Nothing should ever be a rule for a rules sake. "Bc it's the way we've always done it..." is one of the more dangerous phrases in general, and a terrible reason to continue doing something anyway.

Dismissing objections from players is not really in line with fostering a community that is TZ friendly for all. And simply bc one has had to tolerate an inconvenience doesn't mean A. One *should* have to tolerate it B. Others should have to tolerate it as well. Games should be made as friendly/convenient for everyone as possible.

There has to be some middle ground. For instance, if a slanker wolf draws a DA role then perhaps they need to elect a single proxy for the game or risk losing the ability if they do not make it themselves?

NA proxy makes sense since the wolf team should probably be sending a single PM anyway. At least that is what we did in the last c9++ game and it was convenient.

Some people be like, doe:

I think this is valuable. Making the wolf dayvig actually be around helps the village in hunting them. No one knows if a NA is sent right at EOD, right at the deadline, or anytime inbetween by their nature, but they usually get a very good idea when day actions were sent.

If wolf dayvigs are proxiable then are dayvigs that are won as event prizes also proxiable?

Itt people want to use TZ tells and other BS to hunt power roles/wolves rather than actually playing werewolf.

Lulz

I do this too. If a wolf sends their own NA then I allow it to stand regardless of timestamp unless I have something that says they're willing to be overridden by teammates or that its just in case there is no other submission. I can't think of a time off the top of my head where a wolf has overridden his teammates on his action though.

When I wolf I obviously have strong preferences on how to use NAs, but I also tend to give more weight to the person using the action and in the case of actions targeting other wolves (mainly angels) whether that person wants to be angeled. I think generally most wolves are aware of their positions itt and what it would look like if they are watched/tracked more than I would be so if they have worries about these things then it makes sense for them to have more control over their target.

Village seers sometimes don't submit peeks. Village vigs have shot peeked villagers knowingly before (as in the vig knew the target was peeked and clear and did it anyways). Mods process these things and they are hugely damaging to village equity.

Those are bad rands for the village, but there is no way to get those peeks in or the vig to target someone better through teamwork. Why should the village be punished for a bad rand like this beyond a possible death of that player when wolves don't need to suffer for bad rands beyond that player possibly dying?

It allows for you to hunt for that role based on these lives/timezones/etc. If you have a wolf dayvig firing at 8 pm then you know its not a euro or is a very committed one. If you have a wolf dayvig vigging at 9 am then you know its not someone on the west coast or they are very committed. Same thing if it is fired in the middle of the day, you can go by who is or isn't around and apply meta as appropriate.

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread that misspelled "you did a great job UD and I would never be able to pull of what you did so I won't complain about anything"

fwiw, I strongly prefer for wolves to at least sign off on their NA. Now, if they say "I agree, use my X on player A" in wolfchat then there is no reason for it not to be sent in a pm later with all actions together.

I long ago gave up on making this a requirement (and it never has been in any game I have modded) because some players just adamantly refuse to have anything to do with wolf NAs, but I think that is a negative on that player.

I don't do this. Tiebreaker for me is timestamp, no who submitted.

Yeah, I agree with Gabe that timestamps are tiebreaker for wolf NAs. These are always collective, so it does not matter to me who sends it, but when.

Right, and that's dumb.

I assume last timestamp is valid and not first in terms of NAs?

If a wolf sent you a pm saying "I want to use my X on player A regardless of what the wolf team says later" you would still let that be overruled?

why is that dumb?

Hunting for players on both sides of the game based on activity level and timing has always been a part of WW. "He wouldn't miss EOD as a wolf/villa" or "if he was a villa he'd be here and posting" are very normal reads.

I mean part of why you guys are arguing that proxying a dayvig should be allowed is so you can do things like kill players before they can out info or whatever. On the flip side, if a seer wants to get a peek out they actually have to show up on their own and post the peek. Some seers wakeup and make sure to do this and some don't, but its part of the rand.

Its also why I usually haven't had a waiting period or deadline for when you can use a dayvig. If you want to use it the first minute of day before the villager you peeked/tracked/watched the previous night can come into the thread and out any info then that is fine, provided that you are actually there. Its less interesting to do that as a team action when someone will be online, but maybe not the right person or enough of the team to come out with an overwhelming majority in favor.

Yes, last counts.

I would still allow the latest PM to overrule in the situation you described, but I would also attempt to contact the wolfteam both via PM and wolfchat to make them aware of that situation.

The bolded are false equivalents to what was asserted as dumb.

yeah i'll second this

also second the UD praise for his near-constant presence.. really well run/designed game IMO

I think allowing conditional vigs makes timezone tells moot though?

UD, I'm surprised you think wolf night actions are all team actions. They are clearly individual roles since you remove them when individuals die. The proxy is only a convenience not a formalism.

If I play since D1 I probably could get to top 3

Right, I should have said "actions that are submitted by the team" rather than "team actions".

clearly the answer is anarchy

how is hunting for wolves/villas using activity tells different than hunting for specific wolves using activity tells?

One involves asking "would X behave this way as a villa?". The other involves asking "would X behave this way as a villa given their timezone?". Which is an uninteresting, thus unnecessary level of complexity.

At the end of the day though, we can lobby to a mod for a rule change, but a mod should probably be able to run a game however they see fit given their level of sacrifice. Let the participation level dictate the rules.

If a certain mod has an unpopular role set then it will resolve itself as nobody will sign up for their games.

the wolves have been pretty consistent itt imo

Obvious middle of the road compromise is 'team actions that get taken away with XX number of wolf deaths' imo.

Team gets to decide but you still get penalized when people die.