No, they are paying a special visit to Spain. They must be keen cyclists, because they were seen with several spare bike chains, and some pipe that looked like bike chassis bits.
/me nods.
-
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.
No, they are paying a special visit to Spain. They must be keen cyclists, because they were seen with several spare bike chains, and some pipe that looked like bike chassis bits.
/me nods.
AVN doesn't like big games, especially not simple big games like the one you are hosting now. With simple, nothing fancy, roles. You know, without complicated overexpected underperforming roles.Nope, I'm still alive
shush, it's reverse psycopathy!That traitor
Wait, umm... I think that's right.
If we're quoting rules here, how about this one?
Now, I take no pleasure in killing you early, but there is a problem when players don't participate. Everyone has bad games, everyone has games where they can't do as much as they would like but when you do it every single game there's a problem.
The problem is that when someone repeatedly just shows up to vote, and fails to provide a reason at all it screws up analysis and deprives the village of information, it shows a lack of interest in the game and it really isn't hard to post even one line of reasoning.
Now metagaming:
If I killed Yakman early every time because I don't like him (I actually have no opinion one way or the other) that would be metagaming. However, I only do it when he isn't participating. Last lite, we didn't kill him for 3 days and he still made no effort.
So, a deal:
If Yakman agrees to play like everyone else, I'll not kill him any more often than anyone else. How does that sound?
This is like talking to a brick wall.
I. Am. Not. Metagaming. You.
You play like you give a toss, I won't kill you. It really isn't rocket science here.
Zombieism is also against the rules.
Jonti, what you are doing is meta-gaming. You organize lynches or hunt me EVERY SINGLE GAME. You do it early, and you do it without any information. You need to stop. Meta-gaming is against the rules of every single Werewolf game.
I do not need to make some deal with you. You should obey the basic rules of the game. I do not need to play how you want me to play to have a reasonable expectation that you won't organize a lynch on me the first day of play every single game.
Should I also vote how you want me to vote? Change my signature to something more appealing to you?
Stop meta-gaming.
I do not need to make some deal with you. You should obey the basic rules of the game. I do not need to play how you want me to play to have a reasonable expectation that you won't organize a lynch on me the first day of play every single game.
Should I also vote how you want me to vote? Change my signature to something more appealing to you?
Stop meta-gaming.
So should you. One of which is that you participate to the best of your ability.
Look, I don't care who you vote for, how you do it or whatever.
Just do more than post 2 words per day. Otherwise, you take a slot from someone who wants to get involved, which matters in lite, but not so much in full.
EDIT: Organising a lynch requires the majority of votes to fall on you. Given that the reason for voting you is stated - you ain't engaging with the game - that means that it's not just a personal crusade on my part does it not. I know it annoys Ciry and E-L as much or more than it does me.
This. If a player, lets call him Orange Yakman for the purposes of this exercise, is a consistently worthless and or possibly catastrophically bad villager then lynching Orange Yakman at every opportunity is not metagaming. Rather, getting rid of Orange Yakman is simply managing risk. If you have to shoot one of two villagers, each with equal chance of being a wolf, then you shoot the one who is an idiot as he is a risk even if he is not part of the wolfpack.
Prove yourself to be worth a spot in a village fighting for its life, and you will not get lynched. People generally do not like me (not as much as they used to hate me but still
). Despite that I do not get lynched that often without cause because people know I pull my weight. So, instead of whining about metagaming you should instead learn how to be a good villager.And remember kids, only you can prevent Orange Yakman from f**king your village.
This. If a player, lets call him Orange Yakman for the purposes of this exercise, is a consistently worthless and or possibly catastrophically bad villager then lynching Orange Yakman at every opportunity is not metagaming. Rather, getting rid of Orange Yakman is simply managing risk. If you have to shoot one of two villagers, each with equal chance of being a wolf, then you shoot the one who is an idiot as he is a risk even if he is not part of the wolfpack.
Prove yourself to be worth a spot in a village fighting for its life, and you will not get lynched. People generally do not like me (not as much as they used to hate me but still
And remember kids, only you can prevent Orange Yakman from f**king your village.
Quite.
You put it better than I did but it's what I was driving at.
In any case, when someone has to be hanged early, why hang someone who gives a stuff about the game when there's someone there who blatently doesn't.
A couple of games ago, I survived a day as an outed wolf because of WW zombiesm. Now that was very funny, but that's plain wrong.
It went:
*Them: jonti-h is a wolf.
*Me: Yeah, beg for your lives.
*Them: *silence and someone else hangs*
That just upset me too. We knew that you where a wolf, you admitted to it. No defense, no refusal that it was true. In fact you went out of your way to support it as true, and lived.
The village should not have won that game after that and I agree with Jonti-h that Yakman has not been playing up to his potential. So many votes I put into my spreadsheets where (None Given) because there was only 2 words, Vote and the person name. If he could have voted with 1 word I bet that he would have saved 50% of what he said in some of those threads.
No, LSST, NO Random.org. Just nothing.
I don't care how poor the reasoning is, if it not a vote snipe, give me something. I don't care if you put down Random.org, have to live, A wolf told me, or anything like that, give me the most halfhearted reason, but make it a reason then saying nothing.
Even LSST is better then nothing, Even the words Counter Vote would make me happy. You don't need to do much, all I am asking for a few words that show why you did it. I don't care if those few words are any good, just that they are there.
IF you can't do that, I don't see how you could honestly say you are playing the game. The GM could do that for you with random.org. Your adding nothing.
Note that I do notice when the votes reasoning in in a later post or a sooner post, as you might have noticed that a few of them are listed as See post #x. And well, that is fine. Just give us something other then two words.
I agree with this. Activity in Lite is important so one can highlight who the wolves are, if you are a villager. Conversely, you can steer the village away from your packmates if you were a wolf.
Jonti it -is- metagaming if you keep picking on yakman and not the other zombies. I have to admit i like hunting zombies as a wolf, and lynching them as Villager but I dont constantly choose Yakman, unlike you. Both you and yakman are partially right. You need to stop going JUST after the yak and yak needs to be a bit moar active. Explaining votes on first day is unecessary so don't expect that Losty.
If I went exclusively after Yak you'd be right. I don't. I do go after the worst zombies in a game however.