[Liosan]

Telas, on Feb 10 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Fener, on Feb 10 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Feb 10 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Actually i think the most deaths would be if all of the sevenths and Blackmasks end up targetting 1sts, and the 1sts all kill the thirds. That would be 20 deaths i think.

Actually, if I'm understanding the rules correctly, Firsts can't kill 3rds outright, they have to team up with another 3rd or a 7th. I think a previous version of the mechanics had it that firsts could kill thirds on their own and perhaps that's the intention, but the wording as it is suggests otherwise to me. Mod clarification please?

In any case, surely we've exhausted this line of thinking regarding how many deaths we can hypothetically achieve with this setup?

Bottom line is there could be some serious carnage at night but it's unlikely to happen all at once due to the risk of targetting a higher rank or someone in your own faction.

No anyone can kill the people directly under them. A third needs to team up with a first in order to kill a first . same with the lower ranks.

I read it differently. A third who targets a first at night will die, provided that the first he targets hasn't been targetted by the other two firsts and thus is already dead.


EDIT: for clarity

That's how I understood it. Target above you gets yourself killed. Target below you get them killed. Target on your level does nothing unless someone else on your level also targets them. Dunno bout the 'cant kill two levels below' thing, but I'll prob crosspost with a clarification. It makes sense though, since it would make it harder for the firsts and thirds to spot each other.

I think the targetting more than one rank below you thing is to show that the higher ranks would take no pleasure in slaughtering the lower ranks.

[Telas]

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

the firsts can only kill a third by themselves.
If a first and a third challenge another first, then that first dies.
If 2 firsts challenge the other then that first dies.

Wouldnt the third die? Because of the whole 'target the person above you' thing. Although it would allow one faction to take out the leader of another.

[Liosan]

Fener, on Feb 10 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

If a first and a third challenge another first, then that first dies.

Pretty sure this is wrong. The third dies because he challenged a first, and the first challenging the first does nothing.

Have you even read the OP?, One sec while i go and get the quote.

[Galain]

Omtose, on Feb 10 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

Thyrllan, on Feb 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

I was hoping the 400 posts would make sense after a reread, but I was mistaken.

welcome to day 1?
anyway, I recall a game that had over a thousand posts on day 1--mostly content-related pissing matches.

I remember a sign-up thread that had over 1000 posts day 1...

[Galain]

You people hurt my brain.

[Liosan]

Path-Shaper, on Feb 9 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

1 First level segeluh (can be lynched, or killed by one first level seguleh and one Third or above)

There we go Fener theres the quote. If a First is targetted by another first and a third or above then the first dies

[Tennes]

I'm going to recap the case for lynching Kaschan, because I think it's the best case we've got so far, and I don't want players just joining us to get lost in the sea of spam.

Korlat, on Feb 10 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Galain, on Feb 10 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

And why are you so certain im not on your team then

thats for me to know and you to find out.

This post from Korlat in reply to Galain clearly indicates, IMO, that Korlat knows Galain is on a different team. Galain then replies:

Galain, on Feb 10 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

Well, that means we know im not 1st or 3rd of at least one team

Or would it perhaps be because I voted kaschan, and no one on your team would do that...

Galain is right. The only way Korlat could know that Galain is on a different team is by Galain's voting record. Galain is voting for Kaschan. Therefore Korlat must know that Kaschan is a 1st/3rd.
In addition to this, there's Korlat's overreaction afterwards, which several players have commented on.

It's not the greatest case i've ever seen, but I do want to lynch a 1st or 3rd today if possible, and I think this is our best chance so far.

[Galain]

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Ampelas, on Feb 10 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

Ampelas, on Feb 10 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Ampelas, on Feb 10 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

Anomandaris, on Feb 10 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Ampelas, on Feb 10 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

14 blackmasks can kill 7 other blackmasks, 3 7ths kill 3 blackmasks, 3 3rds kill 3 7ths, 3 1sts kill 3 3rds, so 16, but only works if the one lynched is a blackmask

Erm, isn't that 39 players in total?

Sorry let me make this clearer....
Role No. Actions Deaths
Blackmask 14 All target Blackmasks Max 7 Blackmasks die
7th 3 Target Blackmasks 3 Blackmasks die
3rd 3 Target 7ths 3 7ths die
1st 3 Target 3rds 3 3rds die

This is assuming a blackmask is lynched, to get maximum deaths

blackmasks can't kill other blackmasks

5 Blackmasks (can be lynched, or killed by two blackmasks or one seventh level)
But Fener's solution better

I agree

everyone target Fener at night.

You blatantly know that Fener is your first, so you want everyone to target Fener, so all except the firsts of the opposition teams and your whole team die, therefore your team win!

foiled again!

what is it about me that giveas away all my plans?

Their stupidity.

Oh, and who was saying they always use .
I forget.
Oh wait...

This post has been edited by Galain: 10 February 2009 - 06:10 PM

[Galain]

Why does all the spam STOP when I get back?
That makes no sense.
Oh cruel world...

[Hood's Path]

Fener, on Feb 10 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

If a first and a third challenge another first, then that first dies.

Pretty sure this is wrong. The third dies because he challenged a first, and the first challenging the first does nothing.


EDIT: Crosspost. I'm off for lunch now, back later to discuss.

Ambiguous wording, but I think what is meant here is that only two firsts or a first with a 3rd can kill a 1st. Otherwise the 1sts could not be killed at all, only lynched and since the rules say that the 1sts can be killed as well as lynched, it's unlikely that the mod made that big a mistake. If he had intended for the 1sts to be unkillable at night, he could have said so in plain English. I could be wrong but I don't think so

Quote

1 First level segeluh (can be lynched, or killed by one first level seguleh and one Third or above)

edit: sorry, cross-posted again...I'm not used to this breakneck pace

This post has been edited by Hood's Path: 10 February 2009 - 06:15 PM

[Galain]

1st + 3rd kills 1st.

Thats how I read it.
And it makes sense, too.

[Tennes]

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

don't see too many people jumping to defend him, if he were a first.
ofcourse, the heat's not on him, it's on Kaschan right now... so no reason why they would

I'm going to reply to this, because Galayn Lord is absolutely correct. We should not expect to be able to lynch a 1st or a 3rd without resistance, a third of the players will be defending them. But Galayn Lord is incorrect that nobody's been defending Kaschan. Keep in mind that a defence does not have to be direct, trying to deflect the lynch also counts.

There's Galayn Lord:

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Galain, on Feb 10 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

Proper case forthcoming.

proper case on day 1? blasphemy!

vote galain


caught up, but nothing else really jumps at me, tis is just the beginnign tof day 1 after all..

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

Korlat, on Feb 10 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

I know one thing for sure, kaschan is not Galains leader.
and you all now know that galain is not my leader for sure, lets see what people make of this shall we?

that you're all just bickering blackmasks and the leaders are yet to show their masked faces here?

edit: for the quote

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

back
The kaschan argument seems to heat up over nothing.
this isn't 6.66 where people do obvios tells ("my heart belongs to Kalse" in their first post), we're beyond that now.

Galain, with the amount of spamming posting you've been doing so far, are you REALLY surprised you attracted so many votes?

the whole Kaschan thing seems strawmanned by Galain in order to switch attention from his own spamming self.

Silanah:

Silanah, on Feb 10 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

I don't see Korlat as necessarily the one who is wrong.

I think Galain has way too much time on his hands and has trumped out a case out of nothing. I started finding Galain's incessant posting tedious early on, and things haven't exactly improved despite this case, which is pooh. Anyone who sees a valid point in it needs a smack.

Also I'd just like to point out that a blackmask will only know 2 of their leaders (1st and 3rd).

Silanah, on Feb 10 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

Stop being so literal Galain. It's a common saying for being coy and not giving up information. It doesn't say anything about what he knows. Idiomatic language can be confusing though.

Meanas:

Meanas, on Feb 10 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

All caught up for now. The whole Korlat/Galain thing seems to be a bit extreme. I am wondering if it could have been something that a 1st and 3rd cooked up together in order to drive a lynch and look like black masks.

Fener:

Fener, on Feb 10 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

There was actually content? Inconceivable!

Not particularly strong content, but still. It's the principle of the thing!

I'm not especially convinced by Galain's reasoning, although as others have pointed out Korlat's reaction was kinda strange.

Here's something that annoyed me:

Shadow, on Feb 10 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

One thing Kas, you must understand that if we do in fact lynch you today, that Korlat will be the next to go, to determine whether or not you were in fact both on the same team. So even though he may be fake symping you, he will still not be very successful because if you are on seperate teams, he will have lost one for your team and one for his.

I despise people who leap to conclusions about who is going to be lynched the following day, especially on Day 1. Despise, I say!

Vote Shadow

EDIT: I misinterpreted Omtose's post. Please ignore this bit.


Omtose (this is in reply to a question asking what Omtose thinks of the case):

Omtose, on Feb 10 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

nope... absolutely nothing important. It was funny though.

And Hood's Path:

Hood's Path, on Feb 10 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

Holy spamfest Batman!

I just lost a post through a misclick, refresh, and there's more than a page of more spam! WTF people? Can we tone it down a bit?

Anyway, I'm still struggling with the mechanics and their possible implications. So, for example, if 3 Blackmasks independently targetted a 1st or a 3rd, they'd all die? This could get bloody in a hurry. But then, a 1st and 3rd team would get no result if they targetted a Blackmask? Weird. So really there's no need for a Blackmask to signal his leaders. It'd be a pointless risk. A 7th, however, might be very interested in signalling his masters. I'm not sure if there's anything suspicious in Ano's posts but if he is signalling, he's probably a 7th. Galain is bugging me though - proposing that Ano was signalling as one leader to another was not only silly, it suggests to me that he is just blowing smoke, not really trying to figure anything out, fomenting chaos. A moment's extra thought should have caught his glaring fatal error and his case would have made heaps more sense. If he was genuinely trying to be helpful, surely he would have taken that extra moment? Also, criticizing someone's ethic with regard to refreshing the thread before posting is ridiculous IMO. Not everybody is an OCD refresh button lunatic Also, some people take a bit of time to put their thoughts into words and you can't refresh in the middle of posting. So, counter-productive in general. If I had to vote now, it would be Galain but we have plenty of time. Failing that, one of the other spammers just for the sake of readability.

ETA: cross-posted with about page of stuff. Also, the rules say that the actions happen in order of rank if I'm interpreting it correctly. So, the 1sts act first, then the 3rds, etc.

This post has been edited by Tennes: 10 February 2009 - 11:32 PM

[Galain]

Back from my friends, if you hadn't realised, btw

[Galain]

I see stalker!
Stalker, why have you abadoned me, to this cruel spamless place.

[Tennes]

Galain, on Feb 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

I see stalker!
Stalker, why have you abadoned me, to this cruel spamless place.

I hate to ask this, but is there any chance that the spam can be kept to a minimum? Between the spam and the lengthy rule discussion, the thread is a nightmare to read through.

[Liosan]

Because noone likes you

[Galain]

Omtose, on Feb 10 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Galayn Lord, on Feb 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

Galain 116
Korlat 46
Anomandaris 31
Kaschan 31
Galayn Lord 27
Omtose 19
Tennes 14
Path-Shaper 11
Silanah 10
Ampelas 10
Liosan 9
Shadow 6
Rashan 4
Gamelon 2
Meanas 1
Fener

Players not voting :Anomandaris, Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Gamelon, Hood's Path, Kessobahn, Liosan, Meanas , Mockra, Omtose, Rashan, Ruse, Serc, Telas, Thyrllan )

non-underlined have yet to post. 9 in all, I think

And I've only been on for an hour...

Gee I wonder who Grief is?

[Omtose]

I back briefly before next classes.

To clarify Tennes, in your Kaschan defense post you listed me. But if you look back that post was talking about the 100 posts in the sign-up thread. How it was unless, a waste of time, and hilarious.

[Galain]

Tennes, on Feb 10 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Galain, on Feb 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

I see stalker!
Stalker, why have you abadoned me, to this cruel spamless place.

I hate to ask this, but is there any chance that the spam can be kept to a minimum? Between the spam and the lengthy rule discussion, the thread is a nightmare to read through.

Perhaps you did not hear mentalist challenging grief to a duel of spam, over in the sign up thread?

[Galain]

Liosan, on Feb 10 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Because noone likes you

No, you!