|
|
Post by CPNJesus on Jan 9, 2012 17:51:24 GMT -5
I have decided to change the rules yet again. I wanna make this Red Rover business even more spicy. You will only vote for 1 person, not 2 like I said in the previous post. If the person that has the most votes to be RED ROVERED was voted off... they will be IMMUNE ( as if an idol was played on them) and the person with the next highest number of votes would be voted off. So you are effectively giving someone immunity on the other tribe and switching them over to yours. I will remind you all again once challenge results are posted  |
|
|
|
Post by Black Tarantula on Jan 9, 2012 22:04:41 GMT -5
I dont really agree on this. Are you aware that this might keep "inactives" around and some others that care about this game might go home by this? We might just go ahead and give immunity to whoever we think is the weakest person (aka least active) and then they will be spared and someone who is active will go home.
In addition to that, i dont really like the fact that you are changing rules as the game goes one. I'd understand if it was something changed because of an incident, but its something just for the sake for making the game dramatic. There is no need to this change, at least that is what i think.
If we are going as far as in intervening when the other tribe's Tribal Councils, i believe they should, at least, have a clue on what is it going to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by CPNJesus on Jan 9, 2012 23:06:35 GMT -5
Address when home from petsmart
|
|
|
|
Post by CPNJesus on Jan 10, 2012 6:59:07 GMT -5
Ok first off, you could all decide to Red Rover the weakest person on the other tribe, but keep in mind that if you do that guess what?
THAT WEAKEST PERSON IS NOW GOING TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR TRIBE. Even worse, he/she becomes immune, so you can't even vote him/her off until at least 1 round later. Furthermore, the other team could decide to take an active player away from you. It doesn't really make much strategical sense to Red Rover a weak player.
Not to mention the fact the this theoretical inactive will probably self vote or vote for another not so active person, or that the vote could very well be split to avoid the Red Rover immunity issue. It seems pretty unlikely that an active player would be blindsided this way.
I have a feeling this will do the exact opposite of that, help keep active players in, since deliberately bringing an immune inactive onto your tribe isn't the brightest move a tribe could make and the more active players will more likely be chosen to "come on over", but hey it could happen. I personally am not that worried about it.
Guilty as charged. I am changing the rules as the game goes to try and make it better, more exciting and fast paced. If anything this game hasn't lived up to my expectations and making some drama with a twist like this should liven things up a bit. If that makes me a bad host than so be it.
But what fun would that be!? Now you have to wonder who the other tribe will choose to Red Rover and strategize around it, which adds a new dimension to the typical tribal council. You're always free to talk to the other tribe and ask someone you trust over there who is the vote is for the Red Rover.
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Tarantula on Jan 10, 2012 12:28:13 GMT -5
I never said you were a bad host. Didnt imply it either. So apologies if thats what you thought i was saying.
I just dont agree with this at all. But i guess theres nothing we can do other than roll along with it.
|
|
