479Re: Leagues and record-keeping
- Mar 5, 2008I've had second thoughts about "publishing" the outcomes of past
It was never going to be a league; it was just going to be a list of
roles and winners/losers each game, so that we could see and banter
about who was currently on a roll, and going for three-winning-sides-
in-a-row or so.
But I guess their reward would be ... to be an ace candidate for
first lynch in the next game! The nominator is choosing randomly
(outside of the 1-2 he knows are on his side), so it would be
tempting to say: "I have nothing to go on, but he's won his share, so
let's choose him to string up!". I realise he could still end up on
the winning side, but it means he tends to be punished for doing well
in the last two games.
I realise that he could still "win", even dead, but he's been pushed
out of playing beyond Day1?
So I won't name the two players who are currently on a roll, winning
side the last two times ...
This meta-handicap ("stop HIM, cos he's topping the league") applies
to any of our leagues, ofc, (as AndrewM once pointed out) but maybe
too much so in WW,where the first nominations are random and the
player on the receiving end could do nothing about it ...
On the other hand, it might stop poor StuartF from always being odds-
on to be nominated for the rope on Day 1, for speaking up and playing
Any views on whether it adds to or harms the playing of WW?
So I'll limit myself to saying which side won, and name-checking only
20 Jan 08, 12 players, AllanM as Mod, Wolves won.
MikaelS and NickyR won as wolves.
10 Feb 08, 11 players, BobR as Mod, Wolves won.
AndrewM, AllanM and JosepP won as wolves.
17 Feb 08, 10 players, BobR as Mod, Village won.
GeorgeY and JamesR lost as wolves.
24 Feb 08, 11 players, BobR as Mod, Village won.
StuartF, AndrewM and AttilaW lost as wolves.
--- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
> No, not always a league with averages and positions; sometimes just
> record of what happened each time.
> I'm now of the view that these leagues, fun-leagues, and record-
> keepings are a Good Thing. They are not serious. But they add a
> dimension to the gaming, add to the banter, add to the
> cohesiveness ... and give something for the site to do ... which
> adds cohesion, in theory.
> I've always resisted a table of winners/scores across all games we
> play, a sort of overall league. I still resist that, it won't
> But leagues or records across particular games seem good. And the
> MORE games we bother to league or record, the MORE proudly-happy
> people we have, assuming that the highers and lowers vary from game
> to game ... More leagues and record-keeping mean more people happy
> that their successes were noticed and recorded, for that slight
> push of pride amongst fellows. No need to reply that it really
> doesn't matter to you; you'd be fooling yourself; you play with
> not mattering, but you DO get a further buzz if you then see
> appearing as numero uno somewhere ... Unless you are the
> administrator, in which case the buzz comes from your league
> on your every word, not from topping the league...
> The GOOD thing about SEVERAL slow leagues or record-keeping is that
> several players each top something, or are high on something ...
> if it is by chance on a game of much chance!
> So, this leaning towards leagues on LOTS of games is NOT to make
> more competitive; it is to give acknowledgement and appreciation,
> extra happiness, to those who do well in a game or two, OK?
> gets more breast-swelling, lots of people are current champions or
> contenders, on one or other game, ... and it gives more for our
> to do.
> So I'll post on Werewolf record-keeping next ...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>