|
Post by septimus on Jan 30, 2012 22:06:03 GMT -5
It seems like we've reached the end of conversation. Time to move forward. So it seems. But Voting EOD has no effect now since Tuesday Noon is both the latest and, by now, the earliest that Day can end. It is too bad no handshaking regime has been agreed by the Masons. Such an agreement could maximize information and interfere with fraud. I don't see the down-side.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 30, 2012 22:48:51 GMT -5
It seems like we've reached the end of conversation. Time to move forward. So it seems. But Voting EOD has no effect now since Tuesday Noon is both the latest and, by now, the earliest that Day can end. It is too bad no handshaking regime has been agreed by the Masons. Such an agreement could maximize information and interfere with fraud. I don't see the down-side. Aside from potential tampering via secret powers, I fail to see a downside as well.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 31, 2012 1:47:17 GMT -5
i'm amenable to a handshaking agreement.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 31, 2012 2:26:48 GMT -5
There are several strategies on the table: - circle handshake (omitting Bill?) - cross handshake (Boozy, Bill and Gnarly with Peeker, Jan, Suburban and me) - hub handshake (everyone with me, I'll shake with Bill) - random handshake
Which do you think will bring most clarity to the situation?
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Jan 31, 2012 2:27:14 GMT -5
i'm amenable to a handshaking agreement. guiri posted two suggestons including this one: ... we can just try multiple handshake attempts: Suburban-Boozy Boozy-Silver Silver-Gnarly Gnarly-peeker Peeker-Bill Bill-guiri Guiri-Suburban I think the usual protocol is a form of democracy in which players post "I agree with guiri's plan" and, if a critical mass of agreement is reached, it will be viewed as anti-Town not to comply. I'm not a Mason, but as semi-confirmed Town my vote might count, so: I agree with guiri's plan.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Jan 31, 2012 2:28:12 GMT -5
(I posted before seeing guiri's post. By all means, discuss before finalizing the protocol.)
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 31, 2012 2:44:25 GMT -5
I've worked through the Mason claims, chronologically and by player. There's little solid evidence, and what there is doesn't tell us anything, but it does (I believe) show up things to investigate. The solid evidence is that of the testimony of JustBeingGinger. She is dead, and known Town. Therefore we can accept her claim of being a Mason made in N01.019. Her calling Peeker a Mason in that post was not based on information received, as she and Peeker both investigated nonMasons on Day 1, (or so they say). It's therefore a call to Peeker to handshake with her the next Day. We can't, unfortunately, draw conclusions from her death. The fulcrum around which the rest of the Mason claims pivot is the first claimant, peekercpa. Three say he is a Mason, and three that he is not. (I don't count peeker's claims. The “pro-peeker” group are guiri, Silver Jan and Suburban Plankton. Guiri's claim is solid and consistent, but the other two both have ptroblems. Silver Jan flip-flopped quite badly with her report going from N02.007 where he “let her down” to D02.014 where peeker is “a good (bl)oke.” Suburban's claim is flawed by his failure to handshake Day 2 after handshaking Day 1. That's an extraordinary failure that simply isn't explained. I can believe a weary SJ might misread a PM more easily than SP slipped the way he said. The “anti-peeker” group are BillMc, Boozahol Squid and Gnarlycharlie. A common feature of these three claims is that all of them say they only acted once; all of them on Day 2. Bill's failure to act D1 is adequately explained. Both Boozahol and Gnarly offer the same explanation of their D1 failure – they thought it was a Night power. This is, to me, a somewhat more credible claim than Suburban Plankton's, because they went from getting i wrong to getting it right. It could be viewed as enormously convenient for the anti-peeker group that they've only produced one investigation each. However, if they were making stuff up, would two of them come up with exactly the same excuse for their failure to act Day 1? I think they'd have to be gritting their teeth to do that. On the other hand, Gnarly displayed a seeming lack of understanding of the sort of result Freemasons get in D03.062, where he questions SJ on the format of her claimed results PM. The only effective way we have of solving this conundrum Today is to cut the heart out. In this case that would be to lynch peekercpa. The benefits of doing that are that we get information on the veracity or otherwise of six living players at a stroke. The downside is the loss of Peeker, if he turns out to be Town. There is a risk to waiting until Tomorrow, and that is the possible death of the Coroner, if he outlives his usefulness to one of the killing factions. The loss of the immediate feedback on his results (assuming he is telling the truth, and recognising that his results could be interfered with) would mean that we fumble around for an extra Day. That argument can be applied to lynching a Witch claimant, though. I think it's worth noting in all this that guiri, although he has shaken hands with both peeker and Silver Jan, has votes placed on the theory that they have somehow fake-claimed (see D03.137). I urge people to consider cutting this Gordian knot. Vote peekercpa.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 31, 2012 3:10:50 GMT -5
I agree with guiri's plan.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 31, 2012 3:18:15 GMT -5
Some observations on the secret powers. Conspiracy games don't tend to repeat secret powers from game to game. Consider the powers we have seen in the previous games. Town - In C1, Town had lots of extra information, useful investigative powers for the Detective, bonus powers for the Witches etc.
- In C2 this became a Doc power held by the Scotsman.
- In C3 the Witchdoctors had the chance to resurrect a player who had died that they hadn't enchanted.
- In C4, the Vicar could bless a player, protecting them from Undead powers (except the secret power) and confirm his identity.
Werewolves. - In C1, the Wolves could infect a single player with lycanthropy.
- In C2, they could throw a party and block everything except other secret powers.
- In C3 the Alpha Wolf could eat the heart of a victim and gain their powers temporarily.
- In C4 the Alpha Wolf got a bonus kill the Night after any Werewolf was lynched.
Undead. - In C1 the Vampire could infect a player with vampirism, while the Necromancer both knew the above and could sacrifice a Zombie for protection against attacks for one Night.
- In C2 the Necromancer could recognise a dead Vampire, and zombifying a Vampire was automatically successful.
- In C3 each Vampire knew the name of one Necromancer.
- In C4 if the Necromancer was attacked or lynched, a Zombie was destroyed instead.
Cabal. - In C1 the Cabalists could block all investigations or all protections, or randomly reassign actions.
- In C2 the Cabal had a single unstoppable kill.
- In C3 each Cabalist could transparently redirect the actions of one player.
- In C4 each Cabalist could assume the powers of one role in the game.
The closest we come to actual repetition is the Necromancer's power in C4 which was similar to the C1 secret power – but much wider in scope, and automatic. There are common threads, though. In particular, the Cabalist secret powers are designed to throw a monkey wrench into the smooth operation of regular powers. However, I doubt that their power this game will involve a simple repetition of last game's Cabalist power of assuming another role.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Jan 31, 2012 3:22:02 GMT -5
That peeker is lying, with a one-day special power, is, AFAIK, the only realistic explanation for the Mason confusion. I'm not sure whether Lynching the lying "Mason" makes more sense than Lynching the lying "Witch", but the only way to even have a debate on that question toDay is for peeker to accumulate enough votes to be Lynchable.
Vote peekercpa
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 31, 2012 3:31:25 GMT -5
I think I've proposed five different causes for the handshake mess: - Peeker used a power similar to the cabal secret power on D1 - some power blocked handshake attempts with Peeker D2 (and Jan is lying) - Peeker and Jan are undead but use the mason handshake to be found (and then it stops working?) - Peeker was recruited N1 and can no longer handshake, Jan was recruited N2 - Bill, Boozy and Gnarly are lying
And a sixth: Peeker was a normal Freemason until he was found by 2 others, now he's a super mason who can no longer handshake. SilverJan was told he wasn't a Freemason but was then invited to the super club.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 31, 2012 4:32:41 GMT -5
circle handshake is okay. choose a random method like making an alphabetical list and each player handshakes with the player after him or her. reverse alphabetical would work as well.
hub will encourage an NK of guiri.
random would likely lead to duplicate targets. that may or may nor be a bad thing.
cross handshake is okay if we agree on who will assign the handshakes.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 31, 2012 4:39:29 GMT -5
I'm not concerned about being Night killed as I'll be able to share any results at Dusk. In fact a Night kill would (later) go a long way towards confirming some of the others.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 31, 2012 4:44:38 GMT -5
If there are no Witches, then the Cabal has already met one of its win conditions. Unless there is no Cabal either. But in that case we're not really playing Conspiracy any more, are we? There must be Witches in this game. In a similar vein, there must be Freemasons, and there must be a Vicar. Any of the other Town roles might be unnecessary, but these are required in order to create and maintain balance between the various factions. It is highly ambiguous as to the existence of Witches. It is likely they exist, but not guaranteed. I merely ask that people keep it in mind. It's guaranteed to me and two others.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 31, 2012 4:48:08 GMT -5
Really, I don't understand your strong suspicion of me at all, CatInaSuit. I think you're just trying to set up a future vote on me if I'm not Night killed first, which is something a scum team would love, I imagine.
So when Pollux is lynched and flips wolf...then what? You going to believe me then? Some thing tells me no.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2012 5:18:31 GMT -5
Really, I don't understand your strong suspicion of me at all, CatInaSuit. I think you're just trying to set up a future vote on me if I'm not Night killed first, which is something a scum team would love, I imagine. So when Pollux is lynched and flips wolf...then what? You going to believe me then? Some thing tells me no. Stupid Firefox ate my post My criteria for you being a Witch is to identify a Witch before death reveal. I am expecting Pollux Oil to be a Wolf as no-one has come forward to confirm his claim. However. as we already appear to have roles that can appear as other roles, it is no great stretch of the imagination to say you have done likewise. Note: We have eight claimed freemasons. Chances are two of them are false, but that still leaves six. Add to the Witches gives nine players who can be confirmed. Add a coroner and that will only leave a couple more roles, of which I know I am one. That leaves the majority of everyone else unclaimed as scum. That is getting towards gamebreaking.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2012 6:03:20 GMT -5
Couple of other things.
1. Following on from above.
Vote: Pollux Oil
2. I would suggest a circle mechanism. If only one person can mimic a freemason, that will show where the gaps are.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 31, 2012 6:33:38 GMT -5
I'm not concerned about being Night killed as I'll be able to share any results at Dusk. In fact a Night kill would (later) go a long way towards confirming some of the others. right. i'm okay with the hub then.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2012 7:06:09 GMT -5
I'm not concerned about being Night killed as I'll be able to share any results at Dusk. In fact a Night kill would (later) go a long way towards confirming some of the others. right. i'm okay with the hub then. Please don't use a hub method. It's what peeker was trying on Day 1. Everybody connects to him and confirms. If the central person can mimic a freemason, it very neatly hides them in plain sight. Please use a ring method instead.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 31, 2012 7:08:15 GMT -5
right. i'm okay with the hub then. Please don't use a hub method. It's what peeker was trying on Day 1. Everybody connects to him and confirms. If the central person can mimic a freemason, it very neatly hides them in plain sight. Please use a ring method instead. well we have to get all parties to agree otherwise it will have to be random.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 31, 2012 7:17:08 GMT -5
Some type of transparent redirect might also be in play to explain the mason results. Though I'm not sure how.
Should be interesting as the results come in toNight
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2012 8:21:49 GMT -5
Here is a ring option.
Seeing as BillMC is not around.
Boozahol squid handshakes peekercpa peekercpa handshakes suburban plankton Suburban Plankton handshakes Silver Jan Silver Jan handshakes gnarlycharlie gnarlycharlie handshakes guiri guiri handshakes boozahol squid
I wanted to try and get two new people to handshake Silver Jan and guiri and to have one each of the mason/non-mason group handshaking peekercpa.
If BillMc does turn up, he will have to randomly pick someone, but I'm not counting on it.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 31, 2012 10:02:20 GMT -5
I have no objections to that cycle. I hope Boozy, Suburban, Bill, Gnarly, Silver and Peeker manage to express some sort of acceptance of the plan before Dusk or we risk wasting a cycle and having lots of people forgetting it's a Day power again.
If the cycle works, everyone should have two results: one explicit from Pleo and the second either explicit from Pleo or implicit from lack of result. Please share results as Dusk. Are we allowed to discuss claims and results of actions at Night or are we limited to claiming and sharing results?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2012 10:10:51 GMT -5
From the rules: There shall be no game discussion at Night, except that players may make claims about their role, powers, or results.So, everyone can reveal their results, but general discussion of them is not allowed. Of course, claim is a pretty fuzzy word and it doesn't stop those with results making claims about them, no matter how wild or ridiculous they are.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 31, 2012 10:15:04 GMT -5
I am categorically opposed to Town Powers being directed by anyone other than confirmed Town. It's my feeling that people need to be held accountable for their own actions, and "because that was 'The Plan'" avoids accountability altogether.
That being said, if all of the other Mason claimants (with the exception of Bill, who I expect to remain absent) agree to a particular plan, I will follow suit.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 31, 2012 10:50:23 GMT -5
Again, I have a meeting right before lunch (who schedules these things, anyway?), so Dusk may be delayed. Hang tight.
Remember, only things posted strictly before 12:00 noon PT (by this message board's clock) will count for Day Three. And as a general rule, you can always change how you use your power as long as you PM before that time.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 31, 2012 14:30:20 GMT -5
I am categorically opposed to Town Powers being directed by anyone other than confirmed Town. It's my feeling that people need to be held accountable for their own actions, and "because that was 'The Plan'" avoids accountability altogether. That being said, if all of the other Mason claimants (with the exception of Bill, who I expect to remain absent) agree to a particular plan, I will follow suit. I understand your concern although there's a strong argument for coordinating the handshakes toDay. It's a pity we've spent 5 Days discussing this and yet here we are, 30 minutes left in the Day, and most of the involved parties don't appear to be around to agree.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 31, 2012 15:17:31 GMT -5
I have my vote in and it's bleep late, I don't want to wait till tomorrow but it it looks like I will have to
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 31, 2012 15:23:29 GMT -5
I'm fine with the circle handshake outlined above, but I'm not going to reshake peeker. Already did, and he's scum. I'm currently set to shake Jan, but I'll switch up for another ring-based method. The hub-based method outlined by guiri just seems dangerous and liable to misdirection.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 31, 2012 15:30:44 GMT -5
Sorry, guys, it's too late and I need sleep. I thought I could have helped you out of this conundrum, without making another bugger up!
|
|