Stefunny wrote:Albert B. Rampage wrote:sounds something like attention deficit syndrome though lol
RC has this too...
<3
Kublai Khan wrote:ReaperCharlie wrote:I very much prefer
ADS (Alliance Discussion Stage)
to either RVS or RQS.
It polarizes people on whether an Alliance is good for the town or not, and reveals scum much more efficiently.
And if an Alliance is in fact adopted, it's extremely effective at revealing scum.
Do you have a link to a game where the ADS system worked really well? I'm intrigued by it..
Yes.
-
Werewolf: Wisborg Asylum
-[ongoing] (check back w/me later)
-[ongoing] (check back w/me later)
-I also used it as scum in Harry Potter, but obviously this was for my own purposes rather than for the town's.
Lord Gurgi wrote:To be honest, even if the ADS worked, I wouldn't use it. I hate alliances.
Haters gonna hate.
But seriously though, it works like a charm. For exactly that reason.
animorpherv1 wrote:Meh. Alliances have their time, but I wouldn't use them often.
You wouldn't use something that worked like a charm, every time?
vollkan wrote:I haven't seen ADS before, but I imagine it has the same problems as bad RQS.
RQS can be useful if it addresses game-relevant stuff that you wouldn't normally ask for later on (eg. how often people post, what people's favourite roles are, meta, who has played with whom before,etc.) RQS is unhelpful when it is used for the purpose at starting theory/policy debates. ADS, by its very nature, creates a theory/policy debate - on a deeply polarising topic no less. I don't see how it can be useful, other than increasing suspicion on anybody who made a bad argument on the topic.
(I should probably mention that I think questions like "Do you support lurker lynches?" have their place in RQS since they force people to pre-commit to a particular position and, thus, may help to catch any scum who are tempted to shift position opportunistically. However, town needs to ensure that those questions aren't allowed to lead to game-destroying theory debates)
Most of the opponents of Alliances are those who believe it'll lead to game-destroying theory debates. This is also why I don't push it every game, because these debates can and do get very tiring. Most people would rather dismiss the idea as a vague theory than examine it as a practiced strategy with examples of its effectiveness.
There are 3 different criteria I use to judge people based on their responses during ADS:
1- town motivation vs. scum motivation
2- dumb vs. smart (or lazy vs. not, depending)
3- have seen/played with/in an alliance before, or haven't
Based on where they fall on the spectrum of each of the three criteria, it becomes increasingly easy to guess their alignment, especially when taking into account their initial reaction compared to their continued reaction(s) and, importantly, their follow-through as the game (with/sans Alliance, though it's easier when an Alliance exists, obviously).
If you have further questions about how this system works, let me know. I would expect that it would be obvious. (more obvious to those who have played with/argued about Alliances before, but etc.)