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.
Euh... I think you have misread me. AOK lynching wolves is not a statistical chance. It is his quality of finding wolves. And as a villager, it makes sense to initially follow AOK if he leads the village, because he has shown in past games, that he can find wolves. So if you are a villager, intend on lynching wolves, and you have no idea who are wolves, and you have not so far reason to mistrust AOK, following him gives the greatest possibility of finding wolves. But one must always remain critical, and be aware of the fact that AOK himself can be a wolf, and lead the village on a wild goose chase.
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.
Thank you for making my point. If there are no arguments, they certainly make no sense. So the absence of arguments is easily counter-argumented. AOK's arguments are however implicit, namely in the fact that he has shown to be a good wolf-detector. It's hard to provide counter-arguments to that.
The new game thread in the OT is no longer stickied. I don't know how long ago that happened but I think it is good news.
It was done to put more attention to it. This group requested Blade! to do so some time ago.
EURO of course!!
but prob randy for getting me to play and kaetje for not being mean to me with my retarded protect orders as i was the doctor and did not have a clue what i was doing.
And which family member are you?
----------
Regarding the 2 questions at hand:
1) our style of play. Yes, I agree with Ironhead that our current style of play leaves much to be improved. For a part that is indeed caused by the role that AOK takes. I cannot blame AOK for having his quality, and I cannot blame villagers for following him (see above). Yet what is the solution to this problem? AOK is who he is, we can't (and shouldn't) change that. Perhaps we can find a way to change the game mechanics a bit to negate the effects? (I know that AOK will probably think "LEAVE WW ALONE!", but I am also thinking that his stance on this is also because he could be afraid to loose his strength of play that way. But maybe that should be part of the plan to improve the game? And AOK could see it as a challenge to improve himself?) Would a change in voting make a difference? Limit of number of vote changes per player? A "sudden" deadline? Any ideas?
2) The players pool. Despite the luxury of our own forum, we do lack a sufficient influx of new players. It has always been the case that new players come and most go again, and some stay. (some return after some time, welcome back Velasco). However, if the influx is not big enough, that will result in a net loss of players (while with a big enough influx, the amount of players is stable of perhaps even increasing). Our "new game"-thread in the OT is not hook enough to draw in new players. Perhaps we should consider swapping that thread with one of our games thread? Perhaps the Big game? With the big understanding that once a new big thread has started, the old one should not be resurrected (I have learned my lesson
)