-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
He's not saying that the villagers shouldn't be active, but that the wolves should be the most active.
1). Wolves won't be more or less active, players will be more or less active no matter what their role.
2). Non-voting on purpose (unless it's a very specific situation like what EURO did) doesn't make someone a wolf, it makes someone an idiot. I propose lynching idiots whatever their role is.
3). When the hell has a wolf purposefully non-voted specifically to disrupt analysis anyway? Do you have any examples you can point me to? Considering that there has been a metagame push to kill zombies for years I don't know why any wolf would knowingly put themselves at risk like that, but who knows, maybe we've had packs that consisted of (*certain people who I won't name here*) and they honestly thought it would be a good idea?
John Madden said:
Why?
Voting or not voting doesn't matter much to me as long as it's part of playing. What EURO did is perfectly acceptable, he made a move.
Now, I did not say wolves should be the most active, I said I assume wolves will be the most active given the fact they have an exciting role. While that might not be true, it's my assumption.
From the 2 big games I played, and after reviewing vote patterns, certain wolves (who I shall not name) voted once every two turns, or from the third turn. Anyways these people turned out to be wolves. I don't know if they did that on purpose, still it disrupts the game and make voting pattern less visible. I imagine it's easier not making any suspicious statement than give information away by voting.
And seriously, the "you don't vote I'll auto-lynch you" are laughable threats. I haven't seen a GM yet that did it, unless the mob pointed out these people weren't playing and campaigned hard. Last big, jonti-h survived through 3 days of not voting and was finally lynched by the mob. Too many zombies, too lenient GM's.
I'm not saying we should lynch anyone not participating, but some people really aren't participating.
It varies by GM. Some GM's are too lenient, others .. less so. I've seen EL autolynch 8 people or something like that once ..
Wyat Earp said:
When you say "active" do you mean more posts, more analysis, more vote switches, or just more PMs?
If not posting, they at least would do their best to orientate their votes, keep a track of what's going on, and be there at deadlines. They won't post much as to minimize given out information, but they surely know what's going on, who's suspicious of who and where to move the votes. And not voting once every turn is a deceitful yet efficient tactic.
Dr. Cox said:
Well my contention is, while what you say is optimally going to be true, I still think it has more to do with the individual players. It doesn't matter who is what role, EUROO7, randakar, and AOK. 11 are usually going to be more aware of what's going on at any given time than me, punkbob, or Orange Yoshi.
And I'm always going to be skeptical about the thought that not voting is a wolf tactic, simply because you would obviously push to lynch someone who does it. AOK pushes to lynch people who do it. Ironhead pushed to lynch people who did it. GM actions notwithstanding, it's risky and there isn't much to gain from it. MAYBE I can see a wolf purposefully doing it ONCE in the big game on day 2 or 3, but that even seems like a risk to me.
If I get bored tonight I ""might"" make one since we lack one and I shouldn't be up for big gm too soon.