WW General rules discussion

[Boromir88]

Are you Para, phantom? This was your plan from the very beginning, no doubt?

But honestly, we should consider slashing some of these regulations, too many hoops to jump through and even I won't want to sign up anymore. Just because be personally annoyed with something, doesn't mean there needs to be a rule on it.

For example, I get peeved when I can tell someone didn't read the Admin thread, but how do you watch something like that? I could have a mod-fire rule "don't read the Admin thread, bye bye." But that doesn't mean it should be made into a universal rule. Stuff like mod-fire rules should be left up to the game mods, and shouldn't be all that rigid anyway.

Banning members from games seems way too over-the top. You don't get banned from the forum for 6 months if you don't post in the Books thread, so like Rikae asked about inappropriate language...why here? And who's going to police that? The Admins won't, and when morm gets busy I doubt that's something he wants to pay attention too (and I'm not letting phantom have that kind of power! ). Yes, we may all get annoyed if someone keeps signing up and then keeps getting mod-fired for not participating, but that's something the Mods have to watch. We don't need any universal banning rules.

I'm running short on time, gotta get to work for another 11 hour day *sigh*. But for organization purposes, maybe we can break this down to...

For all WW-participants: (this will include no inappropriate language, insulting, rules regarding meta-gaming...etc)

For Game Mods: I think having a type of format like the RPG forum would be helpful.

-Something like, ALL 1st posts of the admin threads must include...theme, DL rules, roles (and full explanation of them), list of players, voting rules. Anything else?

For the mod-list:

--------

Getting into banning players for reasons beyond the obvious (like actually breaking forum rules) is a bridge too far.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But honestly, we should consider slashing some of these regulations, too many hoops to jump through and even I won't want to sign up anymore. Just because be personally annoyed with something, doesn't mean there needs to be a rule on it.

For example, I get peeved when I can tell someone didn't read the Admin thread, but how do you watch something like that? I could have a mod-fire rule "don't read the Admin thread, bye bye." But that doesn't mean it should be made into a universal rule. Stuff like mod-fire rules should be left up to the game mods, and shouldn't be all that rigid anyway.

Yes, I think it's better to err on the side of having too few rules than too many. I believe what we should be aiming for is more in the nature of a set of guidelines and role-descriptions rather than laws.

The exception for me would be the points about mods needing to be clear from the start about how their particular games work, and not revealing living players' roles for no good reason (or otherwise giving one team an unfair advantage).

[Mithalwen]

I suppose this isn't really any of my business since I don't play werewolf anymore but I do think if you have got to the point of needing a rule book it really has got out of hand.

It started out as a fun thing and now you need lists of rules and committees? What next a signed contract before playing?

I know from experience that you can think you have all bases covered and things will happen that will necessitate invoking the divine right of moderators. I am sure I did things that would have contravened many of the proposed rules but I tried to do nothing that altered the mechanics of the game even if some things altered the dynamics... However my greatest problem arose because either half my players didn't read the rules or for some reason decided that they didn't apply to them. So I don't think a great list of regulations helps. Noone reads them.

I modded game 5 and hadn't played all the previous ones.... however I realise that there are a large number of werewolf players who don't otherwise participate on the board and that is a different dynamic to the original games where Downers played ww as a sideline....

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I suppose this isn't really any of my business since I don't play werewolf anymore but I do think if you have got to the point of needing a rule book it really has got out of hand.

It started out as a fun thing and now you need lists of rules and committees? What next a signed contract before playing?

Well, my idea, as I keep saying, is for this to be a set of guidelines and role-definitions, mainly to help new players out and avoid confusion.

[Rikae]

Boro -
I think you misunderstood what I meant. First of all, profanity etc. is not allowed on the 'downs in general, and WW players shouldn't get a free pass. That's what I was saying; somehow you seem to have read the opposite into it. I wasn't, however, saying players should actually be banned from the 'downs or from the forum for not playing games they sign up for - but if a player repeatedly signs up and doesn't play, why should the next mod have to sign them up on their request, knowing they'll most likely be a no-show? It hasn't been a problem lately, but a while back there were quite a few players doing this, and it disrupts the game mechanics needlessly. I'm not talking about people who are busy and have to drop out or announce they'll be absent for a few days, but people who simply don't show up, with no explanation;, repeatedly. Remember xyzzy?

Mith -
I hope these rules are going to be common sense for all the veteran players; the point is to ensure that new players coming in, and especially new players wishing to mod, know what is the "norm" around here and what other players expect the rules to be. Most of them are either simple game mechanics ("don't PM people you're not allowed to PM") or default definitions of terms that the mods can change, as long as they do so explicitly in the admin thread.
I had an active role in all this, and I'm not doing it to change Barrowdowns werewolf, but to protect it. After seeing days spent trying to convince a player that PMing other players randomly was not allowed, seeing a mod invoke new rules he had never mentioned to the village and PM the roles of gifteds to wolves for no reason, and another player persist in PMing non-packmates with questions, I think we need a way to be sure players and mods are starting on the same page. We've had an influx of new players who are coming to the 'downs (as far as I know) just to play Werewolf, and who come in with a background in similar, but different, games and different assumptions about how the game works. It's not fair to the older players or to these newbies to fill the game threads with debates over how Werewolf should be played. Usually it's been possible to teach new players the ropes over the course of their first couple games, but when there are too many at once, when newbies want to mod, or when newbies don't seem willing to learn how the game is played here, it becomes a problem.

Nerwen -
Ok, fair enough. I'll take it out. I did mean, though, that a player can't change their winning conditions - I wanted to prevent a situation like in a previous game where there was a lot of confusion over how the Werebear role worked. I guess, though, that such requirements for winning should be in the admin thread and referring to it should be sufficient. Still, part of the idea here is to state the obvious so we don't need to explain it again and again (like the PMing and deadline rules).

[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.)

[Boromir88]

Catching up a bit...

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.