Motion to forbid dead players from subbing in

[Rysz]

Following recent happenings in the last Lite game (WWL CCLXXX),
Considering that dead players can hold certain information that could be used after subbing,
Or that the fact that they are eligible for subs could give the other villagers information about whether or not said player holds or not holds information,
Giving credibility to a bluff, or discrediting a wolf ruse.

Also considering players can deceive the GM whether they do hold certain information,

It should be forbidden for any dead players, whether hunted by the wolves, or lynched by the villagers, or killed in any other manner,
Except for the player that was the first hunt target "before actual gameplay begins",
To sub in during the game.

@J-L, after some discussion (say in 2 days, I would preferably change this to a poll where people can vote YAY or NAY)

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Do you mean mostly or just lite games? Big game subs would be very hard then.

 

[Rysz]

Do you mean mostly or just lite games? Big game subs would be very hard then.

Difficult. The same situation could apply. But the chance of inactive gamers requiring subs is somewhat higher in big games, increasing the need for subs. But then again, a missed vote in big is usually not as critical as in Lite, so you could use somewhat more leeway before needing to sub a player out.

 

[Hax]

Considering that dead players can hold certain information that could be used after subbing,
Or that the fact that they are eligible for subs could give the other villagers information about whether or not said player holds or not holds information,
Giving credibility to a bluff, or discrediting a wolf ruse.

Also considering players can deceive the GM whether they do hold certain information,

This is why I never sub back into a game. I have done that ones and that was when I joined my first WW game back in 2009 but that was and will be my first and last time. I surely could have won more games if I had subbed in but then it would remove the sweet smell of success. And as you say the GM can never know if a dead player holds any known or unknown information.

 

[Cliges]

What if the alternative is no subs available?

 

[Falc]

On the one hand, the integrity of the game is important.

On the other hand... There's a quite epic Big game going on and I got hunted night 1 as a wolf. Which sucks because you never actually played and you can't sub back in and there won't be another Big game until this one finishes and someone gets the new one going with all the necessary signups and...


Anyway, it's a bit frustrating and I fear that spreading this frustration around even more will, in the end, hurt the game and this community more than the few cases where this rule would make a difference.


We could take one step though, by stating that dead players mut use a PM to get on the sub list and that their status remains a secret.

 

[Rysz]

What if the alternative is no subs available?

That is for the GM to decide. He might auto-lynch the player or allow them continue. In Lite, preferably, this should be announced at game start or at least before a deadline where there are non-voters.
Remember that sometimes non-votes are deliberate, and could even be used as a tactic ingame. GM's should be careful with uninted influence in the course of the game.

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

I'm torn between the need to secure subs and keeping the integrity of game intact. In big game the ban on dead players subbing may not be that big a thing since how many missed votes does it usually take to get subbed? In Lite one missed vote should result in subbing or, as Rysz points out, autolynching if the players have been warned about it and there are no subs. I would assume that usually there would be enough kind players to sub to avoid the autolynch.

 

[Daffius]

I vote Nay.

If the person is a JL member or wolf, then obviously not. If not I don't think it 'spoils the fun' that much and this is about fun. As Falc said, if there are willing subs, it's more healthy for the community to let someone willing to rejoin play, instead of a zombie for example (see the current big).

If there is inside information available, then the player should inform the GM who then decides. We shouldn't punish everyone because someone might withold information.

 

[Falc]

I've always been in favor of simply declaring that spot vacant. I really don't like autolynches and I think a better system can be devised.


One point I would like to make though is that this motion seems to have come about because of the actions of one single player who deliberately violated the spirit if not the letter of the rules. Such actions can always occur and it's quite impossible to prevent all of them. We've had dead players sub in many times without issues and I feel quite strongly that an outright ban would cause harm to quite a few games in trade for maybe, just maybe, a small gain in one or two cases.

 

[johho888]

I like Falc's suggestion that sub requests should be done by PM (at least from ghosts). That should filter some of the problems away.

For the Big games I've hosted I tend to have the following house rules:
- I never let the same role get subbed twice, if the sub needs to be subbed out then it's autolynch.
- Closer to the endgame I may declare "no more subs" and only use autolynch.

I don't think I would like to have a complete ban on ghosts subbing back in Big games. Especially villagers that get hunted early, say night 0-3, (and to a lesser extent lynched early) I feel is no problem having as subs.

Lite games I have no strong opinion on. At times I've been a bit baffled about the constant need for subs in Lites. Surely if you sign up you can play for the few days a Lite lasts, can't you?

Like Hax I prefer not to sub back in since it takes away some of the thrill if a death isn't really a death.

Someone asked about missed votes in Big and I use 3rd missed vote and it's sub - or autolynch if no subs around. That way the GM has a little advance warning a sub might be needed and can look for subs if noone has shown up anyway.

 

[randakar]

The problem is that not all GM's are very disciplined when it comes to preventing information leaks - of which this problem is an example.
Not sure how having a blanket ban on dead people subbing back in is going to help. I have done it in the past - in fact, a few times in a row in some games - without much trouble.

Maybe we should have some "Werewolf GM manual" somewhere that GM's are asked to read before they start running games.
Something short and sweet, with simple guidelines on how to prevent yourself from inadvertently leaking information to the players.
Including some simple rules when it comes to handling substitutions, such as requiring dead players to PM the GM about subbing rather than asking in-thread.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Maybe we should have some "Werewolf GM manual" somewhere that GM's are asked to read before they start running games.
Something short and sweet, with simple guidelines on how to prevent yourself from inadvertently leaking information to the players.
Including some simple rules when it comes to handling substitutions, such as requiring dead players to PM the GM about subbing rather than asking in-thread.

In fact I shall go write one and submit it to the faq & general information thread.

Thanks a ton man!

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Not sure how having a blanket ban on dead people subbing back in is going to help. I have done it in the past - in fact, a few times in a row in some games - without much trouble.

I haven't had much problems with it either in the past. But then I've never come across player lying to the GM about possible inside info, something the GM can't really verify himself. I've always expected people to have self-discipline and honour to avoid subbing if they have any inside info.


I suppose Falc got it right.

One point I would like to make though is that this motion seems to have come about because of the actions of one single player who deliberately violated the spirit if not the letter of the rules. Such actions can always occur and it's quite impossible to prevent all of them. We've had dead players sub in many times without issues and I feel quite strongly that an outright ban would cause harm to quite a few games in trade for maybe, just maybe, a small gain in one or two cases.

 

[PanzerCorps]

I too agree with Falc. Actually I've never felt like more regulations on such games is a good idea. I mean, it's just a game, a code of honor should be good enough, it's not something formal to require strict guidelines to keep damage low... Though I know some people like to take these more seriously, but again, a code of honor should be enough. As an example you can take The Resistance, where PMs between players could have game-ruining consequences, yet players are trusted to simply not use them...

So now that I've made it clear that I'm terrible at argumentation, I'll say I vote nay.

 

[reis91]

The problem is because subbing in grants a win. I suggest that, for those who care about such trivialities, it is not recognised as a win.

 

[randakar]

The problem is because subbing in grants a win. I suggest that, for those who care about such trivialities, it is not recognised as a win.

That highly depends on how far along the game is and how big of an advantage the sub-in actually was/is.
I'm not sure if we should care about that too much. Easy wins happen sometimes. (I remember marty getting a win in a game he didn't even know he was playing anymore ..)

 

[Cliges]

Is it possible to make two lists of subs? One for players who have been in the game and another for ghosts who have. Give priority to the first list. Only go to the 2nd if there's no one available who hasn't been in the game yet.

Do you mean mostly or just lite games? Big game subs would be very hard then.

It's actually just as acute an issue in lites. Maybe even more pressing because the game can't afford to have a spot sitting around unoccupied, whereas that aspect might not be quite so urgent in standard size. Almost every lite games needs at least one sub, and an overwhelming majority of these come from players who'd been in the game previously.

 

[reis91]

That highly depends on how far along the game is and how big of an advantage the sub-in actually was/is.
I'm not sure if we should care about that too much. Easy wins happen sometimes. (I remember marty getting a win in a game he didn't even know he was playing anymore ..)

I also recall Rysz subbing me to win in the following day, IIRC. The point is that people won't try to game stuff to boost their win %.

 

[Daffius]

I also recall Rysz subbing me to win in the following day, IIRC. The point is that people won't try to game stuff to boost their win %.

Unimportant. If someone subs out/in one day before winning then so be it... BTW I don't think anyone would actively be playing to try to sub in at end games. But if they were I personally don't care too much.