|
Post by swammerdami on Jan 12, 2014 3:24:48 GMT -5
OOG I live in Thailand which is in political crisis. Tomorrow may be critical: Army vehicles, "yellow-shirt" protesters, "red-shirt" terrorists, and students opposed to all factions may be converging on the Capital. (I'm rooting for military coup myself.) People are preparing for shortages. (A specific recommendation is that mental patients have a full complement of their meds. ) My family isn't self-sufficient but sometimes our dogs help out as bread-winners by bringing home the neighbors' chickens! Anyway, I do expect Internet outages. Cutting off the whole country for censorship might not be impossible. /OOG So I'll reread and try to get some votes down before the crisis hits.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 12, 2014 4:29:15 GMT -5
Keep safe Swammer!
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jan 12, 2014 4:56:25 GMT -5
But wouldn't PFK's win independently from Town or Scum or anyone else? Some individual conditions seem to be on top of a Town (or presumably Scum) win. I don't profess to know the mechanics of the game, however it would seem that Town and Scum still need to help their own teams - individuals just may need something else to happen for them to win with their team - but despite achieving their individual condition, if their team loses, they still lose. I hope that makes sense. Vote: ChameleonI think only the Devils know what you are on about WTF? I'm just saying what BillMc has also now said, only he put it better than I did. Are you going to vote for him too?
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jan 12, 2014 5:03:12 GMT -5
And before anyone freaks out on me, yes, I am aware that we can only have one vote - I was just making a point.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 12, 2014 11:09:06 GMT -5
Vote: ChameleonI think only the Devils know what you are on about Chameleon appeared to be commenting on Colby's PFK post. Why did you find his post vote-worthy but Colby's not even worth a mention?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 12, 2014 12:38:38 GMT -5
Vote: ChameleonI think only the Devils know what you are on about Chameleon appeared to be commenting on Colby's PFK post. Why did you find his post vote-worthy but Colby's not even worth a mention? I don't know, it was how I felt at the time.
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Jan 12, 2014 13:36:02 GMT -5
Since RoOsh has yet to check in via PM or the thread, he is being subbed out as of today for Captain Klutz. A big thanks to him and our other replacement volunteers. And to Swammerdami, stay safe and be well! Don't worry about it if real life gets in the way of a silly internet game.
Votes: guiri [1]: guiri (-37), Meeko (46), gnarlycharlie (48) Chameleon: [1]: Silver Jan (57) Colby11 [1]: BillMc (58) gnarlycharlie [0]: guiri (17), gnarlycharlie (-48)
Investigations: BillMc [5]: texcat (5), Sister Coyote (12), Mahaloth (20), Paranoia (33), Meeko (45) Meeko [3]: storyteller0910 (14), guiri (17), dizzymrslizzy (26), Meeko (-45), gnarlycharlie (48) texcat [2]: BillMc (10), Swammerdami (23) Pleonast [1]: Meeko (11), Chameleon (24)
With these votes, no player will be lynched and BillMc will be investigated. 57 hours remain in Day 1
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 12, 2014 13:57:21 GMT -5
Hmm, this seems to imply that you know something the rest of us don't. Indeed it implies that your pm is pfk No one said we were pfk - I am town and win with town, but need to accomplish something else as well. That does not make me pfk as I cannot win if town doesn't. vote: colby I am town but like yourself I have a second condition which I must meet in order to win. If that were the case, why would you conclude it is all pfk's? A pfk wins at the expense of other parties - my pm clearly states I win with town because I am town. There is no way I would conclude I am pfk reading my pm.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 12, 2014 20:14:21 GMT -5
Hi, I'm subbing in for Roosh.
I have been following along a bit, but now I'll go back and read a bit more closely.
I am Town, but with the extra condition that someone else needs to die for me to win. More thoughts on this a bit later.
There are several people I would be happy to investigate:
Meeko, because I can't understand him Mahaloth, because I keep reading him as scum BillMc and storyteller, because they're dangerous as scum
For now, Investigate Meeko
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Jan 13, 2014 1:25:12 GMT -5
Hi, I'm subbing in for Roosh. I have been following along a bit, but now I'll go back and read a bit more closely. I am Town, but with the extra condition that someone else needs to die for me to win. More thoughts on this a bit later. There are several people I would be happy to investigate: Meeko, because I can't understand him Mahaloth, because I keep reading him as scum BillMc and storyteller, because they're dangerous as scum For now, Investigate MeekoSomething tells me you have loved to have played with me when I was worse off in general at mafia. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 13, 2014 1:58:12 GMT -5
Meanwhile, it suggests something unusually difficult about this game. Normally, I try to look for players who are trying to force artificial outcomes - especially when those artificial outcomes hurt the Town or benefit the Scum. But if the game is full of players with win conditions like mine, we will need to think differently, since there will be many Town players trying to make things happen that may or may not help Town. While it's easy to say that we should just lynch everyone who is working toward anti-Town outcomes, if most or even all of the Town have supplements to their win conditions that may require anti-Town outcomes, we will lose by lynching them all. Thoughts? So far, 8 players have announced a caveat, with 2 of them specifying that it involves the death of another player. I'm suspecting that that's what we all have. My role states that the player may be town, scum, or otherwise aligned. However, it can't really be scum (or PFK) as winning requires that all threats to the town are eliminated. So it is either town or 3rd party. So either we are gunning for each other (nasty!) or we are all going after a small number of 3rd party players. This could be determined by all of us stating who we need dead, but I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea at this stage. I'm also not entirely convinced it's a bad idea. We can at least determine whether we have unique targets: I just reveal who I need dead. If anyone else is after the same player then it is likely that there are only a small number of targets. Or if nobody is after that player then we likely have unique targets. I'll also mention that the player I need dead has a name that suggests he would be useful to town, but also useful as a 3rd party survivor type.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 13, 2014 2:10:12 GMT -5
Well since no one else is chatting, what do you think about the antivote? It's certainly an interesting idea. Note that it allows you to swing a vote margin by 2 votes - in a close lynch, the antivotes are going to attract a lot more attention than ordinary votes. There is one minor change I would like to make. Currently you are allowed to antivote yourself. This means that everyone in lynch contention will antivote themselves, so it basically all just cancels out. Except for those players who are not around at Day's end. I would like to suggest to the mod that players not be allowed to antivote themselves. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jan 13, 2014 4:44:31 GMT -5
We can at least determine whether we have unique targets: I just reveal who I need dead.... I'll also mention that the player I need dead has a name that suggests he would be useful to town, but also useful as a 3rd party survivor type. There are so many of us conditional Townies that Scum may start claiming to be conditional Townies also. It would be nice if there were some way for the true conditional Townies to handshake, but it may be difficult. I think Captain Klutz's role message is very different from mine. We conditional Townies could just play for Town victory, and not really care whether the extra death happens or not. Is that "anti-Game"?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 13, 2014 5:17:16 GMT -5
We can at least determine whether we have unique targets: I just reveal who I need dead.... I'll also mention that the player I need dead has a name that suggests he would be useful to town, but also useful as a 3rd party survivor type. There are so many of us conditional Townies that Scum may start claiming to be conditional Townies also. It would be nice if there were some way for the true conditional Townies to handshake, but it may be difficult. I think Captain Klutz's role message is very different from mine. We conditional Townies could just play for Town victory, and not really care whether the extra death happens or not. Is that "anti-Game"? It's not a handshake, it's just trying to determine if there are multiple targets or only a few targets (assuming that we are all indeed gunning for somebody). There is this little snippet from the rules: Trust no-one! Just because someone's on your side doesn't mean their interests always line up with yours. Or maybe they never really were on your side at all. Take the regular paranoia of a mafia game and add another tablespoon or so. It's a game about spies and lies and sabotage; all is not always as it seems. So it may well be that one or more scum also have a similar condition. I will just be playing for a town victory. I can't really control if the specific death I need happens or not.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jan 13, 2014 8:45:00 GMT -5
I am town but like yourself I have a second condition which I must meet in order to win. If that were the case, why would you conclude it is all pfk's? A pfk wins at the expense of other parties - my pm clearly states I win with town because I am town. There is no way I would conclude I am pfk reading my pm. I said that it seems that way since we all have to have town win, but also a certain player dies to win makes us all seem like we are all pfk's because we have a certain person to take out. Though pfk is the wrong word since they usually don't win with town I think this benefits a long game, the more people die, the more people win. That also could open the door for scum though, so this game seems very shaky.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 13, 2014 10:46:58 GMT -5
Before I forget to do it
Investigate BillMc
I am quite pleased that I am not the only one that needs another player dead.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 13, 2014 10:50:27 GMT -5
It would be quite nice if there was a way to see if we need the same players dead because with 8 people claiming and if they are all different that would be quite nasty.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 13, 2014 11:15:19 GMT -5
It would be quite nice if there was a way to see if we need the same players dead because with 8 people claiming and if they are all different that would be quite nasty. I agree in the abstract, but think that in practice it could be very bad. Swammer, please be safe.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 13, 2014 12:06:35 GMT -5
Five Players have stepped forth claiming to be Town but with an extra win condition.Any Townies willing to volunteer that they have no extra win condition? Yes, I'm willing to make that claim. There is nothing in my PM that mentions any condition other than "when all threats to the town are eliminated." We can at least determine whether we have unique targets: I just reveal who I need dead.... I'll also mention that the player I need dead has a name that suggests he would be useful to town, but also useful as a 3rd party survivor type. There are so many of us conditional Townies that Scum may start claiming to be conditional Townies also. It would be nice if there were some way for the true conditional Townies to handshake, but it may be difficult. I think Captain Klutz's role message is very different from mine. We conditional Townies could just play for Town victory, and not really care whether the extra death happens or not. Is that "anti-Game"? For some of us, the only option is to "play for Town victory". For the rest of you, I'd suggest that you do the same. From what I'm seeing, every town player's win condition requires town to win, whether or not they also have additional restrictions. So we must all play for a Town win first, I think. I will note that this is going to make vote analysis rather more difficult, as we're going to have people claiming, "yes, I did vote to lynch a Townie...but that's because my personal win-condition requires him to be dead!". I'm not sure at this point how we should treat those situations.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 13, 2014 12:08:42 GMT -5
When is End of Day? Post 1 in this thread says "8:00 Pacific time on Tuesday, January 14th"
Is that 8 AM or 8 PM?
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Jan 13, 2014 12:40:50 GMT -5
PM; I realized I didn't specify, which is why I've been including "hours remaining" in the votals. I've also considered whether or not to allow players to antivote themselves, since it's potentially got the ability to make an eleventh-hour lynch swing, but in all honesty so can an ordinary vote or a vote switch. I went back and forth on whether to allow it, and I'm just not sure what the ramifications will be. Since it's an experimental system, I figured it'd be best to see how it works out before changing the rules. If it does turn out to be too powerful, it'll definitely be changed in later games that include antivotes.
Votes: guiri [1]: guiri (-37), Meeko (46), gnarlycharlie (48) Chameleon: [1]: Silver Jan (57) Colby11 [1]: BillMc (58) gnarlycharlie [0]: guiri (17), gnarlycharlie (-48)
Investigations: BillMc [6]: texcat (5), Sister Coyote (12), Mahaloth (20), Paranoia (33), Meeko (45), Silver Jan Meeko [4]: storyteller0910 (14), guiri (17), dizzymrslizzy (26), Meeko (-45), gnarlycharlie (48), Captain Klutz (68) texcat [2]: BillMc (10), Swammerdami (23) Pleonast [1]: Meeko (11), Chameleon (24)
With these votes, no player will be lynched and BillMc will be investigated. Day 1 ends in 34 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 13, 2014 14:21:42 GMT -5
For some of us, the only option is to "play for Town victory". For the rest of you, I'd suggest that you do the same. From what I'm seeing, every town player's win condition requires town to win, whether or not they also have additional restrictions. So we must all play for a Town win first, I think. I concur with this, as one of those where a Town victory could be Pyrrhic depending on how the deaths go. But I'd rather Town win and I lose than Town overall lose. On that note: vote: SwammerdamiDespite everything that's going on IRL. Something about trying to handshake under these conditions bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 13, 2014 14:41:18 GMT -5
Yes, I'm willing to make that claim. There is nothing in my PM that mentions any condition other than "when all threats to the town are eliminated." Heh, and here was me thinking I was the only one, wondering what the hell was going on. While I suspect some sort of sharing would offer a level of clarity on the situation, I appreciate that the (informed?) majority seem opposed so maybe it's best to move on with the game, aware that even the good guys may not be always focused on what's right.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 13, 2014 15:19:04 GMT -5
Vote guiriFor this vote that I at first took to be a joke, but which still stands: And Vote GnarlyCharlie for "reporting in": lowercase "r" indicates heavy editing, reporting sounds like imposed duty... and for this exchange: Well since no one else is chatting, what do you think about the antivote? I like it, scum will be scared to use it but an investigative type of role might like it, just another twist in an otherwise twisted game. I am surprised no one has brought it up before. Thanks for reminding me, almost forgot! Antivote me
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 13, 2014 15:25:16 GMT -5
Vote guiri For this vote that I at first took to be a joke, but which still stands: And Vote GnarlyCharlie for "reporting in": lowercase "r" indicates heavy editing, reporting sounds like imposed duty... You went to the effort of reading my posts but missed out on this one, where I explain that it was a joke vote bit also why I was keeping it: this has to be a joke vote, right? no? hmmm... How did you decide? My vote was a typical baseless, early Day1 vote, intended to poke, engage, and possibly draw some reactions. I don't consider typing in lower case a scum tell, and I don't have any issue with following along with game color. I do think your response is over the top and indicative of a guilty party so I'm sticking with the vote for now. and for this exchange: Well since no one else is chatting, what do you think about the antivote? I like it, scum will be scared to use it but an investigative type of role might like it, just another twist in an otherwise twisted game. I am surprised no one has brought it up before. Thanks for reminding me, almost forgot! Antivote meWhat is it about the exchange that bothers you? She was surprised no-one brought up the Antivote so I did!
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 13, 2014 15:35:31 GMT -5
You went to the effort of reading my posts but missed out on this one, where I explain that it was a joke vote bit also why I was keeping it: How did you decide? My vote was a typical baseless, early Day1 vote, intended to poke, engage, and possibly draw some reactions. I don't consider typing in lower case a scum tell, and I don't have any issue with following along with game color. I do think your response is over the top and indicative of a guilty party so I'm sticking with the vote for now. Actually, I did miss that clarifying post. Though I disagree with you that gnarly's reaction was "over the top". It was the combination of "scum will be scared to use it" and "Thanks for reminding me". Almost as if to say "Hey! Look at me! Not Scum here...not afraid! Nosireebob!" Not the most airtight case, I'll grant. But I haven't come across anything better so far...
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 13, 2014 15:39:31 GMT -5
Fair enough. I'll let you know if I see something better.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 13, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5
Need to catch up - my weekend participation will almost always be mediocre.
Captain Klutz, based on what you say it is unlikely that you and I have the same target; mine does not have a name that is particularly suggestive of anything at all.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Jan 13, 2014 22:11:15 GMT -5
Does anyone else think that, on a pure numbers level, assuming a normal town to scum ratio, that investigations are going to be more town investigating and revealing town, than town investigating, revealing scum?
What do scum get from town revealing town?
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jan 14, 2014 0:33:28 GMT -5
Does anyone else think that, on a pure numbers level, assuming a normal town to scum ratio, that investigations are going to be more town investigating and revealing town, than town investigating, revealing scum? What do scum get from town revealing town? I think it depends on what information is actually revealed, to be honest. Going to check the rules to see what they may say... From the rules: "In addition to the lynch, this game will feature a concurrent, secondary vote. Each player may investigate: a player, and at the end of the day, at the same time as the lynch, the group will collectively gather some information about the player with the most investigation votes. The particular piece of information learned will be selected at random, and every role has a few things that can be learned about it. Mechanics otherwise work identically to the mechanics for the lynch, including the ability to anti-investigate if you so choose as well as ties leading to no investigation." Maybe something to do with the color that the Mod gave us? Just guessing here
|
|