Werewolf XVI: Rules & Questions

352, a quick question - The messages you received, could they only have been sent after the Village opened this morning? Are they also sent from a User's account as a private message?

 

I should say I moved this question from the Day 1 thread, as it's more appropriate here.

The messages were sent just before they were posted, although the person sending the message can request the message to be published later on at a specific time or something like that, that's not a problem. You should assume that I've posted up the anonymous messages as soon as I can after receiving the message.

The Seer can only view someone once the village is open, so the messages will be after the village opened.

They are not sent from a user's account as a PM, so ignore my PM activity, as well as the PM activity of anyone else playing. The messages are sent via email, to werewolfxvi@gmail.com, as are any other queries from players that they wish to remain secret.

Hope that answers your questions sufficiently. Please keep these questions in this thread.

 

How to I get access to the Werewolf Cemetery Thread please?

 

Like I said in the tavern and in an email to you, I have requested that you get access. You'll just have to sit tight until a mod sees my message. I can't let you in myself as I am just a sub forum mod for the time being. You need to be a Meister or an SM to control the gates of the cemetery.

 

Very sorry... I hadn't seen this until now.

If a mason has been killed, you are not told. You are merely told that they are GOOD.

 

Good question.

Here are the relevant sections of the rules:

So they can, but obviously they may not be telling the truth. I would say it's risky business anyway.

 

It was going to be any of team good. But I think it shouldn't be a Seer or Witness, due to their roles and what they know. So I will amend the rules to make that clear now, so that future games can use that template too if needed.

I will simply pick a name out of the hat (use a random number generator), with every good player's name (except the above special roles).

So yes, masons can be converted, but Seers cannot.

 

Hang on that would mean that two additional good players would be known to the new wolf, that can't be fair, especially as the remaining masons would still think the converted one was good, so doubly unfair!

 

That's a good point - effectively, it puts an end to the Masons.

 

GOOD point.

Amending the rules again.

No players with a special role can be converted. Keeps it simple.

 

How many 'very good' roles are there?

2 x Seer
1 x Guardian
1 x Witness
1 x Martyr

 

I think The Governor and The Martyr are also V Good, but 352 will have to clarify that!

 

Nah the Governor was awful mate - Weren't very good at all. Was bad.

 

According to 352 post at the beginning of today

The Voice of Reason - GOOD (Governor) – Lynched Day 2

So you're just good.

 

:tongue1: Just because I didn't save you!

 

Meanie :doom:

 

Just to clarify, if I've said VERY GOOD it means they have a special role but I don't want to give it. Obviously if for whatever reason I didn't want to reveal TVOR's role I would have also said VERY GOOD.

Masons will just be named as GOOD.

 

So you can't tell us what you class as 'Very good' ?

 

I just did. Players names as VERY GOOD have a special role, but not a mason, on the good team.

There's a list of special roles in the OP.

 

352, what happens if the votes are level tonight ?

 

Ties will be broken by a public gambling event (such as a horse race).


I will work that out if we come to it.

 

Before I say this, may I just say that the things I write on here are just suggestions that IMO might improve future games, and are in no way meant as criticism to present or past overseers of this game; I think all of you do a great job which I do not think I would do very well myself.

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about people who do not participate enough in the game, and although I appreciate that keeping a low profile can be a tactic, there are some that don't make any real contribution at all.

By this I mean they just pop up vote and don't appear to give any thought as to what they are doing. They come up with excuses that they haven't really got the time to catch up with what has been happening or to discuss the theories etc. put forward by others. Therefore I don't think these people should be playing at all, as often their frivolous votes can lead to ridiculous lynchings etc.

I know it's only a game, but it can be spoilt by the people I am referring too. Surely if they want to take part they could spare some time to read back over the days play after the village closes, I know it is too late for that day, but at least they could then maybe see where they went wrong and bring that knowledge to the next day.

Maybe, people should be compelled to give a short explanation for their vote rather than just voting.

It's just a thought.

 

I will back TVOR up here....why sign up to play if you're not going to play? I appreciate lying low is a well worn tactic but in this particular game either we have 6+ wolves alive still or people are just not bothering to participate.

btw is there a particular reason the village closes over a weekend? It sort of removes the excuse of work.

 

Maybe 352 wants a break from it.

 

It's just how it's been done before, so I just thought I'd carry that on. Something for next next game maybe though if people want to do it that way.

As for inactivity, I think the fact that it's a tactic isn't used more in villagers' favour. I do take your point about inactive players, but there are people with genuine excuses, an this time around if someone misses a vote or doesn't post all day I've only ever given one chance. I think in future I'll just be ruthless and kill off players straight away.

As for relative inactivity, as in posting only a few times in a day, I think it's a hard one to adjudicate. By all means in the next game someon could trial a post threshold or something for survival, but I can't bring that in mid game I don't think.

Hopefully my leniency hasn't taken away from what has been a really good game so far (in my opinion).

 

Also yeah you're right it does take up a lot of my time, especially in the earlier stages.

 

It absolutely isn't any criticsm of you 352...you have overseen the game magnificently. Of that there is no question. A quick look at the remaining players shows the majority of them have been the quietest to almost absent. The yardstick my dad used to give me about stuff was "What would it be like if everybody did it?" If everybody stayed as quiet then there would be no game to play. How you change or tackle the problem though I have no clue!

 

Next time, maybe a new rule to introduce is that if the person with the fewest posts from the day before, if less than 5, gets automatically seen the next morning and is posted by the admin.

i.e. JoeBloggs posted 3 times yesterday - JoeBloggs is GOOD.

Who thinks that's a good idea?

Click "Like" for yes or "dislike" for no

 

What do I press for 'I don't know'?

 

I don't know

 

Oh balls. I was going to be a smartass and click Like and Dislike for this post - in other words to say "I don't know" - but you can only click one not both of them now.

 

Before I say this, may I just say that the things I write on here are just suggestions that IMO might improve future games, and are in no way meant as criticism to present or past overseers of this game; I think all of you do a great job, and I do not think I would do very well myself.

Above is a clip from my original post on this subject.





As you can see this is in no way a criticism of you or any of your predecessors, and I am not suggesting it should be acted upon during this game, it's just a suggestion for future consideration.

You have been great 352 :sign15: