Org Mobile Site
Thread: Swords in the Moon [Concluded]
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
Interesting. Something which cant be openly discussed... Also Sasaki, old friend. Where did your dueling frenzy suddenly vanish?
What happened to your anti-dueling crusade? Interesting. Something which cant be openly discussed... Also Sasaki, old friend. Where did your dueling frenzy suddenly vanish?
Surely you'd like to have a word with GH...
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen:
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. 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.
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck:
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.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.
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...
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...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
What happened to your anti-dueling crusade?
Surely you'd like to have a word with GH...
My stance have not changed one bit. I was just asking where did your blood lust go?What happened to your anti-dueling crusade?
Surely you'd like to have a word with GH...
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen:
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?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.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
My stance have not changed one bit. I was just asking where did your blood lust go?
You should stop attacking your own arguments My stance have not changed one bit. I was just asking where did your blood lust go?
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.
I prefer the system as is.
Originally Posted by 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.
Interesting idea. 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.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I prefer the system as is.
Why? What advantage does it hold over the one I proposed?I prefer the system as is.
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck:
Why? What advantage does it hold over the one I proposed?
Awesomeness.Why? What advantage does it hold over the one I proposed?
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
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
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Awesomeness.
What is so awesome about it?Awesomeness.
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck:
What is so awesome about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AA7Ge1xy54What is so awesome about it?
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...
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...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
You should stop attacking your own arguments
And you should not assume things. Anyone in his right mind can see that GH is just messing around. But when someone who acts in very consistent manner like you do. Suddenly changes his behaviour. That is something that caughts my attention. So stop being a smart ass and answer my question.You should stop attacking your own arguments
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
And you should not assume things. Anyone in his right mind can see that GH is just messing around. But when someone who acts in very consistent manner like you do. Suddenly changes his behaviour. That is something that caughts my attention. So stop being a smart ass and answer my question.
I was considering challenging tincow, but thought I might try and get him lynched instead. Pretty soon we had our 4 duels and ylc had challenged tincow.And you should not assume things. Anyone in his right mind can see that GH is just messing around. But when someone who acts in very consistent manner like you do. Suddenly changes his behaviour. That is something that caughts my attention. So stop being a smart ass and answer my question.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AA7Ge1xy54
Meh! Nothing awesome 'bout that. And if even it actually was awesome, how would it help the town more than my suggestion?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AA7Ge1xy54
CR:
I thought about it. Something in the tone of the fewish posts you've made said you're closer to getting wogged than lurking. I could be wrong.
I thought about it. Something in the tone of the fewish posts you've made said you're closer to getting wogged than lurking. I could be wrong.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
shlin´s lynching seems like a foregone conslusion, but I´ll vote for him anyway.
vote: shlin
Stephen Asen seems scummy too. In the last day phase, Beskar´s bandwagon on Stephen didn´t really convince me. And it still makes little sense unless we make an assumption: Perhaps Stephen is required by his role-pm to post this Haiku in the game thread. Perhaps this was necessary to make his night action count... Perhaps he received a PM by the game host that reminded him of this and he just made it in time...
But this is just speculation on my part. I´d like to point out that my role-pm gives me no reasons to back up this assumption. In fact my role-pm has no night action, I´m just a samurai.
And let´s remember that scummy shlin´s intervention broke the tie and saved Stephen. As an experienced player he knew that this would make him look bad, but for some reason he seemed to be willing to pay this price. Hmm...
vote: shlin
Stephen Asen seems scummy too. In the last day phase, Beskar´s bandwagon on Stephen didn´t really convince me. And it still makes little sense unless we make an assumption: Perhaps Stephen is required by his role-pm to post this Haiku in the game thread. Perhaps this was necessary to make his night action count... Perhaps he received a PM by the game host that reminded him of this and he just made it in time...
But this is just speculation on my part. I´d like to point out that my role-pm gives me no reasons to back up this assumption. In fact my role-pm has no night action, I´m just a samurai.
And let´s remember that scummy shlin´s intervention broke the tie and saved Stephen. As an experienced player he knew that this would make him look bad, but for some reason he seemed to be willing to pay this price. Hmm...
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck:
Meh! Nothing awesome 'bout that. And if even it actually was awesome, how would it help the town more than my suggestion?
Are you insulting my namesake?Meh! Nothing awesome 'bout that. And if even it actually was awesome, how would it help the town more than my suggestion?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Anyway, the real question you are asking is "what is the meaning of life?" and I feel that is beyond the scope of subjects for this thread.
Just doing a quick skim over before I start doing my tally, it looks like shlin28 is going to get lynched for sure.
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.)
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.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.Second, vote: Beskar
He attacked CA after CA wanted everybody to vote shlin. Perhaps a reflex post defending his mafioso comrade.
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.)
Originally Posted by :
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.Also, he wanted WoG's instead of replacements -> meaning less people for the mafia to kill.
CR
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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Haudegen:
shlin´s lynching seems like a foregone conslusion, but I´ll vote for him anyway.
vote: shlin
Stephen Asen seems scummy too. In the last day phase, Beskar´s bandwagon on Stephen didn´t really convince me. And it still makes little sense unless we make an assumption: Perhaps Stephen is required by his role-pm to post this Haiku in the game thread. Perhaps this was necessary to make his night action count... Perhaps he received a PM by the game host that reminded him of this and he just made it in time...
But this is just speculation on my part. I´d like to point out that my role-pm gives me no reasons to back up this assumption. In fact my role-pm has no night action, I´m just a samurai.
And let´s remember that scummy shlin´s intervention broke the tie and saved Stephen. As an experienced player he knew that this would make him look bad, but for some reason he seemed to be willing to pay this price. Hmm...
shlin´s lynching seems like a foregone conslusion, but I´ll vote for him anyway.
vote: shlin
Stephen Asen seems scummy too. In the last day phase, Beskar´s bandwagon on Stephen didn´t really convince me. And it still makes little sense unless we make an assumption: Perhaps Stephen is required by his role-pm to post this Haiku in the game thread. Perhaps this was necessary to make his night action count... Perhaps he received a PM by the game host that reminded him of this and he just made it in time...
But this is just speculation on my part. I´d like to point out that my role-pm gives me no reasons to back up this assumption. In fact my role-pm has no night action, I´m just a samurai.
And let´s remember that scummy shlin´s intervention broke the tie and saved Stephen. As an experienced player he knew that this would make him look bad, but for some reason he seemed to be willing to pay this price. Hmm...
Are you talking about me? Forgetting about something connected with Mafia or Interactive History? You must be joking.
About being just a samurai: most of pro-town agents are dead. And samurai can also make nice investigations, though a bit more primitive. Logic and luck are your best friends.
This Haiku was entirely my idea. From time to time my inspiration visits me. Haiku is not the only writing I have done after all.
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck:
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. 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.
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...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.
And why would you persist with challenging people?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.
Many times when the game was over and the mafioso goes down in the final round/wins, you look back and see that a few people along the way thought they were guilty but never had enough evidence to take them down. Dueling feeds those "what if" feelings by giving townies a chance to fight for what they believe.
@ Count Arach, sorry about the delay in sending my battle rating, I`ve just got home from work and hadn`t seen this thread since I posted my vote last night.
Is it possible you could let me know what the highest rating you have received? I just want to know how mine compares against the top score.
Sorry to everyone else if my vote for Haudegen seems a little random, i just figured voting for another player who seemed inactive may inspire them to jump to defend themselves and get involved again. This doesn`t seem to have worked
Is it possible you could let me know what the highest rating you have received? I just want to know how mine compares against the top score.
Sorry to everyone else if my vote for Haudegen seems a little random, i just figured voting for another player who seemed inactive may inspire them to jump to defend themselves and get involved again. This doesn`t seem to have worked
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO