[Denul]

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

Denul, on 28 August 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Friendship with Grasp

Cool beans. You'll set it up or should I?


[4]

I'll do it

[1]

This post has been edited by Denul: 28 August 2013 - 02:08 PM

[Jalan]

Meanas, on 28 August 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Jalan: can't do friends, i'm sorry, but i'm short of payable stuffs

[2]

It's all good, I feel ya.


[0]

[Meanas]

Ultama, on 28 August 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Meanas said:

Liosan said:

Meanas said:

Liosan said:

I think it's obvious who should be mayor.

Vote barghast

Bullets(4)

you do like to gamble, dont' ya?

[2]

I think barghast is a very good bet. He obviously knows what's going on, and I trust him to sort out things like jalan and my conversation, come
To a reasonable conclusion and lynch the most dangerous folks on
Thread.

Bullets(4)

yeah, 'cept he won't be lynching. You're relying on his ability to deduce who OTHER people want lynched.

That's a shit ton of blind faith you're showing there.

[2]

I have no idea what faction Bargast is on, hell, it could be mine. We have no way of knowing if Barghast knows members of his faction, but if he does then they just got an easy 2 XP. Basically this method allows Barghast to do whatever, without consequences or the ability to establish a connection between Barghast and the elected judge. It's a smart play, if we can be convinced to go with it, but the above is a concern.



[3]

more to the point, if Bargy picks a finder as his judge, there's a potential to nearly eliminate one of the factions with 1 random vote.

I MIGHT have been convinced to do a random vote like this with 1 death on the line, but with 3? fuck, no.

[2]

[Meanas]

Anyone who's considering voting for Bargy needs to remember that his judge will be naming 3 names to lynch. The chances of any single alt being named as one of the potential lynchees go up exponentially as compared to a Day 1 random lynch.

think carefully before you make the gamble. That's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

[2]

This post has been edited by Meanas: 28 August 2013 - 02:16 PM

[Cast]

Well if everyone did their lynch choices then you'd know a group may have selected certain individuals.

(2)

This post has been edited by Cast: 28 August 2013 - 02:18 PM

[Meanas]

Cast, on 28 August 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Well if everyone did their lynch choices then you'd know a group may have selected certain individuals.

(2)

Yes. Except Barghast's whole point is he will not name the judge, and no potential judge (i.e, everyone else) should name their lynch choices. he WANTS it to be random.

not to mention that since we won't know who the judge is, there's even more than usual room for lies.

[2]

[Grasp]

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

[Path-Shaper]

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

Lock, on 28 August 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I was made unable to be elected, and unable to cast another vote for someone else. I was also unable to speak of this without revealing too much and risking trouble.

.
You still can't. Nothing from P-S/Player PMs may reach the thread, whether you received it twenty minutes ago or twenty game days. This is the very last warning, next time it occurs, will be the third time I have to express concern about this issue, it will be through a modkill.

Wanted to ask about this: PS when you say from player PMs does that mean, for example, that if Fener does a Friendship on me and tells me in our lover convo that he killed Korlat, that I can't say on-thread that Fener said that? Or is it only specific interplayer ability PMs that we're talking about?

[4]

I mean as in "you can't say on thread that Fener said he killed Korlat".

What you could do, is build a case on how Fener killed Korlat using CF, Fener's interactions with Korlat, Korlat's alignment and Location, et cetera, with in the back of your mind the knowledge that you know Fener said he killed Korlat.

Call it an experiment to
A. keep mass-reveals from happening and balancing finders in a faction game;
B. encourage back-stabbing and faction politics;
C. discourage Culture hunts (which aid only 2/5ths of the playing field for victory conditions);
D. keep attack heavy roles from dominating over weaker classes;
E. keep the thread interesting instead of a forced 'post to not be mod-killed' between the night actions;
F. see what potentially unlimited off-thread comms bring to such a game;
G. break the pattern of lynches in faction games from being pile-ons.

Nothing holds players back from tracking certain suspected roles on thread either through investments, CFs, et cetera, either - and any background info anyone has, helps them. You ARE free to say: "if you want to get more understanding about my case, Friendship me", or proactively Telegram players you want to convince.

[Barghast]

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I'm game to have 1 vote on me for Mayor if this happens

[1]

[Grasp]

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

Lock, on 28 August 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I was made unable to be elected, and unable to cast another vote for someone else. I was also unable to speak of this without revealing too much and risking trouble.

.
You still can't. Nothing from P-S/Player PMs may reach the thread, whether you received it twenty minutes ago or twenty game days. This is the very last warning, next time it occurs, will be the third time I have to express concern about this issue, it will be through a modkill.

Wanted to ask about this: PS when you say from player PMs does that mean, for example, that if Fener does a Friendship on me and tells me in our lover convo that he killed Korlat, that I can't say on-thread that Fener said that? Or is it only specific interplayer ability PMs that we're talking about?

[4]

I mean as in "you can't say on thread that Fener said he killed Korlat".

What you could do, is build a case on how Fener killed Korlat using CF, Fener's interactions with Korlat, Korlat's alignment and Location, et cetera, with in the back of your mind the knowledge that you know Fener said he killed Korlat.

Call it an experiment to
A. keep mass-reveals from happening and balancing finders in a faction game;
B. encourage back-stabbing and faction politics;
C. discourage Culture hunts (which aid only 2/5ths of the playing field for victory conditions);
D. keep attack heavy roles from dominating over weaker classes;
E. keep the thread interesting instead of a forced 'post to not be mod-killed' between the night actions;
F. see what potentially unlimited off-thread comms bring to such a game;
G. break the pattern of lynches in faction games from being pile-ons.

Nothing holds players back from tracking certain suspected roles on thread either through investments, CFs, et cetera, either - and any background info anyone has, helps them. You ARE free to say: "if you want to get more understanding about my case, Friendship me", or proactively Telegram players you want to convince.

Okay, thanks that makes perfect sense!

[4]

[Grasp]

Friendship with Ultama

[3]

[Path-Shaper]

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

[Meanas]

Barghast, on 28 August 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I'm game to have 1 vote on me for Mayor if this happens

[1]

and give you 3 random lynches? we'll pass.

[2]

[Grasp]

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

Hmm, intriguing then.

[3]

[Denul]

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

So in essence we could continuosly choose to only lynch 1 person if the judge only selects 1 target each day?

[1]

[Meanas]

Denul, on 28 August 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

So in essence we could continuosly choose to only lynch 1 person if the judge only selects 1 target each day?

[1]

looks like it. but this still leaves judge too much potential residual power.

[2]

[Grasp]

Denul, on 28 August 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

So in essence we could continuosly choose to only lynch 1 person if the judge only selects 1 target each day?

[1]

What are the odds the judge will actually choose to go through with that when they could triple lynch instead, though? Especially later on in the game if players figure out their allies.

[3]

[Barghast]

Meanas, on 28 August 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Barghast, on 28 August 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I'm game to have 1 vote on me for Mayor if this happens

[1]

and give you 3 random lynches? we'll pass.

[2]

No, give my chosen Judge 3 lynches as they judge best. Are they likely in my faction? 3/17 chance at best. Do they show at least moderate sense on thread? Quite probably.

[1]

[Barghast]

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Denul, on 28 August 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 28 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I would consider it an impartial submission and resolve those 2, then move the remaining lynch to the next day's Judge.
I have little to win by making the lynch a game-ending mechanic, so like you guys, I am a tiny bit of a hostage of the situation.

So in essence we could continuosly choose to only lynch 1 person if the judge only selects 1 target each day?

[1]

What are the odds the judge will actually choose to go through with that when they could triple lynch instead, though? Especially later on in the game if players figure out their allies.

[3]

Exactly. We need to defuse Judge or stop using it entirely.

[1]

[Meanas]

Barghast, on 28 August 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Meanas, on 28 August 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Barghast, on 28 August 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Grasp, on 28 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not super big on the random idea with 3x lynches either.

I wonder if there'd be some way of the judge deciding to lynch only two targets today and then we do again tomorrow instead of 3 and 1. Probably not, tapper probably just considers only 2 choices submitted a bad submission and goes to the next person.

[4]

I'm game to have 1 vote on me for Mayor if this happens

[1]

and give you 3 random lynches? we'll pass.

[2]

No, give my chosen Judge 3 lynches as they judge best. Are they likely in my faction? 3/17 chance at best. Do they show at least moderate sense on thread? Quite probably.

[1]

people showing sense on thread =/= people being good for one's faction

as I've said before, I consider you a helpful player. doesn't mean I have any idea where you fit in the faction game. Or who you'd want to lynch, based on whatever off-thread info you may possess.

from a voter's perspective, there's far too much unaccounted randomness.

[2]