Oh, I'm sorry, him not posting on this thread in like half a year gives that impression. Strategy tends to be useless if your team is dead. There are two teams in this theme. If your team is fully dead, you've either played horribly or it's endgame. I am not going to comment on whether Inspectors live or not. If you want to apply a Gambler's Fallacy to your argument, I'm not going to stop you. And yeah, it was accepted despite not being good? Despite like every experienced MA accepting it? Cool beans. I love how the phrase is "Whatever we decided on", btw. Really gives off that feeling of a dictatorship.
This was partly how it was going to be anyway. Just reviewing themes that need an update/removal mentioning that it needs one. Which is what is happening. The guidelines of which themes to put up should be partly "doesn't work" and partly "this theme is actually kind of bad" (this one being a more general consensus). Castle has this general consensus, which is why it is being looked at. This is the start of the review system. There are no rules being subverted because they are still being made / posted / etc. It was super slow happening, but its finally happening and this is how its being done. There's nothing you can really do to save a teammate. Playing horrible in castle equates to guessing incorrectly. The inspector roles are more about fodder than anything else. With an ability that doesn't do much in this theme when everything will most likely die in the course of the night/following day. There was some argument about whether roles should be able to win alone or not, that isn't the argument right now. And yes, it was accepted despite not being good. It looks good in theory, quickly gets silly in practice. Which is why now it would be a good idea to go back and make it better. The 'whatever we decided on' was what to call it. Being a re-test, re-review, peer removal, general disapproval, etc. Implying that Fuzzy was the one who started this (when lots of people thought this should happen) is really silly as well.
I don't really care about who started it, I'll take the entire blame because I told QC they could. There's a difference from having 4-5 people saying a theme should be reviewed, and actually taking the theme off the server. We took the first step in a process of many steps. The next step is currently off-limits, but it helps to hasten the process of either 1) pushing out the rest of QC reform or 2) getting the author to adjust the theme. If no one does anything, nothing gets done. Furthermore, the QC of the old days were also forced to be QC as part of being MA (10+ approvals needed for a theme? How many people legit took time to sit down and analyze the theme), and you can't deny there was a bit of nudging in the review process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy I'm not saying "Inspectors died the past 15 games in a row, now they have to live!" I'm saying "Inspectors and their targets are going to die before the info can be used because past games have had this occur more often than not" You can't argue with statistics. If you want proof, I'll start getting logs of Castle and show you how ineffective the inspectors actually are. You all can bitch and complain when I physically remove Castle from the server without having guidelines, but until then, these are just QC members stating their opinion on a theme.
Spoiler (10:54:50) ±Current Roles: Dragon Enchantress, Holy Paladin. (10:54:50) ±Current Players: Dark Phoenix, Joeypals. (10:54:50) ±Current Team: Dragon Enchantress (10:54:50) ±Time: Day 2 It'd be cool if people who had roles that were non-killing had some kind of way to win, such as having a vote of 1.1 vs just 1. This doesn't seem TOO groundbreaking and would give them a chance to remove their day-killing counterparts.