Once. That is all I ask. Let me host once.

That's the problem, you already hosted twice and proved that you are undeserving of another chance.

Since it seems that there is no one signed up to host after the current game, I would be willing to host the next (if no one else is willing). Some one let me know if that is acceptable to everyone.

xander

I've no problems with your hosting, xander.

Is anyone here unfamiliar with the expression 'The third time's the charm'? The first two times I hosted GTW, I simply did not get a few things that turned out to be important. Now, I understand them. End of story. Now, I ask you: Is there anything whatsoever that I could do to convince you to let me host one more time?

P.S: Anything means any thing, up to a point. Obviously, I wouldn't send you the entire contents of my bank account, but...

@soitbegins, on Sep 29 2008, 05:29 AM, said in GTW Host Order:

Is anyone here unfamiliar with the expression 'The third time's the charm'? The first two times I hosted GTW, I simply did not get a few things that turned out to be important. Now, I understand them. End of story. Now, I ask you: Is there anything whatsoever that I could do to convince you to let me host one more time?

P.S: Anything means any thing, up to a point. Obviously, I wouldn't send you the entire contents of my bank account, but...

The last time you asked to host, everyone said you shouldn't, and I stood up for you and said that you should have another go. I got burned by that, and am none too happy about it. You honestly seem contrite this time around, but I just don't feel like playing in a game that you are hosting, and I don't feel like standing up for you. You burned your bridges, and, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing that you could do that would make me want to play a game that you host.

xander

All right, then let's put hosting aside for a second. Is there anything I could do to prove to you that I'm being sincere here?

@soitbegins, on Sep 29 2008, 07:34 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

All right, then let's put hosting aside for a second. Is there anything I could do to prove to you that I'm being sincere here?

It is not a question of your sincerity. I don't think that anyone doubts your sincerity (I certainly don't). Rather, it is that we don't think that you understand what the problems with your previous games were, and we don't really think that you have learned from your mistakes. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't, but I feel no reason to stick my neck out for you. If others want you to host, and you can get a game going, more power to you, but I am having no part of it.

xander

I don't doubt your sincerity either, SoItBegins. I've just become convinced by your past hosting and your proposed rules that you just don't get it.

Furthermore, I don't think you should be allowed to host again because you were given another chance, supported by several people, including me, and you screwed it royally. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't support you for a third time, since you'll most likely dig your grave even deeper and make the people who supported you look even worse. (Of course, you have nothing to fear since at the moment, since nobody's behind you) Your attempts at making an interesting game thus far have crashed and burned.

I'm with mrxak here; you may just not get how to host properly.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 29 September 2008 - 06:18 PM

Quote

I've just become convinced by your past hosting and your proposed rules that you just don't get it.

What is it in my proposed rules that you don't get? I thought they were fairly straightforward, myself.

Quote

Rather, it is that we don't think that you understand what the problems with your previous games were, and we don't really think that you have learned from your mistakes.

I should hope I do understand what the problems were after analyzing them with Eugene Chin for hours on end!

Quote

(Of course, you have nothing to fear since at the moment, since nobody's behind you)

Gee, thanks.

Quote

If . . . you can get a game going, more power to you, but I am having no part of it.

You never know...

I get your rules just fine. I said that you don't get it. Apparently you didn't get that.

I understood you perfectly. It's just that you implied that your belief that "I don't get it" was in part due to my past hosting and in part due to some flaw the GTW rulesheet I had submitted. That's why I said what I said.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 30 September 2008 - 03:01 AM

SoItBegins, just drop it for a while. There's too much bad blood between you and most of the regulars for any of them to want to see you host for a very long time, if ever. If your self-esteem is really that dependent on you hosting another game, perhaps you'd better ask yourself why it's so important for you to host again.

I hadn't actually read the rule sheet before now. At this point, I am even more convinced that you should not host. First off, evil guys framing good guys is an example of the host lying to his players. Either tell the players the truth (which seems to be the general mode of operation in these games) or tell them nothing at all (which is how I like to host). DO NOT LIE TO THE PLAYERS. Period.

Second, the detective role is overly complicated and potentially game breaking. The correct innocent strategy is to have the detective accuse someone on the first day. If that person is evil, this is confirmed very quickly. If not, then the person is back in the game in two rounds, and the detective plus confirmed innocent form a team. The seer very quickly joins that team, and the guardian angel, if he is smart, protects members of the team. By the end of the second round, the innocents have a team of two or three known innocents, and can out-vote the bad guys no matter what happens. This is unbalancing.

I don't understand why you have the silly rules about when a person's role is revealed. They may work, they may not, but I don't understand why. While technically not violating the "don't lie to the players" rule, it gives players imperfect information. Either tell them the truth, or tell them nothing at all. This dancing about with "maybe I will tell them, maybe I won't" is just confusing and needlessly complicated.

Finally, I have always thought that prohibitions against PMing were a bad idea. You can't realistically enforces them, and PMing is really a part of the forum game. If game is unbalanced due to PMing, that is the fault of the host for not creating robust enough rules to deal with it. However, that is a minor point, and there are others here who would disagree with me, so I can't really fault you for putting that rule in.

All in all, it appears that you really just don't get it. There is no way that I would be willing to let you host again, especially with that ruleset.

xander

darwinian:

1. You appear to have made a mistake. If the person the detective accuses is innocent, the detective is removed from the game instead. This provides a balancer for the Detective role.
2. The framing mechanic can be dropped from the rulesheet if that is what you believe.
3. I've revised the reveal rules since then: if a person is killed by lynching, his role is revealed; otherwise, it's not. Period.

Mackilroy:

Please leave my psyche and self-esteem out of it. And how long is 'a while' supposed to be anyway?

I only bring your self-esteem into the equation because you brought it up back when you complained you were tired of getting killed, that GTW was no longer becoming fun for you. As for 'a while', at least half a year, maybe less.

What the heck. I guess I've got no choice.

(sets off nuke) KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

When the dust is settled, SiB is nowhere to be seen.

Ah, screw it. Put me on the floating host list. I need to show SIB how to host a simple, yet fun game.

Taken care of.

SiB: a tantrum won't gain you any respect at all.