00 - WoT - Game Over - Chris in Hot Water

[Kraegor]

What the hell?



How do you say you don't need to 'Indict' or 'Support' - hell why don't you add that you don't need to 'vote' Why not come in here and say:

"I VOTE UNAGI FOR PRESIDENT `08 !! Although I vote:  Lassr 
 
...in this game."

People that were not willing to play with the ruleset should not have signed up. People that signed up should play with the ruleset. I don't get your point Kraegor. Did you just not like that game-piece? That's fine and I can actually get behind you on that opinion - but playing it out like that was not, and you know it, what stessier requested.

I'd honestly like to discuss all this, and I don't want to ruffle feathers really.

eh? I followed exactly the spirit of the setup as i perceived it. i attacked chris and never supported his theories (least I believe so). i voted for you without justification.

A vote is an explicit action. A punch. Bringing someone coffee. There is no judgement or behavior. I brought you coffee. Does that mean I like you? hate you? No, It is a physical action. you ask me why I brought you coffee. What should i say? Should i say "you told me to"? no i did it because I felt an inherent need to do so. I do not understand why. We "vote" by standing around and casting ballot.

Indict is an accusation. It requires you convey something. Justifiable accusation. Reasoned. Even when I doubted Chris was evil I did not convey that belief on the day I was compulsed.

Support is the same thing. except "support" triggercut. was pointless. he was DEAD. he said nothing. he did nothing. therefore what was I to support? Should I walk to his grave and say "good job old boy! your portrayal of a corpse is flawless!".

A vote is an indictment. Therefore to my mind both cannot exist to do the same thing. so. One is direct action. the other is passive.

If that were not true.... why on more than one occasion did your team give orders to Indict AND Vote a specific target. simple: on some level you agree with my assessment.

[Semaj]

Austin, if we waited (and I am not saying we shouldn't have) for everyone to check in each day, how would that have worked with CR's absence (and Rev's). Also, can you articulate why it's important for everyone to check in exactly? I wasn't getting why you felt that was unfair earlier in the game.

I can field this one.

How fair is it to someone who has to work with no computer access that someone else gets to go first with huge moves to be made?

If I went to sleep and it was night time, and I came back and it was night time again because in the 6 or 8 hours I slept day turned and a bunch of people got to make moves that affected the game outcome while I had one I would have done when daytime hit (After I was told what i got from the previous night). Is probably fine if everyone voted and mass lynched someone, but in this case it was an item, twice.

Your moves (Clearly well planned out in advance) were on the queue before half the game even checked in is a huge advantage to you, how can you not see that?

[Austin]

Triggercut, what I don't understand was why you came in with that post at all regarding the need to kill Lassr. Why Broadcast, unless you thought you were the night kill or something???


Austin, if we waited (and I am not saying we shouldn't have) for everyone to check in each day, how would that have worked with CR's absence (and Rev's). Also, can you articulate why it's important for everyone to check in exactly? I wasn't getting why you felt that was unfair earlier in the game.
For what it's worth - as the Evil side, I saw a missing Good-Chaos as a severe hit to The Bad Guys. Everyone knows how easy it is to make people think CR is toying with their minds (of course you do), but it's almost impossible if he isn't even posting. This whole game, I looked at the CR absense as a hit to the Bad-Guys, not a hit to the Good-Guys... hell - we killed him as 'a trusted' pretty much.

Say someone had Gab and sent a PM to another who hadn't checked in yet. A blast that ended the day prior screws up potential conversation. With a lynch vote at least there is some control of, "Hey let's wait on Grund to show up for input". There's also a little race potential with the toys. Someone might miss shooting someone else if they're slower to check in or if the other just happened to check in and send an order prior. Why didn't Trig get a chance to kill Lassr? I mean I was half-reading at that point but it looks like he meant to use his boomstick but didn't get to. C'est la vie and all that but the rules should avoid those type situations as much as possible I think.

[Lassr]

thing about the compel is we knew it was going to be worthless as far as actually getting someone lynched (because it would be obvious someone was compelled or you would know who was compelled as soon as the lynch happened) so we used it as misdirection.

[stessier]

C'est la vie and all that but the rules should avoid those type situations as much as possible I think.

I agree something has to be changed there, but how (don't really expect an answer)?

The problem is that there are multiple shooters. The same situation could arise in any game with a Shooter in that the Shot could happen before someone get to reveal something crucial. The problem here, as I see it, is that there were 3 (counting Aram) Shooters and no way to prioritize who gets precedence, so quick draw won. Maybe saying "Life get first shot, Ego gets second, Aram gets third", but then what if Life didn't want to shoot until very late in the day? And how is it fair that the Ego can't be used to keep a Chatty Kathy from spilling her guts?

Maybe in the future, just have the Life with a Good Charge and Evil Charge. Leave out Aram (or at least his kill power) entirely. That might be workable.

[Lassr]

the support a dead guy was just so we wouldn't give out any unnecessary clues about the living.

My interpretation of vote then indict was just that:
vote for X without a case and then indict Y by building a case against them or by just saying they are evil.

[Remus West]

thing about the compel is we knew it was going to be worthless as far as actually getting someone lynched (because it would be obvious someone was compelled or you would know who was compelled as soon as the lynch happened) so we used it as misdirection.

The power of the Comple was more that it was a vote you could control no matter what. Say I were a true Seer and scanned you as Evil but you compelled me to Vote CR, indict Grund, and defend Lassr. I have been completely burned for the turn. Which will then leave me in a situation where I either shout out you are evil right after the lynch allowing you to kill me or hope to make it through the night so my info on you does not get lost.

[Unagi]

but playing it out like that was not, and you know it, what stessier requested.

I'd honestly like to discuss all this, and I don't want to ruffle feathers really.

It's true, it's not really what I intended, but I wrote the rules as well as I could and hoped for the best. I realized early on that people would play to how they interpreted the rules and there was really nothing I could do about it short of telling everyone exactly how to play in each specific case.

Kraegor's explanation made sense and I really didn't mind him going in that direction. There was nothing in the rules to prevent it and I certainly couldn't expect people to read my mind for what I intended. I really think it is a flaw in the role more than in how people played it.

Maybe I didn't get what Kraegor was saying in his post.

I agree that if the Vote and Implicate were not the same person - that the Vote may come with some very shallow reasoning.
But what Kreagor said was that he didn't even need to follow the 'Support' or the 'Indict' orders at all.

Kraegor went into that night saying he found "Unagi and ChrisG both players of suspicion". Simple - you vote for one of those two *(under the previous days reasoning) and you continue to indict the other one. Now, the Support order - being totally the other side of the coin, I don't see how that is in conflict with the first two at all. So - maybe I simply don't get what Kraegor was saying if you (stessier) felt Kraegor's explanation made sense. I think what's clear is that Kraegor didn't want to "Play Evil for a day" and so he didn't.

Yes, I do undertand/agree that the Indict that matches the Vote makes much more sense (and yes, that was why I alwasys like the order in that form).

But please forgive my defensive stance on this - it was born from this statement made by triggercut.
[quote=""triggercut"]Not compelled at all today, sorry.

Compare my posting today to the day when I was compelled. Guarantee you if I were compelled again, I'd be a xerox copy of that day so everyone could tell.[/quote]

I started this game as a Good Guy and I had visions of being put under Compel, and I never for a second thought I would play it in such a way that I would actually try and make it look obvious. I had thought that I would play it as best I could. I will freely admit that this was just my ideal way of thinking about it from the start and I don't know how I would have reacted after I had a lot of time invested in "Fighting for the Good Guys". So I am just trying to understand the genisis of this approach to the game-piece. I think each and every one of us knows exactly what stessier was after in that role.

[Semaj]

I saw compel as a way to screw with people and more or less take them out of the equation for a day... Which to me sounded pretty handy.

[Kraegor]

you do recall i did the same thing with revhempus without being compulsed? I voted him. Gave non-reasons for the vote. How was my vote for you (Unagi) any different from that?

You act as if I deviated severely from previous behavior by choice. the only reason my compulsion may have been obvious is because you REQUIRED that i vote. since when do I do that? Is it my fault you made me vote? Was there a specific time I was supposed to vote? Should i have waited until 4 real life days later to vote in order to maintain my previous voting patterns? Would you then be bitching that I didn't vote like I was supposed to?

I have difficulty seeing where I did not follow the spirit of the compulsion I was given. And my behavior was no more or less different than usual.

Read the game. I take illogical paths intentionally and randomly. Ya'll never understand me. How did compulsion change that?

I mean hell... Chris voted with me... the irony that I perceived him as evil and he was the good guy that swung the vote!

[Semaj]

But please forgive my defensive stance on this - it was born from this statement made by triggercut.
[quote=""triggercut"]Not compelled at all today, sorry.

Compare my posting today to the day when I was compelled. Guarantee you if I were compelled again, I'd be a xerox copy of that day so everyone could tell.

I started this game as a Good Guy and I had visions of being put under Compel, and I never for a second thought I would play it in such a way that I would actually try and make it look obvious. I had thought that I would play it as best I could. I will freely admit that this was just my ideal way of thinking about it from the start and I don't know how I would have reacted after I had a lot of time invested in "Fighting for the Good Guys". So I am just trying to understand the genisis of this approach to the game-piece. I think each and every one of us knows exactly what stessier was after in that role.[/quote]

I agree, but who is to say if triggercut was compelled he wouldn't have posted the exact same thing? I mean, yes that's a phenomenal amount of meta, but you do realize the rash amount of paranoia compel caused? By the time he was trying this, it was way too late for anything but tears to be shed.

[Kraegor]

heh some of you folks need to research Graendal. She is not subtle with compulsion.

[stessier]

heh some of you folks need to research Graendal. She is not subtle with compulsion.

This game was "loosely" based on WoT at best.

Besides...if Aginor and Graendal really were in this pool of travelers, they all would have been dead or puppets well before the Whitecloaks showed up. And the Whitecloaks would have been no problem at all.

[The Meal]

For potential future games...
* Grund's pet rules are more workable. And they give more power to the baddies. Should be counterbalanced.
* Make Ego/Life go off at a specific time: "Ego goes off when one person has two votes on them." If this condition has already occurred, then Ego goes off when the PM is received. "Life goes off when one person is two votes away from being lynched." Ditto.
* The blasty-toys were definitely more useful to the bad team. IMO, they're what pushed the rules toward favoring that team.
* Infinte-nights (and a counterbalance to the baddies) could be spelled by only having the night last as long as it takes for all goodies to issue orders. As soon as that moment has happened, night's over. Individual baddies issue their orders (depending on the power of their role) whenever they want, and can change them, but their night is over as soon as everyone else has chimed in. If they didn't issue an order, then too bad. Giving the baddies time to keep conferring, sometimes in the hopes that a goodie would slip-up during night talk to make the baddies' orders more powerful, is counterproductive to the game.

IMO, of course. And take it for what it's worth. I doubt I'll ever get to play one of these...

[Lassr]

thing about the compel is we knew it was going to be worthless as far as actually getting someone lynched (because it would be obvious someone was compelled or you would know who was compelled as soon as the lynch happened) so we used it as misdirection.

The power of the Comple was more that it was a vote you could control no matter what. Say I were a true Seer and scanned you as Evil but you compelled me to Vote CR, indict Grund, and defend Lassr. I have been completely burned for the turn. Which will then leave me in a situation where I either shout out you are evil right after the lynch allowing you to kill me or hope to make it through the night so my info on you does not get lost.

Yes, and we did use it to try and control someone we thought might have an artifact. I was talking just about the vote to lynch part. We knew it would be valuable late but not early.

[Kraegor]

Besides...if Aginor and Graendal really were in this pool of travelers, they all would have been dead or puppets well before the Whitecloaks showed up. And the Whitecloaks would have been no problem at all.

well... everyone is dead and Aginor and Graendal remain undiscovered... one could extrapolate... all the whitecloaks are next...

[Sean, Minister of KtSP]

Sean, I am not going to tell you why I thought you were evil but it had nothing to do with silence. If you get Evil again and do the same thing I will be able to call you out on it.

Believe me, I know nobody's going to tell me what they think my real tells are. We'll see how it goes the next time I'm evil.

[Unagi]

Austin, if we waited (and I am not saying we shouldn't have) for everyone to check in each day, how would that have worked with CR's absence (and Rev's). Also, can you articulate why it's important for everyone to check in exactly? I wasn't getting why you felt that was unfair earlier in the game.

I can field this one.

How fair is it to someone who has to work with no computer access that someone else gets to go first with huge moves to be made?

If I went to sleep and it was night time, and I came back and it was night time again because in the 6 or 8 hours I slept day turned and a bunch of people got to make moves that affected the game outcome while I had one I would have done when daytime hit (After I was told what i got from the previous night). Is probably fine if everyone voted and mass lynched someone, but in this case it was an item, twice.

Your moves (Clearly well planned out in advance) were on the queue before half the game even checked in is a huge advantage to you, how can you not see that?

I am not sure I get what you are going for here. I just haven't seen these Forum WW games EVER demand that no 'in game event' (shooting a player) can happen until everyone 'checks' in. And if they did - I think the resulting Meta-Dominoe effect would be uncharming.

What makes you say out moves were Clearly well planned out in advance?
We woke up in the morning - logged in - and started playing the game. The news that we scanned a One Power and the shooting of MrBubbles was a panicked 'holy crap' moment. It's connection to a Real Life 'morning' was coincidental and wasn't our plan to kill Mr.Bubbles before his morning alarm clock rang or something.

How fair is it to someone who has to work with no computer access that someone else gets to go first with huge moves to be made?

Are you saying now that the rules should be built so that everyone's work-computer access is some how brought to an even playing field? This is a forum game. If I stay on the forum 24/7 - I will have a quicker reaction to in-game events than the poor guy that can only log in on the weekends, and he just shouldn't play.

[Unagi]

Ok I agree with Kraegor...

Vote means: put your vote on
Indict means: make someone look guilty
Support means: Make someone look less guilty by throwing your support behind them.

I agree.

But kraegor said that he didn't need to do the Indict or the Support. Didn't he?

[Unagi]

Say someone had Gab and sent a PM to another who hadn't checked in yet. A blast that ended the day prior screws up potential conversation. With a lynch vote at least there is some control of, "Hey let's wait on Grund to show up for input". There's also a little race potential with the toys. Someone might miss shooting someone else if they're slower to check in or if the other just happened to check in and send an order prior. Why didn't Trig get a chance to kill Lassr? I mean I was half-reading at that point but it looks like he meant to use his boomstick but didn't get to. C'est la vie and all that but the rules should avoid those type situations as much as possible I think.

But he did, he just fudged it.

If two people have a gun. And they both have perfect aim. The guy who shoots first is going to win.

I imagine if Triggercut had actually managed to send his message in - that order would have been given priority over Sean's order.
What's the issue?

Should Grund have been allowed to stop the Bakhshot? or not stop it -but at least get to post? No.

Maybe the problem is that this is the first time we've had 2 guns in 1 game ?

[Unagi]

you do recall i did the same thing with revhempus without being compulsed? I voted him. Gave non-reasons for the vote. How was my vote for you (Unagi) any different from that?!

I had no problem with your Vote for me.

I thought your statement to stessier said that were not going to do the Indict or Support elements of the compel order.

as a note on playstyle.

I only have to vote Unagi.

I don't have to indict. I don't have to support.

[Semaj]

Say someone had Gab and sent a PM to another who hadn't checked in yet. A blast that ended the day prior screws up potential conversation. With a lynch vote at least there is some control of, "Hey let's wait on Grund to show up for input". There's also a little race potential with the toys. Someone might miss shooting someone else if they're slower to check in or if the other just happened to check in and send an order prior. Why didn't Trig get a chance to kill Lassr? I mean I was half-reading at that point but it looks like he meant to use his boomstick but didn't get to. C'est la vie and all that but the rules should avoid those type situations as much as possible I think.

But he did, he just fudged it.

If two people have a gun. And they both have perfect aim. The guy who shoots first is going to win.

I imagine if Triggercut had actually managed to send his message in - that order would have been given priority over Sean's order.
What's the issue?

Should Grund have been allowed to stop the Bakhshot? or not stop it -but at least get to post? No.

Maybe the problem is that this is the first time we've had 2 guns in 1 game ?

So you are saying "fairness be damned"?

Why not simultaneous shots? Or a set order?

So I can literally post a day (in game, not a day out of game, this could be a week out of game) in advance: As soon as night ends, I shoot X in the face.. And anyone who is waiting on orders, or finding out what items they have or anything has no say because I posted mine first?

You dont see the unfairness of any of that?

[Unagi]

So you are saying "fairness be damned"?

Why not simultaneous shots? Or a set order?

So I can literally post a day (in game, not a day out of game, this could be a week out of game) in advance: As soon as night ends, I shoot X in the face.. And anyone who is waiting on orders, or finding out what items they have or anything has no say because I posted mine first?

You dont see the unfairness of any of that?

Trust me, I have a great intrest in fairness. I think we aren't argueing the same thing.

How - in a Forum Game, do you make the Internet Connectivity a level and even and fair thing.

If two people are allowed to, at any time, invoke a power.
How do you say that the first player to say he would like to invoke his power doesn't beat the guy that invokes his powers second.
I guess I just look at the Day Phase as being a more 'Real Time' event. The 'Turns' are Night/Day/Night/Day - but within those turns, Real Time stuff happens.

We have had games where a player can cast a Secret Vote to the moderator. The 'TIME STAMP' on that Secret Vote is critical.
We have had games where TWO players (one good, one bad) could cast a Secret Vote to the moderator. The 'TIME STAMP' on those votes is even more critical.

The time that people invoke 'in-game powers' is very much a fluid , Real Time thing and I just don't see how , realistically you can put a limit on when people can and can't invoke them.

Do you see what I am saying. I very much want these games to be fair. I just see that Sean and Triggercut both had guns. One shot first. (rather, one's gun jammed - but the net effect was that he didn't send the note in.).

How would you make it fair for both triggercut and Sean?

[The Meal]

How would you make it fair for both triggercut and Sean?

Like some guy invisibly stated somewhere higher on this page.

[Semaj]

insta kills and day endings events (Which are one in the same in this case) cant be done first thing in the morning.

Maybe give everyone a chance to post and make a few accusations. I haven't been in a game where the person with the power to end a day by killing someone else used it in the first 20 seconds of day beginning so I haven't had a chance to see this problem in action before. And even you have to agree these events benefitted the evils greatly.

In this case, Triggercut thought he sent in an order (and he might have) probably after you guys sent in yours... And then had to go do something, and by the time he got back to check the boards, he was dead. Heck, I who frequent these boards rather often when not working missed the day I think. I came on, day had turned, a shot had taken and it was night again and I was left with a "WTF!??!" feeling. I myself have gone with simultaneous shots and given a few hours of real time from daybreak til someone died.

[Semaj]

Meal I read your ideas and while I agree with em on paper, the conditions would be very odd unless they were simple and not player related...

"you must wait at least 8 hours from daybreak to use your weapon" would be a fine one... but
"3 people must vote for the target" means people would play the game of: "OK no one put three votes on anyone for a while... lets not help the shooter..." OR try to break the rules to benefit themselves. It happens in every game... the rules are made to be rules, but others see em as loopholes to run circles in.

[Bakhtosh]

I think the Life & Ego would quickly become balanced by revealing their user or more fairly: when you use it, you leave part of yourself with it so anyone grabbing it in the future will know who used it. Now the bad guys have to make sure there is a benefit before just blasting away.

[stessier]

I think the Life & Ego would quickly become balanced by revealing their user or more fairly: when you use it, you leave part of yourself with it so anyone grabbing it in the future will know who used it. Now the bad guys have to make sure there is a benefit before just blasting away.

That's an interesting thought. Another would be to not have it take the place of the Day lynch. So the shot happens...first one, then the other if necessary...then there is still the lynch. That would balance it (IMO) as the pool for lynching would shrink considerably for the Baddies and they would really have to have a reason to shoot.

[Semaj]

Announcing who took the shot probably would save a lot of the difficulty.

[stessier]

Announcing who took the shot probably would save a lot of the difficulty.

Where's the fun in that? Then doesn't it just boil down to lynch/scan the shooter to be sure?

[Unagi]

Just gonna throw this out there...
Pehaps these 'items' are just not worth it?
Create a 'shooter' but let that be that persons power - and it's 'hard coded' into the ruleset.

I dunno - just something about the items made this game 'Fun' , but also sorta put a spin of 'Random' to things that made things a little frustrating for people too, I think.

This just sorta goes to what I think is 'classically described' as Austin's aversion to games where there are 'random' events that dictate the flow of the game.

While we were on the 'Oh YEAH!!' side of a lot of these events, I knew the whole time I would have been upset if things had played the other way.

Anyhow. We had fun, and I didn't feel like our win was easy, I felt it was actually worked rather hard for... so, yeah - it is hard to hear it wasn't as much 'earned' as it was 'inevitable'.

Oh, that reminds me.

Who the fuck stole Mr.Nibbles?

[Kelric]

Announcing who took the shot probably would save a lot of the difficulty.

Where's the fun in that? Then doesn't it just boil down to lynch/scan the shooter to be sure?

What about just saying if it was Good or Evil or who took the shot and not getting into specifics?

[Unagi]

How would you make it fair for both triggercut and Sean?

Like some guy invisibly stated somewhere higher on this page.

Yes, your solution would work the way you described it.... that changes the nature of the Gun though quite a bit... it's more like a N-2 Exrta Votes Gun ... not a bad idea.

Who was that guy?

[Kraegor]

I thought your statement to stessier said that were not going to do the Indict or Support elements of the compel order.

? did you not pay attention to my actions.

I voted you as per orders. I spose my phrasing could use elaboration. I voted you. That's it. Hell I even said "don't kill Unagi" in a veiled way. I did not have to do anything more than that as... I did not have to Indict or Support YOU.

I indicted Chris. multiple times.
I didn't support the dead guy as it was pointless. (in hindsight obviously the village mighta been better off if I had run around sayin DO AS TRIG SAYS!)

[Unagi]

I thought your statement to stessier said that were not going to do the Indict or Support elements of the compel order.

? did you not pay attention to my actions.

I voted you as per orders. I spose my phrasing could use elaboration. I voted you. That's it. Hell I even said "don't kill Unagi" in a veiled way. I did not have to do anything more than that as... I did not have to Indict or Support YOU.
I indicted Chris. multiple times.
I didn't support the dead guy as it was pointless. (in hindsight obviously the village mighta been better off if I had run around sayin DO AS TRIG SAYS!)

I didn't mean to complain about your pet play if I did, it was fine. It was that statement to stessier that I read as: I will do X, but I am not gonna do Y and Z.
I didn't understand that you were saying the X didn't come with an implied Y for the Unagi order... (the addition of Z through me I guess).

[Lassr]

I'll keep the bad guy forum up for another week or so.

[Austin]

I'll keep the bad guy forum up for another week or so.

I haven't had the desire to read the spoiler forums this game. Guess I'm a poor sport at heart.











Meh.

[Lassr]

I'll keep the bad guy forum up for another week or so.

I haven't had the desire to read the spoiler forums this game. Guess I'm a poor sport at heart.











Meh.

It was a pleasure to frustrate you!

[Scoop20906]

Congrats to the Baddies. You guys did a great job in this game. Special mention to Lassr who did a very nice job of playing helpful but handling the Pet ability masterfully.

Also, Unagi and Seans did a nice job as well. Unagi, you are correct I totally didn't get the rulez and I KNEW there was a logical reason for you sacrificing yourself, I just didn't take the time to figure out the maths. I knew it was over anyway so I just didn't feel like bothering. Also, I enjoyed poking you a little by saying you made a tactical mistake knowing you couldn't respond.

Congrats to Stess running a great game!!

All in all, every as frustrated I got a times, the was an interesting game. I hope everyone considers joining the Austin Powers game currently accepting signups right now!!