TheLastStarMaker

Rebels in the Court - Signup Thread/Graveyard

Recommended Posts

I did originally think it was Weee/Smile, but it's looking more and more like Weee/Red to me. Part of that is not really having much to go on re: Smile except that she was on that Mccraabi wagon along with Weee. But I think it's worth pointing out Weee didn't start that wagon until after I was already putting pressure on Red. It's even more telling that she never really acknowledged the Red votes, if I recall correctly.

Edit: I also don't like Red posing as a confirmed innocent here, expecting Exile and Smile to just hand him the End Day hammer. Mathematically we're still in the same position (assuming two Rebels) that we were in yesterday, and it's still lynch-or-lose.

Edit x2: But then I second guess myself and remember that Exile was kinda pushing for a Smile execution yesterday. His reasoning would have been sound if not for the fact that he highly suspected Red previously - why would he ally his vote to Red's like that?

Edited by Trajectory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Next game: please just wait till Day 3 to start voting for me.

Thanks for voting for Exiled, Smile.

 

I will say: I get a very unique perspective from being voted for every game. It almost helps.

It's unfortunate McRaaabi died. But again: if the choice is myself, who I know is a loyalist and someone else who I don't know, I'm always going to save myself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm calling that a victory for myself and Exiled.

smile literally DIDN'T PLAY THE GAME for 48 HOURS. She didn't just fail to make a substantive post about the game, as demanded by the rules - she literally did nothing. If she'd done anything at all, there's a chance people would have found her suspicious. If she'd been replaced, people might have found the replacement suspicious. By not removing her, Star pretty much cleared her.

Hard to win when the MC takes sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly certain that Star did not intentionally do this. I had sent several messages to Star during that time period, trying to get some clarifications, and she had likely not realized I had not officially posted anything.

I apologize again for missing posting anything and voting for that day. I was traveling, and I mixed up which day I needed to make sure I got on and vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone for playing. This was a bit of an experiment insofar as I hadn't run this type of game before and I wasn't myself terribly sure what to expect.

I'd be interested in knowing what everyone's thoughts about the game setup itself are and if there's any interest in ever seeing it again (with some changes pending).

A couple of things I would consider changing next time might be adding the whole "once you use a card, it's discarded and you get another" as well as letting everyone know when the "deck" has been shuffled. 

The rules themselves on the site I pulled this setup from were pretty vague, so the various calls I made when setting up the initial post were usually done in favor of "if we were sitting around a table playing a card game, what would people know/not know." Which is how I tend to do my WW games anyway. I'm in favor of trying to stay as true to an IRL game where everyone is able to look at everyone else.

I can't decide how I feel about attempting the game with PMs allowed. I always feel as if allowing PMs in a game take away from posting in the thread itself and make it seem like activity is even lower, though in a game like this where alignment is so separate from role, PMs wouldn't be as useful for that dreaded Inno-circle that I despise so much since there isn't in particular roles in this game which indicate one alignment or the other.

In regards to incorporating more Love Letter itself, I might consider adding a second element to the game regarding the numbers on the cards themselves and the hierarchy of aforementioned numbers. It's a thought, but not one I've necessarily completely hashed out.

~!**!~

A couple of general gameplay things/notes, specifically for @weee5067 (who just posted as I was writing up all of this and is subsequently being tagged for what I knew would be her immediate "complaint" and surprise, surprise, I was right):

First general thing, you're absolutely wrong, weee. You really shouldn't go assuming things before you know the whole story, so let me set out some facts for you so you can be straight about it all and then you can decide for yourself what you're really going to complain about. Smile DID in fact play the game within the 48-hour period, she DID in fact do something(s), you just didn't see it, nor was I about to explain to you what was going on since the game was still going. And I didn't particularly appreciate your attitude about the whole situation at the time--nor how you decided to complain passive-aggressively in the team chat you shouldn't have posted in because you were dead--and I still don't. There are few things that aggravate me more than players complaining about a game before the game is finished when they don't know everything that's going on--when the person running the game literally cannot defend said game because, you know, it isn't over--though one of them is most definitely players doing so in a passive-aggressive manner.

If you recall, my inactivity rules said "may result in replacement/modkill at my discretion," in case you've forgotten, and secondly, her and I had in fact been having an extensive PM conversation on Saturday the 8th and I noted later that she read my last response to her that afternoon around 4PM Central. Compound this with the fact that I was in rehearsal/commute from about 7AM Saturday to like midnight-ish the 8th, almost immediately collapsing into bed when I didn't see a unanimous "end day" vote, and then was up again Sunday morning for more two-hour-travel-commute/rehearsal and back again at a similar late hour... Suffice it to say I will admit I had not had time to properly poke her as I would have liked--having honestly just assumed she would post in thread at some point given she had seen my PM--and I was super late about trying to contact someone else about replacing her (and really, the game was so close to being over it would have been unfair to everyone involved to actually replace a player) at that point since, as mentioned, rehearsal, and...well, I'm just glad she did come back for the last part of the game at least. I don't think I would have really considered it a true win for the baddies if she hadn't. More like a win-by-default-try-the-setup-again-sometime. 

Second general thing, I had actually meant to make the "vote end day early" a majority vote on the last day (and have it end the game immediately instead of just at 1AM) but completely forgot to put it at the end of the Night Results and by the time I would have posted it the next morning when I woke up and realized I had not said that, smile and Red had already made the vote. I contacted Exiled about the whole situation and felt him out for if he was not wanting to fight the votes off, offering an insta-end-game option if he decided to end the day early to...to which he responded with "Never give up, never surrender," and I let him ride it out xD In hindsight, I wouldn't change it in the future and I'm glad that I didn't end up saying it. While it would have been convenient for me at the time because I was actually home all day yesterday as I did not have a rehearsal, it was more fair for Exiled to get the chance to fight. And he nearly won, too. Props to you for not giving up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-shrug-

I think the simplest solution here is "if you sign up to play, play."

Congrats to Red and Smile for pulling out the win, kudos to Weee - because I did think she was innocent early on - and Exile - because I did think he was innocent when he was voting Red - for doing really well, and thanks to Star for stepping up to host. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheLastStarMaker said:

There are few things that aggravate me more than players complaining about a game before the game is finished when they don't know everything that's going on--when the person running the game literally cannot defend said game because, you know, it isn't over--though one of them is most definitely players doing so in a passive-aggressive manner.

Well, considering one of the valid options was ending the game, I don't think it's terribly fair to equate my complaint with a complaint made when the game clearly hasn't ended yet.

 

42 minutes ago, TheLastStarMaker said:

If you recall, my inactivity rules said "may result in replacement/modkill at my discretion," in case you've forgotten

"Your discretion" is exactly what I'm complaining about. You chose to leave her in the game knowing that it benefited the innocents and hurt the baddies.

And PMing the host isn't "playing the game" when your own activity rule defined activity as a game-related post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Star was going to remove smile, then she should have removed me, exiled, red, and blacjak. Day 1, none of us made a game-related post that contained more than just our vote. 

and yes, obviously leaving an innocent in the game helps the innocents, but removing her just means that you WIN for no reason, since it was only exiled/red left. 

If smile were removed, there would be only 5 innocents for 2 baddies, which is just a horribly unbalanced game. If that were the distribution, if the innocents EVER executed another innocent, they just lose. That is in no way a balanced game. So yes, if we played a game type of that distribution, you could have won. But just about anyone could win in that game type, it says nothing about how skillfully you played. 

Honestly, if star felt it was necessary to remove smile, she would have just needed to say the game was void, since the result would not have been a fair game. So if you really want, you can just consider this a null game, rather than a loss for you. But I don't see any way you can consider this a win.

Edited by mccraabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, weee5067 said:

"Your discretion" is exactly what I'm complaining about. You chose to leave her in the game knowing that it benefited the innocents and hurt the baddies.

I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous argument. If you apply it to anything else, you see that. You can use this argument to claim that, for instance, had Weee replaced Smile with someone who had commented in groupies, that it would be unfair for her to pick that person based on what they said in groupies, or taken to an extreme, you can use it to claim that innocent power roles should not be added to any game, because the MC "knows that adding them will benefit the innocents and hurt the baddies".

Yes, choosing not to modkill Smile benefited the innocents and hurt the baddies. This, however, does not vaguely counteract the penalty that the innocents had playing with an inactive player. Star chose this option to attempt to preserve the designed balance in the game, not specifically to make you lose. Just because your team failed to take proper advantage of her inactivity (you had the option to reduce it to a coinflip day before last, and Exile also could have pushed hard on the argument that Smile wasn't punished for being afk because she was sending the night kill list on the final day), does not mean that the MC should decide to take a mod action that would literally end the game (when Smile went inactive, the innocents were in lynch or lose, so one death means instant loss). I think that if you weren't so close to this, you'd see that pretty clearly.

 

5 hours ago, mccraabi said:

If smile were removed, there would be only 5 innocents for 2 baddies, which is just a horribly unbalanced game. If that were the distribution, if the innocents EVER executed another innocent, they just lose. That is in no way a balanced game. So yes, if we played a game type of that distribution, you could have won. But just about anyone could win in that game type, it says nothing about how skillfully you played. 

While I agree with you somewhat, actually 5v2 means innocents can mislynch once safely provided that they do execute on Day 1. If innocents chose not to execute on Day 1 in that set-up, then it would be their fault for setting up their own lynch or lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, weee5067 said:

Yeah, I'm calling that a victory for myself and Exiled.

smile literally DIDN'T PLAY THE GAME for 48 HOURS. She didn't just fail to make a substantive post about the game, as demanded by the rules - she literally did nothing. If she'd done anything at all, there's a chance people would have found her suspicious. If she'd been replaced, people might have found the replacement suspicious. By not removing her, Star pretty much cleared her.

Hard to win when the MC takes sides.

Yeah, I'm calling "complete and utter bullsomething" on your post.

You know full well how to play the "laying low" card. The fact that the MC's discretion wasn't being used to remove Smile in fact made a perfect case for it. "She had to be doing something to not be kicked out or replaced, so she must be villaining villainously behind the scenes!" That exact argument has been used numerous times successfully to get someone executed. "Execute inactives" itself is a common strategy. 

Starmaker's call was completely valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rexozord said:

This, however, does not vaguely counteract the penalty that the innocents had playing with an inactive player.

There was no penalty. smile being neither replaced nor removed meant that she pretty much had to be innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Yeah, I'm calling "complete and utter bullsomething" on your post.

You know full well how to play the "laying low" card. The fact that the MC's discretion wasn't being used to remove Smile in fact made a perfect case for it. "She had to be doing something to not be kicked out or replaced, so she must be villaining villainously behind the scenes!" That exact argument has been used numerous times successfully to get someone executed. "Execute inactives" itself is a common strategy. 

Starmaker's call was completely valid.

 

1 minute ago, weee5067 said:

There was no penalty. smile being neither replaced nor removed meant that she pretty much had to be innocent.

I would respond to this, but Inu has already done so perfectly. (Also, the argument you made clearing her as innocent assumes knowledge of who the baddies are. If she was the last remaining baddie, the same argument could be applied to her being evil. So it's not a "clearing" argument.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if she were the last remaining baddie, she would have either posted to avoid losing the game for her team by getting modkilled (if she'd sent in a list) or been replaced (if she hadn't).

2 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

You know full well how to play the "laying low" card. The fact that the MC's discretion wasn't being used to remove Smile in fact made a perfect case for it. "She had to be doing something to not be kicked out or replaced, so she must be villaining villainously behind the scenes!" That exact argument has been used numerous times successfully to get someone executed. "Execute inactives" itself is a common strategy. 


As much as I wish executing inactives were a common strategy, we all know it's not. The common strategy around here is to only ever execute vocal players and consider it suspicious to advocate executing anyone who isn't posting very much, because clearly you're just trying to force through an execution on someone who "can't" defend themselves. It's easily the most frustrating thing about most of these games, because mod and player actions keep rewarding inactivity and then people act so confused when there are barely any posts some Days.

Inu, you're likely having such a negative reaction to this because you did something very similar in your own recent game [Edit: Apparently this was Rex, not Inu], when you decided not to replace Rox because he was innocent and you wanted to save your on-call replacement for the OMT. The major difference there was that Rox was at least posting, so the game health wasn't impacted nearly as much.

Edited by weee5067

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts: 

I'm extremely glad that the rule about majority being able to end day early was not imposed, since that would have led to me dying without the chance to see the rule change or post anything. As a general thought, if there is ever anything that changes the RL time a day ends, it needs to be agreed to by every player. We all have different schedules, and losing the game in that way would have been extremely unfair and frustrating. As it was, there was time for me to argue and BS my way through things. I am a little sad that Red's status as confirmed innocent never got called into question, and just got accepted. I could have pushed the smile inactivity argument harder, but since Red was already locked into me, I decided it was not worth trying to get him to change his mind on it. 

i didn't see a role list - did the loyalists have roles beyond the cards? And was there a wildcard? 

I'm also not going to fully wade into the inactivity issue with smile; but I, as a player and MC, are a firm believer in requiring a post every day with no exceptions, or if you don't do that and want to avoid a modkill, the host publicly announces that you weren't modkilled because of private conversations. Posting just a vote, posting a single line, whatever. I'd rather not get into a situation where someone can avoid the only method of communication for the game and use that as a strategy without some risk. That's a personal preference though, and any implementation of an inactivity rule with discretion is going to have gray areas and spots where making the decision will swing the game one way or another, hence my preference for starker black and white rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, weee5067 said:

Inu, you're likely having such a negative reaction to this because you did something very similar in your own recent game, when you decided not to replace Rox because he was innocent and you wanted to save your on-call replacement for the OMT. The major difference there was that Rox was at least posting, so the game health wasn't impacted nearly as much.

Actually, that was me. And I think NPM's criticism of my choice post-game was much more reasonable than yours of Star. NPM's criticism was based primarily on the fact that I wrote an explicit rule and then broke that explicit rule. Your criticism seems to be based on the fact that you lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, weee5067 said:

No, if she were the last remaining baddie, she would have either posted to avoid losing the game for her team by getting modkilled (if she'd sent in a list) or been replaced (if she hadn't).


As much as I wish executing inactives were a common strategy, we all know it's not. The common strategy around here is to only ever execute vocal players and consider it suspicious to advocate executing anyone who isn't posting very much, because clearly you're just trying to force through an execution on someone who "can't" defend themselves. It's easily the most frustrating thing about most of these games, because mod and player actions keep rewarding inactivity and then people act so confused when there are barely any posts some Days.

Inu, you're likely having such a negative reaction to this because you did something very similar in your own recent game, when you decided not to replace Rox because he was innocent and you wanted to save your on-call replacement for the OMT. The major difference there was that Rox was at least posting, so the game health wasn't impacted nearly as much.

Rox, in a recent game that was not my own, did exactly what you're saying Smile would not have done. (All the while using familial nomenclature with Star, which still confuses me...)

I'm really confused why you think it's not a common strategy. It's been suggested every single game we've had someone go inactive for as long as I've played here, and it's acted upon often. You're bringing up one counter-argument while ignoring the counter to it. 

I'm not having "such a negative reaction", I'm calling out an extreme case of BS. You'll note my tone is the same one I take with Zodiac when he uses his not-even-resembling-logic arguments. You've got multiple people calling you out on this. You need to stop making excuses to dismiss what each of us has told you, and look at what you're saying. It's never easy making the call whether or not to replace/modkill, but there's absolutely no question that Star made the right call here.

EDIT: 

7 minutes ago, Rexozord said:

Actually, that was me. And I think NPM's criticism of my choice post-game was much more reasonable than yours of Star. NPM's criticism was based primarily on the fact that I wrote an explicit rule and then broke that explicit rule. Your criticism seems to be based on the fact that you lost.

Ah, ok. I was digging through my old notes to try to figure out what she was talking about. I've had to make the call before a few times to keep someone in rather than replace because their offense wasn't severe enough, but I didn't think it was in a recent game.

Edited by InuyashaOhki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, edited my post to reflect that it was Rex's game, not Inu's.

Anyhow, here's what I'm getting out of what you guys are saying:

1. "You should have just taken the 50% chance of winning on Day 3!" Sorry, I forgot that ending a game a day early via coinflip was a satisfying conclusion for most players.

2. "Inactivity is a valid strategy, just use it instead of complaining about it!" It's true, it's possible I wouldn't have gotten executed if I'd just completely avoided the game for all of Day 3 (Traj did mention he was waiting for me to post before voting for me). However, that's absolutely terrible advice from a game-health perspective, and you should probably reconsider making comments that could be interpreted as promoting inactivity.

3. "You're just mad because you lost." No, I'm mad because inactivity got rewarded yet again. I'd be mad even if smile had ultimately voted for Red. I'm pretty sure I got this mad in a recent game when I was innocent and a fellow innocent skated to the end of the game on inactivity - I would have much preferred losing earlier and her getting replaced or modkilled.

Four players volunteered to be replacements, by the way.

What I'm hearing is that people are going to continue defending inactivity, refusing to punish it, and then acting confused when their games trend towards one post per day per player. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is suggesting inactivity as a strategy. The suggestion was to persecute the inactive. You claim it doesn't work, yet we've seen many games where inactivity was the sole reason for an execution and with no suspicion thrown on those who pushed that reason after it hit an innocent.

You may be mad about inactivity, but you're lashing out at everything but inactivity. You accused an MC of playing favorites, you accused me of being defensive over a game I wasn't actually the one running, and now you're accusing people of supporting inactivity for telling you to push for execution on inactives.

 

Unfocused anger is only destructive. If inactivity is the source of your anger, then you need to ask people to work with you to put an end to the inactivity that's upsetting you. We can find a real solution rather than black and white rules that tie an MC's hands in ways that can break game balance, specialty one-off tricks like my self-disable rule and NPM's All-Stars shop, or no penalty that you feel favors it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution: Votes only count if you've made a substantive, game-related post. If fewer than some number of players cast valid votes, a random 'inactive' player is lynched instead. Hurts the innocents to have too many low-activity players alive, and punishes the players who aren't contributing if it triggers.

Except that the players are mostly uninterested in solving the activity problem, or it wouldn't be an issue. Executions on inactive players don't work nearly as often as you're implying (I should know, my "I'm going to vote for a random nonvoting player" default has gotten me lynched at least twice). And when Exiled tried to get smile executed this game, that was used as evidence against him the rest of the game, while smile was (again, because people keep ignoring this) considered a confirmed innocent by pretty much everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what has been brought up in regards to my decision has been well discussed by others in the graveyard thread, so for the most part I'll leave it.

Let me sum up: my definition of true player inactivity and what weee is considering inactivity are two vastly different items of discussion. Truthfully, smile's contributions to the game were extra commendable, logical, fairly self-reliant analysis of happenings for a player so new to the world of WW forum-games, and I feel as if weee's response to how the game ended was completely uncalled for. There isn't a player on SB that hasn't either forgotten when a deadline was (Heck, it was my own game and I had myself mixed up for several Cycles) or otherwise did not play strictly by the rules at all times (see: mccraabi's comment regarding the number of players that should have been modkilled Day One of this game) and not cutting some slack to a new player after learning that A. her AFK was accidental and not "lurky" or "flying under the radar to win" and B. she had been present during the Day Cycle in question, even if behind the scenes, just seems like a sulky response to a loss, whether or not such a response was intended to be expressed.

And not only was the AFK accidental for smile, but a few other incidents all juxtaposed together to make the end result rough around the edges. If anything, be upset at me for being AFK because of real life for what basically amounted to 48 hours. An entire Day Cycle. I'm the one that was really inactive this game if we're being honest. It rendered me incapable of responding to the situation with smile in a timely manner. By the time I realized what was going on, it was pretty much the last Day Cycle of play, and while I had contacted Zilary about replacing smile--maybe you missed that the first time around when I was explaining things, weee, (insert snarky "four players volunteered for replacements here")--once Zilary and I made contact with one another, Zilary agreed with me that replacing someone on what amounted to the last day wasn't particularly fair to anyone.

My picked responses to the issue at hand, in which I do repeat myself a bit:

23 hours ago, weee5067 said:

Well, considering one of the valid options was ending the game...

Let me make it perfectly clear that if I had ended the game on the spot due to smile's inactivity, it certainly would not have been with you and your team winning, which as far as I can tell appears to be your overall complaint-agenda as to the result of my MC decisions. If anything, I would have called the game to a close as defunct. As a mulligan. Is that the kind of inactivity reward you'd like to see next time, then? Assuming we're talking about the same sort of inactivity. Since it's been established that we're not.

23 hours ago, weee5067 said:

...I don't think it's terribly fair to equate my complaint with a complaint made when the game clearly hasn't ended yet.

And I don't think it's terribly fair to--in what, if we're being wholly honestly was not actually legal in accordance with forum rules--passive-aggressively send a PM >>via your team chat after you died<< in regards to a decision that I was in no way going to attempt to placate you about given how rudely it was done or explain myself in regards to given that the game was still going at the time. So I guess we're even.

23 hours ago, weee5067 said:

You chose to leave her in the game knowing that it benefited the innocents and hurt the baddies.

You can choose to believe whatever you want--though accusing your MC of anything but their best attempts at game neutrality is so utterly insulting I don't even know how to begin to address it--but you're laughably wrong, and you obviously didn't read all that far into my explanation. I left her in the game because she was still playing the game. Just because you couldn't see her playing the game doesn't mean she was not playing. You're consistently pushing a point that has no ground to stand on, given your definition of what "inactivity" is, which even if based on my rules' definition of inactivity was still left up to my discretion and is by no means anything like what you keep referring to as inactivity. There was no "encouraging afk lurking behavior" on the part of this decision. Lurking didn't even really happen this game. It couldn't. There were too few players. Smile honestly thought she had more time, and you seem to have gone off on a pretty unrelated tangent about it.

23 hours ago, weee5067 said:

And PMing the host isn't "playing the game" when your own activity rule defined activity as a game-related post.

Luckily, I had that little clause in there that said I could decide as I chose. Funny how you're only interested in that rule being used to directly benefit you, when at my discretion I could have on the same principle decided to eliminate like half the players on Day One. Perhaps that's the kind of inactivity reward you'd like to see instead?

As to other things:

12 hours ago, Exiled Phoenix said:

I'm extremely glad that the rule about majority being able to end day early was not imposed, since that would have led to me dying without the chance to see the rule change or post anything.

This isn't really what would have happened, Exile. What I had meant to post in Night Results was changing the "vote: end day early" from unanimous to majority. The Day still would have ended at 1AM just like all the others. What I offered to you privately via PM was an option, if you didn't feel like fighting off the two votes on you, to end the game entirely by joining them in their "end day early" vote and letting it happen immediately upon your doing so. Partially offered it because I was actually around on Monday and it would have been convenient for me to have you make that choice.

12 hours ago, Exiled Phoenix said:

i didn't see a role list - did the loyalists have roles beyond the cards? And was there a wildcard? 

I filled out the player list completely with alignments and roles on the first page of the actual game thread if you'd like to go look. The answers to your questions here are "no" and @Trajectory was right in his early-game assumption that the wildcard was a red herring.

12 hours ago, Exiled Phoenix said:

...the host publicly announces that you weren't modkilled because of private conversations.

This honestly did not occur to me and is an interesting idea for future consideration. Granted, with this specific case, smile was not actually "lurking" or attempting to "slide by under the radar." She simply had a slip-up in regards to deadline and had otherwise been contributing in a logical manner the rest of the game.

12 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

(All the while using familial nomenclature with Star, which still confuses me...)

Eheh, lengthy story, but the short version is Rox and I played in a game Traj hosted where we both ended up changing into the same innocent WW power role due to it happening during the same phase of the moon, our "mother" if you will, me having acquired the power first and Rox later on in the game, resulting in my referring to him from then on as "little brother" and he in turn calling me "big sister."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TheLastStarMaker said:

What I had meant to post in Night Results was changing the "vote: end day early" from unanimous to majority.

I think you'll need to explain this again, because I actually checked the first post after Red claimed the game would have ended if he hadn't unvoted to end day early, and it said the End Day vote was majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my mistake then. My interpretation of what would happen would be that if a majority voted to end the game early, it would end immediately, rather than having that only take effective if all players voted that way. Taking a quick look at timestamps, night results were posted at 2am my time, and then the two votes for me/to end day early were done by 3:30am my time. I thought it was possible those would end the game there, which would have been frustrating. I understand why that rule is in place (48hr day periods are long), but, especially in close situations, I wouldn't want someone feeling like the game could have gone a different way if only the last day was as long as all the other days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now