|
I'm in, just have a few questions.
You stated at the start that the list of roles was "neither limited by nor restricted to" the list given, though you put up precisely 20 town roles. Will you be giving the mafia a list of "safe" (non-contested) roles that they can claim? For balance sake will the actual list of town roles be sufficiently branched off from the posted list that roleclaiming outside the given list does not draw undue suspicion?
Just to be crystal clear, rule #4 is saying that you are not permitted to roleclaim the mason? (Just seems like an odd rule, though I'm sure you have your reasons  ) Also, not clear on the definition of 'breadcrumbing'. Is this to say that you can't hint that you are a mason? Is one still permitted to otherwise encode messages within one's post?
Does the Minister of Magic have 3 votes?
Are you just not allowed to say you're running for MoM if you're not 18? That is to say attempting to do so is a modkill or just won't be considered when counting votes, thereby revealing that you are not 18 if you came in first or second?
|
YellowInk wrote:
You stated at the start that the list of roles was "neither limited by nor restricted to" the list given, though you put up precisely 20 town roles. Will you be giving the mafia a list of "safe" (non-contested) roles that they can claim? For balance sake will the actual list of town roles be sufficiently branched off from the posted list that roleclaiming outside the given list does not draw undue suspicion?
Bill Murray wrote:
1) I mean to say that if we get 20 people as opposed to 25 I will make it 16 vs 4
anything else?
My mafia experience is limited, but every game with a complete specific character list I have seen played (I've played in two) was a devastating victory for town. At some point in the game there is mass role claiming. Assuming all townies are truthful and mafia lying, that immediately brings the number of suspicious people down to #mafia x2. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a game like this balanced, but it takes a lot away from the game when, for instance here, there's only 10 people worth scouring for mafia and you effectively have 15 confirmed townies.
To offset this, when there are characters in a given game, one common solution is to give the mafia a 'safe list' of what they can role claim without worry of being contested. There's still the problem here where say a player claims Ron Weasly and goes uncontested, they are nearly a confirmed townie because that role was almost certainly included in the game design. A crafty mod could leave one or two of these out just for the mafia's benefit though. To follow through on this with what you've already posted as well as preserve some integrity of mafia role claims, you could just list 25 town aligned roles and have 5 that just don't get assigned to town (and given to mafia as their safe list).
I'm sure there are other ways to balance this as well. I just see complete uncontested character lists given at the start of game as a huge town advantage. Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
On June 15 2010 05:09 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 15 2010 04:11 YellowInk wrote:Show nested quote +
YellowInk wrote:
You stated at the start that the list of roles was "neither limited by nor restricted to" the list given, though you put up precisely 20 town roles. Will you be giving the mafia a list of "safe" (non-contested) roles that they can claim? For balance sake will the actual list of town roles be sufficiently branched off from the posted list that roleclaiming outside the given list does not draw undue suspicion?
Bill Murray wrote:
1) I mean to say that if we get 20 people as opposed to 25 I will make it 16 vs 4
anything else?
My mafia experience is limited, but every game with a complete specific character list I have seen played (I've played in two) was a devastating victory for town. At some point in the game there is mass role claiming. Assuming all townies are truthful and mafia lying, that immediately brings the number of suspicious people down to #mafia x2. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a game like this balanced, but it takes a lot away from the game when, for instance here, there's only 10 people worth scouring for mafia and you effectively have 15 confirmed townies. To offset this, when there are characters in a given game, one common solution is to give the mafia a 'safe list' of what they can role claim without worry of being contested. There's still the problem here where say a player claims Ron Weasly and goes uncontested, they are nearly a confirmed townie because that role was almost certainly included in the game design. A crafty mod could leave one or two of these out just for the mafia's benefit though. To follow through on this with what you've already posted as well as preserve some integrity of mafia role claims, you could just list 25 town aligned roles and have 5 that just don't get assigned to town (and given to mafia as their safe list). I'm sure there are other ways to balance this as well. I just see complete uncontested character lists given at the start of game as a huge town advantage. Just my thoughts on the matter. ^ YellowInk1. I am the mod. My word is law. I reserve the right to change any rules for game-breaking I will not be accepting name claims to occur in this game unless I am sure it will be balanced or your role PM specifically states otherwise. You may spell claim, or claim whatever nonsense you want, but try not to break the game. "Not Slytherin,eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that--- no?
Not trying to be argumentative or anything, just trying to make sure I understand the game well enough while ensuring the game doesn't get broken during the run.
So if there's a rule against name claiming, how do we draw the line on breadcrumbing information about ourselves or others? As you have stated we can talk about our spells. Clearly we can claim that we are 18+ (verifiable by modkill if false), so it seems reasonable that we can claim we are under 18. Is the line drawn here and we cannot claim anything else about our roles? Can we claim house alliance? Gender? Hair color? Whether we can talk to snakes? Our true feelings for Hermione? The more we're able to talk about, the closer we get to role claiming in the first place.
|
Even just considering that if you draw the line at what has already been explicitly stated that we are allowed to claim (age and spells) and allow no other claiming, it would be difficult to moderate where players might choose to 'roleplay' the roles they are given in some fashion. Furthermore, just the information we have is enough that the game could be opened with "everyone claim whether you are able to be put up for ministry of magic or not". This alone gives the town an endgame advantage when all the 18+ or <18 get accounted for.
This sort of problem is common in any theme game. This is why I suggested giving the mafia a safe list since it is the simplest way for them to not just get immediately outed by mass role claims in any way, shape, or form. There are other ways to mitigate mass role claim effects (and I actually have a game design written up to see how effective it is), but it gets really hard to keep balanced.
|
On June 15 2010 06:01 BrownBear wrote:
I would think to balance it out, nameclaiming in the thread would = modkill.
Another flaw with any attempt to moderate whether you can explicitly name claim is that it can be unfair to deny a claim that you are a given name. For instance, can I say, "I am NOT Ron Weasly?" This gets to be a really slippery slope. If I can only deny claims made against me, I could just ask everyone to throw claims at me until they hit me, etc, an obvious breach of the spirit of the rules. Even if it weren't so blatant, it's clearly going in a direction that you do not intend. If we can't say, "I am NOT Ron Weasly," then suppose a player says I am either Ron Weasly or mafia (perhaps based on my list of abilities). It gets very messy as to how I can go about defending myself without saying whether or not I am Ron Weasly while still trying to show myself to be non-mafia.
tl;dr it's really hard to moderate this kind of thing when accusations start getting thrown around.
|
^^ Also, a moderator's job should be simple, clean, and easy to perform reducing the chance for any error in game. That's why I'm looking to 'break' the game before it begins.
|
On June 19 2010 05:14 Abenson wrote:
Is this game gong to be related to the book?
Example:
Harry Potter = Horcrux
He might deviate a bit and just make all townies horcrux for the challenge.
|
MOD request: Please edit the rules to reflect actual gameplay. Upon reviewing the thread I have noticed scattered rule changes that do not appear reflected in the original post. As the thread gets larger, I will of course do my best to follow all of the rules you have set out, but we will all be using the original post as our core reference.
Re my inactivity: I thought we were on a Monday start due to requests to avoid Father's day, so I did not check in here. No worries, I will be plenty active in this game, but now I have a tarnished opening record. =\
Re my nomination for MoM: I am fine with running for minister here. I don't think that I have any special qualifications beyond the other two candidates posed except, well, that I know I am town. But supposedly so do they, so yeah. If people feel that I would be a valuable choice in the election, I would gladly take the role to at least keep it out of death eater or even independant hands. My spellset would mesh reasonably well with an elected role, but regardless of election will need to remain concealed to keep its optimal efficiency.
Re roleclaiming: Bill Murray has stated that we cannot mass roleclaim. We may not name claim. + Show Spoiler +On June 15 2010 05:09 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 15 2010 04:11 YellowInk wrote:Show nested quote +
YellowInk wrote:
You stated at the start that the list of roles was "neither limited by nor restricted to" the list given, though you put up precisely 20 town roles. Will you be giving the mafia a list of "safe" (non-contested) roles that they can claim? For balance sake will the actual list of town roles be sufficiently branched off from the posted list that roleclaiming outside the given list does not draw undue suspicion?
Bill Murray wrote:
1) I mean to say that if we get 20 people as opposed to 25 I will make it 16 vs 4
anything else?
My mafia experience is limited, but every game with a complete specific character list I have seen played (I've played in two) was a devastating victory for town. At some point in the game there is mass role claiming. Assuming all townies are truthful and mafia lying, that immediately brings the number of suspicious people down to #mafia x2. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a game like this balanced, but it takes a lot away from the game when, for instance here, there's only 10 people worth scouring for mafia and you effectively have 15 confirmed townies. To offset this, when there are characters in a given game, one common solution is to give the mafia a 'safe list' of what they can role claim without worry of being contested. There's still the problem here where say a player claims Ron Weasly and goes uncontested, they are nearly a confirmed townie because that role was almost certainly included in the game design. A crafty mod could leave one or two of these out just for the mafia's benefit though. To follow through on this with what you've already posted as well as preserve some integrity of mafia role claims, you could just list 25 town aligned roles and have 5 that just don't get assigned to town (and given to mafia as their safe list). I'm sure there are other ways to balance this as well. I just see complete uncontested character lists given at the start of game as a huge town advantage. Just my thoughts on the matter. ^ YellowInkShow nested quote +1. I am the mod. My word is law. I reserve the right to change any rules for game-breaking I will not be accepting name claims to occur in this game unless I am sure it will be balanced or your role PM specifically states otherwise. You may spell claim, or claim whatever nonsense you want, but try not to break the game. "Not Slytherin,eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that--- no?
Re oddities in electoral positions: Note that the Minster of Magic does not have 3 votes. They get a weak form of bodyguard protection and choose the day 1 lynch. Note that the Governor does not get bodyguard protection and an indeterminate number of chances to pardon. This role seems nearly useless for town and incredibly powerful in death eater hands. I would wonder if it has some usefulness to 3rd parties.
Policy decision: I think it may be a good policy to straight up say right now that if the Governor ever uses their power, we must hang the Governor the next day. We have masons, but I think that if we have a mason Governor it would just look too suspicious for them to save a mason anyhow. I would rather keep a death eater off gaining more than one day from this power guaranteed than for a potential town mason Governor to use this (since the town mason Governor has no way to confirm that the target is a mason anyway by rules).
I have skimmed the thread to pick up the important bits but definitely not carefully enough to pick up on behavior, so I'll have to spend some more time on this. Still, it's just day 1, reads aren't the best. Also, prospective MoMs, if you havn't already, please indicate your interest for day 1 lynch and thoughts on how to organize.
Note to MOD: From here on all is fair game. My posts prior to the start of the game were to attempt to 'unbreak' the game before it started. Since it was chosen to end the discussion, we're now going to work with what we've got and attempt to win.
|
Alright, well if this rule was re-reversed, there's still at least one update to the OP that needs to be made (he said anyone can run for MoM). I just want to be sure I can go to the original post and read a correct set of rules.
|
@ day 1 lynching policy: Unless a good red argument is presented, I would go after whomever is least active that is not going to be modkilled. We need people to be active to root out the red, so I encourage everyone to post frequently.
@ existance of bus driver: I am sure this is a game full of spells. Be wary of when and how you use them. The bus driver is devastating if they can predict your movements.
@ existance of godfather: With 4 death eaters and one being godfather, investigation seems even less useful than ever. If your investigations are of a limited number, use them wisely. If they are extremely limited, I would probably wait until you have someone analyzed on behavior before trying to check them out.
@ DT investigations of me: I'm going to try to avoid wasting any of our investigations by saying that I would not be a good target for this. Whether you believe that makes me pro town or pro mafia is up to you. However I will say that in a few days if I am under heavy suspicion and people come after me with a lynch I should have enough substance to be able to defend myself and show myself to be town.
@ medics: Whether this claim makes me worth of protecting or not is up to you. I would recommend slightly against protecting me as I would hate to see multiple medics covering me. It's good to keep the death eaters guessing on their targets, though. My partial claim should serve this well.
Because I have come forward to say these things, I think that this would make me an ideal Governor. If I am red and end up being forced to use my pardon early, you will lynch me and my partner the following day - town would be in an excellent position. Since I have stated that if I come under suspicion later in the game I will likely be able to defend myself, you could use that to see that I am not red and therefore not have to worry about getting ambushed by a pardon effect in the late game.
I would be fine if chosen as Minister of Magic as well, but I think with what I have claimed that the death eaters would not target me in the unprotected role of Governor due to fear of being blocked by a medic.
|
This thread is like a ghost town leading up to the deadline - especially with so many votes uncast. Between the other candidates I am indifferent, so I'm dropping my vote on myself. I will consider others as more votes come in.
|
So I come back over to this thread to basically find a bunch of votes being tossed about without reasoning and a whole bunch of people not posting much of merit. A bit of heckling is all. I don't like where this game is going.
Town! Speak! We win by analyzing your behavior and picking those amongst us that are laying too low or speaking scumtalk. If you don't speak, we're going to have an awfully hard time winning regardless of who gets elected.
|
On June 23 2010 06:06 ~OpZ~ wrote:
Hey, if you wanna kill DC I'll vote for you....So tell me you'll kill him and get a vote yellowink
I'll bite. I don't have a read on DCLXVI either way. If I'm elected MoM (which I think is unlikely), I'll lynch DCLXVI unless there is some other compelling argument.
DCLXVI, don't take this the wrong way, I don't think I'll be elected MoM anyhow.  You should vote for me to get me into Gov if you have faith in me over the other two candidates. I believe you do since you voted for Roffles.
I have to agree with the sentiment of not liking the Amber[light] & Radfield together ticket.
|
To be clear, I am running on the platform that I don't like the Amber[light] & Radfield combined ticket. If this bothers you and you think I'd be a better candidate - or at least to break them up, you should vote for me.
|
|
|
I'm just going to stick my voice in here, much to the chagrin of some players as will soon become apparent, and say that I'm very disappointed with the inactivity in this game. It doesn't matter what I say or do or what policies I have presented. Inactives need to be flushed or town will lose the game to random voting.
That's all I have to say currently. Carry on.
|
On June 25 2010 09:29 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +what the hell does that even mean, not pro-town but no scum tells? last i checked, if you're not pro-town, you're scum. go read team melee micro and read chezinu and i and you will understand there is a difference in being scum and being scummy
lol or just read the last page, there's a whole discussion about this currently active. Trace back as needed.
BM you playing in here too? 
|
The lakrismamma bandwagon sucks. I'm surprised people like ~OpZ~, Amber[Light], and Thegilaboy are voting for this assuming they are actually town. They should know better. +2 scummy points for each of you.
I think LuDwig- is a much better target if you want to go after inactives. There are no modkill rules in place. Though if BM is looking for a replacement for LuDwig-, maybe that'll do. I would agree with the sentiment that it's probably better to try to find red than go after inactives only if we are going to trust that BM is going to moderate inactivity. However, it's really hard to find red when there's 15 pages of game and 21 players, even if 3 of them are already dead.
Considering this game lagged before even getting started due to insufficient interest to fill BM's roster, I'm voting LuDwig- unless he becomes active or replaced, or something sufficiently red turns up.
Also, I couldn't find a deadline for the day. Does it end at 10:05 June 26?
|
Ah, I see BM has now posted a deadline in the voting thread. 10:00 June 26
|
@Radfield I agree with this plan. It's better than going after straight inactives. Unfortunately at 7 hours there's bound to be some townie who misses out and gets lynched for it if the mafia are keeping an eye on this thread. Still better odds than going after generic inactives.
@Amber I buy that it was a placeholder. I just think it was a bad one.
At any rate, I think that lynching either Amber or Radfield right now is a bad idea. And will probably be a bad idea tomorrow and the next day. Lynching elected leaders in the early game is rarely good. Wasting energy thinking about it this early is far less useful and gives the mafia a place to hide and provide 'activity'. While I opposed the Amber/Radfield ticket, this is not the time to try to drag them down with fingers of suspicion. I'll still give them scummy points if they deserve it though. But then I'll move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
