Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
if it's 50/50 going into night, mafia whack a townie and the game is over. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
I can't speak to how the hosts set up games here specifically, but in games I have played in college and on other forums, there are fairly often town roles that could affect the ability of the mafia to make a successful kill. Doctor is a pretty common role. Bulletproof comes up occasionally. A town vigilante or paranoid gun owner could potentially kill a member of the mafia.
Of course, it could just be that I'm used to playing more complex games of mafia and you guys never use anything out of the ordinary, but I've always had the impression that communities that exist for as long as this one seems to have tend to grow into enjoying some degree of advanced logic and decision making in their games.
If that's not the case, disregard all of this!
I've played this way, with other roles and such like Doctor, in real life games.
I'm down for trying to incorporate it on games here too.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
I can't speak to how the hosts set up games here specifically, but in games I have played in college and on other forums, there are fairly often town roles that could affect the ability of the mafia to make a successful kill. Doctor is a pretty common role. Bulletproof comes up occasionally. A town vigilante or paranoid gun owner could potentially kill a member of the mafia.
Of course, it could just be that I'm used to playing more complex games of mafia and you guys never use anything out of the ordinary, but I've always had the impression that communities that exist for as long as this one seems to have tend to grow into enjoying some degree of advanced logic and decision making in their games.
If that's not the case, disregard all of this!
I've played this way, with other roles and such like Doctor, in real life games.
I'm down for trying to incorporate it on games here too.
i don't even know how you'd play in real life. How would you communicate with fellow mafia without townies knowing?
I've played this way, with other roles and such like Doctor, in real life games.
I'm down for trying to incorporate it on games here too.
i don't even know how you'd play in real life. How would you communicate with fellow mafia without townies knowing?
Everyone "goes to sleep" at night, then only the Mafia "wake up" (aka open their eyes) and silently depict to the ref (often called God) who they want to whack for the night. Next Doctor wakes up and tries to save someone; lastly the inspector wakes up and accuses someone (ref/God nods yes or no for the guess).
In person, it is obviously not a game that drags on for weeks. Lasts 30-60 mins usually, depending on how many pistols are playing and how involved the rules are.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal
Bleary-Eyed Bonnawook Globlist Facist Slave Dog
Post by potentpotables on Dec 3, 2016 13:09:04 GMT -5
I want to object to Kdogg's ridiculous influence on this current mafia game. He can make whatever ridiculous rule he wants but a ref cant take a vote away from someone like he is/was threatening.
I want to object to Kdogg's ridiculous influence on this current mafia game. He can make whatever ridiculous rule he wants but a ref cant take a vote away from someone like he is/was threatening.
I want to object to Kdogg's ridiculous influence on this current mafia game. He can make whatever ridiculous rule he wants but a ref cant take a vote away from someone like he is/was threatening.
My apologies.
Good response. But still object to your influence in reffing.
Good response. But still object to your influence in reffing.
You've been playing long enough that you've likely seen me air concerns about what happens with in a Day round with an even number of players. Could lead to MafiArmaggedon, basically.
Post by potentpotables on Jan 17, 2017 14:09:36 GMT -5
Bringing the discussion of locked votes over here.
I think something needs to be added to the rules about this to make it clear. Namely, that a locked vote signals you are fine with your vote the way it is cast, and you should only lock your vote if you are OK with speeding up the end of the round/day/game.
And a locked vote on Day 5 ends the game if it's the player without a vote on her/him.
Bringing the discussion of locked votes over here.
I think something needs to be added to the rules about this to make it clear. Namely, that a locked vote signals you are fine with your vote the way it is cast, and you should only lock your vote if you are OK with speeding up the end of the round/day/game.
And a locked vote on Day 5 ends the game if it's the player without a vote on her/him.
Agreed there needs to be some clarification to this. I agree that a locked vote should indicate you are ok with the round speeding up/ending as is. Having said that, I think it needs to be stated that a locked vote can still be moved if the player decides to.
Agreed there needs to be some clarification to this. I agree that a locked vote should indicate you are ok with the round speeding up/ending as is. Having said that, I think it needs to be stated that a locked vote can still be moved if the player decides to.
What's the point of a locked vote, then? What is the difference between a locked vote and a regular vote in this case?
The way I see it, locking your vote means you're married to it for the duration of said round. Otherwise, what's the point of differentiating it from a regular vote?
Agreed there needs to be some clarification to this. I agree that a locked vote should indicate you are ok with the round speeding up/ending as is. Having said that, I think it needs to be stated that a locked vote can still be moved if the player decides to.
What's the point of a locked vote, then? What is the difference between a locked vote and a regular vote in this case?
The way I see it, locking your vote means you're married to it for the duration of said round. Otherwise, what's the point of differentiating it from a regular vote?
To speed up the round essentially. What if you have your vote locked, but then something major happens that shakes up the layout of the runoff. It could be either an Inspector claim, or just another player moving their vote, or any number of things. It gives you a chance to react if something changes since you've locked your vote.
What's the point of a locked vote, then? What is the difference between a locked vote and a regular vote in this case?
The way I see it, locking your vote means you're married to it for the duration of said round. Otherwise, what's the point of differentiating it from a regular vote?
To speed up the round essentially. What if you have your vote locked, but then something major happens that shakes up the layout of the runoff. It could be either an Inspector claim, or just another player moving their vote, or any number of things. It gives you a chance to react if something changes since you've locked your vote.
So why even both having them to begin with, if there's no sense of permanence? And they don't even matter?
I mean, I was of the minority opinion when players started locking votes in the first place. But since the majority wanted them, it would be nice to see them actually mean something.
To speed up the round essentially. What if you have your vote locked, but then something major happens that shakes up the layout of the runoff. It could be either an Inspector claim, or just another player moving their vote, or any number of things. It gives you a chance to react if something changes since you've locked your vote.
So why even both having them to begin with, if there's no sense of permanence? And they don't even matter?
I mean, I was of the minority opinion when players started locking votes in the first place. But since the majority wanted them, it would be nice to see them actually mean something.
They do mean something though. If the applicable players lock their votes, the round is over. It's a way of signaling that you're ok with the round ending if things remain the same. It saves from the game just sitting idle for 12 hours sometimes.
You could be ok with the round ending, and lock your vote. Then someone comes along and changes their vote with an hour left in the round. Why should you be hamstrung and stuck with your old vote? Things have changed since you locked your vote, you should have the ability to react to it.
So why even both having them to begin with, if there's no sense of permanence? And they don't even matter?
I mean, I was of the minority opinion when players started locking votes in the first place. But since the majority wanted them, it would be nice to see them actually mean something.
They do mean something though. If the applicable players lock their votes, the round is over. It's a way of signaling that you're ok with the round ending if things remain the same. It saves from the game just sitting idle for 12 hours sometimes.
You could be ok with the round ending, and lock your vote. Then someone comes along and changes their vote with an hour left in the round. Why should you be hamstrung and stuck with your old vote? Things have changed since you locked your vote, you should have the ability to react to it.
See, this comes across to me as a case against locked votes altogether. If you don't want to be stuck with your old vote, or if you want the ability to react to future happenings, I think the answer is simple: DON'T LOCK YOUR VOTE.
But I seem to think they come with more of an element of being fixed than you do? I think the rules lean more towards my interpretation, too. In accelerating rounds and/or finalizing votes... that seems to be based upon an assumption that a locked vote for X will always be a vote for X (for that particular round, of course.) To me, those rules/mechanics are built on a certain foundation: that there's a permanent nature to locked votes.
Because if there's not... again, what's the point?
Post by potentpotables on Jan 17, 2017 17:33:25 GMT -5
I'm with Rothric. It's a tactic, I hate to restrict it in any way, except to say that locking your vote is a signal the round can end for that individual.
They do mean something though. If the applicable players lock their votes, the round is over. It's a way of signaling that you're ok with the round ending if things remain the same. It saves from the game just sitting idle for 12 hours sometimes.
You could be ok with the round ending, and lock your vote. Then someone comes along and changes their vote with an hour left in the round. Why should you be hamstrung and stuck with your old vote? Things have changed since you locked your vote, you should have the ability to react to it.
See, this comes across to me as a case against locked votes altogether. If you don't want to be stuck with your old vote, or if you want the ability to react to future happenings, I think the answer is simple: DON'T LOCK YOUR VOTE.
But I seem to think they come with more of an element of being fixed than you do? I think the rules lean more towards my interpretation, too. In accelerating rounds and/or finalizing votes... that seems to be based upon an assumption that a locked vote for X will always be a vote for X (for that particular round, of course.) To me, those rules/mechanics are built on a certain foundation: that there's a permanent nature to locked votes.
Because if there's not... again, what's the point?
I already explained what the point is. To accelerate the round when no more movement has taken place.
How would you suggest we speed up the round in an idle time instead? Or just always sit through it?
You know I'm a big fan of filling idle time with Nonsense.
I don't think round times as they stand are terribly unreasonable. The later you get into a game, yeah, the more players might be willing and able to hurry things up. Refs have a degree of discretion in that. Locking is an option, too - with caveat that I think it should be permanent, but prone to strategic error like any other part of the game.
And really, the way that last game played out? The player accused of trying to hurry a Day One vote close wound up being the first whack, and the player who locked in Day Five screwed the pooch for their team. You kind of have to ask yourself whether rushing like that is really preferable...
You didn't break a specific rule. Do you want us to make one and name is The KDogg Redux Rule?
You shouldn't have done what you did, you know this, and frankly, you posted too often for a player not in the game.
I'd tweak the Like Rule (and possibly others) to include a mention of (for lack of a better term off the top of my head) "game officials" or something like that. Or expand the definition of "player" to include that. Or outright ban liking, though I don't know if that's a possibility.
Quoting from 97 thread for discussion here as well.
I'm mostly with Rothric here. To me, locked votes mean "I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change my mind, so let's move things along". But we've all had times when we were pretty sure of something in the game, only to have that notion strongly challenged, right? I think some degree of flexibility should be allowed, without forcing the players to remain unlocked and sitting idly waiting for the round to end.
But more importantly, I've noticed though that the only time locked votes really have become an issue is during the final round. I would propose that ALL players have to lock their vote in the final round. This gives the accused the opportunity to make sure their arguments are heard and considered and make peace with the outcome. When all players reach the point of "I have nothing left to say", the game ends.
Last Edit: Jan 17, 2017 22:06:37 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
But more importantly, I've noticed though that the only time locked votes really have become an issue is during the final round. I would propose that ALL players have to lock their vote in the final round. This gives the accused the opportunity to make sure their arguments are heard and considered and make peace with the outcome. When all players reach the point of "I have nothing left to say", the game ends.
So wait, to clarify: 1. Are you suggesting that there be no time limit until a final round? And that then, it's talk until you lock? 2. If so... would you only apply this to Day Five rounds of three? Could be a spoiler applying that any earlier.
But more importantly, I've noticed though that the only time locked votes really have become an issue is during the final round. I would propose that ALL players have to lock their vote in the final round. This gives the accused the opportunity to make sure their arguments are heard and considered and make peace with the outcome. When all players reach the point of "I have nothing left to say", the game ends.
So wait, to clarify: 1. Are you suggesting that there be no time limit until a final round? And that then, it's talk until you lock? 2. If so... would you only apply this to Day Five rounds of three? Could be a spoiler applying that any earlier.
1. No, though I can see how you read it that way. Deadlines stay as usual, but if, in the final round, all players lock their votes and have given their arguments prior to the round deadline, the game can end. 2. And yes, that all players have to have their votes locked in order to end a round early via lock is only applicable to the Day Five round of three.
Each day requires a specific number of locked votes to end the day in a final day runoff. Essentially, all non-runoff players.
Day 1: 9 locked Day 2: 7 locked Day 3: 5 locked Day 4: 3 locked Day 5: 1 locked
This can be referred to as the "lock threshold". If players are locked but the daily "lock threshold" has not been met, those players may choose to unlock their votes at any time. However, once the lock threshold has been met, the day immediately ends.
Post by potentpotables on Jan 18, 2017 7:38:22 GMT -5
The problem I have with that suggestion from Jaz is that it will clearly be seen as a tactic and might lose its actual use. For example, imagine last game - Tainted, Rothric, Potent. Rothric and I exchange votes, decision is on Tainted. He votes Rothric and locks it (not simultaneously but it doesn't matter). If I'm too eager to lock, which if you ask my mafia mates I was PM'ing them furiously about what to do, it could look to Tainted like I want the game to be over.
Basically I think we need to take the subjectivity out of it for the ref. A locked vote indicates you are comfortable with the round closing. And ZIG's schedule holds for each day, so that on Day 5 a locked vote from the deciding vote ends the game. And in that game, it happened so that Tainted DID have a chance to consider Rothric if I remember correctly - Tainted made a vote, Rothric tried to persuade him, Tainted went in and locked after Rothric had posted. Taking the subjectivity to whether that ends the game solves a lot of the end game problems that we just experienced.
