Mini 830: Time Bomb Mafia (Game over!)

[Kreriov]

@DJ - The game has been active now for almost a whole a day. How long until we decide someone not posting is lurking?

29:03:29:58

[JamesBond]

rule three could potentially be exploited by the scum in some rather unlikely situations. Basically when we have decided on a lynch all other voters should clear off or something like that.
(that wouldn't really work but we should think about some sort of system like that).

Furthermore I understand that we only have 30 days but it doesn't mean we should rush headlong in to lynch decisions.

I agree. I think whenever we get a lynch, everyone should unvote, or reconfirm their vote with a short explanation. That shouldnt be so hard to get everyone on with?

29:03:25:10

[Kreriov]

Oh yeah, due to the time sensitive nature of this game, I would like it clear that I rarely have the opportunity to participate on weekends. I will make a special effort for this game. However, please to not consider me lurking if I post Friday at work and then do not post again until Monday morning!

29:03:16:18

[don_johnson]

someone who hasn't confirmed is not "lurking". not at all. they could be dead, we have no way of knowing. seraphim's push and his seemingly ignorant response to the suggestion i have made about being sure to understand rule #3 will be keeping my vote on him until further notice.

TA is making sense as is Artem.

How long until we decide someone not posting is lurking?

^^ good question. i suggest we take it as it comes. in your case, you could easily be considered to be lurking without the advanced notice of your v/la weekends, so we need to make sure that a policy lynch does not turn into a speedlynch. the amount of time someone needs to avoid the thread in order to be voted for lurking should be on a case by case basis.

29:02:27:05

[JamesBond]

someone who hasn't confirmed is not "lurking". not at all. they could be dead, we have no way of knowing. seraphim's push and his seemingly ignorant response to the suggestion i have made about being sure to understand rule #3 will be keeping my vote on him until further notice.

That actually made me sad for real. It is true, he could be In Real Life-dead, and we would never know. How awful.

29:02:05:25

[Kreriov]

@DJ - Everyone (well, except llama) HAS confirmed. They had to confirm via pm to Coug. I guess a better way to put it is at what point will you consider those who have not posted yet to be not posting deliberately.

29:00:29:07

[llamaeatataco]

Sorry for being a little late... I had to go visit family. Anyway....
Hello OP!


And thanks Seraphim.... You make me feel speacial. -_-

Anyway... I didn't mean to lurk, I just didn't have an opportunity to get back on here until now. If you want me replaced, That's cool. If you don't, that's also cool.

Anyway, I'm here.... Now, on to actually saying something:


Rule 3

could

be exploited by scum, so we should probably announce our intentions to hammer before we do. That's all there is to say on the matter. BEtter safe than sorry and whatnot.

I also agree with Seraphim's LAL position. I personally like to lynch lurkers no matter what the setup type, so I'm not particularly bothered by his vote on me. I'm too lazy actually check to see if I made the deadline, so if I haven't disregard this and replace me, if you see fit. If I did make it, cool.

29:00:19:54

[llamaeatataco]

EBWOP: (or just a double-post, call it what you will) I'm not dead IRL, I just didn't check my folder Friday night, and then left for the weekend. And Ohai to Kreriov as well. I guess I should say that I will be gone potentially until Saturday, So don't expect any post from me until then, but I will attempt to make up for it with a giant one on Saturday.

29:00:15:52

[ThAdmiral]

rule three could potentially be exploited by the scum in some rather unlikely situations. Basically when we have decided on a lynch all other voters should clear off or something like that.
(that wouldn't really work but we should think about some sort of system like that).

Furthermore I understand that we only have 30 days but it doesn't mean we should rush headlong in to lynch decisions.

I agree. I think whenever we get a lynch, everyone should unvote, or reconfirm their vote with a short explanation. That shouldnt be so hard to get everyone on with?

What artem said about announcing hammers, or this (or a combination) should work.

I suppose on the lurker front as well if people could be more attentive to announcing when they will be unable to post (even if only for a few days) that would be handy. For example I may not be able to post thursday-saturday this week.
(I should note that I feel all this talk of lurker watching will most likely have scared any scum out of actually lurking now, so I figure lal would be most ineffective for this game tbh. It should be quite an active game however, which is always good)

@ kreriov: I disagree with having a set deadline for deciding if someone is lurking or not. It has to be judged situationally. If someone is under pressure and disappears I would give them a lot less time, for example.

@ llamaeatataco: glad to hear that you are alive

28:23:40:47

[StrangerCoug]

As llamaeatataco has posted in thread before we announced a replacement, I will allow him to stay. Also, X wanted me to post a link to a live countdown, so I'll do that, then I'll compute the time left as of each post since Konowa's first.

28:23:07:06

[Kreriov]

@Llama - you are not late and in fact have posted before many of the rest in the game.

@ThAdmiral - I am not trying to set a deadline. I am asking for peoples judgments and opinions, notice I have not given mine. For example, you just stated you think LAL would be ineffective. I disagree. It is my opinion that many people will disregard a warning or threat unless they know you well enough to realize you will follow through with it or until you somehow demonstrate a willingness to carry out the promised action (probably by actually carrying it out!). The fact is, in the worst case scenario, we have an average of less than a week to decide each of the first three lynches. After that, it would be only 3 days each and we would HAVE to get each one right. I agree each person should be judged individually and in context, but we have to make decisions very quickly. That is just the nature of this game format.

28:22:59:26

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE COUNT

Datadanne (1): Artem
don_johnson (1): orangepenguin
JamesBond (1): Konowa
llameatataco (1): Seraphim
Seraphim (2): Kreriov, don_johnson
Not voting (6): Datadanne, dothefandango, JamesBond, llamaeatataco, Santos, ThAdmiral

I hate to admit this was rushed, so if anything's wrong let me know.

28:22:36:06

[Seraphim]

Failure to confirm is not indicative of alignment since the player may not have even read their role PM. DJ is calling you rude, not the player you're voting.

Exactly. He joined the game and failed to meet his commitment to playing the game meaning that that slot is now vacant. We are not able to get a read on that player until that slot is no longer vacant. If that slot continues to be unfilled, we will lynch that slot as it is wasting our time by not allowing us to achieve a read on that slot. Very simple. Also, while I will try to be courteous, I do not have any pity for lurkers, active or otherwise, especially in a game like this.

The game has been active now for almost a whole a day. How long until we decide someone not posting is lurking?

72 hours is when my vote will be cast on them.

However, please to not consider me lurking if I post Friday at work and then do not post again until Monday morning!

Just don't waste our time and we won't lynch you.

As for the voting, just be careful. Don't let a player get within quick-lynching range unless we want that player to be lynched. L-4 is quick-lynching range so be wary of that come endgame...

seraphim's push and his seemingly ignorant response to the suggestion i have made about being sure to understand rule #3 will be keeping my vote on him until further notice.

"Seemingly ignorant?" I understood the rule, I just didn't understand why it was interesting. I've played nightless games before and I've seen that rule before. I understand now of course but I don't see how that is anti-town or scummy.

Your "case" on me looks like placing a vote on me to look like you're doing something. I've got my eye on you, DJ.

Unvote

Welcome to the game. I don't want you replaced, I want you to post. Which you did. Thank you. Now I can hunt scum.

(I should note that I feel all this talk of lurker watching will most likely have scared any scum out of actually lurking now, so I figure lal would be most ineffective for this game tbh. It should be quite an active game however, which is always good)

Good, that's the point. Let's scare the scum and lynch the lurkers...causing scum slips and an active game. An excellent environment for the town to work in.

Currently, we are more than a day into the game. Three players(Santos, dothefandango, Datadanne) have not posted yet. I hope these players will post soon.

Currently, don_johnson is my biggest suspect for his contrived case on me. I also hope Konowa will answer my question relatively soon.

28:21:13:52

[Konowa]

It caught my attention Seraphim, because I understood what Artem was/is trying to do. It looked anti-town that you were trying to hard line his actions into an either/or situation, when it was neither. By doing this, it takes away from the effect of the vote.

Regarding rule three, I agree with the thought that after a hammer and subsequent flip, those on another wagon should confirm vote with reason or unvote. I do not think everyone should unvote though as that will waste time. We do not have it.

28:20:34:38

[Santos]

I'll catch up tonight.

(posting from BlackBerry)

28:21:07:35

[Seraphim]

It caught my attention Seraphim, because I understood what Artem was/is trying to do. It looked anti-town that you were trying to hard line his actions into an either/or situation, when it was neither.

By doing this, it takes away from the effect of the vote

.

I'm interested in the bolded part. How exactly did my actions make his vote less effective? And why is it anti-town? I was trying to classify his vote. This is not an anti-town action.

28:17:13:40

[Konowa]

I immediately took Artem's vote to mean post or die. By trying to classify his vote as either random or policy deflates it in my opinion. If I see that a vote on me is random or policy I am not going to take it seriously. That is why I view it as anti-town.

28:16:46:05

[Seraphim]

I immediately took Artem's vote to mean post or die. By trying to classify his vote as either random or policy deflates it in my opinion. If I see that a vote on me is random or policy I am not going to take it seriously. That is why I view it as anti-town.

You wouldn't take a policy vote seriously? Why?

28:16:44:30

[ThAdmiral]

@ThAdmiral - I am not trying to set a deadline. I am asking for peoples judgments and opinions, notice I have not given mine. For example, you just stated you think LAL would be ineffective. I disagree. It is my opinion that many people will disregard a warning or threat unless they know you well enough to realize you will follow through with it or until you somehow demonstrate a willingness to carry out the promised action (probably by actually carrying it out!). The fact is, in the worst case scenario, we have an average of less than a week to decide each of the first three lynches. After that, it would be only 3 days each and we would HAVE to get each one right. I agree each person should be judged individually and in context, but we have to make decisions very quickly. That is just the nature of this game format.

I still get a bad feeling that people will be spooked in to voting rashly and/or wagoning lurkers that may have legitimate reasons for not being able to post. This is not helped by the ticking counter on everyone's posts. I would frankly rather a longer day 1 followed by shorter later days.

(I should note that I feel all this talk of lurker watching will most likely have scared any scum out of actually lurking now, so I figure lal would be most ineffective for this game tbh. It should be quite an active game however, which is always good)

Good, that's the point. Let's scare the scum and lynch the lurkers...causing scum slips and an active game. An excellent environment for the town to work in.

I know, I said this.
But the scum know now that to avoid being easily lynched all they have to do is post fairly regularly and they should be ok. If you define lurking as someone following the game and choosing not to post as a way to avoid unnecessary heat (as you should), then any mafia who were considering lurking would obviously just choose to post instead.

28:15:56:59

[Konowa]

I suppose it would depend on what the policy vote is based on. However, with the amount of ridiculous reasons that people policy vote on, I am more than likely not going to take it seriously.

28:15:29:50

[llamaeatataco]

@ Seraphim: I must say I like your style. I feel that it will be helpful in this game, seeing as we don't have time to waste.


On the Subject of unvoting before a hammer: I have been thinking about this, and I have decided that it will really only be important later in the game (maybe on the last lynch before lylo even) but not taking the precaution of announcing a hammer before dropping it may allow for a mafia speedlynch. We don't have time to waste, but we also don't have much room for error.

I don't really have anything more to say, to be honest. Not to look like I'm active lurking, but I really don't have anything more to add. =/

28:14:32:25

[orangepenguin]

Llama, since we're not yet in the serious stage, officially, may I request that you get some kind of avatar, in order to make your posts easier to find? Please and thank you!

Regarding rule three, I agree with the thought that after a hammer and subsequent flip, those on another wagon should confirm vote with reason or unvote. I do not think everyone should unvote though as that will waste time. We do not have it.

QFT.

28:13:59:49

[Artem]

Exactly. He joined the game and failed to meet his commitment to playing the game meaning that that slot is now vacant. We are not able to get a read on that player until that slot is no longer vacant. If that slot continues to be unfilled, we will lynch that slot as it is wasting our time by not allowing us to achieve a read on that slot. Very simple. Also, while I will try to be courteous, I do not have any pity for lurkers, active or otherwise, especially in a game like this.

I think you're reaching. llama was one of the very first players to sign up for the game. The actual game thread was not created for over a week since his sign-up, so it's reasonable to assume that the player had the anticipation of this game on the back burner, so to say.

Also, mislynching a spot because you can't get a read on it would waste more time (literally) than letting the mod fill it. (Unless, of course, the mod fails to fill it within three days.)

Unvote Welcome to the game. I don't want you replaced, I want you to post. Which you did. Thank you. Now I can hunt scum.

So, since you're so eager to go after the spots/players for which you have no reads, care to share what read you got on llama?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fun fact: dothefandago has not posted anywhere since Thu, Aug 06. Datadanne has not posted anywhere since Mon, Aug 10, 3 hours prior to game start. I would say that neither is actively lurking yet.

28:13:45:45

[Artem]

Llama, since we're not yet in the serious stage, officially, may I request that you get some kind of avatar, in order to make your posts easier to find?

Seconded, please.

28:13:44:55

[Datadanne]

Wow, We started already? >,>

Thats what you get for not watching a topic at first sight.

28:11:35:07