Admin thread for WWXXXV: Werewolves among the Wolf-men

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But that kind of works against the basic idea of this game which is that people should speak and then read what others say and make their deductions based on them. The other possibility would be that people just said "Hi" and then randomly made a vote. Which one of these is a werewolf-game?

Of course the point is that people should speak. . . but you have been blinded by your desire for analysing and intensive posting.

You don't need to post 10-20 times a day to be contributing to the game or two have fun (which is the true basic idea of the werewolf-game). You seem to focus way to much on this in every game you play. . . and I understand you in some of the cases, but a lot of the time I think you are overreacting.

Also when it comes to the analyzing bit. . . There is only so much to analyze, but of late there has been tendencies of half the village making 5 major post with loads of analyzing in each, and that is over analyzing. Thre simply is not that much wolwery in a game. The main point here is however that for all this analyzing people are no more often right than those that says "this sentence looks like wolvery ther for I vote for xxxxx"

I think the games are mor fun when you different ways of playing colide, it is great having you and SPM in a village, but if the whole village becomes your clones then the fun disapears.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Rune

it is great having you and SPM in a village, but if the whole village becomes your clones then the fun disapears.

To me the fun starts there... So watch out, we both are going to be in Fea's next game... so think a second time before enlisting as we might spoil your fun...

But yes, you're right in many things. I've been in villages where three or four people make a "deep-analysis" of the posts of one and the same person. That clearly is an over-exaggeration. Also skimming through two pages of posting when you are in the middle of RL "disturbances" makes one pretty desperate. I know I sometimes flood the threads with my thoughts which at worst are repeating earlier points. I know. And that's a shame.

Originally Posted by Rune

The main point here is however that for all this analyzing people are no more often right than those that says "this sentence looks like wolvery ther for I vote for xxxxx"

I'd bet the "analysers" have a slight edge in this but that's a slight one to be sure. But I think the point is not whether one is right or not but what s/he reveals of her/his target, but also - and even more importantly - about her/himself with the analysis and thence contributes to the game for also the others. The fun of these games to me is that I give something for you others to chew and you give me something to read from you. Then there is a balance. But if it's only some people who contribute and others stay low that's kind of not fair-play any more.

If only two people talk it's easy for the others to just concentrate on what they contribute - but that also means that all the others are safe from any suspicion whatsoever and those talkers will get killed sooner or later just because they tried to contribute. That's the thing I'm complaining a bit. A bit that is as I'm used to it already - and you can deduct that it isn't a big issue with me as I'm always ready for the next game...

So sportsmanship is the thing I am calling for. Whether you are an ordinary or a gifted or a wolf (or whatever) you should put yourself into the game giving also others a chance to read you and not only read others with really careful posting.

I mean really, we should make a trial - just for the fun of it - one day. Let's make a game were everyone is restricted to max. two posts / Day and no one is allowed to analyse or make any posts containing any principles or actual reasoning, not to say building up cases or making personal commitments. Just oneliners with stuff like "Hi guys, we have a problem here, let's solve it", or "I'll vote X because my randon generator gave her as a result - or his name begins with an "S"". I'd be very interested to see what would happen in that game and how much people would actually enjoy it...

I really thought I would play a bit differently this time but the roleplaying aspect pushed me back to my normal way of playing. One day I will play differently... only I'm afraid I'm lynched on Day1 as soon as I try to do something completely different...


PS. Rune: I was first a bit confused about your comment elsewhere but now I understand what you meant. Have no fear. I do not think your tone was too harsh or anything... To me this looks like discussing about the issues and that's what we should do anyway. So don't worry.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'd bet the "analysers" have a slight edge in this but that's a slight one to be sure. But I think the point is not whether one is right or not but what s/he reveals of her/his target, but also - and even more importantly - about her/himself with the analysis and thence contributes to the game for also the others. The fun of these games to me is that I give something for you others to chew and you give me something to read from you. Then there is a balance. But if it's only some people who contribute and others stay low that's kind of not fair-play any more.

I think you are wrong. . . but I do not want to bet.

I don't see this as an issue of whether you should contribute or not, that is a given. What makes it fun for you is not necisarily what makes it fun for others , if you look at the earliest of ww-games way less was being said than now and they where just as popular. Speaking of fair play. . . people have different kinds of play and it is not fair at all when people who likes making many ultra long posts say to the rest "this is the way you have to play". . . . If you where only calling for the people that where truly quiet to speak up, then I would not raise a brow. The thing is that it seems that you question the styles of playing that is not very similar to your own.

I just don't think that one tactic has more merrit than the others. . . .The tactic of not saying anything is not included as it goes against the foundations of the game.

I for one is like an Ent when it comes to these games I don't want to say anything lengthy unless it is worth taking a long time saying. So normaly I stick to small and somewhat precise posts.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I mean really, we should make a trial - just for the fun of it - one day. Let's make a game were everyone is restricted to max. two posts / Day and no one is allowed to analyse or make any posts containing any principles or actual reasoning, not to say building up cases or making personal commitments. Just oneliners with stuff like "Hi guys, we have a problem here, let's solve it", or "I'll vote X because my randon generator gave her as a result - or his name begins with an "S"". I'd be very interested to see what would happen in that game and how much people would actually enjoy it...

hehe I can use that rethorical trick as well. . . .

I think we should make a trial game where everybody was obliged to post 20 posts/day and no one is allowed to do any jesting. . .only hardcore analysism is accepted, all post must be at least of 1000 words. Lets see what would happen in that game and how much people would actually enjoy it. . . .

I know this is wasted on you as you would aboslutely love this sort of game

Just remember that sportmanship goes both ways and that we have to accept that people play this game in their own and maybe different way.

and of course you are allowed to complaint about us speaking enough if that is the case. . . .but there is a difference between not speaking enough and not speaking as much as you.