TWG Suggestions, Comments, and Discussion

[Waddle Bro]

If you're not going to be active, don't play the game!

[Mashi]

That's why I added the part about it being to the Host's discretion.  If a Player is consistently active and accidentally forgets to vote in a game or something like that, then the Host may decide not to place a Phantom on the Player.  I don't think I specified that part though, so my mistake.  I rushed the post because I needed to something related to TWC work for once and was going to be busy later, hahahaha.

[Toby]

I really don't know how you can fix this but too many people are misusing 'safety votes', like they are voting for different people as a 'safety vote' about 3 times in the one phase, what's up with that?! No point in the first one if you're going to be active enough to do a second! It's crazy!

[spitllama]

You can make any rule you'd like. Bring down the hammah.

[Bubbles]

Why is it really that big of a deal? I dont think this was a recent thing happening (the safties), since in my first game (the Haruhi one) i was told:

They're voting for that person to get lynched, but they don't actually think that that person is a wolf.  If, at the end of a phase, a player hasn't voted, they'll receive a Phantom (which is .00001% of a vote against them for the rest of the game).  Getting a phantom isn't the end of the world, but it's generally not a good thing to do.  Putting a safety on someone is basically someone saying that they don't want to vote for someone but don't want to receive a phantom.  It's considered bad form to put a safety on someone who already has a vote on them.

I think that safties can go either way and should just be taken as a hesitant vote that doesnt really mean anything, used as a "safety net" so that the voter doesnt get a phantom just because they were reluctant to vote for someone

[vermilionvermin]

The problem with safety votes is that they're over-used.  If people were, say, going out of town and might not be able to vote, then a safety is fine because that person may legitimately not be able to vote.  More often than not, safeties are just used because the person doesn't want to look through the thread to find suspicions.

I'm pretty sure I've exploited the safety counting as extra votes mechanic to win a game as a wolf before.

[Toby]

I'm pretty sure I've exploited the safety counting as extra votes mechanic to win a game as a wolf before.

This sounds interesting but I can't quite seem to figure out what you mean, could you explain?

[spitllama]

He's saying he was able to push for lynches on humans because of safeties. The players only had so many votes on them because of safeties.

[vermilionvermin]

This is the game I was thinking of.  Because Dude had two safeties, he had 1.01 votes on him.  Bubbles, me, Dude, and gregory were the wolves, meaning that if all of us voted for him, he'd have 5.01 votes on him.  If all the humans voted for a wolf, they could only muster 5 votes.  Based on the structure of that game, it would have been really difficult for the humans to win (they'd have to lynch all four wolves with the brutal being lynched last).  But the phantom mechanic took away that possibility for the humans.

[Waddle Bro]

guise host 1 ups gogogo

[spitllama]

Actually, since there are Players with 2 Phantoms, the maximum amount of votes that can be received in the Phase is 12.01.  This means that there would actually need to have been 7 votes to Insta.

Whoooa I've never done this. Mashi I noticed in the same post you said it's currently at the discretion of the host. Is that true for future games or are we making this a rule?

[Bird]

I think that future hosts should follow Mashi's logic here.

Instas are only there to speed up day phases where the lynch couldn't go any other way. So if 6 of the 11 players vote for Steve, he should die instantly, since even if every other player voted for Jill, Steve would be lynched. However, if Bob (who is also playing) had two phantoms (adding up to 1.01 votes against him), the 5 players who didn't vote for Steve could vote for Bob and turn the lynch around. In this case, calling an insta and ending the phase when Steve had 6 votes would be a bad idea, since the lynch could fall on someone else, even if the Steve voters didn't change their minds.

This isn't going to matter much, since the phantoms-as-vote-penalties concept is going out the window. But if a game has charismatics, they should look at the total number of votes rather than players when deciding to call an insta. I'll update the rules and hosting guide accordingly.

Edit: Rules updated, and the host guide had already mentioned that in the "INSTAs and Phantoms" section. It's a shame nobody read it apparently, it's really well-written!

[Mashi]

Yes, all Hosts will have to follow what's dictated on this page and clearly state which rules they wish to change.  To simplify things, you could also edit your PB Works page with your own preferences if you so wish.

[Bird]

Mashi nobody uses the wiki!!!!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Mashi nobody uses the wiki!!!!

I don't even have a page yet... and several other people too.