Admin thread for WWXXXV: Werewolves among the Wolf-men

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think you are reading me too literally Rune. It's not the number of words I'm after. And as I've said before I know I'm a bit bad in this as I tend to be babbling in much too lengthy a manner in the games - and in post-game discussions...

I'd need a course in making clear and straight statements in English, I sure could use that. That's one of the reasons I decided to try a different game... which never materialised.

I know that it is not the number as such you are after, I was just making a point by exagerating. . .just like you did. You can take everything to the extreme and thereby make it seem silly, but that is not really valid point as it can be done with everything.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But with the risk of repeating myself, let's see if I could formulate my point understandably this time - and after this I will give up with it, honestly.

So let's bring these to the extremes to see the point.

Game1: no one speaks anything. Everyone just makes a vote once/Day (or forgets to do that). That will be a game of pure randomness and not funny to anyone. Just pure chance like throwing a dice or then just voting for those persons you don't like so much personally and thence it would only be a (cruel) game of social differentiation...

Game2: Everyone is required to make a full analysis of each other player in the game everyDay + a lengthy visionary post concerning all different possibilities the game-mechanics might work. That would hardly be amusing either... Only a dedicated player with lots of free time could read all through it in a game of twenty.

Neither seems like an enjoyable game.

But after we get more towards the middle ground and the reality the scene changes...

The problem in this mixed envirovment I think is in the inbalance. The contributors work from the basis of "I give to you new ideas about others and chances to pick suspicious things from my posting as well and you give me the same" while the quiets work on the basis of "I will give you nothing from myself but you should give Me everything". Remember that there is no game without the former people - but just Game1 whom no one wishes, I think... well, hope...

First of all: I have never seen a quiet person saying that the rest should speak up. . .

You cannot just enter a game and set your own standard for how it should be played and then expect people to do so. To some degree you tend to do that. No where is it written that this game should be about thorough analyzis, it could just as well be about simple observation.

Whenever I seem to spot a wolf it is not because I look hard at every word he says and try to analyze it, it is often because I spot a single sentence that seem manipulative or something of the sort. I then say tbat this seems wolfish and that is my reason to vote as I do. That should be perfectly acceptable, I should not be forced to look at every word that the person has written and have an oppinion about it. Because I do not have an oppinion about them all, if I an forced to write about them anyways it will seem like I am grasping at straws and I will be lynched for being wolfish. . . .

Originally Posted by Nogrod

In practise this leads to the situation where one or two or three openly playing (one can look like playing openly while cheating!) will get lynched sooner than later as they are the only persons the others have an opinion. And why is that? Because they have made the game in the first place - remember Game1 once more. I mean, how could you make a case against totally silent player number 12 instead of totally quiet player number 11, or 7, or 4? How can you differentiate between them? Game1 once again... But of those loud players 1 and 2 and 3 it's much easier as they have contributed - given something to others.

This was not meant to be pointing to this game we played in particular. It was a small village indeed and many of my arguments are not valid with this "village" So basically it has nothing to do with this game we played. This was just an answer to Rune and as I promised, I will keep my mouth shut after this - even though I'm afraid I wasn't able to make my point clear enough.

Let's discuss this in Finnish the next time? I'll promise you a rhetorically outstanding argument in twenty words then!

Once again I do not think you are being fair. . . .If people do not say anything at all (or just post once a day saying hardly anything), I my self would object to it. I think you are in your right to complaint about that, because people should not sign up if they are not going to play.
The thing is that you broaden your chritisism to players who contributes and makes vallid points, they just do it to a lesser extend than you and in another way. My guess is that mostly they do so because that is the way they like to play and I do not think that anyone has the right to tell them that their way is wrong.

[Nogrod]

Going against my promises once again but this starts to look like an actual game of ww where two innocents try to tear each other apart while they share mostly the same goal...

Originally Posted by Rune

No where is it written that this game should be about thorough analyzis, it could just as well be about simple observation.

Whenever I seem to spot a wolf it is not because I look hard at every word he says and try to analyze it, it is often because I spot a single sentence that seem manipulative or something of the sort. I then say tbat this seems wolfish and that is my reason to vote as I do. That should be perfectly acceptable, I should not be forced to look at every word that the person has written and have an oppinion about it.

I perfectly agree with you here!

I'm not looking at everything everyone says in a game and analyse their every sentence myself either. It would be 24-hour undertaking every Day - if that would be even enough... Indeed it's been a while since I've tried a "full-analysis" on anyone as it's so time-consuming and more often than not very unproductive.

But I hope you also agree that for you to "spot a single sentence that seem manipulative or something of the sort" you need the other players to actually post those sentences for you to spot them? So you need others to play to play yourself! Exactly what I've been calling for!

Originally Posted by Rune

If people do not say anything at all (or just post once a day saying hardly anything), I my self would object to it. I think you are in your right to complaint about that, because people should not sign up if they are not going to play.

Exactly. And that's what I'm mainly after...

Originally Posted by Rune

The thing is that you broaden your chritisism to players who contributes and makes vallid points, they just do it to a lesser extend than you and in another way. My guess is that mostly they do so because that is the way they like to play and I do not think that anyone has the right to tell them that their way is wrong.

You yourself quoted the part of my post where I said that this "criticism" - if you wish to use that word - was not directed to this game in particular. I have not broadened my basic complaint to anyone in particular. So it was a more general point. Thus you yourself are quick to run into conclusions as I have nothing against anyone who "contributes and makes vallid points". On the contrary. That's what I hope people would do when they play a game - whatever the extent or the way of their posting is!

Just two short points.

I've myself repeatedly said that I would love to try a different style to play these games. And maybe one day I manage to try it? But I couldn't think that way if I'd think that only one way of playing is right. So your speculation on what I think is clearly wrong.

What happens though in games where the majority posts little or at least clearly less than the vocal minority, the few loud players tend to get killed pretty soon because they are the only ones people will have an opinion. That's sad in a way as without those loudmouths there would be much less for anyone to do (much less sentences you might spot). But that's something I've accepted already a long time ago. This is a question of personal preference to be sure but I couldn't even think I could be in a position to require everyone else to play "loudmouthedly" as that comes naturally for some and would be very hard or even unpleasant for others... and we surely play these games to have fun, right?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Exactly. And that's what I'm mainly after...
You yourself quoted the part of my post where I said that this "criticism" - if you wish to use that word - was not directed to this game in particular. I have not broadened my basic complaint to anyone in particular. So it was a more general point. Thus you yourself are quick to run into conclusions as I have nothing against anyone who "contributes and makes vallid points". On the contrary. That's what I hope people would do when they play a game - whatever the extent or the way of their posting is!

And I think the discution is drawing to an end. . . .

I might be drawing conclutions, but I seem to remember a game or two where I and others have been told that we were way to silent and was "required" (that word was not used) to speak up. . .There can be plenty of reasons not to be posting much, other people might have made your point, you can find nothing suspiciouse or simply that you have been kind of busy that day.

Anyways I just think that the chritisism should be limited to when people are hardly speaking at all or when it really gets to you, this way you words will also weigh more.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Legate, I'm really curious....how did you pick the roles? Were they completely random, or did you pick them for a specific reason? I've just gotta know...

Well, I think a good mod reveals as less of his "cookbook" as possible... But since you ask...

The roles were in original totally random. I just picked a randomizer, put in all players' names, and some result came out.

But I didn't like it. It was unbalanced, the persons rolled did not fit the roles. So I rolled again. And again. And again... you know how it works And finally, when there came a result that I liked, I said: "Yup. This is it." And then I just wrote down the list that came out of the randomizer, changed one or two names and that was it

So, here it is - you have your answer.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I feel like I must apologize to Legate for ruining one of his special roles.

Yes, I knew Brinn was Turin from the start, and I had just formed the tiniest bit of a plan to that end when... I died.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

I feel like I must apologize to Legate for ruining one of his special roles.

Yes, I knew Brinn was Turin from the start, and I had just formed the tiniest bit of a plan to that end when... I died.

Why apologize to me? You were the harmed one... I hope you at least enjoyed the little time that was given to you.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Because you gave me a role that was supposed to influence the game, and I flubbed it up? And I did enjoy it, even if I did only manage to post once.