Very clever, well done!!

At the start of game you were making fun of drealmer, mentioning how he is going to ask for replacement, said in jest to Bookwyrm hw will ask to be replaced after he said jokingly his feelings are hurt and you mentioned something about editing post from asking for replacement to being sensible person or something along those lines. Plus some other times when you several time bluntly dismissed anything drealmer said.
All those felt to me a bit like you are trying to perhaps get him angry and do something rash and against rules.
But you mostly dropped it after few days.


@agent; The setup was quite interesting and although I dislike no flip it seems intriguing enough to watch so I am sorry I am hijacking your post-game quite a lot.

That in response to my PMs? lol.

The setup needs a bit more work, I'm quite open to that. I'd actually appreciate any thoughts you have on the setup itself, disregarding the actual game.




OK, personal thoughts.




I'm honestly really disappointed with how this game turned out, for two reasons.

1. I messed stuff up with some regularity. Allowing cristigale to post her investigation for one, allowing players to go too long without posting for another, forgetting all about HijacK's vengeance until the middle of Day 4, even not mod-killing when I should have.
I'm also really frustrated with how I wasn't able to devote nearly as much time as I would have liked to mod posts and Night action PMs. Work has been really taking it out of me lately, but I wish that I could have taken more time with that. It took away a lot from what the game might have been.

2. I'm disappointed with the vast majority of the players as well. When I started my first game (July 1, 2015), it was a totally different atmosphere. I still enjoy playing, and watching people play, but the anger and spite levels are going through the roof.
Get it together, guys! It's a game, for Pete's sake...



Other thoughts.

I think you guys both played really well, especially as first timers. I'd like to apologize for the madness and vitriol that you saw, this is the worst game I've seen so far for that.

I do hope that I get the chance to play with both of you. I know that you dropped out, but I want to say that I think you played very well also.
Regardless of what other people may think, your hammer was an honest mistake, as well as an excellent play for mafia.
I totally understand that this isn't the game for you, but thank you for playing.


Thank you also, for playing. I'm disappointed that you find the games too abrasive to enjoy now, but I appreciate your stepping up to replace.


I've got a few more thoughts, but I think I'll give them to individual players.

EDIT: Spelling...

That is certainly part of it, but not all. I don't have the time (who does?) to properly read everything and try to find the holes and spot the flaws in arguments, and my obsessive nature means I spend days thinking about how to reply to people or what to say (even to the point it was keeping me awake some nights) and so (apart from the current levels of antagonism) I don't really enjoy the game.

I don't think I'll ever stop reading the games, but I really can't see myself playing very often again.

I tried to keep things fairly level (though I admit to taking some pot shots at drealmer), and would just like to say (not sure if anyone was thinking it or not, but given the atmosphere of the rest of the game I'd like to clarify it) that while I've had differences with HijacK in the past my push to lynch him was entirely game based as I did think his lurking and non engaging was a scum tell and reminiscent of yogs' wizard game, and not in the least bit personal.


But when I hammered that adaliabooks guy that was completely personal, I have it on good authority that he is a well dodgy character and not to be trusted... ;)

Ah, I see. In looking at the data dump, I wonder if the better spectre action anyway is probably to 75% the RB and hope for the best. If you live, you've almost certainly uncovered a PR. Score!

In all due respect, I think that's a bit of a strawman. I don't recall suggesting rolling a 1d6 to determine modkills. Moderation should be predictable within a narrow range, but my view is that it should seek to be true to the players (out of respect for their time and effort), the existing game, and the community.

In this instance, I didn't say I would've modkilled A4, but probably would've challenged her/him to at least make some effort before just letting them tag out. Though for all I know I'm off-base and agent had a longer PM chat with them.

To pick on flub a bit, I wasn't super pleased he mod-killed drealmer in his game, but at the same time...I'm not sure the alternatives were that much better for what he was trying to do with the game. Allowing a sub "confirms" the post restriction, yada yada. There's no "pure" way out sometimes and that's just how it is. We don't have a 3,000 page rulebook that carefully delineates each possible scenario. Sometimes you just have to make a tough call and hope it's the best one.

If we're putting our cred on the table, I spent many year reffing (and coaching) sports, and the same thing applies. You have to do your best in each instance, but if you think you can be 100% consistent, given that new scenarios and combos of variables will emerge, I think you're fooling yourself a bit.

And as a parent, I've learned that, while consistency is an important goal there as well, if you insist on being rigid and applying a rule 100% the same way all the time, the clever ones will figure out how to exploit the text of a rule to "comply" and get what they want despite clearly violating the spirit/intent of the rule.

We are, of course, entitled to disagree and each mod slightly differently within the bounds of reasonableness. /shrug

On the balance issue, having thought about it, I think you're correct. I guess my real beef isn't balance, but that losing the coroner early meant a painful game to watch slog to its conclusion. Town did still have the spectres, but lots and lots of RNG in that, and either they strike gold or...there's nothing to talk about. I'd prefer something a bit less hit and miss and more conducive to conversation.

My game provided a lot of misinformation, certainly, but I was very keen on keeping town with always having something to talk about that could be productive if they worked through it.
***

As for player comments, I would have put it a bit gentler than Vitek, but I agree drealmer sucked up most of the oxygen in the room on several occasions in a way that hurt his own faction and created some bad feelings. Also a bit of a tendency to logic his want into "OMGUS" and rally behind people just because they happen to share his targets. Very risky way to play, and possible to exploit.

I'll give props to RW for putting a real effort into steering town astray, though I was also not a fan of the claws coming out at the end. While I don't claim to be perfect by any means, I particularly disliked it here because it smacked of bullying. It's one thing to be a jerk on D1 (still jerky but risky) rather than as a way to close the game out already holding the upper hand.

I was very surprised more people didn't pick up on Hijack's intent to claim. With only 2 votes on him (L-5) he declared to adalia a "just try to lynch me." Since he wasn't working hard to defend himself, it seemed pretty clear he either held a trump card (PR), or perhaps less likely intended to bluff one.

It seemed pretty clear from D1/D2 that one of HSL/JMich was scum. For one, they were both alive. For two, for their argument to keep simmering there was something there. Unlikely they were both wrong, and more likely one of them was stoking the fire just enough to hold the other's attention. This was the perfect game to do it. Over time, as HSL returned his attention tot he broader field and JMich lurked back into the background, it seemed pretty apparent to me which was more likely. /shrug.

Fair enough, and I don't take any offense.

I won't comment on anybody else's medicine, but I'll address mine.

I am afraid I will simply never see it this way. Different playstyles? Yes, absolutely. This is not only welcome, but necessary for enjoyable games. However, I simply will never see "refusing to play" as a valid playstyle. It's incomprehensible to me. There are many, many, many perfectly valid ways to play, but they all involve playing. Playing involves playing. Not playing involves not playing. Not playing is not a valid way to play, axiomatically.

I don't care if people who refuse to play get turned off by being called upon to play. Good. They can go find a game they're willing to play instead of the one they signed up for that they refuse to play. Good riddance.

I'm not saying everyone has to play like me. Play as differently from me as you want to. All I ask is that if you sign up - play. Play, period.

And if you won't, the only correct policy for town is to lynch you. Immediately. And get rid of you.

I do hope the last bit about "angerville" and the f-word weren't really for me, so I'll just forget about that part.

I don't think they were.

If Vitek did intend them for you, I disagree with him. You play rough, but you keep your head on straight.

Can I raise a practical question at this point - are we gonna do Stonehenge tomorrow?

Quick reply before I run off to bed.
I will say more tomorrow.

The last part really wasn't aimed at you. It had little to do with anything but I wanted to share it. It was exactly what it said it was. I was playing Overwatch shortly before that and when we finished our last game I said "gg" in match chat as common courtesy and I was told "no gg you faggot" by some random dude.


Huh?

Lol. I actually had a reason for the reference (other than my own amusement in quoting Harry Shearer), but I'll hold off and see if anyone else figures it out.

Well, my dinner's just about done cooking, and I plan to log off GOG and do other things this eve.

My point in quoting that scene from Spinal Tap is this - it's been 12+ hours since agent pulled down the curtain on this game, and there's been not a single post in the admin thread hankering for or even asking about the next game.

In my time here that's...unprecedented. Usually there are 15 posts in the admin thread before most players have figured out the current game is over. Instead we've got this thread continuing with individual expressions of dissatisfaction (for various reasons) and some not wanting to continue.

It reminded me of that scene arguing over the 18" cast. Mistakes were made, and we may not agree on who is at fault, or even what the issues are, but ultimately Derek Smalls is asking a "how do we move forward" question there.

At some point, while I probably am done playing for a while as well for reasons both personal (similar to adalia, I obsess about game play and these 3-4 week long games suck the energy/fun out of it for me) and community related, we're all part of the community and whoever is committed to moving forward has to figure out how that's going to be done.

Absolutely epic.

Vitek, I like how you give Hyper a complete pass. Apparently nothing is wrong him referencing other games, and bringing up my disagreements with HijacK multiple times and repeating about my rage-quitting. Because that was oh so game-related right? But Hyper gets his wish...I see no point continuing with this game in the future. You can all keep playing with that mother-fucker...

RW be all like:

Bad vibes? I'll see your bad vibes and...