It's a good idea in theory, but then *everyone* who signs up would have to have a new username and the signups would have to be hidden information so you can't match posts from previous games to said good players. That is precisely the point of the anonymous game. In fact each player would have no idea of what other players are possibly in the game to begin with. Total anonymity.
However, I do have a problem with your section on vet reverence.
Metagaming is there, it's probably always going to be there. If a player is known to be good, they're probably not going to be lynched D1 without good reason (bad play IS a good reason, btw). I personally don't care what ideas come from who, they all can be good or bad. The idea with "vets", though, is that they produce more good ideas than the new players. This isn't always the case, I know this. But look at D1 for the last WW game. Diaz was a lynch target, as was PMysterious. Diaz's bad play was lying about a speech impediment, which he came clean about. PMysterious just had bad play (sorry, but it's true).
Dave got lynched because he had, quite frankly, a rather unfortunate role to get stuck with for revealing, as well as some bad play. But it wasn't vet reverence that got him lynched.
I agree, there is some vet reverence that goes on, but most of it is because those players are good. The "vets" have not only played well in past games, but they continue to play well in the present games. I don't believe holes in their gameplay will be let go, it almost got Diaz lynched late game. The only reason he survived is because a Seer cleared him.
No, while there may be some vet reverence, the vets do emerge as leaders because they're strong players. Because they may be playing better than the new players (MAY be, not always). Because they're bringing logical arguments to the table.
TL;DR version.
Because the seasoned players are good, the newer players tend to follow them. And because the vets present logical arguments, as long as those arguments make sense, they can lead the town. Should the town not lynch the most logical candidate? Ignoring what a vet says simply because he is a vet is gamethrowing, imo. Nobody should be ignored, but for the entire town to ignore the arguments and leads that a vet provides wouldn't work. The only solutions are completely anonymous games with a hidden player list (which still wouldn't work all too well), or the new players don't do stupid things.:tongue:
The problem with your statements here is that you are confusing personal meta with vet reverence. An excellent example of vet reverence can be seen in XVI, so I'll condense it here.
D1 Diaz comes out of the gate with 2 fake speech impediments (impeds). Soon after he is called on contradictions for one of his impeds, after which he drops both of them.
Now, these actions were vastly outside his "personal meta," and thus wolfy behavior. As he had been town previously, a change in attitude or playstyle would signal that he had a different WC than usual, leading to high suspicions of wolfiness.
However. He was not lynched for said wolfy behavior. Another vet stuck his neck out to protect Diaz
because Diaz was a vet. And for no other reason. Said player also agreed that he had no idea who Diaz was or what his alignment was, but stuck his neck out only because Diaz was a vet, in
spite of Diaz' wolfiness.
That is an extremely clear example of personal meta versus vet reverence.
Personal meta can be useful in determining reads. (though as the above example shows it is not as powerful as some may think, given that Diaz was playing the same alignment he always has).
Vet reverence on the other hand is support of a player or a player's actions on basis' not pertinent to the active game. Diaz was saved from a lynch partially because of other vets' posting, and partially because of the Stand-Alone Complex of vet reverence. That is really the only reason he didn't die D1.
In fact the vet reverence was also at least part of the reason the vote shifted to and lead to the lynch of Dave628. Dave was completely truthful in his RR, but got lynched because he wasn't a vet like Diaz, and didn't have players protecting him without reservation, on the basis of previous games that had nothing to do with XVI.
TL;DR version
Personal meta can be useful (however not as useful as originally thought, based on recent examples)
Vet reverence is quite different and harmful.
Hey guys, still on vacation, so my posting abilities are limited. I agree with a lot of what has been said here, and also disagree with some of it. I'd like to moderate a game at some point, to be able to better weigh in on some of these issues. I know there's quite the waiting list for that though, so I'll be waiting patiently.
I really think this thread has the potential to make a significant positive difference in the WW experience moving forward, and look forward to discussing things at length.
One thing I think that is important to note, is that talking about what players "should" and "shouldn't" do is tricky. IMO players should do whatever gives them the best chance to win within the rules. If that means that players are using "vet" info to make desiions, I can't fault them for that. That said, rules can be put in place to deal with this. I wouldn't mind a completely anonymous game. I'd gladly sacrifice the help it gives me during the day to get that target off my back at night.
Another important thing I'd like to note, is that the rules need to be re-worked. There are places where they are lacking and should be added to. There are places that should be cut. I feel that often the rules are copy/pasted into games without being critically examined. I think that the section talking about how role revealed are a bad play should be removed. That isn't a rule, that is game play advice. It would be like the rule book in Pokemon saying that you shouldn't retreat because it costs you energy cards.
Agreed that the rules need work. I'd recommend that all moderators cut down and streamline the rules. This isn't WW I anymore, and there doesn't need to be explanations of things that are pretty common knowledge. (newer players are encouraged to PM the mod if they have any questions).
Anonymous is a very interesting experiment, and should be conducted on a larger scale. From what I've seen of the 6P experiment it is an 11 player game. More data will need to be collected before trends can be determined.
However, I don't agree with your point about what players "should" or "shouldn't" do. Especially with rudeness, it is courtesy to treat each player with respect, even if you disagree with their statements. Civility leads to better play overall and a better community.
Again there is a difference between unduly elevating a vet and personal meta. As I mentioned in response to Pikamaster (in reference to your play D1), those are quite different. Personal meta can be useful (though less useful than once thought), vet reverence is not helpful to the game at all.
On mass-claims. We touch on that in the OP, and I think it definitely bears more discussion.
The Mods should take note that Mass-Claim is a viable tactic that can be in either factions' advantage. And so they should implement protection or at least consider the ramifications of a mass-claim (especially from a worst-case scenario). That way they will be able to see how it might play out and which faction would benefit more from it, and make changes to the setup to balance.
This is another good example of why the Co-Mod system can be used to great effectiveness, with both mods working together to craft an elegant, balanced game where each faction has an equal opportunity of winning. I'd HIGHLY recommend that anyone looking to mod a game ask for (or ask) volunteers to participate as a Co-Mod. It will make the games more balanced and more fun in the long run.
