seen an argument on this scale here once before, and it wasn't any fun then either.

Perhaps the issue is not so much what is being said but how it is being said. Though I wasn't involved in Valesse's game I did catch a little of the post-game discussion where all this started. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to express it, that's freedom of speech and shouldn't be frowned upon. However, some people take easy offence, or take things very personally, and that should be kept in mind. Rather than trying to assess the game in terms of what went wrong and having a negative view, we could try to assess it in terms of how to improve the things that were detrimental to the game. So on the subject of quiet villagers, those with less time than others or those that play quietly as a tactic shouldn't be derided for it, but perhaps encouraged to post even if what they say isn't going to be 15 paragraphs.

Also, the issues depend on what side you're on. The wolves in a game with quiet villagers may be playing tactically, deliberately killing off the loudmouths in order to make the village easy to sway later.

I'm aware that this probably isn't making much sense. It's hard to put what seems so simple in the mind into words on a screen. The fact that we are engaged in conversation where we can't see the others face or hear the tone of voice causes problems, because things meant as simple comments can be taken as insults.

Perhaps general comments on the game could remain in the thread, but comments particular to a person could be kept to PM? It might lessen the tension a little.