Oh, by the way--
(5)
(1)
(1)
(6)
Let me know if there are any mistakes.
In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:Were you expecting me to come right out of the gate with my analysis, or something?
In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?
timeline wrote:In post 209, PeregrineV wrote:It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?
In post 210, Kinetic wrote:Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.
Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:
1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.
We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.
In post 222, PeregrineV wrote:I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
In post 240, PeregrineV wrote:Imightcompromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.
In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?
timeline wrote:In post 209, PeregrineV wrote:It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?
In post 210, Kinetic wrote:Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.
Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:
1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.
We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.
In post 222, PeregrineV wrote:I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
In post 240, PeregrineV wrote:Imightcompromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.
In post 424, Tierce wrote:I hope you like hemp rope, because that's what's for dinner.
In post 422, PeregrineV wrote:In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:In post 413, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Voided, you need to explain in your next post how and why I am a null read. Go.
Patience, LLD, patience. I just got home, so that re-read has yet to happen. Most of those reads were rought remembrances from my readthrough as a neutral observer. you, in particular, are null because I need to refresh myself as to what I think about you.
Quadz: Remnd me, why exactly was I scummy for what I opened up with as if I didn't match up to your expectations as a replacment? Were you expecting me to come right out of the gate with my analysis, or something?
Yes, because this game is small, and not a lot happened. If you read it at least once you should havesomethingto say.
That's a good idea.In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?
Well, why not officialize it, then? (though I make 6 votes, anyways.)
No, I don't agree with Tierce. I had no idea what her reads where other than me as scum and Matt as scum, and her Matt reason was he was arguing with her.In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: So, are you saying that youDon'tagree with Tierce at all and 251 was sarcastic?
So yes, sarcasm.
In post 430, quadz08 wrote:If you feel that way, why haven't you thrown a hurt at him yet?
In post 432, quadz08 wrote:How is more information taken from Matt's death?
Oh also Kinetic too.Xalxe wrote:In post 432, quadz08 wrote:How is more information taken from Matt's death?
When Matt dies, his alignment (town or scum) sheds light, at the very least, on myself and Tierce offhand. PV death sheds light on his wagon; the only other reads he's given is all relative to theory and is basically useless.
In post 433, Voidedmafia wrote:In post 422, PeregrineV wrote:In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:In post 413, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Voided, you need to explain in your next post how and why I am a null read. Go.
Patience, LLD, patience. I just got home, so that re-read has yet to happen. Most of those reads were rought remembrances from my readthrough as a neutral observer. you, in particular, are null because I need to refresh myself as to what I think about you.
Quadz: Remnd me, why exactly was I scummy for what I opened up with as if I didn't match up to your expectations as a replacment? Were you expecting me to come right out of the gate with my analysis, or something?
Yes, because this game is small, and not a lot happened. If you read it at least once you should havesomethingto say.
Okay...given that we're in no hurry to actually finish today and there no overly pressing issue to deal with (claims, guilties, etc.), what's the rush for me to get my analysis out?
That's a good idea.In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?
Well, why not officialize it, then? (though I make 6 votes, anyways.)
No, I don't agree with Tierce. I had no idea what her reads where other than me as scum and Matt as scum, and her Matt reason was he was arguing with her.In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: So, are you saying that youDon'tagree with Tierce at all and 251 was sarcastic?
So yes, sarcasm.
Ah, I see.
P-EDIT: Still, Kinetic, would you agree that the 5 votes on Pere came a little too quickly to be comfortable? Even if Pere sounds like he's hedging his views and trenching in on 7 votes, it feels like 6 would be best to err on the side of caution.
In post 438, Kinetic wrote:At first, yes. But as we've had time to see it, and PV has responded, I feel much more comfortable in it. The 5 came quickly, but they've been building up for a while. And in a way, LLD is 6, so we have 6 players who are ok with hurting our dear scum.
In post 176, Tierce wrote: I'm wondering if we should only let general Townreads inflict Hurts--like scumreads should be the ones Healing surprise Rage attacks.
In post 178, Tierce wrote:What "town" words are you referring to?
...that said, it would probably be ridiculously hard to implement. It's hard enough to herd cats (heh) into getting communal scumreads, communal Townreads are yet another layer of difficulty and slowing the game down.
In post 248, Tierce wrote:How about doing anything that does not involve theory? You clearly have time in your V/LA to read these posts over and mull on the implications, so I don't see how you can't take 5 minutes to read someone in context and in ISO and form reads.
In post 444, Tierce wrote:As I said--I've been speed-wagoned as scum. There is nothing wrong with a wagon forming quickly if there is good reasoning behind it.
This is instigating. Why did you feel you needed to wait to hurt me?In post 430, quadz08 wrote:If you feel that way, why haven't you thrown a hurt at him yet?
In post 434, Kinetic wrote:In post 430, quadz08 wrote:If you feel that way, why haven't you thrown a hurt at him yet?
I was just contemplating that. And frankly, we have 6 votes anyway with LLD.
Fine, I was the first to heal, let's get this rock rolling.
*Kinetic balls his hands together, producing a flame between his palms. This flame can be both a life-giving flame, or a flame of destruction, depending on his choice. He channels his anger into the flame, making it burn hot, then seizes that power and directs it at PeregrineV.*
HURT: PeregrineV
There it is. Lead from the rear.In post 443, quadz08 wrote:*Eyes glowing, I snap my fingers. I watch PeregrineV's body snap to rigidity, then suddenly relax again. It's clear that he's been weakened.*
HURT: PeregrineV