That would be counterproductive. Both you and AOK. 11 are part of the fabric of this community's soul.
And does AOK. 11 know you are speaking for him?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And does AOK. 11 know you are speaking for him?
Is AOK creativity and Euro chaos or is it the other way around?
Sockpuppet
Yes.That would be counterproductive. Both you and AOK. 11 are part of the fabric of this community's soul.
And does AOK. 11 know you are speaking for him?
Yes.
Yes.
Ironhead, your long post on the previous page about the villagers acting detrimental to the village, by acting un-villaging, is a good point.
However, it should not be carved in stone, but should be dealt with during the game. I always try to attack players who do these kind of things. And while countering their actions, I try to get the village to see that too, and follow me.
WW is a game of diplomacy, a game of influence. If you want to have someone lynched, you vote that person. But one vote does not lead to the noose. You need others to follow you. You need to persuade others why your lynching candidate is a good one. That is an important part of the game. AOK and EURO are actually quite good at that, and have lead the village to victory often (mostly AOK). So following them makes sense. But the key is that villagers also need to be aware when it is wise not to follow someone. Are their arguments making sense? Do you think the lynch instigator might be a wolf leading the village on the wrong path? People need to use their own brains, their own analysing and reasoning to decide when not to follow someone. Arguments are the key in there. AOK has such credibility that he can lead the lynch without arguments, that is dangerous, and some players might try in-game to counter that.
What I am saying is that sheeps are, in a way, necessary, but they must never be mindless sheep. They must be sheeps of arguments.
However, it should not be carved in stone, but should be dealt with during the game. I always try to attack players who do these kind of things. And while countering their actions, I try to get the village to see that too, and follow me.
WW is a game of diplomacy, a game of influence. If you want to have someone lynched, you vote that person. But one vote does not lead to the noose. You need others to follow you. You need to persuade others why your lynching candidate is a good one. That is an important part of the game. AOK and EURO are actually quite good at that, and have lead the village to victory often (mostly AOK). So following them makes sense. But the key is that villagers also need to be aware when it is wise not to follow someone. Are their arguments making sense? Do you think the lynch instigator might be a wolf leading the village on the wrong path? People need to use their own brains, their own analysing and reasoning to decide when not to follow someone. Arguments are the key in there. AOK has such credibility that he can lead the lynch without arguments, that is dangerous, and some players might try in-game to counter that.
What I am saying is that sheeps are, in a way, necessary, but they must never be mindless sheep. They must be sheeps of arguments.
He was referred as participating in the last 3 months.
No, it does not. Sheepish behavior, or the pretense of it, is never good for the village. If the first, the villagers are working to the desires of the baddies. If the second, the baddies are hiding amongst the flock. In both cases, the lynch is the obvious answer.
There is this law in statistics that speaks of "independent events". It goes along the lines of : "Just because the last 932578347578347 times the independent event A, with equally possible outcomes A and B, happened with outcome B, it does not mean that the next event A will have a greater chance to happen with outcome A than with B, because they are separate events.
The issue here, as Ironhead said, is that there are no arguments. It would be alright if there actually were some arguments supporting it. So, yes, as you say it, being a swayed sheep (or pretending to) because someone has an unnatural gift in rhethorics is good for the game. And the best thing about arguments is that they can be fought with counter-arguments, and that they are somewhat impersonal, so everyone can play that game.
Last edited:
Then they're not really sheeps, are they?
Can you imagine a lite game with 17 EUROO7s or 17 AOKs?
Or, God forbid, a big game with 40 Ironheads?!
That doesn't apply here.
Also, I don't have a gift in rhetoric. I am in fact quite the terrible orator.
Who you're thinking of is Ironhead. Perhaps Thistletooth, but he just bored people with his walls of text that they saw themselves forced to follow him.
Hello one and all.
I've been away for a while, but I'm back now...Don't know if any still remember me, I only played a few games a few months back.
Hopefully play in next big game that comes along.
Cheers
I've been away for a while, but I'm back now...Don't know if any still remember me, I only played a few games a few months back.
Hopefully play in next big game that comes along.
Cheers
Welcome back
And I need subs for the current big game that's going on, if you would be interested?
And does AOK. 11 know you are speaking for him?
The truth must come out sooner or later. So here it is: EURO and AOK are the same person.
AOK version 1.0 had a mental breakdown somewhere around 2007. His psyche began to come unglued. Sigmund Freud identified three parts of the human psyche: Id, ego and super-ego. The Id portion of AOK's psyche split off into a seperate personality, now commonly called "EURO".
Sigmund Freud said:
After a time of being completely controlled by EUROid, AOK fought back for control over his mind. The battle continues.
Who will win? Only Satan knows.
This is how I would have responded as well. I'm surprised there are so few people responding to this thread; but I suspect that many of the former players who would have gotten involved in this discussion have already voted with their feet.
If there was no Werewolf community on the Paradox forum, and you decided to try to start one, what would it look like? How would you frame it and guide the gaggle of new players so that the game they played matched the excitement and chaos of WW that you knew could develop?
I say this because I cannot imagine our current state of affairs being the optimal endstate for anyone's vision of WW. And yes, I got it, some of us wish we could have multiple threads on the OT forum again; just as Hare Krishnas wish they could harangue travelers at airports and Jehovah's Witnesses depend upon going door-to-door, we would get in enough faces that eventually someone would join us. But look past that complaint -- would the game itself draw people in?
Would it make you guys feel better if when I led a vote switch I posted an extremely detailed report of how I catch wolves? After detailing the system about 500 times I got tired of it. If you want logical argumentation as to why people should follow me I can provide it with references. I can write a whole research paper on the subject if you want.
If you want me to explain in detail why I do what I do and why it helps the village I can. It just takes a while, most people will not read it, and sometimes I do not have the time.
If you want me to explain in detail why I do what I do and why it helps the village I can. It just takes a while, most people will not read it, and sometimes I do not have the time.
The problem I have with your system AOK is that while it often works to catch wolves it drowns out any other villager discussion, and feels a bit too led for my liking. It's sad that every game you say "vote x" and then meekly everyone follows you. That's not a criticism of you - it is one of the village.
That isn't a good excuse. Use what is called "a layman's explanation". It doesn't even have to be accurate or truthful...
Just a quick tl;dr would do the job - as long as the basics are there it would be OK
So I guess being a cog in AOK's wolf killing (or village killing) machine is not as much fun as a less centralized, more chaotic, leaderless bloodbath.
With less time on my hands the machine will have to be turned off for a while. So lets see how that works out.
Ignoring the false dichotomy, yes it is more fun to be less regimented.
I appologize. False dichotomies are my specialty. Its how I sell sand to Arabs.
I cannot work without them.