EPTTL Mafia Model OP - Page 5
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On January 24 2014 12:42 Qatol wrote: Blazinghand, I don't mind adding extra stuff to the model OP if people want it and if it is relatively standard in current games. Let me know if you would like to see something added. I'm sorry but who are you? Edit: OH GOD SHOULD HAVE CLICKED ON HIS PROFILE BEFORE POSTING | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
12. Posting a false role PM phrased as if you received it from the host. You can still fake roleclaim, but you cannot make it look like you are posting a PM you received from the host. We had a little trouble with this that influenced a game recently. You are allowed to copy paste what the host PMs you in normal games. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 25 2014 09:27 bumatlarge wrote: Can we rephrase rule #12? We had a little trouble with this that influenced a game recently. You are allowed to copy paste what the host PMs you in normal games. I personally don't use this rule in my model OP, but in my opinion the lack of clarity in terms of what was claimable isn't a fault with this model OP (since it's designed for a game where you don't claim flavor or wording from your PM) but rather with how it gets implemented. Anyone who wants claimable role fluff in their PMs, or role names, should specify in their game OP (which overrides the rules in this one) what the rules about claiming are. In my games, for example, you can generally claim everything about the content of your Role PM, but nothing about the time, subject line, etc-- nothing not very easily fakeable, since my Role PMs are typically just single-word or single-line pms like "vt" or "mineral line drone" | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
| ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On January 25 2014 09:27 bumatlarge wrote: Can we rephrase rule #12? We had a little trouble with this that influenced a game recently. You are allowed to copy paste what the host PMs you in normal games. We could remove that entirely. I don't know how important the rule is with current playstyles. However, it is supposed to stop people from making a post that appears to be from the host (with quote tags and the host's name etc) but isn't because the words from the host are supposed to be above question. It seemed important at the time, at least for newbie games, to avoid confusion. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Original Message From Foolishness: That's a good question. I don't know lol Post this in the model OP thread and let's see what comes up. Original Message From Toadesstern: Hey there got a "quick" question about how to determine a lynch if a tiebreak happens [...] just in case. Let's say there's 2 people who get votes alternatingly. Voters are called A, B C, D, E. The two guys voted Toad and Foolishness for simplicity. So votes are casted in this fashion and most importantly [in this] order: A votes Toad B votes Foolishness C votes Toad D votes Foolishness E votes Toad Obviously if it stays like that Toad has 3 votes and gets lynched. Also quite obvious if E unvotes Toad it's at 2-2 but Toad gets lynched because he had 2 votes earlier from A and C. + Show Spoiler [because voting would be just this] + A votes Toad B votes Foolishness C votes Toad D votes Foolishness Now here's the question: What happens if however A (or C, comes down to the same) unvotes Toad. Again a 2-2 scenario, but it looks like + Show Spoiler [this] + B votes Foolishness C votes Toad D votes Foolishness E votes Toad Is it interpreted as "Toad gets lynched because he, had 2 votes before Foolishness despite the voter giving him that earlier "time" not being on the wagon anymore" [A+C was the first time he had 2 votes and he never got below 2 votes, so the votes A and C matter timestampwise, C being the deciding one because it's the last one (E already brought him to 3 and would thus only be used for a possible 3-3 tie)] OR do I look at the timing of those still remaining on the lynch? In this case it would be C and E voting Toad and those together, with the critical/last vote comming from E are later than B and D on Foolishness, thus Foolishness would be lynched first because he had 2 votes earlier without A being on the list. Basicly do I look at when someone got the critical "mass" of votes for the first time no matter what as long as it doesn't get lower than the 2nd place or do I look at the timestamp of the last vote that matters? thoughts? | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
"you become the lynch target if you have more votes than anyone else" So let's say Aaron gets 2 votes. he is now the lynch target as he has the most votes. now Barry gets 3 votes, he's now the lynch target since he has the most votes now one of Barry's guys unvotes him, so he and Aaron both have 2 votes. Barry is still the lynch target since nobody has satisfied "have more votes than anyone else" to take it away from him. yes, Aaron hit 2 votes first, but that's not relevant in my version of plurality lynch. You can only steal the targettedness by having more than anyone else, then you have it until someone has more than you. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Voting rule is Plurality. i.e. the player who has the most votes, or had more votes most recently in case of a tie, is lynched at the deadline. Same thing I'm pretty sure, just different wording. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 09 2014 08:10 Blazinghand wrote: Here's how I interpret plurality lynch: "you become the lynch target if you have more votes than anyone else" So let's say Aaron gets 2 votes. he is now the lynch target as he has the most votes. now Barry gets 3 votes, he's now the lynch target since he has the most votes now one of Barry's guys unvotes him, so he and Aaron both have 2 votes. Barry is still the lynch target since nobody has satisfied "have more votes than anyone else" to take it away from him. yes, Aaron hit 2 votes first, but that's not relevant in my version of plurality lynch. You can only steal the targettedness by having more than anyone else, then you have it until someone has more than you. yeah that's how I always thought about it as well until I realized that it could actually be interpreted in both ways and result in weird situations. Also a lot easier than having to go back and look at timestamps for votes. Same as the other 2 other answers but I quoted this because I like the phrasing the most from BH  | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12971 Posts
On February 09 2014 08:10 Blazinghand wrote: Here's how I interpret plurality lynch: "you become the lynch target if you have more votes than anyone else" So let's say Aaron gets 2 votes. he is now the lynch target as he has the most votes. now Barry gets 3 votes, he's now the lynch target since he has the most votes now one of Barry's guys unvotes him, so he and Aaron both have 2 votes. Barry is still the lynch target since nobody has satisfied "have more votes than anyone else" to take it away from him. yes, Aaron hit 2 votes first, but that's not relevant in my version of plurality lynch. You can only steal the targettedness by having more than anyone else, then you have it until someone has more than you. I support this interpretation. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On February 09 2014 08:10 Blazinghand wrote: Here's how I interpret plurality lynch: "you become the lynch target if you have more votes than anyone else" So let's say Aaron gets 2 votes. he is now the lynch target as he has the most votes. now Barry gets 3 votes, he's now the lynch target since he has the most votes now one of Barry's guys unvotes him, so he and Aaron both have 2 votes. Barry is still the lynch target since nobody has satisfied "have more votes than anyone else" to take it away from him. yes, Aaron hit 2 votes first, but that's not relevant in my version of plurality lynch. You can only steal the targettedness by having more than anyone else, then you have it until someone has more than you. This interpretation makes sense. Honestly, it doesn't really matter how resolve voting ties for plurality lynches as long as you are clear when the game starts. I'll put something to this effect into the model OP as soon as GMarshal unlocks the post so I can edit it again  . Hopefully that will put these discussions to rest (this isn't the first time this has come up). | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Easy as pie | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:57 gonzaw wrote: The only thing that makes sense is that when 2 people get tied in a plurality lynch, make them fight to the death in real life. The one that survives is the one that gets lynched. Easy as pie I think the winner should also get pie before they lynched. Their choice of pie. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:57 gonzaw wrote: The only thing that makes sense is that when 2 people get tied in a plurality lynch, make them fight to the death in real life. The one that survives is the one that gets lynched. Easy as pie Gonzaw that doesn't work. If the person who survives the fight to the death is lynched, then he dies in game. And the person who lost the fight to the death is dead, so he will be modkilled because dead people can't post. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
| ||
