An interesting thought but I can see a few issues here mate.. . By default though a rule like that is un-policeable as it restricts choice and is difficult to establish. Who am I or you to tell someone else that they shouldn't vote a particular way? If, for example... say.... Neville was climbing out of a window with a bag with SWAG written on it and we are playing cops and robbers.... do I just go 'oh look there's a bad guy but I'll just look the other way as I don't want to be accused of going for him'. At the end of the day the mechanics of the game itself prevent corruption as this game looks like being played by 15-20 players. That's enough to weedle out any personal agendas as it's normally a majority vote that triggers a lynch. Has it really hampered games before? None that I can remember. Also.. do we make player 1 have to explain himself more than players 2 cos you have a hunch there is an agenda? - we aren't mind readers at the end of the day. I.. along with a few players just bool along enjoying myself and don't over think things as it's just a game. I get on with Nev on and off forum and have a laugh voting for him quite a bit... but notice the end vote.... it's normally moved off him..... is that an agenda cos I like him/don't like him or am I double bluffing and is this breaking a 'rule'? I also often don't vote for Captainchaos in early rounds (where I haven't a clue) as I like him. Would this be classed as an agenda? To avoid being presented with thread bans do we now need to overjustify a decision beyond 'I don't know'.. or 'just because'? I think there's a danger of over thinking this and actually creating too many 'rules' for what should be a simple game. I therefore think that putting more barriers in a game will make less people play in the future rather than encouraging. That's just my view though fellas. Oh and by the way: NEVILLE
Players 1. IBWT 2. Mito 3. Neville 4. Astro 5. BobbyD 6. RHC 7. JerryChristmas 8. Style 9. Tobes 10. Gerrez (Super G) 11. nolberto 12. sebb (Penfold) 13. ACS 14. DPP 15. valley 16. PM'd afc bod swarbs Danilo mikey rolando chaos
Within reason. If you're on a mafia team then you'll obviously target the players with good reputations
yes this is true. I think its up to whomever to see hey this guy is just goning for this guy because of x. If someone says hey lets kill mito cos he's a danger to us and you say yeah top the ****er I don't think anyone would object to that as its the norm. however the history does show keep your kill and pulling the woll over mito's eyes so he goes and targets an innocent in the votes is far more effective than simply killing off the active players. by day 3 what i find is we wend up with no comments and a slow game as you've guys who are quiet and the three mafia talking to each other.
I'm around! Post mostly in match threads lately. As with most seasons, once things die down and we're on course for 7th there's not much to discuss. Gutted about Sunday but in all honesty proud of the squad for reaching the final and being a couple of kicks away from silverware. Still have a chance at Europa, if we put in performances like today's.
I'm desperate to take the piss on the Toon board tonight, with them making Jonjo captain, but I'm afraid of an early lynching