|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 1:35:49 GMT -5
New data has been added to the "Town PM" thread -----------------------------------------------------------
Day comes and two bodies are found:
Pedescribe, AKA KAMEK, a Town Roleblocker, is dead. FLOD, AKA BOWSER, A Town Politcian, is dead. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
MALLOW HAS CHANGED THE WEATHER!
MALLOW HAS CREATED A SANDSTORM!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But suddenly, the ground splits and everyone falls into a deep ocean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are now all underwater. Things are different here. Air is replaced by...well, water. Gravity is suspended. What is right is now left. Everything is opposite.
Therefore, for toDay, votes will not count..only UNvotes will.
First, the changed rules:
1. Only unvotes count on a person. 2. A VOTE (by anybody) will cancel out any unvote (made by anybody) already on a person 3. Players may vote/unvote on as many different other players as they want.
Now, the rules that remain the same:
1. You must first vote for someone before you can unvote them. 2. You must first unvote someone before you can vote for someone else.
If this all sounds very confusing and hard to work out, that's because it is. Welcome to the underwater. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now Day Five
2. KidV 3. Total Lost 4. MiteyMouse 5. Zeriel 6. Kat 10. Chucara 13. sinjin 14. Hoopy Frood 15. Almost Human 16. Mr Special Ed 18. misterblockey 21. Cookies 23. Nanook 24. Santo Rugger
It will take EIGHT unvotes on someone to end Day...or whoever has the most unvotes by the natural end of Day (which will be NEXT TUESDAY at FIVE PM MST)
Happy Swimming.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 1:42:26 GMT -5
2 dead.
So, we have a 'more than potential' vig?
and only unvotes count?
so if I vote idle
then unvote idle
that counts as 1 toward lynching him?
so, theoretically, I could vote for everyone by voting and unvoting them....so, I do think we need to be careful about it. and, perhaps someone can vote and unvote 8 times to kill someone all by themselves?
and, additionally, someone can cancel that vote by voting for him?
and, perhaps the win condition has come full circle now, are we up for lynching mitey?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 1:44:12 GMT -5
That's correct, Special Ed.
However your "vote and unvote eight times" is flawed since number 2 clearly states: A VOTE CANCELS OUT AN UNVOTE.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 1:46:57 GMT -5
That's correct, Special Ed. However your "vote and unvote eight times" is flawed since number 2 clearly states: A VOTE CANCELS OUT AN UNVOTE. but, if a removed vote still counts as a vote, then doesn't my first vote cancel out my unvote? effectively meaning that no votes will count at all?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 1:48:56 GMT -5
That's correct, Special Ed. However your "vote and unvote eight times" is flawed since number 2 clearly states: A VOTE CANCELS OUT AN UNVOTE. but, if a removed vote still counts as a vote, then doesn't my first vote cancel out my unvote? effectively meaning that no votes will count at all?No, because one cannot have "negative unvotes". I mentioned this in the first copy of this thread (but unfortunately IE chose that moment to "stop working" and closed on me. Under many curses, I rewrote most of it again).
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 1:57:54 GMT -5
but, if a removed vote still counts as a vote, then doesn't my first vote cancel out my unvote? effectively meaning that no votes will count at all? No, because one cannot have "negative unvotes". I mentioned this in the first copy of this thread (but unfortunately IE chose that moment to "stop working" and closed on me. Under many curses, I rewrote most of it again). I understand the many curses. I'm experiencing them right now. You're a fiend, IdleSo, as it stands, I can put a vote/unvote on many people, and then place a last firm vote on myself or some other person I felt was not scum as a sort of anti-vote OK, enough of that. It's time to think about why we had 2 deaths and why those 2. I can see either the Scum or a Vig taking out pedescribe, but why FLOD? Anyone have any ideas so I don't have to go re-read, especially that Mushroom Kingdom Day 4...;-D
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 2:12:19 GMT -5
No, because one cannot have "negative unvotes". I mentioned this in the first copy of this thread (but unfortunately IE chose that moment to "stop working" and closed on me. Under many curses, I rewrote most of it again). I understand the many curses. I'm experiencing them right now. You're a fiend, IdleSo, as it stands, I can put a vote/unvote on many people, and then place a last firm vote on myself or some other person I felt was not scum as a sort of anti-vote OK, enough of that. It's time to think about why we had 2 deaths and why those 2. I can see either the Scum or a Vig taking out pedescribe, but why FLOD? Anyone have any ideas so I don't have to go re-read, especially that Mushroom Kingdom Day 4...;-D There are no anti-votes. If someone doesn't have an Unvote against them yet, a (first) vote will do nothing. Only after there are unvotes on them, will votes start counting.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 2:32:06 GMT -5
Double suck And I can already feel my brain melting and we haven't even started voting/unvoting yet...
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 31, 2008 4:17:44 GMT -5
No, because one cannot have "negative unvotes". I mentioned this in the first copy of this thread (but unfortunately IE chose that moment to "stop working" and closed on me. Under many curses, I rewrote most of it again). I understand the many curses. I'm experiencing them right now. You're a fiend, IdleSo, as it stands, I can put a vote/unvote on many people, and then place a last firm vote on myself or some other person I felt was not scum as a sort of anti-vote OK, enough of that. It's time to think about why we had 2 deaths and why those 2. I can see either the Scum or a Vig taking out pedescribe, but why FLOD? Anyone have any ideas so I don't have to go re-read, especially that Mushroom Kingdom Day 4...;-D Maybe scum got 2 Nightkills to balance the 2 lynched on 1 day?
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 31, 2008 4:57:11 GMT -5
Vote ZerielAnd this is why: Day 1 - The Debacle Day: Additionally, I'm not very comfortable with lynching either DBI or MMouse until we have further information--as said, to metagame a bit, we know MMouse is active elsewhere. We know DBI is reading and not saying much. We know that in recent games there have been powers that can cause people to be prohibited from speaking or have their posts restricted in various ways as well as day powers. I do not at this time see the value in lynching players based on lower-than-normal participation in what's been a very long day over a holiday. vote bufftabby This seems to be very reasonable. A lot of players found the case against Buff to be solide. A little later (after Buff has hinted a claim might be on its way) If you roleclaim ANYTHING other than vanilla, I will almost certainly unvote you. So far so good... But now that we know what DBI was this next post is a big ping to me: Why is Zeriel so keen on keeping Buff in the lead - why is he so keen on NOT lynching DBI? Seems to me like the only reason he gives for NOT wanting to lynch DBI is in this earlier post from Day 1 where all he says is So it's better to lynch a claimed role just to let scum know that a scummy-like player claiming isn't a safe place to hide? I can see why Zeriel would vote for the person looking most scummy (to him that was Buff) even if she claimed. What I fail to understand is why did he then say to Buff that he would unvote if she claimed? And why do he insist on voting for Buff if anyone votes DBI? To me it looks like Zeriel would like a Buff-lynch but would prefer not to be one of the people to vote for her. And it seems to me that he does NOT want a DBIlynch at all. And at the end of the Day Zeriel puts his vote back on BuffSecond last post from Zeriel on Day on: Zeriel gives a good reason for not voting Mmouse and seems to have forgotten that it was the last votecount of the Day looked like this: So if a last minute vote-change should result in anyone other then Buff being lynched - would DBI not have been a much better choice to consider? Now I have voted for Zeriel and I honestly don't understand this under-water-un-voting-system... do my vote not count at this point???
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 5:34:46 GMT -5
If you think of each vote/unvote pair as cocking a gun (vote) and pulling the trigger (unvote), the tricky part comes in as soon as more than one person wants to pull the trigger on any one individual.
One way we might get around this is for each of us (or at least 8 of us) to point our guns (via a blue vote) at all 13 of the other players, but NO ONE unvotes until we're ready to proceed.
Having more than one vote on someone wouldn't be a problem as long as everyone keeps to their end of the deal to not unvote until we're ready. As long as every player has been voted for 8 times (with no unvotes) we would functionally be in a state that is as close to normal voting mechanics as possible.
Now, when we somehow arrive at the utopian consensus that it is time to pull some triggers, we can all safely unvote for the person that we want to see lynched, and things should progress as normal.
The details that can't be overlooked:
At least 8 votes must be in place for each living player (if choosing which 8 people get to make these votes is going to be a political issue, we can either all vote for everyone else, or just whoever feels like it, but there would have to be at least 8 volunteers to cock all of the guns.
Now changing a vote is going to result in the loss of a loaded gun (you've already cocked and fired) so you will have to replace the initial cocking vote on the person you pulled the trigger on, and then move on to your new target. We'll all have to take individual responsibility for re-cocking the gun in the case of a vote change.
Once we are in the state where at least 8 blue votes have been placed on all living players, the Scum will not be able to game the system any more than they can during normal voting conditions.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 5:40:57 GMT -5
NETA we wouldn't need 8 volunteers, we'd just need enough volunteers to ensure that 8 votes are down for each player. Heck, even one person could cock all of the guns if we are able to vote for ourselves.
Will votes for ourselves count?[/color]
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Dec 31, 2008 7:55:18 GMT -5
Two more townies down.. I think we're getting a little too close to lylo. I doubt scum got two night kills - given that we obviously don't have a "real" vig, I'm thinking that someone has triggered their powers an used them on pedescribe. I really couldn't see why scum would kill pedescribe as he appeared to be next on the block anyway.
I don't really understand the voting rules, perhaps someone can explain the following situation:
Person A votes C -- C has unvote count of 0 ? Person A unvotes C -- C has 1 unvote ? Person B votes C -- C has 0 unvotes Person B unvotes C -- C has 2 unvotes? Or just 1 ?
Am I counting correctly above? What about the last line?
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Dec 31, 2008 8:28:01 GMT -5
Ah, crap...I was enjoying this game. Oh well. GO TOWN!
Also, spoiler me?
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Dec 31, 2008 9:23:40 GMT -5
Double My brain is not working yet but I sense a debacle day toDay with this new voting method. BTW how does a politician role work. I went to the mafiascum wiki and found this: "The Politician can buy one player's vote each night." I just don't understand how it works. Did FCoD get two votes and someone else none? "2. A VOTE (by anybody) will cancel out any unvote (made by anybody) already on a person" Does this mean that a vote on someone with unvotes cancels all the unvotes or just one?
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Dec 31, 2008 9:34:59 GMT -5
The way that the politician worked in T2 was each Night they'd choose a target to buy. The next Day, the politician could PM the mod orders for the bought player. The bought player would have to vote for whomever they were ordered to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 9:36:56 GMT -5
Maybe scum got 2 Nightkills to balance the 2 lynched on 1 day? Uhhhh....two scum nightkills does not balance 2 lynches. In the least. Scum know who the scum are, town does not know who the other townies are. Barring blocks/protects/redirects/etc., the scum night kill, a pro-scum mechanic, will hit someone anti-scum. On the other hand, the town lynch, a pro-town mechanic, will frequently take out someone pro-town. Extra kills are a powerful thing for scum. One extra lynch for town is not a whole lot different from a one-shot vig. So, it's possible scum took out ped, but I doubt it. He had too much suspicion on him and his power wasn't very dangerous to scum since it couldn't even stop the night kill. Honestly, it was probably more of a liability for town than an asset. I'm guessing a vig of some sort took him out. And it wasn't a bad play for a vig. The guy was under plenty of suspicion already. He was a likely lynch candidate for toDay if yesterDay's minus world is anything to go by. (And, IIRC, he was taking heat from some on the other side before yesterDay as well.) So if there is a vig out there, he/she played well, IMO. (And no, before anyone gets any ideas, I'm not breadcrumbing vig here or anything. I'm not a vig. I just think that pedescribe was a perfectly reasonable choice for a vig to take out.) As to why scum might have taken out FCOD. Have we forgotten that he slipped that he was a power role way back in Day 1? Scum have been killing predictable targets. MHaye made a post night 1 that could be read to imply he had a magic bag. He didn't get his post in (which had little more than analysis, nothing special) until the end of the night. Scum probably wanted to take him out to prevent him opening up his magic bag. They then proceed to take out two of the strongest players in the game. And last night, they took out an exposed power role. All perfectly logical plays. In fact, every kill can be justified by meta-game reasons alone. Now, some people maintain that speculating on the why of a scum kill is a bad thing, but I disagree. It can provide some insight into the scum powers out there, but naturally, barring any confirmation, such speculation should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think scum have an investigator or any information finding role since they are playing this safe. And I've been fairly unimpressed so far with the power roles that we've seen come out on the town side. I think we're playing a fairly low powered game on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 9:58:37 GMT -5
Now as far as the vote/unvote thing:
In order to unvote someone, you need to vote them first. Any vote cancels any previous unvotes. So once an unvote has been placed on someone, any one who hasn't previously voted that person cannot unvote them and have it affect anyting. Because their vote will cancel the previous voter's unvote, and then their unvote will make the total "unvote" count remain the same.
This agrees with DarkCookies analysis.
However, she's wrong on one thing. We cannot have people voting on all 13 candidates to cock a gun, because you cannot vote someone else until you unvote a previous vote. This is a very precarious situation for town. Because as soon as you vote someone, you've essentially pledged your "unvote" or a non-vote to that person. If they make a claim and you unvote them to try to nail someone else, someone else will need to vote them to prevent their count from increasing. In which case that player is now tied to the claimee, as well as it is likely that they have unvoted someone else, which raises that unvotee's count.
The only thing you can do once you've "voted/unvoted" someone who then makes a claim and you choose to give them the benefit of the doubt is to revote them in order to lower their count towards lynch. You will not be able to nail someone else without hurting the person you voted for originally.
So for love of Town, don't randomly vote for anyone, okay? This whole mechanic is prime for abuse by scum and screws-up by Town. The last thing we need is a train on a strong power role who then we all have to "vote" so they don't get lynched, only to have a one-off scum vote hang someone else.
|
|
|
Post by MiteyMouse on Dec 31, 2008 10:04:37 GMT -5
and, perhaps the win condition has come full circle now, are we up for lynching mitey? Let's not be rash with killing me here ED! I'm so confused!
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Dec 31, 2008 10:05:42 GMT -5
If there was ever a situation for false voting, I think that this is it. I think that none of us should place real votes or unvotes until we've all decided on a candidate and gotten the claims out of the way.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 10:07:40 GMT -5
You know what? Screw it. I don't want to see any townie get fucked by this mechanic. Particularly one who I know has come under heat, which is why I investigated her in the first place and there have been rumblings since that imply people are still gunning for her. Yes, I am an alignment investigator. I will withhold my name for now, unless someone can give me a real compelling reason to give it. I will say that I am a traditional bad guy character in the Mario universe, though.
There are 14 players left. 3 of us I know are town. They are Me, MiteyMouse, and Kat. I will explain more in my next post, but I figure I need to get this info out there before someone X-posts with me and starts us down a bad path.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 10:49:11 GMT -5
Now my rationale for my investigations.
First, as has been mentioned by many, an alignment investigator's job is not to out scum, but to confirm town. So that's what I tried to do (with mixed success). I decided that my targets would be the fairly active players who were unlikely to be night-killed and had come under at least some suspicion previously.
Night 1: In Day 1, I investigated Special Ed. Why? Because he was tangentially involved in what became the debacle debacle. We now know that the major players (story and NAF) were both town. However, at the time we didn't. Unfortuantely, my results were "inconclusive". (Yes, that was the word I was given.)
Now they say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. So there was no way I was going to try him again.
Night 2: I investigated MiteyMouse. I had originally thought her non-town based on her confusion of her role. It's why I had my vote on her. But looking back, I got a real "frustrated and confused" townie vibe. So I figured I'd investigate her. I was even ready to come out and claim the next Day if I had to because preventing a lynch of a confirmed town is more important than keeping a town power role from being night killed. She came up town, and didn't come under much pressure Day 3, so I didn't have to claim.
Night 3: I investigated Chucara. Mainly because he was taking heat from Rugger (not that this says anything about Rugger, I just went for someone who was coming under suspicion), and he didn't seem to be a likely night kill target. Once again, the results were "inconclusive".
At this point, with two fails and only one success, I entertained the idea that I had some sort of insanity. This is the PM I sent to Idle:
I really didn't expect a response, but I got one. I'm not insane or hobbled in any other way. I then proceeded to bitch to Idle about townie blocker's and responded that if a townie is blocking me I'm going to kick that person's ass when I find them. Especially after my rant in-game about overeager blockers. (Which honestly didn't arise because I was blocked night one. It's how I feel about them.) Note also that I'm not accusing pedescribe of anything. I don't know what was blocking me. It's possible the godfather had an additional power that prevented investigation of scum until she was dead. I'm just getting this out there because someone knows why my power wasn't working, and if you're town, could you kindly knock it off. (And if you were blocking me ped, I'm virtually smacking you with a NAF-fish from Arkham right now.)
But regardless, Ed and Chucara are definitely going to be under a bit of suspicion from me since I couldn't get a read on them. That's the way it goes.
Night 4: There is one other nice side-purpose to being an investigator. You can help root out WIFOM by scum. Yes, DBI's thing was likely WIFOM, but what if it wasn't? I mean, someone of DBI's experience pulling the bullshit she did? It's kind of hard to believe. She broke an unwritten rule of Mafia. So I used my power to figure out what her game was. I'll just copy my PM to Idle on this one. Oh, and sorry ped, for not trusting your towniness, but in retrospect since you got killed, I chose the right one:
Kat came up town this morning.
So there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 10:57:09 GMT -5
One more thing to add. Another reason why I was frustrated after Chucara's inconclusive read was that an investigator who only confirmed one townie while the godfather is still alive has essentially done nothing concrete. Because no townie is truly confirmed until the townie-detecting godfather dies. Fortunately, we've fixed that little problem.
And speaking of confirmations, now might be a good time for the rest of the masons to reveal. After all, we have a real kooky day, and if town believes me, we now have over 20% of the players confirmed (3 out of 14) town. If we can add masons to that, the percentage will go up considerably. Also, with this screwed up mechanic, the last thing we want to do is start voting masons and have them claim under pressure, because that will mean anyone who voted a mason is now locked out of voting for someone else based on the rationale I gave a few posts up. Also, assuming that Kat isn't one of you (since it's highly unlikely Mitey is), it will prevent the chance of me investigating you on subsequent nights.
However, it's ultimately your guys' call. I do not know anything about who you are and what powers you have, so you have to weigh the argument above against why it would be good to stay hidden. (And I really hope Kat isn't a mason.)
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 31, 2008 11:53:47 GMT -5
And can I have spoilers?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 12:41:56 GMT -5
Well so much for that idea. I knew I shouldn't have been trying to parse these voting rules at 2:30am with insomnia...
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 13:03:03 GMT -5
Fascinating Hoopy. Confirmed Townies are a good thing right now. Especially with the bizarre voting rules we have in place right now, that are just begging to be manipulated. With that said, let me see if I can add one more to the list.
Hello everyone, my name is Toad. Yes, that Toad, everyone's favorite sidekick. I got tired of being a sidekick though, so I went back to school. Medical school to be exact. That's right, I'm a Doctor. Unlike many of the other roles we've seen however, I do not have any restrictions on me. I will not be sharing my protection choices, except for one, which I will get to in a minute.
Why am I claiming now you ask, as opposed to staying hidden and protecting Hoopy or the masons if they come out? Two reasons. One is the bizarre voting requirements we have now. Less targets are better than more, so that it's a little easier for us to choose who to lynch. Which is one of the reasons I agree with Hoopy about any surviving masons claiming. Masons claiming also make it harder for the scum to guess which direction I'm going to go with my protections.
For the other reason I'm claiming now, I'd like to take you back a few Days. If you recall at the beginning of Day 3, there was only one kill overNight, NAF the mason. Night 2, I self protected for reasons I will not be going into. At the end of Night 2, I received the Bing pm from Idle, same as the rest of Town. Only mine had a little extra information in it. At some point during the Night, there was a thump outside my door. Based on that noise, plus the lack of a second kill that Night, leads me to believe that SOMEONE out there is already aware of my claim. Possibly the scum, possibly the Vig/SK. Either way, I was already at least partially compromised, so better to add a confirmed townie than hope the scum weren't the ones that figured me out, especially with the claimed roleblocker dead. The reason I didn't claim at that time by the way, was the fact that there was a kill at all that Night. If it had been a no-kill Night, I probably would have claimed then since I would certainly be compromised in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 13:49:39 GMT -5
But regardless, Ed and Chucara are definitely going to be under a bit of suspicion from me since I couldn't get a read on them. That's the way it goes. Is it possible that you're a not entirely effective cop? It wouldn't be unheard of to include a power role who is less than 100% effective.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 13:53:08 GMT -5
holy crap!
I thought we were past the early part of the game where everyone claimed everything at the drop of a hat.
ugh.
We had 2 kills last Night!
That means if the Scum can kill twice, all they have to do is target our Cop and our Doc and one of them dies unless there's additional protection
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 14:16:16 GMT -5
It's REALLY unlikely the scum can kill twice. Like, ridiculously overpowered to the point of breaking the game unlikely. A SK or Vig is far, far more likely. A vig wouldn't target either of us, and a SK has no real reason to target a cop that is restricted. Further, neither of these claims came at the drop of a hat, they're strategic ones.
Of course, I could easily see a scum being very frustrated by claims of this nature, especially on a Day with easy to manipulate vote rules. Interesting that you came back inconclusive then isn't it Mr. Special Ed?
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 14:28:53 GMT -5
It's REALLY unlikely the scum can kill twice. Like, ridiculously overpowered to the point of breaking the game unlikely. A SK or Vig is far, far more likely. A vig wouldn't target either of us, and a SK has no real reason to target a cop that is restricted. Further, neither of these claims came at the drop of a hat, they're strategic ones. Of course, I could easily see a scum being very frustrated by claims of this nature, especially on a Day with easy to manipulate vote rules. Interesting that you came back inconclusive then isn't it Mr. Special Ed? I have no idea why I came back inconclusive. It certainly isn't the same as coming back "scum" or "pfk" I am frustrated with all the role claims. Look what it's gotten us so far. Shaggy - vanilla -dead FLOD - generic power - dead mitey - useless?? or changes the win condition - reduces the pool of power roles for scum almost - vanilla - reduces the pool of power roles I think I'm missing someone else now the 2 of you? it gives scum great targets..and maybe the scum don't have 2 kills, but wouldn't a pfk with a killing action also want the doc or cop dead? Maybe I'm missing the strategy. If you were hoping to play wifom with the scum, Odds are that game won't last too long, and the Scum have many options. You can't even be certain that hoopy is a cop. 1. lynch one of you maybe get lucky 2. lynch the people that get 'confirmed' by sometimes ineffective cop 3. lynch someone else If you've got some great strategy, maybe I'm an idiot and can't see it. If you do, then either share it or don't. And how are these rules any easier to manipulate? Basically it seems to allow for a person to vote for a person and unvote for another person. That is, I can apply an effective vote for someone (my most recent unvote) and effectively cast a negative vote for another person (my last vote). It's a different rule, I'll grant you, but how is it easier to manipulate?
|
|