Swords in the Moon [Concluded]

[AggonyDuck]

About the anti-Shlin vote. I am not that sure he is guilty. Personally, I think he did a blunder since he does not entirely trust his master (say he has low fighting skills and therefore he fears that in the first suspicion of Takeda he might be challenged and killed). Of course, this casts a great shame on his name and I will feel little sorry for his death. Yet, if we waste our time, 4 more people will die in vain. It also seems he did not have any idea of the rating of anybody in the game. Therefore, he might be not participant in team work (traitor/ninja).

So far I will not cast my vote.

He has claimed to be a veteran samurai, thus he would have little to worry about in case of a duel. What he did was send our Lord a battle rating far higher than what other samurai of similar experience had. Also why would he not trust his master if he truly was a loyal servant of the Tiger of Kai? We live and die by his hand. Only complete integrity towards our master will save his and our lives. I don't quite understand your attempt to defend him. I had more or less took you off my 'propable suspects list', but after this you're back on it.

[Prince Cobra]

He has claimed to be a veteran samurai, thus he would have little to worry about in case of a duel. What he did was send our Lord a battle rating far higher than what other samurai of similar experience had. Also why would he not trust his master if he truly was a loyal servant of the Tiger of Kai? We live and die by his hand. Only complete integrity towards our master will save his and our lives. I don't quite understand your attempt to defend him. I had more or less took you off my 'propable suspects list', but after this you're back on it.

Well, I simply think he made too big blunder to be harmful. About the service: you are right. He failed to serve his master. But maybe we will be able to deal with him later on... Yet, I agree he shall die eventuially.

[shlin28]

I AM NOT LYING TO CA! I DID NOT INFLATE MY BATTLE RATING!

Done. Vote: Abstain

A true warrior never fears death.

To Stephen Asen:

When did I state I have a low battle rating? I always said I was a veteran samurai...

[AggonyDuck]

Well, I simply think he made too big blunder to be harmful. About the service: you are right. He failed to serve his master. But maybe we will be able to deal with him later on... Yet, I agree he shall die eventuially.

Why should he not die now? Do we have a better suspect to vote for?

[AggonyDuck]

By the way guys: Wouldn't it be possible to use the duels as a second lynch? Essentially we ensure that noone posts challenges without permission from Count Arach and then we force the second and third most suspicious samurai to battle it out? That way we can kill two suspicious samurai per day, which should help us a bit more than random challenges.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I prefer the system as is.

[AggonyDuck]

I prefer the system as is.

Why? What advantage does it hold over the one I proposed?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why? What advantage does it hold over the one I proposed?

Awesomeness.

[Prince Cobra]

By the way guys: Wouldn't it be possible to use the duels as a second lynch? Essentially we ensure that noone posts challenges without permission from Count Arach and then we force the second and third most suspicious samurai to battle it out? That way we can kill two suspicious samurai per day, which should help us a bit more than random challenges.

Interesting idea.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I've only read parts of the huge thread here, what with being rather busy in school.

First off, I am deeply offended Seamus did not classify me as a 'dangerous lurker'.

Second, vote: Beskar

He attacked CA after CA wanted everybody to vote shlin. Perhaps a reflex post defending his mafioso comrade.

Also, he wanted WoG's instead of replacements -> meaning less people for the mafia to kill.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

In fairness to Beskar he accidently made that vote count arach post, it was 5am for him and he was thinking CA made a good post, he actually edited out his error but i told him not to edit votes...

I suppose he could have been lying but i really don't see why he would vote CA im 99% sure hisexcuse was genuine...

By the way guys: Wouldn't it be possible to use the duels as a second lynch? Essentially we ensure that noone posts challenges without permission from Count Arach and then we force the second and third most suspicious samurai to battle it out? That way we can kill two suspicious samurai per day, which should help us a bit more than random challenges.

Thats how we basically used them in The Settlement, and i think we stopped alot of townies killing each other...

I can tell you as Mafia in Midgaard (where we had a duel system) it seemed that townies regularly killed each other in duels, and the only time a mafia fought in it he won his battle and wouldn't really have had any extra suspicion on him because of that win...

So basically in Midgaard it didn't help the town at all... though it did have the potential too if the one or two players with high duel scores had managed to challenge a mafia...

That event is very unlikely though...

I do not object to the using off two suspects to fight in a duel but it is kind of hard to organise the towns thinking on this point, for simplicity it may be best to leave CA as a judge of what duels could or should be fought, especially with 50 odd players it would be hard to agree what the town wants and get the challenge made in time in a day period...

Of course it is kinda fun just challenging and watching the battle... a few players where unhappy with our ue of the duels in settlement..

So in summary... controlling duelling is good for the town.... uncontrolled duelling is fun for the town...

[Beskar]

Just doing a quick skim over before I start doing my tally, it looks like shlin28 is going to get lynched for sure.

Second, vote: Beskar

He attacked CA after CA wanted everybody to vote shlin. Perhaps a reflex post defending his mafioso comrade.

As I stated earlier, this was a genuine mistake and I edited to correct it asap, however, others quoted it as it seemed to have been a busy time, so my stupid blunder was revealed.

I was informed that editing the change vote wasn't allowed, so I changed it back to what it originally was with the message saying I meant to change my vote to Shlin28 based on CountArach's post and made a post further down apologising for doing that, explaining what the vote was actually meant for.

Yes, it was a genuine careless blunder on my part, and I sincerely meant to put Shlin28 in as that vote. I don't mind being attacked for other reasons posting, however, out of game, that was a real error. Basically, imagine it if you was in my shoes, that you read CountArach's post but by pure accident put his name down and not Shlin28's when you posted it, then you realised your error and you edit your post to change it, but people saw it. You do want to sincerely apologise for it.

I know people might want to use cheats and excuses because this is a mafia-game, however, on this point, I am not playing part of the game or any game in this statement, just being clear and forward with that fact.

(Yeah, I post tl;dr when I am actually serious on a point.)

Also, he wanted WoG's instead of replacements -> meaning less people for the mafia to kill.

CR

I don't see what is wrong with that. Are the replacements certainly town members? Please tell me, where has Andres said that all the replacements which are actually new players in the game are all town members.

If he hasn't said that, I would prefer a WoG on the off-chance one of them was a Mafia-role player. It has been 3 days later, we have thoughts on people, and new people just get a free ride as no one knows to suspect them or not, it is like joining a mafia-game halfway through, no one has any idea if they are mafia or not, giving them free reign, especially if a mafia-role, to win the game by killing people.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is entirely possible.

[TinCow]

By the way guys: Wouldn't it be possible to use the duels as a second lynch? Essentially we ensure that noone posts challenges without permission from Count Arach and then we force the second and third most suspicious samurai to battle it out? That way we can kill two suspicious samurai per day, which should help us a bit more than random challenges.

Great in theory, impossible in practice. The problem is that it's unenforcible. The only way to get this to work is if there is some penalty for challenging without permission. The only penalty we can enforce is lynching, and if we have to lynch people based exclusively on challenging without permission, we have to ignore all other reasons for lynching. This kind of control was attempted in Midgard II and failed for that very reason.

[AggonyDuck]

Great in theory, impossible in practice. The problem is that it's unenforcible. The only way to get this to work is if there is some penalty for challenging without permission. The only penalty we can enforce is lynching, and if we have to lynch people based exclusively on challenging without permission, we have to ignore all other reasons for lynching. This kind of control was attempted in Midgard II and failed for that very reason.

I don't quite understand your reasoning. If our Lord decrees that uncontrolled duels are prohibited, then those who challenge without permission are clearly disloyal towards our Lord and should be forced to commit seppuku. The goal of everyone here is to survive, even for the traitors among us and challenging without permission of our Lord is in conflict with that goal as it would bring a lot of suspicion on the challenger, so if we do enforce it with lynching the culprit, uncontrolled duels will end very quickly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't quite understand your reasoning. If our Lord decrees that uncontrolled duels are prohibited, then those who challenge without permission are clearly disloyal towards our Lord and should be forced to commit seppuku. The goal of everyone here is to survive, even for the traitors among us and challenging without permission of our Lord is in conflict with that goal as it would bring a lot of suspicion on the challenger, so if we do enforce it with lynching the culprit, uncontrolled duels will end very quickly.

This a bad plan though. With the current system, we have one person killed by majority vote, and one by the hunch of some townie. Win-Win.

In your system, we have to lynch 1 or 2 townies who persist in dueling without permission (I will probably be one of them) which could lead to the death of 10 townies. And the gain? A duel between the 2nd and third lynch choices...who are...drum roll...based on townie hunches.

I don't mean to scoff at it though. It would be the ideal townie plan if the game worked on the premises that you are supposing it does. Though I would oppose that on the basis of the fun factor anyway.

I hope someone hosts a "texas mafia" again sometime...