|
Day One
May 21, 2010 19:35:03 GMT -5
Post by special on May 21, 2010 19:35:03 GMT -5
Oh, and Special Ed - oh boy. I disagree with your point about early claimers - I think the HoC are less likely to have claimed and especially "quoted" role PMs, for fear of giving themselves away somehow - but that's almost irrelevant right now. Let me quote your last sentence: "Now, I'm certain that it was just an oversight on their part and they more than likely share my stated win condition, but they aren't in my clan, and they will need to die eventually." So... if I read that right... you think these people have made an "oversight" and probably share your win condition, but you still want to vote for them? In other words, the fact that you think they share your win condition is secondary to the fact that they're not in your clan right now?What you've just made clear is that even this early on in the game, with the possibility of I don't know how many clan changes, your alleigance is to your current primary clan (which is three others at most, and may change over the course of the game) and not to finding the HoC members (which is a fixed goal that is, at the very least, likely to be shared by a majority of the people who are currently in the game, and is certainly shared by me.) In doing so, it seems to me that you've unwittingly invited everyone who's not in your primary clan to vote you out. Since I don't see any likelihood of being able to work with you right now, and your attitude makes me doubt that you share my win condition, I'm happy to oblige. Vote Special Ed (again). No, you miss the point. I'm f'ing pissed that they claimed AND gave away their win condition. I assume that the house of chains have a different win condition. It would be silly if they needed themselves eliminated in order tow in. Using my win condition, I was able to confirm that another person has a similar win condition (asking the number of times common words occur, asking what the eleventh word is, etc) With their full win condition posted in the game thread, everyone (including the house of chains) now knows it. I'm not in a clan with any of these people. I would be happy with their death. I don't wish to ever be in a clan with anyone who posts something like that without thinking through the ramifications. We already have experience with how I feel about giving up information to one's opponents early. If you need a reminder, let's just remember the debacle debacle and how I reacted to a certain mole's unprovoked claim in a previous game. I'm going to go back and see who it was who gave up this information, because I don't remember. Something tells me I'm going to find out it was you
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 19:39:31 GMT -5
Post by special on May 21, 2010 19:39:31 GMT -5
Nope, it was Pleonast... I'm not sure this game really qualifies as Mafia, but it looks interesting. I don't expect any intuition about Mafia to apply here. So in the absence of information, I am going to play transparently. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ My role name is Lady Envy, Lady of the Dragon HoldMy power is "Vote Cancellation". Each Night I target one player. The next Day their vote does not count toward the lynch total. It may count for other purposes. Although the Authors did not explain further, I expect there to be other vote-related or triggered powers. My win condition is You win when the Master of the Deck is dead, all members of the House of Chains have been eliminated, and your Primary Clan cannot be prevented from killing all other players before all Primary Members of the clan itself is wiped out.And I was given two other pieces of information in follow-up PMs: The Master of the Deck of Dragons is an avowed enemy of all the Ascendants and it is his goal to destroy all of you. Until he is killed, you will not be safe. Do with this knowledge as you see fit.and You are an Ascendant.The Authors refused to answer any questions about the "House of Chains".
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 20:04:54 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 21, 2010 20:04:54 GMT -5
It would be silly if they needed themselves eliminated in order tow in. <snipped? am i the only one who is getting a real bad stephen king/bachman regulator/desparation flashback?
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 21:37:56 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on May 21, 2010 21:37:56 GMT -5
Special Ed, I get your point, but I don't think you get mine. In gameplay terms I don't care about what you think of players giving up their role information early on. It's just an opinion that we happen to disagree on. We can maybe debate it more after the game - it seems something of a waste of time to do it now when the damage, if there is any, has already been done. It has nothing to do with why I'm voting you.
Your attitude to what I've been calling "factions" is why I'm voting you. To me they are, at this point, infinitely more important than the clans. Right now no single clan can win the game. Heck, until it gets down to final EIGHT, no single clan can win, barring some kind of extra voting or vote-blocking power.
At this point, unless there are clan-related roles that I'm not aware of (there probably are, but I doubt one or two single roles would be able to grant parity to a four-man team in a twenty-man game) the clans mean nothing, yet from what I've seen, you are prioritising your clan and yourself over finding ways to eliminate the HoC and MoDD. My role PM clearly states I have to do both in order to win, and that win condition is claimed to be shared by several other people - and those are just the ones that I know of.
The fact that you don't take the same viewpoint means one of two things to me. Either you're playing to lose, choosing a small short-term alliance at the expense of a larger long-term one; or you're less concerned about the HoC and MoDD because you don't share my win condition. Making you either dead weight or a threat.
If there are any House of Chains members about at the endgame, or the Master of the Deck of Dragons is still alive, it doesn't matter what clan I'm in. I still lose. Assuming for a moment that every winner has to be in the dominant clan and that every Asc player has to eliminate the HoC and MoDD to win (which would seem indicated by some of the posts and PMs that I'm seeing right now) there are final eight scenarios where the Asc outnumber the HoC three to one and yet no Asc player can possibly win, because if they eliminate a HoC player from their own group they lose parity, and if they don't eliminate that player then they can't win anyway!
The point I'm making is that if these two facts are correct - that the Asc. have the majority in terms of numbers (confirmed by the mods), and if the Asc. share the common win condition of having to eliminate the MoDD and HoC players (not contradicted by anybody as far as I know), then the Asc. have to absolutely ensure that there is no more than one HoC, or the MoDD, left at final eight. Otherwise it's entirely possible for the Asc. players to have a numerical advantage of three-to-one, and yet each of them individually stand absolutely no chance of winning.
This isn't speculation. It's simple logical analysis. Hell, I'll draw you up a logic table if you want, to prove my point. It's based on two assumptions - that the Asc. players share two win conditions, and that the Asc. form the numerical majority - but can anybody disprove either assumption?
Bottom line: based on what I know so far, the Asc. need to get rid of the HoC and MoDD a lot more than we need to be fighting among ourselves.
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 21:57:34 GMT -5
Post by special on May 21, 2010 21:57:34 GMT -5
Special Ed, I get your point, but I don't think you get mine. In gameplay terms I don't care about what you think of players giving up their role information early on. It's just an opinion that we happen to disagree on. We can maybe debate it more after the game - it seems something of a waste of time to do it now when the damage, if there is any, has already been done. It has nothing to do with why I'm voting you. No, you don't get it. People were asking where to place their vote. Oblivious to the fact that luv has very obviously made a play indicating that they are in some way aligned with or wished to be aligned with the House of Chains. OK, if they didn't want to vote luv, I gave them a perfectly sound alternative to vote by principle. Vote for the players who disclose too much information. Vote for the players who, in doing so, destroy an incredibly useful tool we had for finding other people who were NOT aligned with the House of Chains, and by omission, be able to identify people who were. Vote for the player who is playing a game that benefits the House of Chains just on principle, because if their play is that anti_non-House-of-Chains now, aren't they more likely to make critical mistakes later on as well? That's my point. Do you understand that? Obviously my vote isn't even there. Did you notice that? Your attitude to what I've been calling "factions" is why I'm voting you. To me they are, at this point, infinitely more important than the clans. Right now no single clan can win the game. Heck, until it gets down to final EIGHT, no single clan can win, barring some kind of extra voting or vote-blocking power. There are no factions aside from the clans. Sure, no single clan can win the game now. I don't want to wait until we're down to 10 or 9 to solidify my position in a clan. Since someone must die, I'm quite content to make it someone who I will more than likely never form a clan with (people who seem to be aligned with the House of Chains like luv, and people who divulge too much information to everyone like Pleo) At this point, unless there are clan-related roles that I'm not aware of (there probably are, but I doubt one or two single roles would be able to grant parity to a four-man team in a twenty-man game) the clans mean nothing, yet from what I've seen, you are prioritising your clan and yourself over finding ways to eliminate the HoC and MoDD. My role PM clearly states I have to do both in order to win, and that win condition is claimed to be shared by several other people - and those are just the ones that I know of. So, the clans mean nothing to you aside from the fact that your primary clan must control the vote to win? It seems the most important part to me. Sure, it would be great to eliminate and Chains and the Master. But I've also got to eliminate a heck of a lot of other people. I can eliminate those that are playing anti-me, that's just fine with me too. The fact that you don't take the same viewpoint means one of two things to me. Either you're playing to lose, choosing a small short-term alliance at the expense of a larger long-term one; or you're less concerned about the HoC and MoDD because you don't share my win condition. Making you either dead weight or a threat. Or, option 3, I'm not an idiot. I apparently am less concerned about trying to determine who is a Chain or the Master. But maybe my approach isn't wrong just because it isn't yours. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice your long term goal of eliminating them and joining a winning clan just to find them. Maybe you haven't noticed that I'm actually voting for the person who has made an actual slip that appears to indicate they are Chain-affiliated. Maybe you failed to notice that I even made that vote shortly after they made the slip. If there are any House of Chains members about at the endgame, or the Master of the Deck of Dragons is still alive, it doesn't matter what clan I'm in. I still lose. Assuming for a moment that every winner has to be in the dominant clan and that every Asc player has to eliminate the HoC and MoDD to win (which would seem indicated by some of the posts and PMs that I'm seeing right now) there are final eight scenarios where the Asc outnumber the HoC three to one and yet no Asc player can possibly win, because if they eliminate a HoC player from their own group they lose parity, and if they don't eliminate that player then they can't win anyway! at which point, they hopefully have enough information to determine who is the Chain and re-form clans in order to secure a victory. The point I'm making is that if these two facts are correct - that the Asc. have the majority in terms of numbers (confirmed by the mods), and if the Asc. share the common win condition of having to eliminate the MoDD and HoC players (not contradicted by anybody as far as I know), then the Asc. have to absolutely ensure that there is no more than one HoC, or the MoDD, left at final eight. Otherwise it's entirely possible for the Asc. players to have a numerical advantage of three-to-one, and yet each of them individually stand absolutely no chance of winning.I understand this. It doesn't change my opinion. Present me with a solid case against someone that they are Master or Chain aligned. Barring that, I'm quite happy to eliminate people who are making it more difficult for me to win based on the premise that they are more likely than anyone else to continue to make it more difficult for me to win. I will not clan with such a person, and therefore, I cannot win with them. This isn't speculation. It's simple logical analysis. Hell, I'll draw you up a logic table if you want, to prove my point. It's based on two assumptions - that the Asc. players share two win conditions, and that the Asc. form the numerical majority - but can anybody disprove either assumption? Bottom line: based on what I know so far, the Asc. need to get rid of the HoC and MoDD a lot more than we need to be fighting among ourselves.I disagree with your bottom line. We need to do both. I think you're stuck thinking of them as typical Scum. We don't even know what a House of Chains is. For all we know, it could be some mad bomber type role. A player could be tagged and then faced with the possibility of having to kill themselves to win. Or there could be a mechanism for removing one's chains. We don't even know if we have any players so aligned right now. I'm not locking myself into any one style of approaching this game this early. Your logic is based on many assumptions which I'm not willing to accept. My logic is much more simple. I'm willing to eliminate anyone that I see making it more difficult for me to win. blah!
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 21:58:03 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 21, 2010 21:58:03 GMT -5
blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah. BLAH. <snipped and kind of edited> i don't doubt that there are minefields in the path to victory. but approaching this as a "typical" mafia game of us v them i don't think is going to be fruitful.
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 22:02:57 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 21, 2010 22:02:57 GMT -5
uh, fucking cross post.
ed was a little more loquacious than me.
|
|
|
Day One
May 21, 2010 22:03:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 21, 2010 22:03:51 GMT -5
but gd i got 3 posts to his 1 so booyah.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 3:53:31 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on May 22, 2010 3:53:31 GMT -5
Ulla - I don't understand what you're saying about powers. You think there are red-herring powers? Or powers that are not useful towards achieving the win condition of the player who possesses them? I have seen no evidence of this and do not think a game that is already this complex would be further complicated by such things. I'm seeing it as we're all potential components of a swiss army knife. Some clans may have diversity of implements, with 4 different powers that compliment each other. Some may opt for redundancy and become specialists or double their potential haul of intelligence. Some clans may form around a strong intellect, putting the knife in the hands of someone very skilled to use whatever components are available within it. First - I love the swiss army knife-allegory! Really helpful to think of it that way Second - my comment on the powers was that based on that in a game like this, I would expect every player to have some sort of power. In my mind that included players with a HoC-status. So to claim a power in order to not be lynched is a null-tell. I see no reason for unvoting someone in this game based on that kind of claim. In "regular" mafia I often push strongly to unvote a claimed power (especially on a Day 1) but in this game I don't think it's the same.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 3:59:52 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on May 22, 2010 3:59:52 GMT -5
the 120 is both in and out if that pleases ulla ;D
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 4:55:10 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on May 22, 2010 4:55:10 GMT -5
To Peek and Spec. Ed:
What assumptions, exactly, am I making, other than those I've already stated (and which look pretty damn solid from where I'm standing)?
Win Condition: You win when the Master of the Deck is dead, all members of the House of Chains have been eliminated, and your Primary Clan cannot be prevented from killing all other players before all Primary Members of the clan itself is wiped out.
Let me go through that. "You win when the Master of the Deck is dead." Clearly implying that 1) there is a player called the Master of the Deck (which is confirmed elsewhere anyway) and 2) that player is currently alive, and 3) that that player must be killed somehow in order for me to win.
"All members of the House of Chains have been eliminated." Clearly implying here that 1) there are at least two members (actually the sentence is only grammatically correct if it's at least three, but I'm willing to cede the possibility that the mods used "all" instead of "both" for the purpose of obscuring the number of members), 2) that those players are currently alive, and 3) that they must be eliminated from the game in order for me to win.
So that's AT LEAST THREE people, and likely more, who the mods have directly confirmed are an obstacle to me winning the game while they are not dead / eliminated, and whose win conditions cannot possibly match mine. And you suggest that my main focus shouldn't be to find these people?
Let's agree on one thing - we should be joining / forming clans of people whose win conditions are similar to our own. That way there's less risk of being forced at end-game to choose between losing through parity (having to eliminate members of your own clan) and losing through leaving somebody alive who your win condition says must be dead.
Oh, and Spec Ed, about this:
No, you're contradicting yourself here. What you were willing to do is eliminate people whose win condition matches yours but who have played in a manner that you don't like; instead of trying to eliminate people who, if you're telling the truth, you need to be dead in order for you to win!
But let's say for the moment that I am willing to eliminate anyone who's making it more difficult for me to win. Can you understand why you've put yourself very neatly into that category, for me?
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 5:58:28 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on May 22, 2010 5:58:28 GMT -5
I personally would like to focus on lynching the HoCs (house of chains members, for anybody who's not familiar with my acronyms yet). According to my own role PM, all members of the House of Chains must be dead for me to win. That gives me a target to aim at, irrespective of clan loyalties. Really? So you can win when all HoCs are eliminated? Because my PM (and others it would seem) has more then that one condition. But I can at least think of one player in the game, that would not have the second condition in their PM...
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 6:16:40 GMT -5
Post by guiri on May 22, 2010 6:16:40 GMT -5
Assuming for a moment that every winner has to be in the dominant clan and that every Asc player has to eliminate the HoC and MoDD to win (which would seem indicated by some of the posts and PMs that I'm seeing right now) there are final eight scenarios where the Asc outnumber the HoC three to one and yet no Asc player can possibly win, because if they eliminate a HoC player from their own group they lose parity, and if they don't eliminate that player then they can't win anyway! This assumption is incorrect. The MoDD is also an Ascendant. Members of the HoC are Ascendants (their rules, The Crippled God, is a God). As I said previously, based on various wikis, any character with a power is an Ascendant. Some characters also have, or once had, worshipers and so are Gods or Elder Gods, not mere Ascendants. It's based on two assumptions - that the Asc. players share two win conditions, and that the Asc. form the numerical majority - but can anybody disprove either assumption? See above. Bottom line: based on what I know so far, the Asc. need to get rid of the HoC and MoDD a lot more than we need to be fighting among ourselves.You need to stop thinking about the Asc and find a clan that has members with powers that complement yours in order to allow you to reach all 3 of your wincons, not just the first 2. On a separate topic, my early vote on OreDigger has gained no traction at all. He explicitly stated he was looking for his "natural faction", has anyone else felt a need to find their "natural faction" as opposed to forming a clan while trying to avoid having the MoDD or members of the HoC join? I'd only expect members of the HoC to need to find each other but could be wrong...
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 8:43:58 GMT -5
Post by special on May 22, 2010 8:43:58 GMT -5
@ Moely
First, I agree, the Master of the Deck must be killed. Fine. Great. I can live with that assumption.
Second, you assume that we must lynch the member of the hosue of ciains. I haven't reached that conclusion yet. I think that it might be true, but if so, why did the authors say the MoDoD must be "killed" but members of the HoC must be "eliminated" maybe they are synonymous, but I don't know that.
Thirds, you assume we have members of the HoC. That's an assumption. We don't know that. They could have also said that All Players who are under 5 years old must be eliminated. That doesn't tell us how many there are. Now, it is possibly and maybe even likely that we have some. Sure, but it's still an assumption. But, like point 2, eliminated doesn't necessarily mean lynched. Wasn't there a game that had 'infections' and 'cures'? What if it's something akin to that?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 8:48:31 GMT -5
Post by special on May 22, 2010 8:48:31 GMT -5
No, you're contradicting yourself here. What you were willing to do is eliminate people whose win condition matches yours but who have played in a manner that you don't like; instead of trying to eliminate people who, if you're telling the truth, you need to be dead in order for you to win! But let's say for the moment that I am willing to eliminate anyone who's making it more difficult for me to win. Can you understand why you've put yourself very neatly into that category, for me? I'm not contradicting myself. 1. I'm voting for luv because he seems the most likely player to be in the HoC. 2. I'm willing to eliminate players who make mistakes that make it more difficult for me to win based on the premise that they are more likely to continue to make such mistakes. Maybe it's not the most sound premise, but I find a certain logic to it. I think I would only be making it more difficult for you to win if your primary clan included luv (a very silly move at this point) or Pleonast. Otherwise, I'm advocating removing players that cannot help you win, and removing players that can help you lose.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 8:55:17 GMT -5
Post by special on May 22, 2010 8:55:17 GMT -5
On a separate topic, my early vote on OreDigger has gained no traction at all. He explicitly stated he was looking for his "natural faction", has anyone else felt a need to find their "natural faction" as opposed to forming a clan while trying to avoid having the MoDD or members of the HoC join? I'd only expect members of the HoC to need to find each other but could be wrong... This made me go back and look. I think this is the post guiri is referring to So it appears that there are mulitple factions seperate from the clans that we create does anyone have any idea how we could find our natural faction? Since we each need certain factions eliminated and our primary clan to survive we need to make sure that oppositional factions are not in our clan or kill of primary clan members to win. I'm a bit at a loss how to do this. So while we're making backroom deals I figure it might give us something to talk about in the thread. This is very odd now that I look more closely at it. My role PM gave me no indication that I had a "natural faction" and from the rules, it seemed pretty clear that I could make my own team with anyone I wanted, excluding any MoDoD or HoC aligned people. I wonder if a HoC wincon might have read differently. Something along the lines of "You must find other members of the House of Chains and form you primary clan with them...." What holds me back is that he knew we needed certain factions eliminated. Would a HoC member know that? Or maybe they need some other players eliminated. I don't know. Even the sample PM said the HoC must be eliminated. Though oredigger's post came only a couple of hours after it was posted.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 9:25:08 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on May 22, 2010 9:25:08 GMT -5
@ Moely First, I agree, the Master of the Deck must be killed. Fine. Great. I can live with that assumption. Second, you assume that we must lynch the member of the hosue of ciains. I haven't reached that conclusion yet. I think that it might be true, but if so, why did the authors say the MoDoD must be "killed" but members of the HoC must be "eliminated" maybe they are synonymous, but I don't know that. Thirds, you assume we have members of the HoC. That's an assumption. We don't know that. They could have also said that All Players who are under 5 years old must be eliminated. That doesn't tell us how many there are. Now, it is possibly and maybe even likely that we have some. Sure, but it's still an assumption. But, like point 2, eliminated doesn't necessarily mean lynched. Wasn't there a game that had 'infections' and 'cures'? What if it's something akin to that? I think you kind of lost me here. Are you saying that we might not even have HoC-players in the game? Because the "you assume we have members of the HoC" seems a bit weird to me since we have to "eliminate" HoC's in order to win the game. How would you eliminate what doesn't exist?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 9:48:17 GMT -5
Post by special on May 22, 2010 9:48:17 GMT -5
@ Moely First, I agree, the Master of the Deck must be killed. Fine. Great. I can live with that assumption. Second, you assume that we must lynch the member of the hosue of ciains. I haven't reached that conclusion yet. I think that it might be true, but if so, why did the authors say the MoDoD must be "killed" but members of the HoC must be "eliminated" maybe they are synonymous, but I don't know that. Thirds, you assume we have members of the HoC. That's an assumption. We don't know that. They could have also said that All Players who are under 5 years old must be eliminated. That doesn't tell us how many there are. Now, it is possibly and maybe even likely that we have some. Sure, but it's still an assumption. But, like point 2, eliminated doesn't necessarily mean lynched. Wasn't there a game that had 'infections' and 'cures'? What if it's something akin to that? I think you kind of lost me here. Are you saying that we might not even have HoC-players in the game? Because the "you assume we have members of the HoC" seems a bit weird to me since we have to "eliminate" HoC's in order to win the game. How would you eliminate what doesn't exist? I think I mentioned it earlier, but I've had a few longs posts. I thought it possible that: 1. There are few/no HoC members right now. 2. In some sort of mad-bomber type can make a person join HoC. I know their win condition wouldn't change so that means either: 2a. They must die themselves in order to win, or 2b. There may be some sort of HoC reversal mechanism 3. It works as an infection power with people having immunity and/or cures. Now, do I know these to be true? no. Do I think it possible? syre. What do I actually think is most likely at this point? 1. There are HoC members who do not know each other. 2. they either must: 2a. Align themselves with each other and win as a clan, or 2b. Have one of them survive to end game
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 11:11:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 22, 2010 11:11:50 GMT -5
yaknow i kind of hear what moley is saying but the point i was kind of trying to make is that while this whole house of clans and dragon master (or whatevers) elimination/dead is one thing i also know that, based on the description of this game by the mods, that there are a whole lot of other folks that are going to want me dead as well. so yeh, i guess we need to get rid of those threats but their are other sharks (just for you ulla) in the ocean, so to speak. so while in a normal game of mafia we can just focus on eliminating our opposing side in this puppy there are whole lot of opposing sides. shit, even if you join a clan you can't really be sure that those folks are even on your side, depending on whatever other allegiances they may have contrived. and even if you could be sure of their allegiance i would imagine that as folks get eliminated and clans begin to shrink in membership that new clans will be formed where even your most trusted bud may end up being your sworn enemy and vice versa.
so myopically focusing on the aforementioned bad guys, in my opinion, is not going be the wisest course of action. because right now i could be in membership with folks that potentially might want me dead at some point in the game.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 12:54:48 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on May 22, 2010 12:54:48 GMT -5
The Authors would like to point out that due to the large volume of PMs we receive, all power role actions should be sent to both this account (i.e. mine) and MHaye's account, rather than "The Authors". This is partly to guarantee they won't be accidentally missed, and partly to give me a more active role in moderating, since I'm never around during the daytime at work.
This is in addition to the "blog" type posts, which, IIRC, NAF volunteered to handle.
P.S. Hello from Detroit. Hotel has net access.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 13:09:40 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 22, 2010 13:09:40 GMT -5
vote Special Ed
Arguing that there may be no HoC, whilst then voting me for being most likely to be one is odd. I don't even see what I did as that much of a mistake. We need to find the damn Chainites after all, at least I made an effort in that direction.Right now you are my number one choice for being HoC.
Now I don't expect this to have much impact right now, but tomorrow I will be known to have been telling the truth about my actions. Then mayve this will be of some use.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 13:30:31 GMT -5
Post by special on May 22, 2010 13:30:31 GMT -5
vote Special EdArguing that there may be no HoC, whilst then voting me for being most likely to be one is odd. I don't even see what I did as that much of a mistake. We need to find the damn Chainites after all, at least I made an effort in that direction.Right now you are my number one choice for being HoC. Now I don't expect this to have much impact right now, but tomorrow I will be known to have been telling the truth about my actions. Then mayve this will be of some use. This would be a good point if I were, in fact, arguing that there were no House of Chains. All I'm doing is poiting out the possibility which some people seem to be neglecting. Some people look at the facts and make assumptions to fill in the gaps in those facts and then play based on those assumptions. I like to play differently. I like to look at things and figure out likelihoods and possibilities and even remember the things that seem improbable and then take action. Luv, let me remind you of what you said earlier that many of us find suspicious. I have little idea where to start in this game, usually it's a case of winkling out the scum and the 3rd parties, but in a game comprised entirely of 3rd parties (some who it seems must have non competing win conditions) I have no clue what to do. I feel like I'm in chains here! now, you say you were just trying to get the chain members to out themselves, but, why didn't you say that in your first post responding to it? Here, is what you did say: NETA On preview, lubwfc, was that an attempt at a breadcrumb? Do you have a physical disability? I hadn't seen the sample PM. I didn't know we were ALL gunning for the house of chains. I was coyly trying to tempt one or more chainites to contact me for clan forming purposes. The fact that every bugger has the "house of chains" thing in their pm means I wasn't being nearly as subtle as I had hoped. You only mention you wanted to form a clan with them. and then this bolding and underlining mine unvote: peeker vote: luvbwfc[/color][/quote] I responded to the same question from Guiri in the posty immediately above yours. I will categorically state that I am NOT in the House of Chains. I was hoping to be invited to a clan by such though, which was the point of my post.[/quote] then, finally this Anyway, just reread the topic. Vote luvbwfcMy PM says the House of Chains needs to be eliminated, so I'd doubt you'd want to join it. Your post about "being in chains" is pretty fishy. This leads me to wonder if the House of Chains is a pre-formed group or one where the members have to try to find each other. If the latter, then Luv's posts could clearly be read as dropping hints as to who he is. I never said I wanted to join it. I said i wanted to be contacted by a HoC person, so's I would have them identified. Obviously too high risk a strategem as I am going to die for it. So, honestly, wouldn't it be extremely suspicious to you if someone else did this?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 13:32:11 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on May 22, 2010 13:32:11 GMT -5
Been going back rereading and came across this, which made me go at the time. NETA On preview, lubwfc, was that an attempt at a breadcrumb? Do you have a physical disability?Italics added by me above. guiri: Why did you ask if lubwfc had a physical disability after asking if he was breadcrumbing? Seems kind of weird to me.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 13:45:25 GMT -5
Post by guiri on May 22, 2010 13:45:25 GMT -5
The Crippled God, who is also "in chains", is the ruler of the House of Chains, I thought it was politically incorrect to ask if he was crippled...
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 13:54:12 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on May 22, 2010 13:54:12 GMT -5
Ah ok, I kind of skimmed thru the whole intro.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 14:54:21 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 22, 2010 14:54:21 GMT -5
The Crippled God, who is also "in chains", is the ruler of the House of Chains, I thought it was politically incorrect to ask if he was crippled... oh, shit. pc invades mafia wanna have a discussion about the relative merits of the death penalty (i.e. lynchings). maybe we should just send the designated not to be pariticpating to like a real long time out.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 14:56:40 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on May 22, 2010 14:56:40 GMT -5
Really? So you can win when all HoCs are eliminated? Because my PM (and others it would seem) has more then that one condition. Total, read my earlier posts. I posted my entire win condition, including the other parts of it. I was focussing on that one part of it is all. This assumption is incorrect. The MoDD is also an Ascendant. Members of the HoC are Ascendants (their rules, The Crippled God, is a God). As I said previously, based on various wikis, any character with a power is an Ascendant. Some characters also have, or once had, worshipers and so are Gods or Elder Gods, not mere Ascendants. That seems to conflict with this (from my win condition PM): And this: Well, since there is no Jester-type role, quite possibly. ;D I read "jester-type role" as a character whose job is to get himself lynched. If the "Master of the Deck of Dragons" is an enemy of every ascendant, wouldn't that include himself? Maybe I'm reading way too much into this but I'd like some clarification here. Mods, can you confirm that no character in the game has a role condition that involves them being dead at the end of it? Secondly, can you confirm whether or not the Master of the Deck of Dragons is in fact an Ascendant?1. I'm voting for luv because he seems the most likely player to be in the HoC. Ok, forget everything else I've said until we get some more information about the Ascendants, and in particular the MoDD. If Guiri is correct then I am wrong, at least about there being an Asc. "faction" with partially or wholly shared win-conditions. But I have to disagree with the thing about Luv. The last thing I'd expect a genuine HoC member to do, assuming that there are any at this point (and unlike you, I think that is most likely a safe assumption, if only because I now know of eight separate players who all claim to have a win condition that involves both members of the HoC and the MoDD being dead, many of whom have posted as much in this thread) would be to blatantly breadcrumb that they are IN the House of Chains! Don't you think that with apparently over a third of the cast having a win condition that involves them being dead, they'd have been at least warned that they shouldn't claim? This isn't even a case of WIFOM. If Luv is HoC then he's either suicidally stupid or he had no idea how much s--t he'd draw upon himself by breadcrumbing like that. And if he genuinely had no idea, that's blatant gastard moddery. I prefer the simpler explanation - that he was breadcrumbing his win condition rather than his allegiance.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 15:49:59 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on May 22, 2010 15:49:59 GMT -5
The last thing I'd expect a genuine HoC member to do, assuming that there are any at this point (and unlike you, I think that is most likely a safe assumption, if only because I now know of eight separate players who all claim to have a win condition that involves both members of the HoC and the MoDD being dead, many of whom have posted as much in this thread) would be to blatantly breadcrumb that they are IN the House of Chains! Don't you think that with apparently over a third of the cast having a win condition that involves them being dead, they'd have been at least warned that they shouldn't claim? This isn't even a case of WIFOM. If Luv is HoC then he's either suicidally stupid or he had no idea how much s--t he'd draw upon himself by breadcrumbing like that. And if he genuinely had no idea, that's blatant gastard moddery. I prefer the simpler explanation - that he was breadcrumbing his win condition rather than his allegiance. luv admitted he did NOT know that the sample wincon had been posted when he made his "chains" post. Follow-up questions for guiri: Why did you feel the need to obscurely ask luv if he was disabled rather than ask outright if he was the Crippled God? Do you have any reason to know or believe there is a player in the game who is the CG? I ask because the only two entities (don't want to get into the faction thing) aside from those not in my primary clan that I need to eliminate/kill are the MotD and members of the HoC. Question to all, am I the only one who did not get the reference to the CG? Come on, own up, make me feel less clueless.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 16:39:22 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 22, 2010 16:39:22 GMT -5
I thought perhaps Guiri was asking if luv had some sort of posting restriction with the disability comment.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2010 16:44:36 GMT -5
Post by guiri on May 22, 2010 16:44:36 GMT -5
3 things: 1. The standard win condition was posted by the Mods on page 1 of the Everything you always need to know about Clans thread 3 days before the game started (post #28).
2. I didn't ask if luvbwfc was the Crippled God specifically because all members of HoC have some sort of "massive flaw in the individual" so I left the question generic. I didn't expect much of a reply and certainly didn't intend to be obscure. I thought that by pointing to his breadcrumb attempt, I was accusing him of being a member of the HoC.
3. When I got my role PM I spent some time trying to make some sense of the color in this game. I guessed that metagame information could come in useful (as it almost did in Screamers). The first things I search for were the MoDD and HoC where I learned about the Crippled God. The sub-board for this game was re-titled "The Crippled God's Tent" and he figured quite prominently in the opening color, I would expect him to be a character in this game as he both created the HoC and is currently its ruler.
|
|