Mini 612 Akatsuki: The End

[SleepyPanda]

What are the x2 and x3 after the alerts in your examples? Is that just to clarify that those are the second and third alerts?

[SleepyPanda]

Ahh, the commands are executed in real-time (with exception to the delay between mod seeing the command and writing the results)? So it's possible to kill someone before they even have a chance to place any alerts?

And just to clarify, day=meetings and 2 rounds per meeting, yerr?

[SleepyPanda]

Vote: Battousai

for being from a different manga/anime~

[SleepyPanda]

FOS

Ghostwriter for OMGUS and placing second vote on L.

Do we need members who make careless mistakes such as not being able to do tags correctly in Akatsuki? I think not.

[SleepyPanda]

How dare you vote me for being from a different anime, have you looked at my avatar recently!?

I want to skip the random vote stage for the most part, how bout trying to figure out how many groups there are?

We have 12 people so, 4 groups of 3, 3 groups of 4, 3 groups of 2 plus 6 regular members?

Yeah, yeah. From what I understand, that guy in your avatar is no friend of the Akatsuki.

I believe there's only two groups, the Akatsuki members and the rebels vying for control. So I think a more likely set up would be like 8vs4 or 9vs3.

[SleepyPanda]

If we should have a discussion about the game-play, it should be about the assassination skill. How should it be used? In essence, all it does is speed up the game, but then again, it's the only possible way for the rebel faction to kill quickly. Without assassinations, they would only have lynching as an option.

[SleepyPanda]

I was trying to think of not only the assassination part, but maybe talking about who we didn't trust coming into this game. What I mean is that we had to choose who we put Alerts against.

I don't really like how this was worded. Alerts were placed before the game started and before actual conversation began, so they were most likely placed randomly. I don't know how you not "trust" someone based on nothing. The only thing you have to go on are people's names.

Maybe not saying out and out who we have are alerts against, but stating who we think would do a kill against us and why we think that.

This sort of confuses me. In the previous sentence, you say to talk about people who we didn't trust. I assume those are the same people we would place the alerts on then. But then here, you say not to actually name them, but at the same time, say who we think would want to kill us? Wouldn't that pretty much be the same thing? It sounds good and all, but I don't see how we're suppose to get all this information. How do we know who wants to kill us? Your avatar has that evil looking monkey and it looks like it's pointing at me. Do you want to kill me?

Does this make sense?

I have to say no.

I was thinking maybe naming 4 people out of the 12 you think would kill you and why you think as such. Something to use as a reference as well.

Again, I'm not sure how we're suppose to have any idea who wants to kill us at this point. How about you? Do you have any list?

I also thought you agreed that no assassination was a good idea, so if there are no assassinations, alerts would also be meaningless.

[SleepyPanda]

Mod doesn't like peace.

[SleepyPanda]

So the loyalists are the pro town and the rebel are the scum. So this means scum will have to use the killing power during the meeting? If so, then that means we should lynch anyone who kills during the meeting.

Nono, I think what he's saying is if the Akatsuki does not use the assassination skill, then it will become silent. Like right now, to use it, we have to announce it inside the thread. However, if we don't use it, ANYONE is able to PM the mod the command instead, so we wouldn't know who used the command.

You are correct! -Mod

[SleepyPanda]

Reading my reason is fundemental.

Some people knew each other coming into this. Most people did not and had to take a shot in the dark on who might target or worry from with there alerts.
I was trying to say that without saying it. Oh well never mind at this point. Ruins the plan.

Can you please clarify? I don't see why people who played games with others will be more likely to place an alert on them for that sole purpose. The games are separate and the roles are different.

Also do we want to talk about who we think should be shot and make is so the person who has the kill does it before the week is up so we know who we feel we can trust.

That sounds good. I think we should just think of the amount of time we can hold the kill as a deadline. The deadline for every meeting is a week. Instead of lynching, we decide by majority vote who should be assassinated.

[SleepyPanda]

Should we also be assassinating before the week expires, like say, a day before it does, just in case? Like right now, the week will expire 5 days from now, so we will assassinate 4 days from now.

[SleepyPanda]

Scum know each other. Therefore they need not worry about putting an alert against there scum buddy. The rest of us don't have that knoweledge and would have picked someone just at random for what ever reason we could think of.

But the thing is, not everyone has alerts. It's also unknown if only loyalists can have them, or if rebels can too.

Is mod able to clarify this?

[SleepyPanda]

Y...yes?

[SleepyPanda]

Page 1 has the answer

Yes. I need a way to quickly screen my PMs and save the relevant changes in their respective folders.

Yes. Everyone can steal,

but not everyone can block

.

Moving on. I thought it might have been a good idea, but I forgot about this myself.

Don't really see how that answers it as it's pretty vague. You can interpret "not everyone can block" as in only loyalist can block. That fits the clause as not everyone can. But from how he replied, I guess they can.

[SleepyPanda]

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

Catch them off guard how? By having them admit who they placed their alerts on? And you somehow believe that they would not place their alerts on a fellow scum buddy, right? You seem to have an awfully lot of faith in scum telling the truth. What if a loyalist revealed who they placed their alerts on? That would completely ruin your plan. Besides, I don't see how admitting alerts will help everyone else narrow down anyone. You don't know their alignments, and you don't know if they are telling the truth. The only thing it does is help the rebels.

[SleepyPanda]

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

Catch them off guard how? By having them admit who they placed their alerts on? And you somehow believe that they would not place their alerts on a fellow scum buddy, right? You seem to have an awfully lot of faith in scum telling the truth. What if a loyalist revealed who they placed their alerts on? That would completely ruin your plan. Besides, I don't see how admitting alerts will help everyone else narrow down anyone.

You don't know their alignments,

and you don't know if they are telling the truth. The only thing it does is help the rebels.

Would you place your alert on a scum buddy day 1? No I don't expect them to tell the truth now, but at the time they may have flobbed and gone along with it without realizing the information they were giving away.

You're still assuming that anyone that reveals their alerts would be scum. If a loyalist revealed, you'll be on the completely wrong track then.

[SleepyPanda]

I'd also like to establish how assassintions would be done.

1) Assassinate instead of lynching so we can prevent it from going silent.

2) Using

Ass:

to place assassination vote instead of lynching vote.

3) Assassinate a day early before deadline. This is to prevent the assassination skill from accidentally going silent. I rather not wait until the point of the deadline to take action.

4) Have a follow-through, lynch when no assassination takes place. For example, say our majority vote is on a rebel, but the person who holds the assassination skill also is a rebel. They might be inclined to not assassinate their partner.

Do the rebels also have a time limit to how long they can hold the assassination skill?

Discuss, modify, add to your heart's content.

[SleepyPanda]

Damn... can't believe I missed all of this stuff yesterday and earlier today... what's the vote count on farside?

Can you not read or you looking for a BW to hid under?

Unvote:
Vote: GhostWriter

Ass: DGB

Her less then spectacular post are not normal.

Those both seem like OMGUS votes to me.

I still don't see the logic behind your idea of making alerts public either. At first, it came off to me as if you had alerts or thought that everyone had alerts to place since you addressed everyone. At that time, I thought only the loyalist were able to place alerts so I didn't bother changing my vote regardless of how suspicious your post seemed. But since you and the mod seemed to point out to me that it's possible for scum to have alerts as well, I don't see why I shouldn't vote you now.

Ass: farside22

[quote="Ghost]Actually, I am opposed to your bangwagon. I believe that it's the perfect opportunity for the rebels to jump on, since I believe that it's obvious that your idea was taken out of context.[/quote]
Can you explain to me how her idea would've been beneficial at all? From what I understand, the only reason she wanted to make alerts public was that scum would not place alerts on their scum partner. But loyalist have alerts as well. How will this help you determine if anyone is innocent or guilty?

[SleepyPanda]

I have a question for you all? Should we use the vig kill on D1/N1? I mean, there's less information and D1 I usually feel uncomfortable lynching somone on such sort notice, but 2 kills? I think we should at least wait till the end of the second meeting where there is more information.

That's my two cents on the kill.

If town has the kill now and we wait past 7 days, it transfers to another person. If it transfers to a scum, they get a free kill. Using the kill now gives us a chance to hit scum at least.

Can't we get a 2 day extension on the assassination kill as the new ruling was enacted when there was 5 days left?

[SleepyPanda]

No. In 2 days, if the kill is not used, it will become hidden if the conditions set in the new rule are met. Anyone will be able to kill with impunity.

I meant because of the new ruling, it's like we lost the first two days because we were playing without it. Meh, whatever though.

I don't feel like looking through and counting up the assassination votes, but I guess it's farside so far. Don't remember seeing any votes for anyone else.

[SleepyPanda]

I don't really know if it's worth risking. Farside22 is like the only one I found suspicious. I don't have any other suspects either, but I haven't read through the thread carefully yet.

[SleepyPanda]

I don't really know if it's worth risking. Farside22 is like the only one I found suspicious. I don't have any other suspects either, but I haven't read through the thread carefully yet.

That is because most people are lurking. Really lets kill active people because of them making suggestions instead of people just coming in and voting. Good plan.
Still looking at DBG

The reason why I'm suspicious of you is because of your suggestion to make alerts public. You've explained your reasoning, or tried to, but I still do not see the logic behind it. Yes, it was a suggestion, but I don't see how it helps town in any way.

Lurkers are in every game and since there's only a week before kills go silent, it makes it more difficult. Ask for prods, I don't know. There's only 2 days left so prods probably won't even matter at this point. I don't know what you want me to do. Go find someone who is more suspicious than you and try and convince everyone else.

[SleepyPanda]

This game picked up quite fast, with two more dead in just one day? Even though Ashmite took it upon himself to kill DGB was highly suspicious, I'm kind of disappointed that Claus also decided to do the same and "revenge" kill Ashmite. It would've been better to at least get other people's feedback first.

Regarding Battousai, I don't see how his set-up guessing would help or hurt town. However, him wanting to wait until D2 before killing seems pretty scummy. To get to D2, that means we have to lynch. By lynching, we are still killing someone that we could've killed with the vig kill. It would be exactly the same, except the scum will have a chance to get a free kill in if the vig kill managed to go past deadline.

MafiaSSK, besides his random votes, he hasn't posted anything of relevance so he can't be ruled out.

I'm on the fence between voting Claus and Battousai. I think it's entirely possible that both of them are scum. The interaction between them seems to me like they're just trying to distance themselves from each other.

For now,

Ass: Claus

[SleepyPanda]

How many people have been killed D1? 3. How many would have been killed if we just lynched (worst case scenerio the scum group got the vig ability)? 2. I know this is like an I told you so, but it just proves my initial point.

With the way the game is set up, I don't see a reason reason to lynch at all. Majority vote is needed to lynch. Why not get majority vote then vig kill instead? It prevents scum from ever getting a silent kill in. The only reason we have 3 dead now is because Ashmite went off by himself and killed someone.

[SleepyPanda]

This is directed at Claus. What I'm finding scummy is your decision to kill Ashmite immediately. You didn't bother waiting for other people to respond. We have already talked quite a lot about how we should use the vig kill carefully. I know someone had already mentioned this as WIFOM, but would a scum really out themselves by killing a town so brazenly even after our discussions about it? I think at this point, Ashmite became an extremely easy target. The scum could've just as easily hopped onto his bandwagon. If you had waited, we would still have more information than we do now.

The only lurker in your lurker list that stands out to me is SSK for not having said anything.

[SleepyPanda]

Sleepy, don't you think that Claus would have waited for his scumbuddies to jump on his bandwagon and get Ashmite assassinated if he was scum? Also, your admittedly WIFOM point about Ashmite also applies to Claus. What did Claus gain by sticking his own neck out to kill Ashmite right away?

Assuming Claus is scum, by killing right away, it doesn't allow people to actually place votes. We aren't able to see how people vote. Why would Claus want his scumbuddies to jump on when he can keep them hidden by killing alone?

Claus is using the defense that Ashmite strayed from the plan by assassinating on his own, so his death is warranted. Claus is doing the exact same thing as well though. He decided, by himself, to take out Ashmite.

[SleepyPanda]

Obviously, but you were the one that mentioned about his scumbuddies jumping on the bandwagon. I was merely pointing out a counter argument. Regardless, it would still provide us with more information in the form of how people voted. Any information is better than none.

[SleepyPanda]

So did Claus actually have the vig kill and used it against me or was he just being stupid?

1.e) If you wish to kill a player, this is the template you will post in bolded letters in the thread: ATTACK: GhostWriter
1.f) If you never received the killing ability, do not use the above. Even the mafia are not allowed to fake an attack.

[SleepyPanda]

I ate them.

Modkill for breaking rules please.

[SleepyPanda]

It's not my fault for someone who didn't bother reading the rules. Even if I didn't mention it, I don't see why ABR wouldn't modkill you anyways since they're HIS rules.

Even if it is WIFOM, it's a possibility. You're using the "cardflip" defense to discount everything. Does Ashmite cardflipping make you more town? No. If you hadn't killed Ashmite, we would've had a week of more discussion. How is discussion going to hurt town?

You're also entirely destroying the whole voting/assassination system. You're counting everyone's vote/vig kill vote separately. That means each person has the power of two votes. The point of creating a vig kill vote system was to eliminate lynching vote, as it will not be used, ideally. When you killed farside, there was still 2 days left I believe. There was also only 5 actual people that did vote her (vig and lynch), according to your vote count. You sped up the game when there was no need.

[SleepyPanda]

To me, it seemed more like he was trying to bait a confession out of me. If he says he received a "report", and I know that I'm town, that would only make me push harder for his lynch. Claus, if you do happen to get modkilled and turn up town, clarify first whether or not you actually received a report, because I doubt you did.

Going by Claus' system of counting lynch and vig votes separately, assuming there are still 3 scum, they can place 6 votes collectively. That means they can continuously kill off people one by one if we're still using the "more than half of alive" to lynch system.

Only one vote per person please.

[SleepyPanda]

I didn't block you, nor did I steal your kill. So if you weren't lying and I'm the one that's going to be killed, that's the

second

time you're killing without majority backing.

[SleepyPanda]

I think I owed it to the town to try and kill a scum with my last killing after having hit townies by mistake two times in a row.

Well you apparently failed in that aspect then.

[SleepyPanda]

I was curious as to why no one decided to kill Claus even after he claimed. He said he was a neutral anyway and that him being alive or dead wouldn't affect lylo so that means killing him off would've been safer than keeping him around.