[Meanas]

Path-Shaper, on 11 February 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 06:55 PM, said:

Basically, D'reks rule is this. Your action will always succeed... UNLESS

1) You are smaller than your target
OR
2) You are the same size as your target, and you do not win Rock-Scissors-Paper matchup.

3) You're guarded
4) The target is healed (if your action is a kill)
:happy:

Make that

3) You're guarded by a player HIGHER rank than you. Defensive subs LOSE to Offensive subs in a matchup, so the defensive player would have to be at least one full rank higher.
4) I won't disagree with you, but since the subs don't appear to have that ability, it looks like a leader ability.

[Path-Shaper]

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 07:22 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 11 February 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 06:55 PM, said:

Basically, D'reks rule is this. Your action will always succeed... UNLESS

1) You are smaller than your target
OR
2) You are the same size as your target, and you do not win Rock-Scissors-Paper matchup.

3) You're guarded
4) The target is healed (if your action is a kill)
:happy:

Make that

3) You're guarded by a player HIGHER rank than you. Defensive subs LOSE to Offensive subs in a matchup, so the defensive player would have to be at least one full rank higher.
4) I won't disagree with you, but since the subs don't appear to have that ability, it looks like a leader ability.

Also 5) Other stuff (like the can't be recruited twice in one night clause from the OP, etc)

[Tennes]

Path-Shaper, on 11 February 2010 - 07:19 PM, said:

At the suggestion of Shao's generals, the Emperor returned to his former palace in Luoyang. Yan Liang stationed his army outside the city. The next day Yuan Shao arrived with the main force, established camp, and was received. Prostrating himself below the stairs to the imperial dais, Yuan Shao acknowledged his sovereign. The Emperor bade him stand and commended him for his service. Yuan Shao and his advisors spent the rest of the day updating the Emperor on recent events: after Tao Qian's general Zhang Kai had killed Cao Cao's family, Cao Cao had invaded Xu and Yang. In the west, Han Sui had come into conflict with his sworn-brother Ma Teng, and a great battle was had between them at Tianshui. Tao Qian and Han Sui's forces were both completely wiped out.

Interesting, that could reference a decrease in army size for both Meanas and Liosan, so Liosan might not necessarily be rank 3.

[Meanas]

Tennes, on 11 February 2010 - 07:16 PM, said:

So, the offensive officers targeted tactical ones and/or the defensive officers got very lucky, and now there's not likely to be many night kills from that. Unless perhaps one of the offensive officers has other abilities they can do at night as well as kill?

I'm betting that someone starts that 'oh noes, he mentioned something HE MUST HAVE IT' speculation crap again.

Not quite. Offensive officers on night 1 attacked other offensive officers OR tactical officers. Offensive officers could NOT be blocked on night 1 because everyone was rank 1 and defensive loses to offensive straight-up.

Night 2 could have had some level 2 defensive or tactical officers (yes, I was one of them, no I'm not telling which), and it's possible a defensive officer blocked a normally successful kill on an offensive player that night.

The language is VERY unclear about whether or not an offensive officer would gain a rank if they were to hit a target that were healed, but I think the spirit of the game would be a "failure."

[Path-Shaper]

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

The language is VERY unclear about whether or not an offensive officer would gain a rank if they were to hit a target that were healed, but I think the spirit of the game would be a "failure."

the person wouldn't die, so that's hardly a successful kill - ergo, its a failure and no increase in army size.

[Korbas]

So, now that I do have time to post you have chosen to ignore me?

We get information from discussion.

You are refusing to respond based not on my arguments, but on post count. How does my post count affect the arguments I make?

I really dislike players refusing to respond. It always seems to me that players who simply refuse to respond are doing so because they do not have a good response-there is no reasonable explanation for their actions. Because if they had a reasonable explanation, why not post it? After all, refusing to talk looks a lot worse than posting a reasonable explanation.

Now of course, there isn't really any explanation you can give-it's a reveal. However, attacking people when they voice their doubts? Hardly what I would call a reasonable response.

I can understand how it would be frustrating for you if you are telling the truth-because everyone else has no way of knowing and you have no way of proving it, but surely you would try to convince people, rather than simply going for those who have doubts?

I don't like that as soon as I posted my doubts about your reveal you attacked me, and decided my opinion was not valid. Hardly makes me more convinced you're on the level.

[Tennes]

When I said very lucky, I meant they guarded the right people, even if it was themselves. And if two size 1 offensive armies attacked each other, they'd lose 1 army size each, so wouldn't they both die?

[Meanas]

Tennes, on 11 February 2010 - 07:31 PM, said:

When I said very lucky, I meant they guarded the right people, even if it was themselves. And if two size 1 offensive armies attacked each other, they'd lose 1 army size each, so wouldn't they both die?

Huh? You're saying that a defensive player could guard themselves to level up? That makes no sense, because even if you could guard yourself, you'd just block your own action and then fail. Tactical subs, on the other hand, could probably technically find themselves, but I doubt that would be allowed.

D'rek also clarified that size 1 army is the minimum size and if you have an army destroyed at size 1, you stay at size 1. You can't 'die' from losing your army that way, you have to be taken out one of the old fashioned ways.

[Omtose]

Hey all. Here briefly finally caught up. 5 post per page layout sucks. Meanas's reveal reeks of desperation, almost like he decided to pull his imaginary clout and thread cred to get a speedulynch going. While I def dont like that move, the pissing contest b/w him and Korbas seems even,more pointless. Could be that Korbas is symping Lio. So,
vote Liosan
sorry, phone got no Square brackets. Mods, edit plz?

This post has been edited by Path-Shaper: 11 February 2010 - 07:57 PM
Reason for edit: fixed bolding for ya

[Tennes]

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Tennes, on 11 February 2010 - 07:31 PM, said:

When I said very lucky, I meant they guarded the right people, even if it was themselves. And if two size 1 offensive armies attacked each other, they'd lose 1 army size each, so wouldn't they both die?

Huh? You're saying that a defensive player could guard themselves to level up? That makes no sense, because even if you could guard yourself, you'd just block your own action and then fail. Tactical subs, on the other hand, could probably technically find themselves, but I doubt that would be allowed.

D'rek also clarified that size 1 army is the minimum size and if you have an army destroyed at size 1, you stay at size 1. You can't 'die' from losing your army that way, you have to be taken out one of the old fashioned ways.

I had confused guard and heal, and I had also missed D'rek saying that, so thanks. Perhaps they guarded a couple of offensive officers? I can imagine that being as frustrating as all hell.

[Ruse]

Omtose, on 11 February 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Hey all. Here briefly finally caught up. 5 post per page layout sucks. Meanas's reveal reeks of desperation, almost like he decided to pull his imaginary clout and thread cred to get a speedulynch going. While I def dont like that move, the pissing contest b/w him and Korbas seems even,more pointless. Could be that Korbas is symping Lio. So,
vote Liosan
sorry, phone got no Square brackets. Mods, edit plz?

While it does look like Korbas is trying to stall a Liosan Lynch, IGMEOY.. this is the second day in a row you have voted either directly after or within one vote of Sukul. Also on day one you, voted Sukul and left it there, even though you were the only one voting him and it was clear he wasn't going to be a lynch. Signaling??? Actually:

remove vote

vote Sukul A.

[Ruse]

Omtose, on 09 February 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

I have no recollection of Sukul Ankhadu saying anything, so i
'm gonna

vote Sukul Ankhadu

and now i'm off to work.

This really does look like a signaling vote to me. this is when the vote count is

Ano: 1
Okaros: 1

he makes it Sukul: 1

never removes the vote even though is case is basically nothing.

[Omtose]

Lol, believe wat you wamt, but that's no more than coincidence--caused, in all likelyhood, by similar posting schedules.anyhow, i gotta get back to work. I may refresh once in a while, bu wont prolly post much till i'm back home.

[Omtose]

Hehe, wow this xpost is gonna make it look even worse... Thank god Sukul aint my leader,

[Telas]

That's actually a good catch there, and definitely could be a signalling vote. As im not too convinced on a Liosan lynch il go back and look for these concurrent votes you mentioned.

[Telas]

Ok looked back for the vote posts. Yesterdays one wasnt that interesting really, Omtose seemed to come on go through the motions of questioning meanas a bit then vote Okaros in order to get a lynch, so not really much to go on.

Here's a few of todays though

Sukul Ankhadu, on 11 February 2010 - 06:16 PM, said:

I approve of the idea to go after the low posters due to them likely being leaders. Maybe not all of them are, some people are simply lazy mafia players sometimes, but I don't think it should be allowed to post almost no posts, especially if they're not contributing. Although I don't completely trust Meanas reveal either, I don't mind voting for Liosan. What's left is to consider either of two possibilities - that Meanas is pointing at Liosan as a diversion or because he actually have information. It's one of those tricky mafia decisions.

Sukul Ankhadu, on 11 February 2010 - 06:27 PM, said:

Ruse, on 11 February 2010 - 06:23 PM, said:

Sukul Ankhadu, on 11 February 2010 - 06:16 PM, said:

I approve of the idea to go after the low posters due to them likely being leaders. Maybe not all of them are, some people are simply lazy mafia players sometimes, but I don't think it should be allowed to post almost no posts, especially if they're not contributing. Although I don't completely trust Meanas reveal either, I don't mind voting for Liosan. What's left is to consider either of two possibilities - that Meanas is pointing at Liosan as a diversion or because he actually have information. It's one of those tricky mafia decisions.

Well it's pretty clear that a Liosan lynch is doubly helpful for Meanas, 1 it gets rid of a possible leader, and it gets rid of someone who he knows is more powerful than him. Each faction needs to determine if that's beneficial for them... knowing that it's also doubly helpful for Meanas

You know what they say - sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The only one it's not beneficial for is Liosan's faction. In fact...

vote Liosan

Omtose, on 11 February 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Hey all. Here briefly finally caught up. 5 post per page layout sucks. Meanas's reveal reeks of desperation, almost like he decided to pull his imaginary clout and thread cred to get a speedulynch going. While I def dont like that move, the pissing contest b/w him and Korbas seems even,more pointless. Could be that Korbas is symping Lio. So,
vote Liosan
sorry, phone got no Square brackets. Mods, edit plz?

They both seem to be using the same reasoning for it by first stating that they dont like Meanas' reveal at all but that theyre going to go for Liosan anyway.

Not sure if this is actually enough to tie them together though, but with the day 1 vote from Omtose on Sukul which definitely could be construed as signalling i think its a possibility.

[Sukul Ankhadu]

Well at least we now know who's on Liosan's team. And guys, Omtose is obviously fake symping me . He must think I'm a leader or something. It's actually kind of good tactic - I commend you Omtose. However I think it's gonna backlash, since the information Meanas provided is much more pressing. The question is, why would anyone not on Lio's team want to ignore the reveal? I don't think it's likely Meanas would lie about it, even though he most likely is not telling everything. But even so, it would be dumb not to consider the information. Needless to say, anyone ignoring it is painting themselves in a corner. You don't have to trust Meanas to know that any leader that is powerful is going to be a problem later on, if not already. I want a straight answer why anyone would want to ignore it. If either or both of Korbas and Ruse is not on Lio's team, I'll eat my hat. Twice.

[Ruse]

Anyone remember the last time Gay lord posted? He has to be coming up on a Modkill soon?

[Sukul Ankhadu]

Telas, on 11 February 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

Not sure if this is actually enough to tie them together though, but with the day 1 vote from Omtose on Sukul which definitely could be construed as signalling i think its a possibility.

I don't know why a real symp would be so stupid as to actually do that kind of signaling. To me it's obviously a ploy to divert attention from the fact that Omtose is either a leader or he want to hide the connection with another player. I think voting for your leader would be the single most stupid thing one could do in mafia. I have never employed the tactic myself in a game, and certainly I have never seen it succeed. The fact that people are trying to build it up as some kind of proof just shows that they want to divert attention from other cases, not because it's logical in any way. Obviously Omtose if anything picked a random player to fake symp to keep other connections hidden.

[Liosan]

Meanas, on 11 February 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

I'd like to share some information with everyone.

Night 1, my action succeeded and my army increased in size.
Night 2, my action failed (against Liosan), AND I lost an army size.

So I feel pretty good saying that someone rank 2 hit me last night, and is still rank 2. Liosan is at least Rank 2 and may very well be Rank 3 at this point. I'm back to Rank 1, which makes me hate all of you who pick on talkative players.

So right now, Liosan is the most obvious threat to my leader for potentially being one of the highest ranked players in the game.

edit: it's possible I could have destroyed one of Liosan's armies, but I got my action in VERY late, almost at the buzzer.

You ARE desperate to get heat off your leader, aren't you? I've never moved off rank one, and you're calling me rank 3? You, sir, are either lying about your action or were guarded.