In post 40, Quill wrote:I don't like the idea of the charter having "members" and "non-members." This seems to me like we're dodging the point. If this charter gets set up in a decent way, not adhering to it should be scummy, not "non-member-y." No need to set up false dichotomies when we've already got a real dichotomy to worry about. We go after people who look like scum and/or are acting anti-town. All this charter needs to do is establish what we see as "pro-town" behavior and we can take care of the rest.
The whole idea is just to hold people accountable to playing in a pro-town way (or at least not to play in an anti-town way). My intent with the "membership" language was to keep a record of people who had participated in, and agreed to, the list of standards that the charter embodies. It would be like taking a pledge: "I promise to play well, as defined by these terms. If I don't, lynch me." We make everyone agree to play the best game they can, and lynch anyone who isn't willing or capable of doing that. If we can do that without a "membership," that's totally fine with me.
In post 41, HighShroomish wrote:Two pages already. Damn. On the subject of the charter- uhhh no. It gives scum a chance to sign up to survive much longer. Simply by signing up, they are gauranteed safety among the members. How could you not see that the moment you drafted the charter, specifically the lynch-list.
Simply signing up doesn't grant anything, as I've stated before. Signing up is the harder path because you have to adhere to all the rules. It's not the signing up that would give protection, it's the playing well that puts you further back in the line to the gallows.
In post 38-
Playing along the rules of your charter are what scum is trying to do one way or another. Just because they are in your charter doesn't mean they'll play much differently, and again, they have protection.
Scum is supposed to be playing like town. They will always try to be pro-town. Charter or no charter.
And when town plays like shit, so can scum. I'm actually less concerned with the charter affecting how scum plays than how town plays. Does that make sense?
And I like quill's thought of a general code, but sometimes votes are because of the same reason. Not everyone is going to have a different reason, so that really couldn't work. The thing about at least one good post a day, that's all about what you deem as a good post, unless they are blatantly useless, which I doubt scum would really let happen.
Again, the "members" would decide and explicitly state what a good post entails.
Since I've come back to the game, I haven't seen towns that work together. Granted, it's just been a few games, but the things that consistently rule the games (especially the early game) are personality, reputations, and meta. Every post is a one-up, every argument degenerates into personal insults. It A) makes the game not fun, and B) benefits only the scum. Every player is too concerned with being right and showing off their big scum-hunting dick. Lurkers and no-content posters are allowed to linger to lylo because "that's how they play." I believe if we treat this game like a business, and make the first priority to work together, two things will happen. 1) the chaff will get lynched and the game will get better. 2) the scum will be forced to play in a pro-town manner. That means more bussing, more lynching of scum. These two changes will lead to more town victories.
I saw Eagle's post but I'll let Morph's questioning resolve before putting more on the stack.
