Mini 870: Melee mafia. (Mod Abandoned)

[Kast]

/confirm

[Kast]

Note: Won't be around again for another 6 hours or so and then won't be around this weekend. Apologies to all if the game starts and I miss the first two days of discussion phase. I'll definitely catch up on Monday.

[Kast]

@Spyrex-

I see no reason why actions should be PM'd. All combat should occur in the thread - especially since it appears as though dicerolls will be taken care of in thread as well.

I see your point, but I can also see potential reasons not to enforce this as a hard rule. Each player has different stats and feats. There are conceivably feats which would be better not announced in thread. I'm going to assume that each player can personally evaluate whether their actions would be better shared publicly or PMed privately.

Obviously a player sending their actions as a PM will draw attention to themselves; I'm also going to assume that this was taken into account by TSQ. I agree that a player who PMs actions should have more attention, I disagree that PMing actions should be interpreted as inherently scummy or anti-town.

-I dislike that this proposal for a universal guideline for town to follow doesn't include consideration for townies who have role-based reasons to break from those guidelines.

-I would appreciate if nobody confirms or denies whether they have any abilities that would be better PMed. I'm not thrilled that Spyrex and Tajo's posts appear to be soft claims of not having such roles. I also would appreciate if neither of your confirms or denies those soft claims, unless you intended them as such and have reason for doing so.

@Tajo-
Do you understand the basic combat system?
-Attacker picks a target (defender).
-Defender has an AC value.
-Attacker rolls 1d20 (20 sided die) to see if he hits the target.
--If either the die roll equals 20 OR the die roll + any attack bonuses equals or exceeds the AC value, then the attack is successful.
--If the attacker rolls a 19 or a 20*, they have a chance to make a critical hit. Attacker rolls a second d20 and if it is a successful hit, then the attack becomes a critical hit.
-Attacker rolls 1d6 (6 sided die) for damage.
--Attacker deals damage equal to the die roll + any bonuses.
--If the attacker scored a critical hit, then he deals double damage. Damage equals 2d6 + 2x any bonuses**

*-

These values were mod clarified to me as standard for this game. You should each personally check if these same values apply to yourself, but keep the results of that check private.

**-

If you have bonus damage from feats, you should check with the mod on whether that is affected.

Player A attacks Player B.
Player A has no bonuses.
Player B has AC = 15.

Player A rolls a 20-sided die and the result is 18.
18 is greater than 15 so it is a successful hit.
Player A rolls a 6-sided die and the result is 4.
Player B receives 4 damage.

Player A rolls a 20-sided die and the result is 20.
20 is a critical threat and allows Player A to roll again to determine if he made a critical hit.
Player A rolls a 20-sided die and the result is 18.
18 is greater than 15 so it is a successful critical hit.
Player A rolls two 6-sided dice and the result is 4 and 3.
Player B receives 7 damage.

Player A rolls a 20-sided die and the result is 20.
20 is a critical threat and allows Player A to roll again to determine if he made a critical hit.
Player A rolls a 20-sided die and the result is 10.
10 is less than 15 so it is not a successful critical hit.
Player A rolls a 6-sided die and the result is 3.
Player B receives 3 damage.

-I can see this game dragging out and players losing interest while waiting for their turns in melee phase. I strongly advise thinking about and deciding on what you want to do in each upcoming melee phase prior to your turn arriving.

@Col.Cathart-

ho hum... votes are useless here, so I'll post something like this instead, until we'll have a good point to start discussion...

-I'm assuming most others have thought of or considered this, but since nobody has posted, I'll go ahead and throw it out. We should discuss voting despite the lack of voting mechanic and use it as a means to communally determine who to attack.

-My understanding (based on my role + mod clarifications) is that it could take multiple melee phases to arrive at a successful lynch.

-It is possible, though unlikely, that we could identify scum for a D1 lynch, but even still, the scum could be very lucky and manage to kill another player prior to dying in the melee phase. I want to caution against simply attacking anyone you are suspicious of. If the town as a whole starts fighting ourselves, we make the previous situation much more feasible.

[Kast]

We CAN lynch every night. Further, we CAN control it

because there's no damage being spread out.

-This is false. Even if we successfully identify mafia and everyone attacks that player during the melee phase, it is possible that all of us miss the player AND that the player kills someone else. This is unlikely, but possible.

-The town has NOT YET agreed to all attack only a single target who is agreed upon and decided by the town. This is the proposal that I just put forth for discussion. I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this. I strongly believe the benefits of adopting this outweigh the risks.

-I agree that it appears to be in our best interests to only attack a single target of the town's choice. I could see townie feats that might incline a townie to disregard the rest of the town's wishes.

Further, if all attacks are made in thread that eliminates even the chance for mafia to attempt to do anything but what is agreed upon.

-Posting publicly is not inherently necessary to determine that a standard attack followed what was agreed upon. We will be told the same dice rolls and outcomes regardless of whether an action is publicly posted or PMed.

If a player attacks someone, or does some action with the same results as a standard attack, we will see the dice rolls and outcome of that attack regardless of whether it was publicly posted or PMed.

In the event that a player engages in some action with results that differ from those of a standard attack, we will still find that out know regardless of whether the player posts publicly or PMs.

-Posting publicly does not necessarily prevent mafia (or townies) from doing anything other than what is agreed upon. And if there are any feats that allow a player to do something that would be better PMed than posted publicly, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of townies having such roles than scum.

-In the situation where a town player has a feat which allows action other than the standard attack during melee, which choice do you believe is better for the player to take?
1) Not take his special action
2) Take his action publicly
3) Take his action by PM
4) None of the above/something else

Despite how much you want to deduce anything about my role from what I said (which I have issues with as is because there's not a good reason for it) I have made no claims about any feats, etc I have because it is irrelevant to the fact that

unless I have a feat that is "win the game" eliminating the shroud for the mafia outweighs it.

-This is the same BS that KMD-scum was spouting in your recently completed SC2 game.
-Your post betrays an assumption that you have made. It's out there for everyone (including scum) to see and invites townies to share the same information about themselves. At least one other player (tajo) has already followed your invitation. This is important to stop before it continues.
-It is completely ludicrous to claim that I am trying to draw you to confirm anything about feats you have. I have asked you explicitly to NOT confirm.
-You have reduced the "shroud". Please stop reducing it any further. Getting upset and claiming that you have not reduced it does not stop that. What's done is done; your reaction right now is harmful to damage control efforts.

[Kast]

@Spyrex-

Although that is ambiguous enough that IF we go to this PM format and I die to "an ogre" instead of a player name kill Kise asap.

-Who is Kise? Kast is not Kise. The implication that Kast is proposing we use some "PM format" is misleading and your proposed reaction to death by "an ogre" makes no sense. The claim that some player named Kise (or anything else) is proposing we use some "PM format" is not supported by any posts so far in this game.

@Mod-

-Can you please provide an example post of example combat results?
-If a player submits an action publicly and also PMs you a different action, which action would you use? Is such a situation even possible/allowed? ie. Do we know that a player's posted action in thread is the action that the player will take (assuming no feat that specifically allows this)?

@Voting system-
Assuming everyone agrees to the proposal in general, we should flesh out details of how we actually implement this.
1) Strict majority?
2) Deadline?
3) Is every player required to attack the chosen lynch candidate?
4) How do we enforce the chosen system?
5) Other issues?

My preference is that we all agree to attack (if able) the player who first reaches a strict majority. The attacks should begin in the melee phase following the discussion phase during which the player hits a majority or the same melee phase during which the player reached a majority.
If we go through 4 discussion phases (12+ real life days) without reaching a strict majority, then we kill the player who first reached the current plurality.
If a player attacks someone else without an extremely strong reason, we agree to kill that player first.

Any system should not be used as an artificial constraint against solutions for town victory that arise (particularly near endgame).

[Kast]

@Chamber-
You posted that already.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
You seem to have missed this.

If a player attacks someone else without an extremely strong reason, we agree to kill that player first.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
You also seem to have missed this:

we should flesh out details of how we actually implement this.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
My preferred plan doesn't do what you claim. It seems you missed this:

If a player attacks someone else without an extremely strong reason, we agree to kill that player first.

The punishment is only if a player attacks someone other than the lynch. If you chose to not attack the town's chosen player, then you suffer no punishment.

@Spyrex-
-False. This is a more accurate paraphrase:
Spy: Everyone MUST do it in thread AND there is NO REASON to not do it in thread.
Kast: There are reasons to not do it in thread and here they are. We should not enforce this.
Spy: You are correct. But if we all decide to do it by PM and I die, then you are scum.

I did not suggest any PM format that we should all follow. IF everyone but Player G posts actions in thread AND Spyrex dies after Player G's turn, THEN Player G should be suspected. Kast (or Kise or anyone else) should

only*

be suspected for this if Kast is Player G.**

-You seem to misunderstand the flow of events in melee phase. On your turn, choose an action to take (can be no action) and tell TSQ by PM or in thread. TSQ then posts any public dice rolls resulting from the action as well as any public outcome (ie. Player B takes a severe blow to the head and dies). After this is resolved, the next player takes his turn.

Barring feats that allow action on another player's turn, we know who is responsible for each public action. Sending in an order by PM instead of by in thread post does not automatically change whether that action is public.

@Nuwen-
-I agree that a strict majority is generally better than a plurality. However, I fear this game bogging down without a deadline. It will be bad enough slogging through several melee phases without any (public) actions.

If you know a better method of handling a deadline without any majority, then please share it. Deadline no lynch is significantly worse than deadline plurality lynch. That does make me modify my preferred plan.

My preference is that we all agree to attack (if able) the player who first reaches a strict majority. When we reach the first melee phase, the first player in initiative order will hold off on taking actions until the town reaches a lynch consensus. Once that consensus has been reached, the town will attack and kill the lynch candidate (this may take multiple melee phases).
After 3 weeks without a majority (counted from the start of the day), we kill the player with the most votes (plurality). If there is a tie, we kill the first one to reach that number.
If a player attacks someone else without an extremely strong reason, we agree to kill that player first.

Dealing damage independent of consensus is scummy enough to become a policy kill in this setup.

-Agreed with an exception for extremely good reasons. It would be bad to

policy

lynch*** a claimed cop who attacks a claimed guilty player instead of the town's lynch candidate.
-Can this offense be scummy enough to warrant immediate policy kill? Common sense argues that this can occur and rate of occurrence should vary inversely to the strength of the case on current lynch candidate. I am undecided on this point, but gut suggests immediate enforcement rather than waiting a day.

Main pro I see is lynch for objectively strong, scummy behavior. Main con I see is potential for scum sacrifice to save a powerful buddy.

@Yosarian2-
Welcome.

*-

Kast (or any other player) could reasonably be suspected for other reasons.

**-

If Spyrex flipped scum, this would not be a reason to suspect Player G. There are other circumstances which could reduce or increase the validity of suspecting Player G

***-

There are conceivably valid reasons to lynch a claimed cop who disregards the town's wishes, but policy lynching is not one of those.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
Melee phase is not equivalent to night in this game. Attacking a player is equivalent to an ability that has a %chance to permanently lower the voting threshold for that specific player.

There is a normal night in which mafia can (and likely will) nightkill from among the full health townies.

Having multiple players at low health (few votes required to lynch) means scum can control the lynch by picking off their choice of weakened player (this gets worse as we approach and enter endgame).

[Kast]

@All-
I can break up my larger posts into multiple smaller posts, however, I've found that people generally prefer single large posts all on a single page rather than multiple pages of posts.

Short version:

I'll try out abbreviating stuff in blue.

@Nuwen-
-A long post is not inherently convoluted. My posts have addressed multiple points and multiple players. The conciseness of every individual section is on par with other posts and is not convoluted.

Ignoring important stuff for brevity is bad play.

-Explanations, particularly for a post that contradicts another post, are necessary. Your article illustrates the value of providing explanations. The article itself is much longer than any of my posts, except the one containing example combats.

@Article- tl;dr

[Kast]

@Spyrex-
-You are free to arbitrarily choose which posts you want to read and respond to. Realize that just because you did not read it, does not mean it was not posted, and does not excuse you from addressing or responding to stuff. It is also anti-town to intentionally ignore game relevant posts.

Laziness is anti-town.

-Do you have thoughts to share on deadlines and/or what to do upon arrival at a melee phase with no consensus lynch?

Whining does not excuse avoiding topics.

-We enter melee phase. Each player rolls initiative. Each player gets two turns (run through initiative order twice), during which the player can take action(s) which may include attacking another player. We return to discussion phase. After 3 real life days, we enter melee phase again. This continues until we kill someone OR a majority votes No Lynch.

Each player starts with an amount of HP. This can be roughly converted to a lynch threshold. Each attack can similarly be converted to a chance to permanently reduce this threshold. When a player's lynch threshold is 0, he is immediately lynched.

You are missing

lots of

stuff.

[Kast]

@TonyMontana/Grover/Kirbyoshi/Col.Cathart-
Please post thoughts on the following topics:
-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?
--Who should attack the lynch candidate?
--How should we determine the lynch candidate?
-Should we punish players who ignore the town and attack their own target?
--If so, how should we punish those players?
-Should players be allowed to send actions by PM?
--If not, what should be done to those who do?

@Inactives and lurkers- Post something.

[Kast]

Here is a formula for expected damage per attack derived from the rules + clarifications from TSQ:

Code: Select all

Ab = Bonus to attack
Db = Bonus to damage
AC = Defender AC
Expected Damage per Attack = (0.05+IF(AC<2,0.9,IF((20-AC+Ab)<1,0,(20-AC+Ab)/20)))*((1+IF(19+Ab<AC,0,1))*0.05+1)*(Db+3.5)

Ignore this if you hate math.

From my role PM + clarifications from TSQ + assumptions I'm willing to make, I would expect around a dozen attacks (with wide variance) should kill a player. Obviously players with higher AC and/or HP will take longer to kill than players with lower AC and/or HP. Players with bonuses to attack or damage will require fewer attacks to kill someone.

If a majority of us attack a player in one melee phase (2 turns each), we would expect to be able to *just* kill that player with a little bit extra. If the town tried to lynch someone with high AC, it is probable that a majority attacking for a full melee phase will be insufficient to kill that player.

Code: Select all

AC	Expected Damage
11	1.925
12	1.7325
13	1.54
14	1.3475
15	1.155
16	0.9625
17	0.77
18	0.5775
19	0.385
20	0.18375
21	0.18375

[Kast]

@Snow_bunny-
-My understanding is that mafia have traditional mafia abilities on top of their randomly selected character feats. I don't believe TSQ has explicitly ruled out mafia specific abilities granted in addition to character abilities, but that appears to contradict the spirit of randomly assigning mafia among already created character sheets. It would be good to double-check that with TSQ.

They probably don't.

-If you read Nuwen's post literally, then it is confusing. I believe he means "number of

allowable

mislynches". It agrees with your point; if there is damage spread among multiple players, we eventually hit a point where scum can control the lynch by killing those players (ie. we have exhausted the number of allowed mislynches and given mafia control of all remaining lynches).

It's clear from context.

[Kast]

--How should we determine the lynch candidate?

I wasn't clear enough on this. I meant how should we

logistically

determine the lynch candidate?

-Strict majority?
-Any deadlines?
--What happens if we hit deadline?
-Run through melee phase or wait for a consensus?
-Other issues?

Do people prefer multiple short posts over a single longer one?

-Chamber has made it clear that he will not follow any voting system if he disagrees the lynch candidate (equivalent to only following the system when he is ambivalent). It would NOT be fair to him if the town agrees to a system without first clarifying how the system will interact with a player in his position.

Please share thoughts on this.

Same for TonyMontoya.

[Kast]

@TonyMontoya-
Thanks for joining us and prompt response. Please keep up this activity level. A little bit more attention to specifics would be preferred.

-One way we can play is to just free-for-all attack whoever we individually suspect and discuss to convince others to attack our target. Is this how you think we

SHOULD

do things?

The alternative under discussion is to only attack the player that town votes for. This reduces the danger of mafia controlling the lynch. You said this is not feasible.
--What problems do you see with implementing this system?
--Do you have suggestions to mitigate the danger of mafia controlling the lynch?

Why do you think what you think?

-How does in thread submission help town more than PM submission?
-Do you realize that results of standard combat actions are posted in thread even if the order is submitted by PM?
-If a player does submit action(s) by PM, how should the town react?

Details please.

[Kast]

@Col.Cathart-
Thanks for the answers. Maintenance of similar levels of content and post frequency will be appreciated. Increase of either would be phenomenal.

-You state that punishing players who depart from the system would result in extra mislynchs. Does this mean you think townies are more likely than scum to depart from a voting system?
-Why does being a jerk factor into whether a player should be lynched? Do you believe that scum are more likely to be jerks?
--Conversely, do you believe that amiable behavior is indicative of affiliation?

Unenforced rules are meaningless.

[Kast]

@Snow_bunny-

I'm in for the votes, but let a player fight its own quarrel if he wants. In the end, we can always get more info from that.

Unenforced voting is meaningless.

[Kast]

@FL-
-Kast points out that there is a chance (a low one) that scum could determine the lynch even if the entire town tried to kill that scum.
-Spyrex replied that this can never happen.
Explain how is my response in Post 31 a misinterpretation. I said something is possible; he said it is not. I provided a counter-example showing that it is possible.

?

-We roll for initiative and that determines turn order. Unless a player has a feat or special ability allowing action on another player's turn, they cannot take actions on another player's turn.

-Intuitively, it is extremely unlikely that any player can one-hit kill another player. Scum were chosen randomly, allowing them complete control of the lynch + NK would make the game pointless. However, TSQ did say this game could be swingy and/or unbalanced, so perhaps thoughts about balance should be stifled.

Agreed with your basic point that we should not spread damage as it will unduly give scum more control of the lynch. This is different from regular votes because the damage dealt is permanent (barring a feat or special ability).

[Kast]

@Snowbunny-
-Would you prefer single longer posts?
-Does the use of color make the post difficult to read?
-Are you objecting to content, format, style, something else?

I don't follow your fear from Post 85.
-I agree that if the town decides to follow a voting strategy, then it is likely that mafia will also place votes and have some effect on the lynch decision. How does this differ from a standard game in which mafia can place votes? How does that difference make it overall bad?

I think the possibility of mafia influencing the lynch reinforces the need for all townies to contribute and prevent the mafia from having disproportionate representation.

-You said you can see the merits of the town agreeing to not spread damage. How do you reconcile this with your position that anyone should be free to attack whoever they feel like attacking?

@Kirbyoshi-
-Using player names instead of pronouns can save time and prevent confusion. This especially helpful when I anticipate future quotations or when I try to resolve misunderstandings and/or differing interpretations of specific events.
-I encourage you and anyone else to take a more active role in this game if you are able.

@Yosarian2-
Agreed with your analysis except for one point.

a well orginized scum team can kill off several people in a day

After a player dies, the day ends. Scum should not be able to kill several people in a day. However, your general point still stands; a well organized scum team will control the lynch and is even better off with rogue townies helping them.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-

3.) Days will continue until a player is killed, or a majority of players vote no lynch during the discussion phase.

[Kast]

If nobody is killed, in the first Melee Phase, we will enter a second Discussion Phase. Then second Melee Phase. Then third Discussion Phase. Then third Melee Phase. etc.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
Btw-this makes things worse, since mafia can calculate when to "go rogue" and kill a player so that it prevents the most townies from getting actions.

[Kast]

@Grover-

Seeing everythig in thread is good because

it might out the Scum

but, it will also give away Town powers.

Please elaborate.

Forcing players to post in-thread obviously makes townies with Melee Phase powers choose between revealing themselves or not using (wasting) their powers.

How can we out scum by forcing actions to be submitted in-thread? Mafia were selected randomly, any feats/abilities revealed will not be indicative of affiliation.

[Kast]

@Grover-
Thanks, that is a lot more clear.

I think most people have chimed in one way or another. Going to dig through and see where town as a whole stands...

[Kast]

Let me know if any of this is inaccurate or if you've changed your position on anything:

Positions

chamber- We should vote/All players should be free to attack anyone (rogues)/We should not punish rogues/?/?
Col.Cathart- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/We should punish rogues if they are also dicks/Action PMs should not be allowed/Action PMs should not be punished
farside22- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/?/?/?
Grover- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/We should not punish rogues/?/?
Kast- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/We should punish rogues/Action PMs should be allowed/Action PMs should not be punished
Kirbyoshi- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/We should punish rogues/Action PMs should be allowed/Action PMs should not be punished
Nuwen- We should vote/All players should be free to not attack/We should punish rogues/Ambivalent about Action PMs/Action PMs should not be punished
populartajo- We should vote/All players should be free to not attack/?/Action PMs should not be allowed/?
Snow_Bunny- We should vote/All players should be free to attack anyone (rogues)/We should not punish rogues/?/?
SpyreX- We should vote/All players should be free to not attack/We should punish rogue players/Ambivalent about Action PMs/Action PMs should not be punished
TonyMontana- We should not have a voting system/All players should be free to attack anyone (rogues)/We should not punish rogues/Action PMs should not be allowed/?
Yosarian2- We should vote/The majority should attack their candidate/We should punish rogues/?/?

Thoughts

-With 4 players opposed to punishment for rogue behavior, I don't think it is fair to implement that.
-The vast majority is in favor of a voting system.
-It's a toss up as far as whether players should be allowed to submit actions by PM, however, nobody thinks players who do so should be punished so this is moot.

Conclusion

We should vote. People who voted for the majority candidate should attack that candidate during Melee Phase. Players are requested to not attack anyone other than the majority candidate; those who do will probably not face punishment. Players are requested to post actions in thread. Those who do not will probably not face punishment.

Despite the lack of systemic punishment, it is probable that players who violate these general rules will draw attention from the town as a whole. Hopefully townies don't do this and distract the town.

[Kast]

@TonyMontoya-
Your original answer is extremely sparse on content. I would like to hear more elaboration on it. I want to hear your answers to my follow up questions.

Also, please explain the apparent inconsistency between your belief that an unenforced voting system is beneficial and your blanket statement that any voting system is so infeasible to the point that it is not worthwhile to answer questions about voting systems.

Vote: TonyMontoya

@Yosarian2-
-Please elaborate on reasons to require standard attacks be submitted by PM.

If a player would see an action being made, then the mod will dictate to the players what they see, just as a DM mitigates the action in a game of DnD.

-A standard attack is a public action that all players see. The results will be visible to the town regardless of the method of submission (PM or in thread). If a player uses a feat to make a hidden/stealthy/covert attack, then we won't be able to tell that apart from no action anyway.
-I don't see any need to allow players to submit standard attacks by PM, nor do I see any reason to prohibit this. There are many easily conceivable feats that would be harmed by public revelation, but I have yet to see an actual reason to place a no PM constraint on the town.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
Submitted without seeing your Post 114.

Agree in general.

We probably won't have time during a 3 day discussion period to really get a true majority from voting, though, but we should try to get some kind of general agreement.

This is easily remedied:

When we reach the first melee phase, the first player in initiative order will hold off on taking actions until the town reaches a lynch consensus.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-

What? I said the opposite of that; I spefically said that standard attacks should be submitted in public, not by PM. You want me to elaborate on that?

Yes, my mistake. Please elaborate on reasons to prohibit standard actions from being submitted by PM.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
I follow what you posted until here:

So, it is very much in the interests of the town that we know exactally who is attacking who, when, why, and how; analyzing that infromation is going to be our biggest scumhunting tool this game,

so we can't afford to let anyone attack in secret.

Regardless of whether an attack is submitted by PM or in-thread, we know "exactally who is attacking who, when, why".

As for "how":
If scum, or anyone, submits a standard attack by PM, we will see the same results for a standard attack and can reasonably determine the "how". The exception to this is abilities that mimic a standard attack's public results but actually do something else. If such a feat/ability exists, then a player making that action secretly but in-thread false claiming to do a standard attack is indistinguishable from an in-thread standard attack.

If a player does something anything that has different results from a standard attack, then we will still know that.

[Kast]

@SB-
I'm getting mixed signals from the town as a whole, but my impression is that the majority prefers the blue text. You can think of them as main points or summaries. You could also just ignore them.

Can't please everyone all the time...

@chamber-

Based on conversation with the mod I was assuming everyone's role was at least somewhat similar to mine, so no it wasn't intended to be a soft claim. "spread out damage" is also a bit of a misnomer. 1 I don't expect the town to majority someone I have a town read on more than once really 2 In my mind the person I'm putting damage on is going to be mafia. I don't really expect more than 2ish non majority attackers per wagon/lynch.

-The majority candidate will almost certainly go rogue (reasonable for a townie). Without punishments, it is likely that other dissenters will also go rogue. I hope you're right that there are no more than 2 rogues per Melee Phase.

We'll see.

-Based on my role PM + clarifications from the mod, I agree with you that all roles are probably somewhat similar. For someone with base AC, I'd expect about a dozen attacks to lynch. For someone with higher AC, the expected number of attacks goes up. It will very possibly take two Melee Phases to arrive at a lynch. This will give rogues ~2-3 attacks on their preferred targets. Any crits would leave significant damage. If the rogue continues this into D2, their target could easily be in range for mafia to join in and finish the deal on D3 (if there are 3 rogues, that's game).

@TM-This is even less of an exaggeration.

[Kast]

@TM-

If someone disagrees with the majority, it should be treated in the same way as someone who wasn't on a normal lynch wagon.

In a normal game, dissenters from the lynch don't permanently affect their target's lynchability. If you dissented in a normal game, your target would be no worse off the following day. If you dissent here, your target is ~2HP closer to death per each attack. You can think of it as your attack permanently reduces the vote threshold for the target.

Attacking != Voting

Besides, why does it matter how many people are close to death? Only one will die anyway, and I fail to see the advantage of everyone following the majority.

Each player that is close to death is equivalent to one day that the mafia can safely disregard town and essentially control the lynch. If there are two players close to death, that allows mafia to safely control 2 days. If there are 3 players, then mafia can control 3 lynches.

This is loosely mitigated by the chance that one of those players close to death could be scum, but considering that a town who allows townies to go rogue also allows scum to freely go rogue, it's at best a wash and more likely net worse for town.

In the meanwhile, scum can safely pick off full health players.

Scum controlled lynch+Scum NK=Town Loss

Demanding that all actions be posted in thread is just as functional as having everyone post their feats. Helps scum more than town.

Agreed. This doesn't directly contradict your previous answer, but your previous answer implied the opposite. Please explain.

-Should players be allowed to send actions by PM?

I can say that I agree that attacks should be posted in thread.

-Show me if I missed it, but don't think you answered why voting and only attacking the majority candidate is not feasible.

Scum controlled lynch+Scum NK=Town Loss

I haven't played DnD in a few years, and I failed at math, but I think you are exaggerating a bit. (a bit = a whole fucking lot)

"if everyone gets really lucky rolls on their attacks", that's 24 attacks with 2.4 crits. Ignoring damage bonuses, that's an expected 91 damage. That's enough to drop all players by 7.6 damage, put the entire town down 10 health across the board, or bring 4-5 townies into scum autolynch range.

In case the math is too confusing, town could lose and it wasn't an exaggeration.

Given the condition that KY stated (everyone gets lucky attack rolls), the outcome strongly argues against spreading damage. However, it is unlikely that everyone will get lucky attack rolls. Even then, spreading damage will result in multiple Melee Phases, which approaches the same result.

[Kast]

Btw, chamber's Post 134 is a great example of out of context quoting. By itself it's a pretty crap-logic based argument. Defense is completely irrelevant to KY's post. Offence is only relevant in terms of damage, and has no bearing in terms of attack bonus (which is how the term is being used from context).

His follow up explanation re:damage is valid as an argument but incorrect due to bad numbers. Also, if every player did max damage and we assume no bonuses, then that's 12 damage per player per attack resulting in 288 damage. That should be enough to kill or critically wound most of us.

[Kast]

@drowmage-
Welcome to the game.

@TM-

You have not answered several questions. I will repost the two that I would like to hear answers for the most.

-Why did you say that voting would be infeasible, then immediately turn around and say you plan to vote? Also explain how voting is infeasible.
-Why did you initially state that attacks should all be in thread but then turn around and claim everyone should be free to use PM if they want?

Ignoring questions doesn't make them go away. These minor inconsistencies sound like scum trying to blend by agreeing with everyone.

[Kast]

@FS/SB-

Is bold greentext better?

@chamber-
-Location of the source for an out-of-context quote does not make it harder to use it out of context. It does make it harder to get away with using one.

Even with severe negative modifiers on your Damage Dice, TSQ explicitly stated the default damage dice. Your personal role should not prevent you from understanding KY's post.

With your clarifications, your initial argument reduces to your latter argument; which fails when looking at the numbers.

-In your own assumed context, the rolls are enough for each player to receive 24 damage. Unless your role is WAY above the curve in HP (extremely unlikely), 24 damage is enough that more than half (read:all) players could be close to death after a single Melee Phase.

You stated that you spoke with TSQ and figure most roles are similar. I don't believe that he would say anything to make you think most players can take 24 damage and not be close to death.

To be clear, you stand by your claim that {each player receiving 24 damage} is not equivalent to {more than half the players close to death}. Let me know if you rethink.

[Kast]

@Drowmage-
-Speculating and discussing mechanics at the expense or to the exclusion of scumhunting is generally detrimental. But agreed that there shouldn't ever be a hard constraint against discussing mechanics; especially not in a non-traditional game like this.

-The article is about brevity, but nowhere states that content should be dropped for brevity's sake. My posts have touched on (and raised) nearly every game relevant subject, particularly how this game works and what we're going to do about that.

I'd rather post something longer than assume that someone else will do it.

@KY Case-
I don't really see it. He placed one of the first serious votes of the game and it was weak. He could be following/buddying on me. Is that all?

@TM Case-
TM has directly contradicted himself and implicitly contradicted himself. He hasn't bothered to defend explain or defend either contradiction, instead he's been playing extremely conciliatory (probably what led to the contradictions). It's like he doesn't care what he says as long as it's agreeing with the majority and won't ruffle feathers.

I strongly suspect scum in this game want to lurk and avoid getting townies upset with them. TM's play fits this bill.

This recent post from KY also fits my expected scum behavior.

@Tajo-
-Without a unanimous or near unanimous agreement on punishing rogues, I don't think it is fair or feasible. If you can convince 2 out of {Chamber, Grover, Snow_bunny, TonyMontoya}, to agree on punishing rogues, I think we'll be okay with it.

@Rushing-
This game doesn't have deadlines. As long as players continue to post, we can prolong the Melee Phase indefinitely and discuss anything necessary. There is seriously no need to rush.

[Kast]

Posted without seeing TM's response. Update forthcoming.

[Kast]

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

I started answering the questions, but realized it all fell apart by the fact that I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

I think votes should be used, to emphasize suspicions.

First of all, I never made a "turn around" and said I plan to vote.

You clearly said you think votes should be used. Technically you didn't say you " plan to vote". You still contradicted your statement.

The position you claim in the latter post is not a reason to stop answering the questions. Answers would be:

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

Yes

--Who should attack the lynch candidate?

The players who voted for him

--How should we determine the lynch candidate?

Each player place a vote on their suspect during Discussion Phase. Then each player attacks their voted suspect during Melee Phase.

-Should we punish players who ignore the town and attack their own target?

No

Secondly, I said that voting for a lynch candidate wasnt a feasible strategy. I would defend it, except I thought that HP was regenerated, which make all my previous points moot.

Humor me. I'd still like to hear your reasoning. Even if you thought HP was regenerated, that wouldn't make voting infeasible.

From the time I asked you to explain your position, until you realized HP wasn't regenerated, you made two posts, one of which was a direct response to me and answered some of my other questions, but avoided giving this explanation. Why?

Second point:

Demanding that all actions be posted in thread is just as functional as having everyone post their feats. Helps scum more than town.

Agreed. This doesn't directly contradict your previous answer, but your previous answer implied the opposite. Please explain.

-Should players be allowed to send actions by PM?

I can say that I agree that attacks should be posted in thread.

Context of the original question was determining whether town should prohibit PMs submission. By stating agreement with forcing Attacks to be in-thread, you directly supported the position prohibiting PMs. Why did you do this?

Why did you only clarify your position regarding actions AFTER the town had agreed that it we wouldn't punish players who PM actions? Specific posts that changed your mind are appreciated, as are your thoughts/reasoning.

[Kast]

@Drowmage-

Show me the wiki article or link some meta that sets a precedent as to what governs the length of a mechanics discussion.

Speculating and discussing mechanics at the expense or to the exclusion of scumhunting is generally detrimental.

I assumed your question was a request for any conditions under which there should be limits to a mechanics discussion.
When the mechanics discussion is at the expense of scumhunting or being used in place of scumhunting, then it is detrimental to the town and should be reduced.

Explain how my post can be construed as a straw man. I did not attribute any of your posts as advocating replacement of scumhunting with game mechanics. From context, I directly stated agreement with your assessment of the current mechanics discussion as appropriate.

@TM-

With quotes, not with lies like you did before.

You ignored the quotes the first two times the questions were asked. Why did you wait until the third time the questions were asked to suddenly object and whine that there are no quotes?

And I'm trying to go with the majority and not ruffle feathers?

It's always amusing when scum get called out for trying not to ruffle feathers, then make a big deal AFTER being called out and try to point at that as counter-evidence. Nice try.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
Overall nice job. Feel free to do for my other posts.

I'm pretty sure if I started paraphrasing I could cut it in half from the second quote, but you get the point.

I'd like to see that.

Some of the parts you erased are important.

@Drowmage-
-

Speculating and

discussing mechanics at the expense

or to the exclusion

of scumhunting is generally detrimental.

But

agreed that there shouldn't ever be a

hard

constraint against discussing mechanics;

especially not in a non-traditional game like this.

-The article is about brevity, but nowhere states that content should be dropped for brevity's sake. My posts have touched on

(and raised)

nearly every game relevant subjec

t, particularly how this game works and what we're going to do about that.

I'd rather post something longer than assume that someone else will do it.

@KY Case-
I don't really see it. He placed one of the first serious votes of the game and it was weak. He could be following/buddying on me. Is that all?

@TM Case-
TM has directly

and indirectly

contradicted himself

and implicitly contradicted himself

. He hasn't bothered to defend

explain or defend

either contradiction

, instead he's been playing extremely conciliatory (probably what led to the contradictions).

It's like he doesn't care what he says as long as it's agreeing with the majority

and won't ruffle feathers.

I strongly suspect scum in this game want to lurk and avoid getting townies upset with them. TM's play fits this bill.

This recent post from KY also fits my expected scum behavior.

Why is this green?

@Tajo-
-Without a

unanimous or

near unanimous agreement on punishing rogues, I don't think it is

fair or

feasible.

If you can convince 2 out of

Try convincing 2 of

{Chamber, Grover, Snow_bunny, TonyMontoya}

, to agree on punishing rogues, I think we'll be okay with it.

@Rushing-
This game doesn't have deadlines. As long as players continue to post, we can prolong the Melee Phase indefinitely

and discuss anything necessary.

There is seriously no need to rush.

[Kast]

Which did not contradict my position that we should all vote for one lynch candidate.

-The question was whether we should vote for a lynch candidate. Voting to emphasize your suspicions IS voting for your lynch candidate. You're trying to split hairs and argue semantics here.

-Please stop the ad hom. Also, you didn't answer the question.
If you believed we should not prohibit PMs, why didn't you say that?

[Kast]

-You still haven't explained how voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

[Kast]

@TM-
-To be clear, you acknowledge that you were splitting hairs/arguing semantics but prefer that only one of the two phrases being applied.

Prohibit means stop something from happening. Some players said that nobody should be allowed to submit any actions by PM (ie. We should prohibit PM'ed actions).

I asked everyone to for their opinions on this. You said attacks should not be allowed by PM. If you thought that non-attack actions should be allowed by PM, then why didn't you say that?

-

voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

These are the same things. Infeasible = not feasible.

You are avoiding answering. Why did you think "voting for a lynch candidate" would not be good?

[Kast]

@drowmage-
-Defending isn't inherently scummy or anti-town.
-My post which you call a straw man is not a defense of anything except continuation of mechanics discussion. You are misreading, paranoid, or both.

There are no established practices for when a discussion like this should come to an end.

This is misleading. When any discussion prevents town from catching scum, it should come to an end. In our case, the discussion is not doing that.

@SB-
-Whoever is first in the Melee Phase can wait indefinitely. There are no deadlines, hence no need to end discussion.

[Kast]

@SB-
Also to be clear, I did not mean to imply that any of {chamber, Grover, Snow_bunny, TM} are advocating rogues without reasons. Everyone (both pro- and anti- rogue camps) has asked for good reasons for votes/attacks.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
-I won't submit any action until we have a consensus. I expect others will do the same. Melee Phase may go through a few turns from rogues, but it will not run through willy-nilly.

@Another PoV why we should only attack a majority candidate-
-If we ONLY attack the majority candidate, then we reduce this to a standard game where townies have a small chance of surviving the mafia NK and scum have a much smaller chance of diverting lynches away from themselves.

[Kast]

@TM-
-Making an irrelevant attack on playstyle instead of answering the question is scummy.

Voting to emphasize one's suspicions is not synonymous with choosing a lynch candidate through voting.

Voting for who you are suspicious of IS voting for your lynch candidate.

When arguing semantics, use what the person actually wrote instead of making stuff up. I thought you liked quotes?

Only attacking the majority candidate is a similar but independent issue.

-The town was discussing whether players should be allowed to send actions by PM. You claim it should be allowed. You did not say that when asked and implied the opposite. This is inconsistent.

I thought it would turn scumhunting stale, if everyone was required to follow majority rule in combat, as scum would have no choice but to follow, thus making sniffing out scum based on melee actions impossible. Essentially leaving all scumhunting to the 3 discussion days.

We are allowed to discuss in melee phase, but if we're supposed to decide the lynch in the first 3 days, what is there to talk about?

Thanks for finally answering.

The answer doesn't hold water. Whether everyone should attack the majority candidate was a separate question.

Who said anything about deciding the lynch in the first 3 days?

Nobody

scum would have no choice but to follow, thus making sniffing out scum based on melee actions impossible.

Does this mean you expect scum will reveal themselves if we allow rogues?

Assuming scum are stupid is bad play.

@Yosarian2-
-It's not that ambiguous. It directly answers the question that an action sent by PM instead of in-thread post could still be visible to the town. What matters is whether the action would be seen by town.

If someone has an action whose results are hidden, then even if it is posted in-thread, nobody will see the results.

5) Actions can be either PMed to me, or posted in bold in the thread. I will then do all the subsequent dice rolls, and

post the outcomes in the thread. As soon as an action is resolved the next player can play his turn.

At least two people will know when a turn ends. Sounds like everyone will know.

-I can use a different word. Someone used it earlier and it seems pretty apt.

@MOD-

Is a standard attack an action that other players would see?

@Grover/KY-
D1 is traditionally plagued by weak cases. This is true regardless of whether there is mechanics discussion.

@KY-
-To be clear, have you reversed your position regarding ending mechanics discussion?
--If so, what made you change your mind?

@Grover-
-Now that you have a better understanding, do you still believe it is okay for players to be rogues (attack non-majority targets)?
--If not, are you willing to punish players who engage in this behavior?

@Nuwen-
This stood out on re-read:

anyone proposing "every man for himself" damage is obvscum

Dealing damage independent of consensus is scummy enough to become a policy kill in this setup.

To be clear, does "every man for himself" damage mean each player attack his own suspect? If so, do you still hold to these statements?
How does this interact with these players {chamber, Grover, SB, TM}?

[Kast]

Btw-in case this helps, here are some questions I asked prior to the game starting with TSQ's reply. I encourage any skeptics to ask him the same questions.

-Unless a player has an ability that says otherwise, the actions that we take (attempt) in the melee phase will be public knowledge.

(actions can either be PMed to me or posted in thread. In some cases they will not be things immediately apparent to other players, but all actions otherwise will be known to all other members of the town.

--All players will see the dice rolls when we try to attack someone else. I assume this includes the bonuses and any effects of feats.

(Die rolls will all be posted in thread)

--I am assuming that the current HP of each player will not be announced in this phase.

(No stats will be revealed by me, except through trial and error I.e. I rolled a 13 but didn’t hit X player.

--I assume that a player dying in the melee phase immediately puts the day into twilight (although this may be redundant since you do the dice rolling and can end the day at the same time you do the roll).

(yes)

[Kast]

@TM-
-Do you think giving straight answers hurts the town?

-Assuming you meant "yes"; how does allowing a rogue to attack his suspect more effectively indicate affiliation than normal voting?

To be clear, sounds like you believed that prohibiting rogue behavior removed

one

source of potential scumtells. Is this correct?

Did you think the damage from losing these potential tells was significant enough to outweigh all benefits gained from it? Please explain.

[Kast]

Do you think straight questions do?

Does this mean yes?

Straight questions can be very helpful to the town.

-If the consensus is to kill me, then I will attack my prime suspect. As I said before, this is how any townie should react. Are you trying to gauge whether you should get your buddies to attack me?

-Why aren't you answering my questions?

[Kast]

@TM-
Your statement is ambiguous.

To clarify:
-Are you saying that anyone who thinks the majority candidate is a townie should help that candidate by attacking the candidate's target?
-Are you saying that allowing players to act as rogues helps my belief that a townie majority lynch candidate should attack his prime suspect?
-Something else?

My guess is you meant the former:
The difference between the majority candidate (MC) going rogue and a random townie (RT) going rogue is that MC knows his own affiliation. Lynching guaranteed town is worse than lynching non-guaranteed town.

The RT should not know that MC is town. If RT is a cop and knows MC is town, then he should exercise judgment on whether to help prevent the lynch.

[Kast]

@All-
To be clear, I will delay submitting any action until we reach a majority consensus. My guess is that Yosarian2 will do this as well.

[Kast]

@TM-
He should realize he might be mistaken, suck it up, and play nice with the rest of the town. Town still gains information from death of MC, choice of RT to not attack MC, and choice of all who did attack MC.

Same as we'd learn from a standard lynch with additional info on anyone who attacks where they didn't vote, or doesn't attack where they did vote.

If town has agreed not to do rogue attacks, we KNOW that any rogues are guaranteed scum.

@Yosarian2-
My vote is on TM. I would like to see his flip.

@KY-
Tajo doesn't dislike your vote because it's weak. He thinks it is insincere.

You are also potentially buddying with me, and potentially using me to to validate your position. You could be setting up to excuse any negative results by blaming me.

[Kast]

Case of the year! Open and shut! Take me to the gallows right away.

Try reading.

[Kast]

Try writing.

Inconsistent with your previous claim that I write too much.

Also, you still haven't answered my questions.

[Kast]

But consistant with my previous claim that you blow alot of smoke.

To be clear, you are admitting that you contradicted yourself to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
I'm voting TM.

[Kast]

@KY-
-I never said anything about MC attacking himself.

I want everyone to say, right now, exactly who they would most want to see lynched today,

@Yosarian2-
My vote is on TM. I would like to see his flip.

Case of the year! Open and shut! Take me to the gallows right away.

TM either has serious reading comprehension problems or is intentionally misrepresenting my post.

Try reading.

Try writing.

Inconsistent with your previous claim that I write too much.

But consistant with my previous claim that you blow alot of smoke.

But I suppose I should amend my statement.
"To be clear, you are admitting that you contradicted yourself. Looks like you contradicted yourself to avoid explaining why you misrepresented my post."

That's a scummy defense tactic. It's typical of your play so far.

[Kast]

@KY-
I try to be thorough. I probably shouldn't humor him and just call him out directly each time he avoids stuff instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and following his tangents.

Whatever. I've lost a lot of hope for this town. With barely half of us are posting, a third of us are happy to let scum do as they please, nobody cares at all about objective scumtells and anti-town evasive behavior, and a sudden rule change that cuts to our discussion time; if scum win this one, it's not gonna be on their merits.

[Kast]

@TM Case-
(1) Claimed that players voting for their suspects was infeasible (Q1). Later changed this to claim voting should be done. Much later claimed that his initial statement meant players should not be prohibited from rogue behavior (Q4). Two objective direct contradictions.
(2) Was in favor of actions being in thread. Change his position to non-attack actions should be okay to PM. Objective indirect contradiction.

Both points have subjective supporting points.
-First post was changed in response to a CC disagreeing with his post (placing him in a clear minority).
-Second post was changed after town consensus was to not punish people for sending actions by PM.
-Repeatedly avoided or refused to clarify.
-Repeatedly uses ad hom, out-of-context quotes, and blatant misrepresentations to avoid questions and sidetrack discussion.
-He is avoiding ruffling feathers as much as possible.
-When I didn't let him get away with this, he started being a jerk in response.

@Yosarian2-
-To be clear, I prefer a deadline. What I dislike is town getting screwed by sudden rule change. For fairness, we should get an extension of Discussion Phase 1. This lets players who put off posting under the old ruleset a chance to post final thoughts before the first combat.

It's not like we hid the idea of waiting and suddenly sprung it on TSQ.

@Stark-
Welcome.

@Mod-

-I won't be around for the weekend.

Conditional orders:
-I want to attack the first player to reach a majority of votes.
-If there is no majority of votes, then the first player to reach a plurality of votes.
-I will not attack myself.
-If I am either the majority or the plurality, I will attack TM.

If you won't take conditional orders:
-Take no action.

@All-
-I prefer if everyone attacks the MC. We want to prevent MC from attacking as well as any rogues.

Something we haven't discussed:
-MC may want to claim. All roles are equally likely to be scum or town and we won't see any counterclaims. However, losing some PRs may have a worse effect on town than losing others.

[Kast]

@TM-
(1) Funny how you don't use quotes after getting upset that I posted without quotes. I suppose that's because the post record shows you are a liar.

Playing the "I-don't-speak-English" card isn't a valid excuse for lying.

I never said you shouldn't vote

This game does not have a voting system. I suggested that we vote anyway and asked what everyone thinks. You said no.

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

After C.C posted the opposite opinion, you responded by changing your position.

-Your rules misunderstanding is an irrelevant distraction point. Even if damage resets, voting is still beneficial. Also, we would still prohibit rogue behavior. Allowing townies to free-for-all attack allows scum to indistinguishably do the same.

(2) Again, post record shows you are lying. Your initial post said attacks should be in thread, NOT that there is a point in hiding them.

I can say that I agree that

attacks should be posted in thread

.

I said that there

was point in trying to hide attacks

If this was a typo or misunderstanding, you had time to correct it. You were specifically asked about your position and chose not to correct it.
You changed position AFTER everyone agreed on no punishment.

@drowmage/KY-
Two pages of back-and-forth and you still haven't cleared up the misunderstanding?

At least my posts have content...

--DM--
KY is suspicious of TM

(everyone should be)

. KY "dinged" SB with reasons. KY has no reason to suspect Nuwen. Consequently, he doesn't.
KY didn't claim that SB (or Nuwen) changing assumptions is a scumtell. From context, he tried to convince SB that:
IF SB was wrong once,
THEN SB could be wrong again
THUS SB should change assumptions again.

CONSIDERATION: You appear to suffer from confirmation bias against play styles that use long posts.
SUGGESTION: IF you have problems reading or understanding, THEN ask questions and make an effort to understand INSTEAD OF assuming the player is scum and fitting evidence to your preconception.

Apologies, the suggestion is not meant to offend and could probably contain more tact. However, your general posting, especially posts 193 and 325 indicate a strong confirmation bias. You seem capable of better play than this, so I hope you will consider it.

--KY--
DM doesn't read carefully. Replace all instances of "Nuwen" with "Snow_Bunny". DM also thinks you are saying SB is scummy BECAUSE she changed her assumption.
To be clear, do you believe that changing an assumption is a scumtell?

The reason I said anything at all was because of your out-of-place comment about

Nuwen's

Snow_bunny's

adjustment of her assumptions.

Also, remember when I posted about avoiding pronouns? That could have prevented this distraction.

@Stark-
Enforcement Squad (ES) is a great idea. Its members should be the players who voted for the Majority Candidate (MC). If a member goes rogue, he should be treated the same as any other rogue. If a member goes pacifist, he should be treated the same as any other pacifist.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

[Kast]

@TM-
-Your use of technicalities and semantics arguments is scummy. Yes, you did not use the word "upset". My point still stands.

-You can claim you didn't read CC's post, but you only posted after he made it a solid majority (7 players) in favor of voting & following a voting system.

-A rogue can lynch his target and overrule the majority. More rogues makes it more likely. Most days only have 2-3 main suspects. Rogues enable a group of 2-4 players to realistically lynch a Runner-up Candidate instead of the MC, especially if the 2 candidates have different AC. In a standard game, this imbalance in voting does not exist. Allowing a few players to overrule the majority gives scum a safe way to undetectably control the lynch.

-When asked if we should allow actions by PM, your answer was negative. You later reversed completely.

That you only explicitly said "attacks" is a technicality. The question was whether we should allow actions by PM. The current majority opinion was no. If you felt the way you later claimed, you should have said it then. Instead, you refused to clarify UNTIL a majority decided PMs were okay.

-Chamber proposed that.

You clearly understood. The claim that your answer excuses you from answering Q2-Q5 does not make sense otherwise. You are attempting to sow confusion by arguing against Q4 as an "explanation" of what you meant by Q1. They are different questions. Congratz though, you seem to have succeeded at causing confusion.

@Tajo-
It is possible that TM is an indecisive townie who changed his mind and just doesn't like explaining himself. However, given this game setup, I find it more likely that he is scum who keeps changing his story to agree with the majority.

In this game, scum benefit significantly from not drawing attention to themselves.

@Mod-

Are conditional orders okay?

[Kast]

@Grover-

Melee phase is not equivalent to night in this game.

Scum nightkill the same way they normally do. At night. Not publicly.

[Kast]

scum can one-hit us or take half our life if we are lucky enough to roll a saving throw...so the scum will have to hammer us themselves, and

this will be an action that everyone can witness

even if they PM this action.

Unless you have a feat that turns everyone into a watcher/tracker, then you are mistaken. The standard scum nightkill happens at

night

. It does not happen during the Melee Phase. We will not know when scum are using it.

I didn't assume you were ignorant because you hadn't posted. I assumed you were ignorant because your post shows you don't understand the game mechanics.

If they kill us during the day we will find out and swiftly lynch them.

Explain how this works in regards to the following situations:
-Player A and Player B are townies. Player A attacks and kills Player B who flips town.
-Player A is scum and Player B is town. Player A attacks and kills Player B who flips town.

I assume you aren't proposing we lynch all "hammer" attacks.

...so, he lurks, he suggests the most anti-town stratagy possible, he declares he's going to go off on his own and hurt people, and you declare him town for it?

Good post. Grover makes no sense. KY sounds like he's looking for an excuse to abandon reason for the nonsense.

@Tajo-
If I didn't push TM, then he would have coasted by with no attention and he probably would have posted a third as frequently. His posts are exclusively reactionary attempts to confuse and drop attention.

@TM-
I read your post as:
-"Nuh-uh"
-Random stuff to sow more confusion.
-Let me know if you think you posted something relevant.

@Grover/TM-

there's an obvious pitfall in the fact that actual majority is not needed to lynch someone, just relative majority.

A relative majority (plurality) could control a lynch. However, you're hiding the worse problem that a minority could plausibly overrule a majority. This doesn't require an entire scum team piling on. Most games of mafia naturally weed out candidates until there are only 2-3 main suspects.

A targets AC values can change the expected damage per attack drastically, as can an attacker's Attack or Damage bonuses. We aren't all equal in this game.

ex. A player with improved crit as a feat and a STR bonus of +2 or +3, could solo-lynch a target in a single Melee Phase. Such a player is equivalent to 3-4 players who have low STR and/or non-attack related feats.

[Kast]

@TM-
You aren't reading carefully.

We aren't all equal in this game.

If we lynch a player with high AC, it will likely take more than one melee phase. If we lynch a player with low AC, it will probably take a single melee phase (~dozen attacks).

Individual players who have bonus to Attack, Damage, or both have more control of the lynch.
-A player with the improved crit feat (double critical threat range) and +3 STR bonus could roll mediocre rolls and kill a player in a single melee phase.

Attack1: 2d20-17,12
Damage1: 2d6+6 - 2,3 = 11
Attack 2: 2d20-18,13
Damage2: 2d6+6 - 4,3 = 13

-A player with Defense-oriented feats and stats would have to roll perfectly to match it.

Attack1: 2d20-19,12
Damage1: 2d6+0 - 6,6 = 12
Attack 2: 2d20-19,12
Damage2: 2d6+0 - 6,6 = 12

-Without crits, it would take 4 players with perfect damage rolls to match

If we only attack a single target, then differences in stats don't matter. If multiple players are being attacked, then the different Defender and Attacker stats drastically alter the dynamics of the lynch and allow minority lynches.

[Kast]

@TM-
-Why would you support punishing rogues if there is an actual majority but not support it if there are 6 players voting for a single target?
-I dislike the notion of players deciding whether to support an MC lynch after seeing who is on the table to be lynched.

@Grover-
Agreed that it is not a bad thing if someone sees something the rest don't. It's actually great and whoever sees that thing should share it. However, it is unnecessary and potentially harmful to permit him to make a rogue attack.
-If a single attacker can't affect the lynch, then he doesn't need to attack.
-If a single attacker can affect the lynch, then allowing townies also allows scum, and that is not good.

[Kast]

-Our mod doesn't seem to check the site that frequently; all my PMs take a day or two before he checks them. He could also be searching for replacements before entering Melee Phase.

I suggest treating it like an extension and making use of the bonus time. Also Yosarian2 may want to submit back-up orders in case mod suddenly jumps in and ends this turn.

-Whoever is making vote lists, my vote is still on TM. Anyone who isn't voting, please either vote or give a reason for your abstinence.

[Kast]

@Nuwen-
Mod did clarify that he won't be revealing any stats, but will reveal all die rolls.

Ex:
Player A attacks Player B.
Mod announces something along these lines:

Original Roll String: 1d20

1 20-Sided Dice: (6) = 6

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (3) = 3

Player A hits Player B.

Original Roll String: 1d20

1 20-Sided Dice: (17) = 17

Player A attacks Player B but misses.

He may throw in more flavor to reflect the RP theme, but it seems unlikely that we will see any actual numbers other than the die rolls.

[Kast]

@TM-
My mistake. Mod clarified he will not PUBLICLY reveal any stats. I did not ask, but am assuming, that TSQ will tell you if your HP count changes. It also won't hurt to privately ask the mod for an HP count after each player's turn (or ask to be notified if your HP ever changes).

@Yosarian2-
I'm not suggesting that you decide right now to attack a player; I am suggesting that you tell the mod what you plan to do in case he comes back and suddenly posts that your turn is over and you lose your turn. If you are planning to attack a plurality candidate, then you should probably say that. If you are planning to take no action, then it's probably unnecessary.

[Kast]

@TM/Chamber/Grover/SB-
To be clear, even if we do not have a majority in this Melee Phase, none of you are planning to attack anybody in this Melee Phase.

I dislike how TM has weaseled out of his previous contradictions on technicalities. I want to hear explicit positions from each of you so there's no more of this weaseling.

@Others-
Everyone else appears to agree with not attacking (or is not playing so cannot attack) until we reach a majority. If this is not how you feel, then speak up.

[Kast]

Agreed with Y2 that KY's votecount is extremely misleading.

Unofficial Vote Count:

Say something if it's wrong

KY-(4) Y2, Tajo, SB, DM
TM-(2) Kast, Nuwen
Y2-(1) Grover
Grover-(1) Chamber
Kast-(0)
Stark-(0)
Chamber-(0)
SB-(0)
FS-(0)
Nuwen-(0)
Tajo-(0)
DM-(0)

Not Voting:

Why?

Stark

Catching up?

KY

Confused?

FS

Replacing?

TM

No suspects?

Melee Phase 1: Initiative

Y2*
Kast
Stark
Chamber
KY
Grover
SB
FS

skipped if replacement not found

Nuwen
Tajo
DM
TM

[Kast]

@KY-
I don't plan to regularly post vote counts. If I see a bad one, I'll point out the problem. If it's horrendously bad, I'll put up a better one..

@SB-
You did not answer. If your turn comes up and there is no majority, do you intend to attack?

[Kast]

Unofficial Vote Count:

Say something if it's wrong

KY-(5) Y2, Tajo, SB, TM, DM
TM-(2) Kast, Nuwen
Y2-(1) Grover
Grover-(1) Chamber
Kast-(0)
Stark-(0)
Chamber-(0)
SB-(0)
FS-(0)
Nuwen-(0)
Tajo-(0)
DM-(0)

Not Voting:

Why?

Stark

Catching up?

KY

Confused?

FS

Replacing?

[Kast]

@SB-
I assume lurker = "not voting for KY".

I think TM's a much better lynch. If KY lynch is the town's majority choice, I'll respect the majority decision.

@KY-
In terms of a standard game with majority required for a lynch, you could consider me willing to hammer if you don't have a strong claim.

-One thing that has me very wary is the almost complete lack of any runner up candidate.

[Kast]

@KY-
At this point, I suggest you claim if you have anything worth sharing with the town. Also, share any final thoughts.

@Y2-
It's extremely unfair to claim that KY was responsible for misunderstandings between KY and DM. DM has not been reading carefully and ignoring what's actually going on in favor of whatever preconceptions she has.

That said, I think we'll learn a good bit with KY's flip (either scum or town).

@Votes so far-
The lack of a runner up candidate suggests a few things.

-If KY is scum, his teammates are probably lying low.
-If KY is town, I'd guess the wagon is probably scum driven.

@Mod-

In case my turn comes up this weekend, I'm not taking any actions.

[Kast]

@DM, 456-
You say alignment claims are useful then list role claims as examples. Wtf?

@KY-
Okay, nothing implausible but also nothing worth saving.

@Nuwen-
Claims could catch a liar and it would be worthwhile to leave a claimed cop or doc. Also no need to rush.

[Kast]

@Nuwen/Y2-
It does feel like this is stalling out. I don't mind as it would be better to get replacements instead of having players melee turns be auto-skipped.

Since TSQ is apparently busy or V/LA, there's not much to be done and I think the non-replacing players have pretty much made their thoughts clear (except Stark).

@KY-
-Can you name your feats?
-What experience do you have with d20 game systems?

[Kast]

@KY-
1. I know you can list what your feats do. I want to know if you can provide a name for your feats. Specifically, can you provide a name for your second feat?

[Kast]

Oh, ok. Not sure it'll help determine my alignment, but it's "Fade Into Violence".

Your claimed feat is something that would naturally disincline players from attacking you.
-If you were false claiming, it was possible you might not have thought it through (this is not the case).
-With 13AC, most attacks are liable to miss and trigger your feat (effectively giving you bonus attacks). I'm a bit surprised that you have not emphasized this.

[Kast]

@Y2-

Eh, I don't think he's lying about the feat.

Agreed. As I stated before, it is plausible. Also, as you quoted, it doesn't look like he is making a thoughtless false claim.

There's really no need for him to do so, considering that roles have no correlation to alignment,

This is false. If scum were facing a lynch, they have incentive to claim anything that could reduce the likelihood of them actually being lynched. Based on chamber's post 501, the claimed feat can feasibly help this.

I'm not sure what to make of this; I would expect a player (town or scum) to emphasize it, but KY did not.

plus it'd be instantly obvious he was lying as soon as someone attacked him.

This is not clear. Fade into violence does not automatically trigger; a player chooses to use it. Even if KY has the feat, he could choose to not use it and we could not tell the difference.

If he's scum, then attacking him now, when we can kill him fairly quickly and when we still all have full hitpoints, is probably less dangerous then attacking him later when we have less townies and more of us are wounded.

Partial agreement. If town is going to lynch KY, then now is better than later. If town decides to lynch KY, we expect to do more damage from attacking than KY does from redirecting, unless his target has AC penalties.

[Kast]

I'll be around a few more hours today, then gone for the weekend. I will be traveling most of next week, so only sporadic access.

In case my turn comes around, I'm not going to take any action.

[Kast]

I'd like to hear the town stats and feats.

Yes, I was scum; but Nuwen and I both just played the game as if we were townies regardless.

Given the amount of town resistance to a genuinely pro-town strategy, maybe we should have just gone with that flow and let the town screw themselves...

[Kast]

Montana coming up town would have probably lead me to your scum ways.

That's only if he ever got killed. I pushed TM as a "safe" target. He legitimately made contradictory statements, that weren't technically indicative of affiliation, but were valid enough to build a weak case without being strong enough to convince other people to follow.

@Ort-
So far my record is:
T-2/3/0
M-5/0/1
I-0/2/0

I have been mafia in just under half of my completed games.