RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:56:01 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 15:56:01 GMT -5
So, you just have this funny feeling in your tummy that there's a serial killer, for example? Yes. Or a Cult. Or a 2nd Scum Group. Something that is BAD though. Not just a Vigilante. But Something BAD. But it's just a gut feeling. Because I've only seen one episode of FireFly. I think it was one of the last episodes.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:57:08 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 11, 2007 15:57:08 GMT -5
Alright, I went back and reread the rules, and I get it now. I think my brain was just rebelling against me because the rule itself seems awkward...like it is forcing everyone to end the day early.
Now that I fully comprehend what's going on, I need to go back and reread everything that was coming at me as mumbo-jumbo.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:58:16 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 15:58:16 GMT -5
<snip> So basically: when someone gets 50% of the vote. The day ends. If that never happens, and it gets to the deadline, we lose the day with a No lynch. That's all it is. Yeah, I don't understand where the confusion is, either. But, technically, it's 50% +1.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:58:26 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 15:58:26 GMT -5
By the way, my 'ask Roosh' statement was meant as a joke (you know, about the secrecy thing). I guess sort of a poor one. If you simply object to the very mention of your name, I would hope that people who analyze posts in the future would be able to distinguish positive from negative posts, and posts that are merely neutral. I don't mind you mentioning my name actually. I suppose you meant it as a joke, but to me, I was very suspicious of it, mostly because I tend not to trust anything that makes me trust someone (Hypocritical much? Very- Ask StoryTeller about that one). I don't mind if you mention me though, or tell things about me, or anything. Just don't attribute me to agree/disagreeing with something unless I actually say it somewhere explicitly. Just ask for my opinion,and i'll usually give it anyways. But all is cool PJ.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:59:11 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 15:59:11 GMT -5
erm Most Uncool. I can't say Cool?? The fuck?
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:03:28 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 11, 2007 16:03:28 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure CatInaSuit is right. If we get to next Sunday without having laid the hammer down on someone, I think we should agree to a declared deadline a day or so before the mod-imposed one, and just have a mass-switch to whomever is the vote-leader at that point. The positives of this idea is that we don't get a no-lynch. The drawbacks, of course, are that the small numbers of the scum (I'm thinking there must be 6) can be much more powerful in such a situation.
What do people think about this idea?
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:05:09 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 16:05:09 GMT -5
goddamnit! I hate the word "shiny" I so much prefer CoOl "Cooooooooool" Bastards.
Anyways, I suppose I'll tell you guys my idea when i get back from Classes tonight (12am EST). I just got the idea for it during Night one, after reading the Loopholes section. So those of you expecting HUGE mind shaking revelations. Don't.
And the reason for the secrecy? Well, sometimes I'm just curious to see which players WANT to know what/if I've got something to say, and Why do they want to know. Motives and reactions mostly, Story. That's why i do it. So far the only thing I see in terms of Reactions is that Blaster REALLY doesn't like the idea of me doing it, and I'm not sure if he's curious to know what I've got to say, or just upset at it. But he def. seems interested in my statements.
Anyways, I'm off to Class. Peace Out.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:07:13 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 16:07:13 GMT -5
Unless you're just asking me: do I believe there is only Scum and Vig? [/i] That situation, i do not believe is the case. What evidence do I have? None. :shrug: But it's my opinion. Anyways, back to reading this page. [/quote] OK, that's fine, but do you understand how insanely suspicious this sounds? The fact that you have an opinion at all about the likely distribution of roles? From where could you possibly have an opinion on the likely distribution of roles, or even a "gut feeling?" Collectively, we know NOTHING. Because we don't know how many pro-town power roles there might be, we can't develop a reasonable estimate regarding how many scum there are. We can't even begin to guess how many KINDS of scum there are! It's all very well for you to say, "I just have a feeling," but that feeling - if you are in fact a townie - is groundless, meaningless. I could as well say that "I have a feeling that there are seven serial killers and no other scum," or "I have a feeling that there are telepathic Masons with a night kill ability" - absent any information about the setup of the game, drawing conclusions about the composition of the roleset is wildly odd. Unless you are scum. If you are scum you have a very important piece of information - the number of scum. By looking at the number of scum versus the total number of players, you'd be able to draw conclusions about the likely makeup of the game, and even speculate on how many night kill roles there might be. You'd have extra information that might have created your "gut feeling." And so you know what? I'm going to start off with a vote for Roosh.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:07:54 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 16:07:54 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure CatInaSuit is right. If we get to next Sunday without having laid the hammer down on someone, I think we should agree to a declared deadline a day or so before the mod-imposed one, and just have a mass-switch to whomever is the vote-leader at that point. The positives of this idea is that we don't get a no-lynch. The drawbacks, of course, are that the small numbers of the scum (I'm thinking there must be 6) can be much more powerful in such a situation. What do people think about this idea? I'm kinda meh on these whole ideas. Because +50% of the votes normally is the standards anyways in the bigger mafia games. This is a completely normal thing. It's just not implemented much on the SD games so far. I don't really think the getting 50+% of votes will be that big of a deal. If someone's getting to around 25-33% of the votes, people are going to start taking notice and pay attention to those people. It's not like there's only going to be 14 people paying atteniton and then suddenly we've got another 14 people who JUST CAN'T desire a lynch enough to vote someone out. So i'm thinking it's pretty much a straw man at this point.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:13:19 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 16:13:19 GMT -5
OK, that's fine, but do you understand how insanely suspicious this sounds? The fact that you have an opinion at all about the likely distribution of roles? From where could you possibly have an opinion on the likely distribution of roles, or even a "gut feeling?" Collectively, we know NOTHING. Because we don't know how many pro-town power roles there might be, we can't develop a reasonable estimate regarding how many scum there are. We can't even begin to guess how many KINDS of scum there are! It's all very well for you to say, "I just have a feeling," but that feeling - if you are in fact a townie - is groundless, meaningless. I could as well say that "I have a feeling that there are seven serial killers and no other scum," or "I have a feeling that there are telepathic Masons with a night sha ability" - absent any information about the setup of the game, drawing conclusions about the composition of the roleset is wildly odd. Unless you are scum. If you are scum you have a very important piece of information - the number of scum. By looking at the number of scum versus the total number of players, you'd be able to draw conclusions about the likely makeup of the game, and even speculate on how many night sha roles there might be. You'd have extra information that might have created your "gut feeling." And so you know what? I'm going to start off with a vote for Roosh. :sigh: I guess i can't go to class just yet. The fact that you have an opinion at all about the likely distribution of roles? --I don't see that as suspicious at all. I have an opinion on what I think we'll see in a game. Are you telling me I shouldn't EVEN THINK about what we're to expect in a near 30 person mafia game? --Just think about this. 30 Players of a Mafia Game. What roles do you think are present? If you say "I have no idea, I won't even FATHOM a guess" then that's just really silly. I do have an opinion, I shared my opinions when asked, but I will not let them rule me. I will let it slightly bias me yes. But nothing more. I don't wish to influence you or nothing with them. But they are my opinions. If asked, I'll retort with them. Which you do point out. A Townie with opinions is meaningless. That's exactly the case here. But now it becomes scummy to have opinion? What happen to suddenly the townie with a meaningless opinion? I don't like your reasonings for your vote, and I think it's unfounded.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:14:01 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 16:14:01 GMT -5
Well * instead of Unfounded i meant WIFOM. but Meh. It still means the same thing sorta
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:16:54 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 11, 2007 16:16:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I quite agree with this. If we're all honest with ourselves, we all have "gut feelings" about what types of roles may be in the game, and we may have those feelings regardless of what our roles are, based on information that we all have. For example, this game has 28 people, which is a relatively large amount for just one Day Lynch and Night Kill per game cycle. Also, we started off at Night, but no Night kills were allowed. That leads me to believe that had Night kills been allowed, there would have been more than one, but the mods may have figured that would have been unbalanced since we don't know anything about any roles other than our own. Now, that may mean there are two groups of scum, or a SK/Vig type role, or any combination, or something we haven't even thought of yet. But to draw the conclusion that the only reason that Roosh thinks there's a Vig/SK is because he's scum is ignoring all the other valid reasons that any of us might have to think that there's more than just one killing role in the game.
I also have gut feelings that there's a Doc-type role and a Cop-type role. Does that make me scummy? In the end, we don't know "nothing," as you claim. We have past games to go on, and guesses based on the setup of this game as well. A better way to say it is not that we know NOTHING, but that we KNOW nothing. Speculation and guessing isn't scummy, or townie. It's the reality of what we have to go on based on what we've been given.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:20:24 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 11, 2007 16:20:24 GMT -5
I interpret the majority rule this way (indulge me the clunky use of math-like-stuff):
To be absolutely completely safe, we need to have (15 + n) firm votes at the end of the day, for the same person, with n=number of scum. This allows for all possible WIFOM scenarios in case every last scum tries to throw the vote.
We probably won't achieve "completely safe" very easily or often, especially since no one but the scum know how many scum we have. Allowing for possible alternate groupings, no one but some of any "birds of a feather " groupings know how many of anything that we have.
So to further refine my "completely safe" equation, at the end of Day 1 we'd need (15 + BoF1 + BoF2, etc...) firm votes by the end of the day to eliminate the possibility of anyone throwing their weight around and causing a no-lynch. The firmer the consensus towards "completely safe" as the upper limit, the better our chances of having the day end as we (as in the collective we) want it to end.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:22:56 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 16:22:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I quite agree with this. If we're all honest with ourselves, we all have "gut feelings" about what types of roles may be in the game, and we may have those feelings regardless of what our roles are, based on information that we all have. For example, this game has 28 people, which is a relatively large amount for just one Day Lynch and Night sha per game cycle. Also, we started off at Night, but no Night kills were allowed. That leads me to believe that had Night kills been allowed, there would have been more than one, but the mods may have figured that would have been unbalanced since we don't know anything about any roles other than our own. Now, that may mean there are two groups of scum, or a SK/Vig type role, or any combination, or something we haven't even thought of yet. But to draw the conclusion that the only reason that Roosh thinks there's a Vig/SK is because he's scum is ignoring all the other valid reasons that any of us might have to think that there's more than just one killing role in the game. I also have gut feelings that there's a Doc-type role and a Cop-type role. Does that make me scummy? In the end, we don't know "nothing," as you claim. We have past games to go on, and guesses based on the setup of this game as well. A better way to say it is not that we know NOTHING, but that we KNOW nothing. Speculation and guessing isn't scummy, or townie. It's the reality of what we have to go on based on what we've been given. Augh. I have not expressed myself well, obviously. I have to leave work now, and then go to a meeting, but I'll do what I can to clarify late tonight or tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:28:23 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 16:28:23 GMT -5
I have an opinion on what I think we'll see in a game. Are you telling me I shouldn't EVEN THINK about what we're to expect in a near 30 person mafia game? Of course not; this is nothing like what I said. Think about it all you like - but I find it curious that you came out so strongly certain that a particular configuration was unlikely. From where did this opinion come? On what is it based? What about previous games or the current game suggests this to you? You haven't said, which leads me to believe that there is information underlying this opinion that you don't want to share. to drainbead - look at what Roosh did in the specific, rather than in the general. He didn't idly suggest that there is probably a Doc-type role, a safe guess based on information we all have. He firmly offered the opinion that one plausible configuration of roles was significantly more likely than another equally plausible configuration of roles. Why? <sigh> No. It becomes potentially scummy to have an opinion - a fairly strongly held opinion, at that - that does not appear to be supportable with the information that is available to all. Stunned. I'm stunned that you feel this way. [/quote]
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:30:04 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 11, 2007 16:30:04 GMT -5
Oh, I too am not a fan of keeping secrets throughout the game. However, I'm totally ALL for the ability to keep secrets for a while, just to watch people squirm and see how they react. In my view, I've got 10 days to reveal my thoughts. Argh, okay this intro to your post just strikes me as about twenty bazillion kinds of wrong. First...keeping secrets just to watch people squirm? I mean, maybe you'll get some neat information on possible scum, but withholding information and then saying "well I like withholding information to provoke reactions!" gets you exactly in the situation you're in right now: people think you're anti-town, and honestly you've given everybody more than enough ammo for anybody to credibly think that by now. You may think you have 10 days to reveal your thoughts, but the earlier you give whatever theories you have, the more time the town has to digest your information and possibly work with it. The less time you give for digestion, the more likely there is going to be a Crazy Chia Bingo Panic(tm) on Day 10. Now obviously, keeping a theory secret isn't the same as keeping a power role secret, but if your information is groundbreaking, don't you want to have the town to use the information for this Day to successfully lynch a scum? And then you say this... And the reason for the secrecy? Well, sometimes I'm just curious to see which players WANT to know what/if I've got something to say, and Why do they want to know. Motives and reactions mostly, Story. That's why i do it. So far the only thing I see in terms of Reactions is that Blaster REALLY doesn't like the idea of me doing it, and I'm not sure if he's curious to know what I've got to say, or just upset at it. But he def. seems interested in my statements. The ONLY reaction you've gotten is Blaster really doesn't like the idea of keeping you secret? What about the votes besides Blaster and at least 1 FOS you've gotten? And a lot of people agreeing that you're acting anti-town? Do those not count as reactions? It's like you see people continuously saying "you're really acting anti-town here" and you're shrugging it off completely. It's like you're TRYING to give everybody an excuse to lynch you. And that's why I'm not comfortable voting for you. FOS Roosh, but not because I think you're scum, but because I think you might be something completely different that's still somewhat dangerous.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 16:58:29 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 11, 2007 16:58:29 GMT -5
I disagree. All the majority voting means is the town has to do a better job of cooperating and coordinating. For instance, one plan would be to simply vote as normal for, say, the first half of the Day. After that, pick the top candidates who have more than one vote and have a run off that lasts, say the next day or so (this gets rid of all the 1 person votes, but leaves them on the record for determining later). Finally, take the top two vote getters and have a run off 'twixt those two which will necessarily force a majority vote if everyone participates. Whether or not that's the best plan, I don't know, it's just what came to mind now. But, we MUST come up with some method to keep people from having one-off votes near the end of the time limit when we're struggling to get a majority. I know this post has come and gone, and was an unrefined, early idea for what to do with majority lynching, but I wanted to offer my two cents on the matter now that I actually understand the rules. I feel that the more complicated a plan is to ensure that we get a majority by day 10, the more likely the scum will be able to muck it up somehow. Occam's Razor: simplest solution is best. We need to decide on a simple way to make sure we get a majority by day 10, without having to have run-offs to determine run-offs to determine the final vote. Plus, not every Day is going to give us this much time to flesh out ideas. If we only allow a few days for initial suggestions, and then go to a run-off, it will probably tend to block off thought on other options. I.E. If everybody is told on day 5 "okay, we're only going to vote for A, B, C, and D from now on, everybody else is cool" it will create tunnel vision, and on the next Day, if option B isn't lynched, because of the run-off people may be convinced B is scum (when they actually aren't). Meanwhile, all the scum that weren't A, B, C, or D are sitting back and looking pretty 'cause suspicions are high amongst the previous Day's runoff people. I'm all for a system to make sure we get somebody lynched, but I want it to be a town-beneficial system, not a scum-beneficial one.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:19:11 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 17:19:11 GMT -5
Just based on nothing but experience and patterns, I find this post scummy. Town fights all the time with Town. That is the nature of the game since there are ultimately more Town than Mafia. It will always happen. This is just because Town doesn't know who other Town is. But I often find the ones trying to play "peacemaker" is a prime suspect for scum themselves. I know I was the one saying (when I was scum) "Don't trust anyone, not even me" and "No, don't mod sha them" even when we were hoping they'd get modkilled. Substantial? Not at all. But just something that sorta trips my meter. I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you agreeing with me or saying that my post is scummy? Because it seems like you're saying essentially what I did (disagreeing and bickering doesn't make anybody scum) but then you said you found that post scummy. I was saying I took your post to be suspicious/scum-ish. I wasn't agreeing at all. Of course, like most things, townies can take the same position, because it IS, in fact, a reasonable position to take. Maybe. Again, I'm just speaking from experience. Both as a mod and as scum in the last game. Maybe that's not the best thing to base it on and I certainly wouldn't vote for someone later on in the game for something so vague-ish. But it does raise my meter with people who do that. Thank you, pygmy, but I read that already..which is what made me ask my question the first time. "Does that mean fifteen on one person or just a majority [aka, more votes than anyone else] of votes on someone?" And it was answered by someone that it was the latter. So consider me still confused. A majority requires more than half of the voters to vote for one person, not more than half of the votes to be on one person. As soon as there are 15 votes on one person, the day will end, and if there are not 15 votes on one person before the time limit, the day will end with no lynch. At least that's my interpretation. --FCOD But majority also means (someone with the most votes). As in, majority rules. Say there are three kids who want to watch Spongebob but four who want to watch Scooby Doo. Well, the four get it because majority rules (and the majority there would lie with Scooby). Expanding it to fit the current circumstances...say there were 50 kids and 10 voted for Spongebob, 10 voted for Peanuts, 10 voted for Garfield, 9 voted for Little House on the Prarie, and 11 voted for Scooby. Majority would lie with Scooby. Majority rules. Majority doesn't always mean more than half. Majority could mean just who has the majority of the votes. I'm asking if it's the case where 15 must vote for one person, or just someone having a majority of the votes (as opposed to a tie). Okay, I'm getting confused by all this majority voting to lynch talk. Here is how I interpreted the rules for lynching. It takes a full majority (aka more than half, therefore 15 on this Day) to create an instant lynch and end the Day right smack dab on that minute. No more discussion, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. However, if the full Day goes by without reaching 15, then if there's at least a smaller majority on one lynchee (say..8 people on one person, and the next person only has 6 people) that person gets lynched. The only time there would be no lynch is if there's a tie for the most votes (two people with 8 votes, let's say). Now, am I the only one that interpreted the rules like that? Am I off in Never Never Land? No, I did too. That's what I've been trying to convey to the rest as well, but nobody but you seems to know what I'm saying. Hehe.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:33:56 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 17:33:56 GMT -5
<snip> With 28 players, it takes 15 votes to lynch. When the 15th vote is cast, Day will end automatically (i.e. no countdown--it's an Insta-Lynch). If no majority is reached by Day's end, no lynch will occur.<snip> *sigh* Idle, what is it about 15 votes that you don't understand?
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:34:14 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 11, 2007 17:34:14 GMT -5
Expanding it to fit the current circumstances...say there were 50 kids and 10 voted for Spongebob, 10 voted for Peanuts, 10 voted for Garfield, 9 voted for Little House on the Prarie, and 11 voted for Scooby. Majority would lie with Scooby. Majority rules. Majority doesn't always mean more than half. Majority could mean just who has the majority of the votes. Sorry, you're wrong. You're confusing Plurality with Majority. Plurality means the greatest number, majority means greater than half. it's 15 to lynch.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:36:33 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Sept 11, 2007 17:36:33 GMT -5
(snip) But majority also means (someone with the most votes). As in, majority rules. Say there are three kids who want to watch Spongebob but four who want to watch Scooby Doo. Well, the four get it because majority rules (and the majority there would lie with Scooby). Expanding it to fit the current circumstances...say there were 50 kids and 10 voted for Spongebob, 10 voted for Peanuts, 10 voted for Garfield, 9 voted for Little House on the Prarie, and 11 voted for Scooby. Majority would lie with Scooby. Majority rules. Majority doesn't always mean more than half. Majority could mean just who has the majority of the votes. I'm asking if it's the case where 15 must vote for one person, or just someone having a majority of the votes (as opposed to a tie). (snip) Simple: ask the mods. Here, I'll show you how: Mods: In Idle Thought's example:
a.) Does Scooby die? b.) Did the kids just fail to lynch anyone?(I think b applies, by the way)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:37:00 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 11, 2007 17:37:00 GMT -5
I'm kinda meh on these whole ideas. Because +50% of the votes normally is the standards anyways in the bigger mafia games. This is a completely normal thing. It's just not implemented much on the SD games so far. I don't really think the getting 50+% of votes will be that big of a deal. If someone's getting to around 25-33% of the votes, people are going to start taking notice and pay attention to those people. It's not like there's only going to be 14 people paying atteniton and then suddenly we've got another 14 people who JUST CAN'T desire a lynch enough to vote someone out. So i'm thinking it's pretty much a straw man at this point. The games I've seen on Mafiascum.net don't have hard end-dates, do they? I'm much more concerned that there will be three candidates with 6-8 votes, and that we might not be able to break the deadlock without some preparation. Would you really change your vote from someone you think might be scum to someone you have no great suspicion on, rather than trying to convince people down to the wire to change their vote to yours? My way might also give a good incentive for people to not maintain a one-off vote until the end.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:39:04 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 11, 2007 17:39:04 GMT -5
OK, how about a post from the mods. This is getting stupid and is distracting us (or at least me) from the important stuff.
Do we need >= 15 votes for the same person to lynch someone on the first day.[/size]
Thank you that is all.
sinjin
and again on preview I get the first page posts only. Although I clicked on post on the last page (6 I think). Arrrrghhhh.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:40:39 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 17:40:39 GMT -5
<snip> With 28 players, it takes 15 votes to lynch. When the 15th vote is cast, Day will end automatically (i.e. no countdown--it's an Insta-Lynch). If no majority is reached by Day's end, no lynch will occur.<snip> *sigh* Idle, what is it about 15 votes that you don't dong ma? It says fifteen votes to LYNCH. And yes, fifteen would be the majority of players. But then when you take THIS: "If no majority is reached by Day's end, no lynch will occur." separately, it could mean: "if there is not a single player with a majority of votes, then there is no lynch." After all, if it meant what most are saying, then why would there be a deadline? It seems to either be no lynch or an automatic one. So town is forced to always use the automatic lynch? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. It seems to force everyone to vote for one person. How info can be gotten from that, in the end, I don't know.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:45:49 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 11, 2007 17:45:49 GMT -5
[off topic]And I'm a little testy because it's beautiful outside for the first time in 30 damn days and the mossies have driven me back inside even though I've sprayed myself with god damn 25% deet which is going to give me cancer any damn day now.[/off topic]
PS and I hate fucking Tuesdays.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:46:33 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 17:46:33 GMT -5
(snip) But majority also means (someone with the most votes). As in, majority rules. Say there are three kids who want to watch Spongebob but four who want to watch Scooby Doo. Well, the four get it because majority rules (and the majority there would lie with Scooby). Expanding it to fit the current circumstances...say there were 50 kids and 10 voted for Spongebob, 10 voted for Peanuts, 10 voted for Garfield, 9 voted for Little House on the Prarie, and 11 voted for Scooby. Majority would lie with Scooby. Majority rules. Majority doesn't always mean more than half. Majority could mean just who has the majority of the votes. I'm asking if it's the case where 15 must vote for one person, or just someone having a majority of the votes (as opposed to a tie). (snip) Simple: ask the mods. Here, I'll show you how: Mods: In Idle Thought's example:
a.) Does Scooby die? b.) Did the kids just fail to lynch anyone?(I think b applies, by the way)Huh. I've already asked. My first post in here was asking. But players answered instead (and keep doing so). I think I'd be much happier just having a mod answer my question since that's all it was (me trying to be clear on if it was the first or second). Many are saying it's the first and some even seem to be talking to me like it should be plainly obvious that I should understand it. But it seems to be at least one other thought the way I do so it's good to know I'm not the only one who should be riding the short bus. I'm just wondering on which it is. I've never heard of this "plurality" before and I have no doubt it's really a term and I'm glad ignorance is fought but two things remain: 1. I still think the rules could be interprited as the way atarus and I took them and 2. Most people I know must be using the word "majority" wrong then because as far as I know, even if there are mulitiple groups of people voting for different things, the one with the most votes is majority. That's what I always was taught and even how I learned the word? Was I taught wrong? Is not the most votes a majorty even with multiple factions? Could it not be both a plurality and a majority? So why isn't the expression "plurality rules", or at least one to say when that is the case?
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:47:50 GMT -5
Post by zuma on Sept 11, 2007 17:47:50 GMT -5
What do you mean by "automatic"? What doesn't make sense? Once someone hits 15, they are lynched, as that is the majority. Idle are you deliberately trying to confuse people? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Also, NAF said here that day one is 15 to lynch.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:49:58 GMT -5
Post by mtgman on Sept 11, 2007 17:49:58 GMT -5
So why ARE closed setups better? All I'm feeling is mass confusion at the moment. I wouldn't say they're better. I'd say they're different. They favor the player with good emotional intelligence, someone who can read people well. They work less well for the hard core rational thinker becuase the framework necessary to evaluate someone else's decisions are't there. You can't ask "is this how the cop would behave" because you don't know if there is a cop, or if it is a standard-issue cop, or some sort of themed or flawed, version of the role. Much of the divide we've seen so far, between day 1 strategies of random versus directed, is between these types of players. Those who believe they have the ability to read people in this situation and those who either believe they lack the ability or that it isn't worth the expenditure of effort to make it work in this exceptionally information-poor first Day. In general closed setups have pitfalls for both the informed minority(scum) and the uninformed majority(town). The scum don't know what power roles they're up against, or how many of them are present, or what their powers are exactly. They can probably guess that someone has an investigative power if they see what look like breadcrumbs, but that doesn't help them all that much. If they try to kill that player they'll be validating the breadcrumbs and they don't know if there are other investigators or protective roles. Is there another scum faction they need to deal with? Are there vigilantees or serial killers? Do they have to worry about some pro-town faction(like the unbelievers in M5 or the masons in M2) with alternate win conditions? Do they need to target them to make sure they don't kill vanilla townies just to lose to masons? They're all going to exchange their role info with each other(probably, unless there's a "scum within the scum" or "backstabbing" mechanic happening), so they'll know pretty much everything there is to know about the scum side, but they don't know what they're up against, so they're having to hunt on instinct too. Since the game started with a Night, we can assume this has already happened. Any special powers any of the scum have, such as recruitment, they all know about by now. Still, it won't be an easy game for them. The challenge for the town is actually pretty similar to a standard game. The only townies who know anything are the investigator(s)(assuming there are any), and sharing that info would give them away. Even then, the investigator roles would only know orientation whatever their investigations revealed. They may or may not be able to tell if there are multiple scum factions(as there are in some games, and in the Firefly-verse) or what the town is up against overall. However, it is harder for the town because we don't know what we're up against AT ALL! Are there multiple scum factions? Can they recruit? Do we have any masons? Anyone immune to recruitment? How many of us are going to die tonight, or do we have a day killer? If there are two deaths tonight, do we have a serial killer, or a vigilante? Can voting lead to a day-kill as it did for the Avatar in M5? You can't hedge your bets if you don't know the rules of the game. We also can't sit around and wait on our power roles to pull it out for us as mhaye may have done for M5 because we don't even know we HAVE any. How do we evaluate roleclaims when we don't even know if a role like the one claimed EXISTS in the game? Say a scum claims to be a mason, and there are no masons in the game, no one will counter-claim. Bam, lynch-proof scum, probably won't be investigated because the investigator(s) would assume a real mason would counter-claim. Would scum vote for scum? Maybe, depends on the rules they're playing under. Under M5 rules one of them could die if they voted for the Avatar, but does something like that apply here? The possibilities are literally endless with a closed game. So it's tough for a town. It's even possible NAF and Kat got a case of the evil moderators and decided to make this a completely vanilla game, with NO special roles, and hide that fact just to mess with us. It's something I might do in their place, but I've always been a bit of an evil game master. Enjoy, Steven
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:52:27 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 17:52:27 GMT -5
There's a deadline to force everybody to work together to reach a concensus (which, by definition, means the thought held by a majority of the group (i.e. more than half)). I've never played a closed setup, and I've never played with the majority rules, either. However, it seems likely to me that we can get -more- information than by simply trying to go off a spreadsheet of pure data. Instead of having a handy dandy spreadsheet that you can use to see that Beavis voted for Butthead 47 days ago, you can see Beavis's reaction (or lack thereof) from having to change his vote from Butthead to Daria. That information can be used immediately, instead of trying to put together some elaborate algorithm about what scum would or would not have done.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 17:54:54 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 17:54:54 GMT -5
What do you mean by "automatic"? What doesn't make sense? Once someone hits 15, they are lynched, as that is the majority. Idle are you deliberately trying to confuse people? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Also, NAF said here that day one is 15 to lynch. What the hell? I'm just asking a simple question and would just appreciate it if a mod would answer instead of players. That's all. All I'm asking is does town need to have 15 votes against someone for a lynch (and thus end the day automatically--otherwise there is no lynch) or if it means that A majority (and not THE majority) of players is needed for a lynch.
|
|