I think you are reading me too literally
Rune. It's not the number of words I'm after. And as I've said before I know I'm a bit bad in this as I tend to be babbling in much too lengthy a manner in the games - and in post-game discussions...
I'd need a course in making clear and straight statements in English, I sure could use that. That's one of the reasons I decided to try a different game... which never materialised.
But with the risk of repeating myself, let's see if I could formulate my point understandably this time - and after this I will give up with it, honestly.
So let's bring these to the extremes to see the point.
Game1: no one speaks anything. Everyone just makes a vote once/Day (or forgets to do that). That will be a game of pure randomness and not funny to anyone. Just pure chance like throwing a dice or then just voting for those persons you don't like so much personally and thence it would only be a (cruel) game of social differentiation...
Game2: Everyone is required to make a full analysis of each other player in the game everyDay + a lengthy visionary post concerning all different possibilities the game-mechanics might work. That would hardly be amusing either... Only a dedicated player with lots of free time could read all through it in a game of twenty.
Neither seems like an enjoyable game.
But after we get more towards the middle ground and the reality the scene changes...
The problem in this mixed envirovment I think is in the inbalance. The contributors work from the basis of "I give to you new ideas about others and chances to pick suspicious things from my posting as well and you give me the same" while the quiets work on the basis of "I will give you nothing from myself but you should give Me everything". Remember that there is no game without the former people - but just Game1 whom no one wishes, I think... well, hope...
In practise this leads to the situation where one or two or three openly playing (one can look like playing openly while cheating!) will get lynched sooner than later as they are the only persons the others have an opinion. And why is that? Because they have made the game in the first place - remember Game1 once more. I mean, how could you make a case against totally silent player number 12 instead of totally quiet player number 11, or 7, or 4? How can you differentiate between them? Game1 once again... But of those loud players 1 and 2 and 3 it's much easier as they have contributed - given something to others.
This was not meant to be pointing to this game we played in particular. It was a small village indeed and many of my arguments are not valid with this "village" So basically it has nothing to do with this game we played. This was just an answer to
Rune and as I promised, I will keep my mouth shut after this - even though I'm afraid I wasn't able to make my point clear enough.
Let's discuss this in Finnish the next time? I'll promise you a rhetorically outstanding argument in twenty words then!
