Catching up a bit...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikae
Another thing -
Boro, I don't think there is a suggested rule about reading the Admin thread at this point anyway, unless I missed it. Or do you mean the rule about reading the general rules? Yes, you can't enforce such a thing, but at least if someone is breaking one, such as a mod who doesn't turn up when they should or a player who PMs people they shouldn't, you can refer them to the rules and move on.. (Also, a player who is confused about something that wasn't satisfactorily clarified by the mod will have a place to go for answers.)
|
I was in a rush and explained myself poorly. My example with players not reading the Admin thread, wasn't a proposed rule (and I don't think it should be), it was an example of what I find personally a bit annoying. However, just because I find something annoying, doesn't mean it should be a universal rule for all the games.
That's what I was trying to say about the banning of players who repeatedly sign up for games and then just do nothing. To make myself a bit clearer, I don't think there should be any rule banning players
unless they repeatedly break forum policy (vulgar language, insulting or bullying, that type of stuff). I do remember
xyzzy, but how much of a problem is it? And where is
xyzzy now? I really see no point in having such a rule, because the
xyzzy's disappear on their own and as someone else said, the mod is in control of the player list and sign-ups. I think rules banning any players from games (aside from someone repeatedly breaking forum rules) is a bit much, as well as unnecessary to have.
Regarding meta-gaming, I don't know how to condense it in an easy form, but here's been my understanding of it. Like
Rikae, I always assumed referring to peoples past games was alright, or saying something like "When
Boro's been innocent, he's done such and such" or "Last 3 times
Boro-wolf has killed his own cobbler first night."
I was talking to
Nienna awhile ago, who was angry because she thought she was a victim of meta-reasoning (I can't recall the exact situation), but I do remember telling her that it seems like people only hate meta-reasons when it's used to suspect someone. We all seem to overlook the fact that we use meta-reasons to
defend ourselves, "I'd do this if I was innocent..." "I was here at this time, and couldn't post/didn't have time to read." Anyway, my point was we find meta-reason perfectly acceptable to defend ourselves, but for some reason it's a touchy thing for people when they are being suspected by it.
So, it looks like I think along the lines with
Mac more, and that is if we know someone was gone, there was no night kill, it's rather silly to just ignore that. Also, it's hard enough as it is to try and come up with suspicions on Day 1, eliminate meta-reasoning completely, Day 1 will become even worse.
Any privvy communication between the Mod and active players (that isn't stated in the rules) or the Mod doesn't announce to all the players is definitely I think a no-no. In the very least,
Fea's suggestion I find acceptable, if a mod wants a secret or a twist, you obviously can't let everyone know what it is before it happens. However, if you let everyone know there are twists, or just don't tell anyone the secret until after it happened, than go for it. I find twists irritatingly fun.
The other part of meta-reasoning is communication between players (living and dead) about the game, outside of the game, while the game is going on. With how much of a community this place is, and with how we can easily communicate outside the forum, it's ridiculous to forbid any type of communication if a game is going one. What I can't talk to
Kath about Freud because we're both in an active game? Rubbish.
Any type of communication about the game should be forbidden, and no one can obviously watch that type of thing, but it's like
Rikae said about having honor and respect for the game. While a game is going on, don't talk about it with any of the other players (should we include non-players?), should definitely be included under meta-reasoning.
The game I modded was one where I happened to see some "
Boro's friends with
Mira and I think would pick her for the bear, because it's the best role." I absolutely hated that, and it should also be a no-no under meta-gaming. It's more I just hate people assuming things that most likely just aren't true. I mean it could be a fact, I hate
Mira, if I see her face in my presense again, I'm going to punch it.
But seriously now, that type of argument is just a mess of assumptions, the main one being that I don't like anyone else enough to give them such an "awesome" role, or it assumes anyone who's an ordo, I hate...like that
phantom, I can't stand that arrogance, ordo-ship for you!
So, now someone condense that, chop-chop.
Speaking of
the phantom, and having rules about how people should play the game, and whether it's ok to switch allegiances...etc. What the...you really want to regulate that?
Nerwen's right, the underlying personal glory to win, assures that people won't switch teams. If you want to control how people play, watch yourself play against 15 phantoms, 3 phantom-wolves, a phantom seer, phantom-ordos, and simulate how a phantom-wolf, would react to the phantom-seer making a claim or something. When you start limitting how people play, you are only capping creativity and some of the best games are created because someone did something you could never have expected.