Be Excellent To Each Other

Hello!
We've started discussing this in the dead thread, but it's probably easier just to have a thread for it.
When Lace voted for Gospvg and got the spelling wrong, the vote counter didn't pick it up. A few minutes later, DavPaz took the vote counter's count and timed the day out, when really Gos should have been strung up.

So, for future games, what should happen in this situation?

Carrying on from the dead thread.

I think it should be that votes have to be correctly spelled to count and be in the right format to count. If there is a discrepancy between what the votes look like on screen and whether the counter can pick them up, then as long as they "look" correct to the naked eye, then they count...

Overnight modkill, I think. Eveyone should be informed, though, so that power roles can do their thing and others can plot. I think it's fairer to wait a day than to possibly mess up a game.

That's certainly easiest from a technical point of view, but it just feels "wrong".

[edit]@ Trooper

I have always thought that mods should not interfere with this, it is metadata. If a player cocks it up, deliberately or not, so be it. If the other players point it out, then that player has the opportunity to fix it, if it is right at the deadline, tough. It is a valid tactic in my book.

I'm all for keeping things simple from a technical point of view, and trusting people to be able to spell correctly

I am very against the idea of letting people make "wrong" votes deliberately.

I think misspelling is a good tactic, but is unfair to those with dyslexia.

Should be taken on faith or fixed by mods.

I'm sure wrong votes have happened before, deliberately or otherwise, I think it was just the "last minuteness" of this one and the earlier fixing of a vote that make this one stick out a bit.

I think first we must decide whether purposefully misspelling can be used as a tactic...If that is deemed as cheating then the votes should be corrected by a mod or the GM. That has to be the way in that situation or we'll get all kinds "you misspelled it on purpose" accusations flying around.

A corrected vote, even if corrected after the event, should be counted and everyone made aware of the correction.

Before the vote counter, they'd have been counted. Intention to vote is made by saying it in the appropriate format, not speling it.

There are other things, too - Bobby, for example, turned up to vote for Gospvg but saw the six votes already in, thought the day was over, so didn't post.

Well, we've always had a vote counter, but I agree with you.

No we haven't

First game we definately didn't. (Or a thread per day, which made it harder to follow)

It was the second game that Craster started using it, but even then it took a while for him to offer his VB monstosity to the rest of us.

Me too. It's unsporting, and also you'd have HR on your case for being unfair on dyslexics

dammit, Russ

haha.

For the record it was a non-deliberate genuine typo.

But fortune found it that we benefit from that particular mod-inconsistency, and suprisingly I wasnt strungup the next day, not even really questioned about it. I played on the "be nice to the GM" angle and noone really complained about it after that

AS for a rule, difficult, but I think it should be correctly by the GM, and misspelt or grammatical errors fixed.

For the record, I agree and I wouldn't have allowed it if the day hadn't already ended. But it did inject a bit of spice, especially when I misread the night action following and thought you were going to string up Gos

I forgot about that first game.
The first day lasted twenty pages, and took four days and five hours. DavPaz would have exploded.

I've read that thread. No one had a fucking clue how the game was going to work

I wo nder if there'd be any mileage in having a day lasting many days, where everyone has to nominate multiple people (or their votes would count against themselves).

I was tempted to run without a cut off when the lynches dried up. That would've caused waves

I did

I feel it is down to the players the mod should not have to fix the vote.
All they had to do was copy & paste from the players list.

That doesn't address the idea of doing it deliberately though.

Doing this, for example:
[vote:Grim...]
[vote:Grim…]

One counts, one doesn't.

IMO they should both count, as whether the auto-counter picks the votes up or not, shouldn't have any bearing on the vote. It's just an ease of use thing, rather than the arbitrator.

So, having said that I guess that means typo votes should count!

However I don't think the GM should interact with the game in any way, unless specifically asked a question, which goes against them fixing typo's... hmm...

I think someone mentioned in the dead thread about a vote button idea with the players name, would that work?

Maybe each day could have a poll attached.

edit: that would make voting private though... damn

Not everyone has access to the full forum at all times though, I expect tapatalk wouldn't support that.

Oh yeah, that would screw me up quite a bit.
But then I have not misspelt any names

I say we leave it has is - if not anything else everyone now knows how to spell gospvg & what it stands for

Yeah, I should have said "One will get picked up, one won't".

And you can't really expect the GM to scrutinise each vote to see if it matches up with the counter.

Just ditch the votecounter and make the GM count every vote

I was going to make a 'joke' about using alternative voting systems but started to wonder if other systems would reveal more information and affect the dynamics of the game.

Maybe we should run an AV game at some point, would be interesting to see what happens!

Mafai voting system debates! More fun than the Royal Wedding AV referendum! I'm a big fan of the Borda count -the Eurovision system. No awkward reallocations.

My guess is that if each player had to rank their lynching choices (excluding themselves), the various teams would put their members in the middle. You wouldn't give the top two ranks to your buddies as you wouldn't want them lynched. But having the same people ranked last would also be suspicious. To put people who analyse the ballot paper off the scent, it might be necessary for the mafia to sacrifice of their own once in while.

I fail at pressing 'Edit', and can't delete the post.

[vote:Kern]

£$%^&*%^&*£$%^&*()

Not suggesting it as a long-term thing, as sometimes a no-vote is deliberate, but how about for lols having the next game with days always of the same length, and at the start of the day someone, picked at random by the game mod, is standing on the chair and facing the noose? People can argue for someone else, and a majority will always overrule, but otherwise whoever is strung up at the beginning dies? Might just get us back to the idea that usually, someone is strung up each night, rather than having so many days time out.

Maybe an alternative would be, if the day times out, the person on the highest votes is lynched. If it is a draw, then either they both go, or the person with the highest votes overall (f these two) goes.

One game we had (the hidden / strange / Saw type one that Grim... and Gaywood ran) had any votes causing lights to go on above peoples cells , and also experimented with limited numbers of messages (mobile phone communication and 20 texts a day).

Both had an impact on how people did things and how they interacted.

Man, that game was awesomesauce.

While I'd be interested to see how experimenting with new formats would work, I don't think that forcing a lynch is worth it - the town need to stand up and lynch if that's what's best for them (such as when they have no power roles left). If they can't do that, it's part of the game, same as it would be if the mafia didn't manage to decide on who to splat overnight.

It sounds like it.

Here's the archive:
viewforum.php?f=15

Looks like moving it has broken the script that renamed the players though, so it's rather hard to read now.

Edit - oh, no, it's mostly fine, apart from one or two, bizarrely.

That looks... different. You could probably replicate it with tweets these days, if folk are complaining about SMS charges.

Uhh, it wasn't really SMSs...

Ahh, I've only scan-read the first page so far.