|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 14:38:43 GMT -5
It is easier to manipulate because of this rule:
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 14:39:39 GMT -5
Because of the way it's set up, no one can have more than one unvote on them at once. Let's say I (un)vote you. Hoopy or Mitey or whoever comes along and wants to as well. To unvote you, they have to vote you first. And as soon as they do that, poof, there goes my unvote. And since you can only unvote someone you have already voted for, I can't do something tricky like vote for myself and then unvote someone else. Therefore, whoever ends up lynched will have one unvote at most. And that is rife with abuse possibilities, since all it takes is one person voting and then not unvoting to cancel it out.
The great strategy is narrow down the pool of candidates are far as possible. If we only have to worry about examining say, 5 people, that's a lot better than having to worry about 10. The less places for scum to hide, the easier it is to find them. That's not even super secret tech strategy, it's basic Mafia end game strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 14:44:27 GMT -5
Oh and you're right, I have no major reason to believe Hoopy is what he says he is. Just like you have no major reason to believe I am who I say I am(though I note that you didn't mention that fact, another check in the column against you, more on this in a moment). But on the other hand, I have no major reason to DISbelieve him either, and to my mind his role makes sense, and his claiming Today further makes sense.
You seem to have accepted my claim, and are slightly disbelieving, or at least semi-skeptical of Hoopys. I can see two good reasons for this. One is that you are scum, and are more worried about a cop than an outted Doc. Two, you are either a Vig or SK and were the one that targeted me on Night two, and therefore know that my claim fits with your own Night actions.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 14:47:15 GMT -5
BOOOOOM!
Rysto, AKA, HAMMER BROTHER NUMBER 3, has been mod killed due to learning information (accidentally) that he shouldn't have.
Wasn't his fault. Just one of those things.
Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Dec 31, 2008 14:48:36 GMT -5
Well, shit.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 14:50:12 GMT -5
Hammer Brother here, and Rysto and I are claiming (in simulpost, since we didn't breadcrumb eachother) for three reasons.
1) We were only three to start with. It was too early to come out after NAF died, but we had to do it soon.
2) It appears we've got other power roles making a move, so we got yer back.
3) We, uh... we have a problem. You see, we're the Hammer Brothers. What do Hammer Brothers do, you ask? We Hammer, thats what we do. Votes, specifically. We Hammer votes. Check back, you'll see that NAF hammered once, and I hammered once, nobody else. Also see NAF volunteering himself to always be the Hammer vote. Thats cuz, uh... we get punished if there's a Hammer vote and it isn't one of us. Mightily punished, yeah verily even unto modkill, sayeth the Idlerator. So. Either of us will be happy to hammer if it appears to be the will of Town. And since one or both of us will die should anyone else Hammer, please watch the vote count carefully, and for gods sake, if anybody besides Rysto or myself Hammers, lynch them.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 14:50:34 GMT -5
What the fuck?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 14:53:37 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][/quote] Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 14:54:19 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?Just one.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 14:55:22 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? Just one. FCOD was able to "intimidate" a player once a Night to vote for another player the next Day.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 14:56:07 GMT -5
Oh and you're right, I have no major reason to believe Hoopy is what he says he is. Just like you have no major reason to believe I am who I say I am(though I note that you didn't mention that fact, another check in the column against you, more on this in a moment). But on the other hand, I have no major reason to DISbelieve him either, and to my mind his role makes sense, and his claiming Today further makes sense. You seem to have accepted my claim, and are slightly disbelieving, or at least semi-skeptical of Hoopys. I can see two good reasons for this. One is that you are scum, and are more worried about a cop than an outted Doc. Two, you are either a Vig or SK and were the one that targeted me on Night two, and therefore know that my claim fits with your own Night actions. Yes, if you're scum and lying, more power to you. I can't really criticize your strategy. My problem is if you're telling the truth. You're making it easier for the Scum to kill you. The same goes for Hoopy. However, if your claim IS truthful and was given because of Hoopy's.....then he's just tricked you into claiming early... OK, I'm misunderstanding the voting thing then. I tried to clear it up with idle. You're saying that at most a person will have 1 unvote (counting 1 towards a lynch) and some people might have actual votes (counting as negative votes towards a lynch) So the lynchee will have only 1 vote (technically an unvote) for them? Idle, can a person have more than 1 unvote on them at a time counting toward a lynch? Otherwise, how can a person acheive 8 unvotes? My understanding is that if I vote/unvote Player A, and then Nanook vote/unvotes Player A..player A now has 2 unvotes counting towards their lynch. Then, if Chucara vote/unvotes for Player A, they have 3 counting toward their lynch. If Hoopy comes along and votes for Player A (without unvoting) Player A now has 2 votes counting toward their lynch. Is that scenario correct?
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 14:58:47 GMT -5
BOOOOOM!Rysto, AKA, HAMMER BROTHER NUMBER 3, has been mod killed due to learning information (accidentally) that he shouldn't have. Wasn't his fault. Just one of those things. Carry on. huh? was this in the Mason thread? and I see Hoopy avoided a mod kill. It must be because he only posted his actual PM to Idle and then summarized the response.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 15:00:16 GMT -5
Because of the way it's set up, no one can have more than one unvote on them at once. This is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 15:01:29 GMT -5
huh? was this in the Mason thread? and I see Hoopy avoided a mod kill. It must be because he only posted his actual PM to Idle and then summarized the response. No, this was not posted on the Mason board, and I have no idea what the fuck just happened.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 31, 2008 15:02:28 GMT -5
Argh! What the hell happened?
At least KidV is (imho at least) 99.9% mod-confirmed as a mason. I just can't bring myself to believe that a scum would have pounced on a mod-kill that quickly with a gambit.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 15:07:18 GMT -5
Because of the way it's set up, no one can have more than one unvote on them at once. This is incorrect. Then you need to explain it better, because everything you've stated so far leads to that conclusion. Specifically, this.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 15:09:49 GMT -5
Argh! What the hell happened? At least KidV is (imho at least) 99.9% mod-confirmed as a mason. I just can't bring myself to believe that a scum would have pounced on a mod-kill that quickly with a gambit. We'd decided to claim, and since we hadn't breadcrumbed eachother, we were prepping to simulpost. If it had to happen, the timing was good for it at least.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 15:13:36 GMT -5
Idle, can a person have more than 1 unvote on them at a time counting toward a lynch? Yes. Wrong. You vote/unvote player A. Player A has one unvote. Nanook votes player A....Player A has no unvotes. Nanook then unvotes player A...player A has one unvote. Chucara votes player A...Player A has no unvotes etc.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 15:15:03 GMT -5
Then you need to explain it better, because everything you've stated so far leads to that conclusion. I have already explained it. You guys are Dopers. I shouldn't have to put the cookies on the lower shelves for you guys. It's not that hard to figure out or work out how to keep more than one unvote on a person.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 15:16:36 GMT -5
I can say, now, the reason I went after AH while we were split was because even though Rysto and I were on different boards, we could still talk, and discuss what was going on on the other side. I have no reason to think the scum couldn't talk as well.
AH appeared, to me, to be trying to get us to discount the possibility of collusion across boards, and she's still high on my suspicion list for that.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 15:18:44 GMT -5
Ok no, you're right Idle, I see how to do it. That's a ridiculous level of coordination required to pull it off though, and is still fraught with danger.
For everyone else that was confused, basically everyone has to vote FIRST, then unvote AFTER everyone has voted. Since votes with no unvotes do nothing, this will end up with multiple unvotes on the person. This seems like the right time to finally use faux votes, since there's a damn good reason to not do it any other way.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 31, 2008 15:22:23 GMT -5
Idle, can a person have more than 1 unvote on them at a time counting toward a lynch? Yes. Wrong. You vote/unvote player A. Player A has one unvote. Nanook votes player A....Player A has no unvotes. Nanook then unvotes player A...player A has one unvote. Chucara votes player A...Player A has no unvotes etc. Idle, I think the problem is what happens when votes/unvotes across players switch up. Thats what has me confused, anyway. If I vote for playerA, can playerB then unvote playerA without voting for playerA first? Also, if i vote then unvote playerA, and playerB then vote/unvotes playerA, does playerB's vote affect my unvote, or not?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 15:24:54 GMT -5
Ok no, you're right Idle, I see how to do it. That's a ridiculous level of coordination required to pull it off though, and is still fraught with danger. For everyone else that was confused, basically everyone has to vote FIRST, then unvote AFTER everyone has voted. Since votes with no unvotes do nothing, this will end up with multiple unvotes on the person. This seems like the right time to finally use faux votes, since there's a damn good reason to not do it any other way. Hahahaha, got it. Right after I had posted how to do it on the spoiler board (Game Over). I was surprised it took you that long, but to be fair, you got it only after a few minutes of thinking. It's like I said at the start of toDay. It's meant to be confusing and hard. Hence why it's underwater.
|
|
|
Post by MiteyMouse on Dec 31, 2008 15:24:56 GMT -5
Ok...I'm a bit less confused right now.
Hoopy...thank you for investigating me!
I have reread the day 4 in the mushroom kingdom and honestly don't understand the Shaggy lynch. Perhaps it's because I speak Shaggeneese but, I still don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 31, 2008 15:31:09 GMT -5
Idle, I think the problem is what happens when votes/unvotes across players switch up. Thats what has me confused, anyway. If I vote for playerA, can playerB then unvote playerA without voting for playerA first? No. Only VOTES work this way. If you unvote playerA and someone else then votes for playerA, it will cancel out your unvote. But not the other way around. Yes. It takes it away, and playerA has no unvotes on them anymore. Then, when playerB unvotes...playerA has 1 unvote on them.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 31, 2008 15:38:18 GMT -5
Ok no, you're right Idle, I see how to do it. That's a ridiculous level of coordination required to pull it off though, and is still fraught with danger. For everyone else that was confused, basically everyone has to vote FIRST, then unvote AFTER everyone has voted. Since votes with no unvotes do nothing, this will end up with multiple unvotes on the person. This seems like the right time to finally use faux votes, since there's a damn good reason to not do it any other way. *smacks self in forehead* I get it now! but not 'faux' votes, but real votes ;-) so first, I guess we all decide who we want to lynch by voting....and then, close to the end of the Day, we can unvote and vote for who we'd like to save...
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 31, 2008 15:55:07 GMT -5
Not real votes. If we use real votes, and then change our mind for whatever reason(a claim, a persuasive argument, whatever), you just left a real unvote on that person in order to switch. Too risky.
And to put my money where my mouth is, I'm going to
Faux Vote Mr Special Ed[/color]
Yellow btw. Seems better than most of the other options.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 16:08:58 GMT -5
Ok no, you're right Idle, I see how to do it. That's a ridiculous level of coordination required to pull it off though, and is still fraught with danger. For everyone else that was confused, basically everyone has to vote FIRST, then unvote AFTER everyone has voted. Since votes with no unvotes do nothing, this will end up with multiple unvotes on the person. This seems like the right time to finally use faux votes, since there's a damn good reason to not do it any other way. Much more eloquently put than I did. My main concern was with votes being thrown around like we tend to do, since you need to unvote somone you currently have a vote on in order to vote and unvote someone else. But my logic failed to grasp the part about revoting for your first votee which will cancel out that other unvote. However, as you say, it's still a mechanic that can be gamed by scum with adequate coordination, and far easier than town can do it. And for any of you who think I claimed just because of this mechanic, I was planning on claiming either toDay or toMorrow anyway, this mechanic plus Ed's "should we lynch mitey" just pushed it to toDay. I had planned on claiming on Day 3 had MiteyMouse been under pressure then. The split was a net gain for town in that respect. I got one more confirmation and we nailed the godfather, which makes my confirmations solid when I'm confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 31, 2008 16:22:34 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. Possible? Any non-confirmed mechanic is possible. Likely? Nope. It's why I thought I might be insane in some way. Like I could only confirm town. But Idle said I'm not insane. There is also no indication by him in either my role PM or my conversations with him that I have a failure percentage chance. So I'm going to go with the assumption that something was interfering with my investigations, and I know that being able to investigate two town means that I don't seem to have problems with all townies. Just some players who may or may not be town. It's a data point. By itself it means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Dec 31, 2008 16:24:51 GMT -5
I can say, now, the reason I went after AH while we were split was because even though Rysto and I were on different boards, we could still talk, and discuss what was going on on the other side. I have no reason to think the scum couldn't talk as well. AH appeared, to me, to be trying to get us to discount the possibility of collusion across boards, and she's still high on my suspicion list for that. I can see now why you were suspicious. It was a Bad Idea although it made sense to me at the time. There isn't really much more I can say in my defence other than that, but I think if you look at everything else I've done this game you'll see my ideas and actions have been pro town. They may not have always been right but then how many of us ever are?
|
|