Bombs exploding. Guns firing. The smells of dust, sweat, blood, and tears. This is wartime.

 

For some reason or another war has sprung up and all you & your squads have gotten called in to fight. The initial invasions and such went extremely well. However, recently you've been losing ground and men...and a lot of them. It seems that almost every time a squad can get into a good position, they get blown to bits or forced back. Attacks, counterattacks, feints, and flanking...none of it seems to work anymore.

 

And no one seems to be able to figure it out.

 

Worried that you have traitors in your midst, and separated from a lot of the higher ups, you decide it's time to take action into your own hands and find the traitors.

 

Still Fighting

1. molestargazer

3. CanucksDynasty

4. Nerau

5. ccabal86

 

10. Kaziocore

 

"Retired"

7. Kasabian, Town Doctor

8. Alasdair, Mafia Roleblocker

6. KevinH, Vanilla Townie

2. Chaoshawk, Mafia Godfather

9. Martino, Vanilla Townie

 

Rules

(Stolen from mole and edited to my liking)

 

1. This is game. Play to win; expect to lose. And have fun.

 

2. No editing or deleting posts.

 

3. No talking to other players outside the game thread unless your Role PM states specifically that you can.

 

4. No quoting any PMs from me, including Role PMs. Doing so will get you modkilled. Paraphrasing is OK. If you are worried about something not being ok, then either PM me or just dont say it.

 

5. Vote for a player to be lynched by using the Vote: Narsis format. You dont need to unvote before voting again, but it is appreciated(especially if you dont vote again right away).

 

6. Days will last 10 days. Nights will last up to 72 hours, but may be cut short if I get all actions in before then, with a minimum 24 hour night.

6-1. If discussion is lagging, I may impose a shorter deadline at my own discretion. Deadline extensions will happen on request - but will only happen once per day at most, and if I feel there's enough activity to warrant one.

 

7. A lynch requires a majority (50% rounded down + 1) vote. You can also No Lynch, by using Vote: No Lynch.

7-1. If there is no majority by deadline, only a half-majority is needed. (Majority / 2, rounded up if necessary)

7-2. If there are 2 players with the same amount of at least half-majority votes at deadline, then I will lynch the one who reached that number of votes first.

 

8. After someone has been lynched, discussion may continue until I can get to the thread and end the day. If you are dead you may continue to post until your death scene is posted. After that point I will only allow a Bah post, and only if you were night killed.

 

9. Don't use small / invisible font, don't use coloured text(except for mole who is allowed to use orange if he is acting as the super moderator of the forum), and don't use any form of clever encryption or code in your messages.

 

10. If you haven't posted in 2 days, I'll prod you. If you don't pick up that prod AND post within 48 hours, I'll replace you.

10-1. If you need to be replaced for whatever reason, please PM me, don't flake.

10-2. If you are V/LA, don't rely on me checking the thread / your signature. Please post in the thread notifying me of your V/LA or PM me about it.

10-3. If you replace out, you automatically lose. If you are someone replacing in, whether it counts as a win or loss depends on how long you have been replaced in for.

 

11. Vote counts will be made whenever I feel like it(or it is asked) and will be done in a separate post.

 

13. I hope it isn't necessary, but any modkills will negatively effect the rule-breaker's faction in some way which I see fit. If you are modkilled, you lose, no matter how the game ends.

 

14. I can change, add, or edit rules as I see fit. I will notify players in-thread if this happens.

 

15. I am not perfect. I may have got something wrong. I may have missed a rule out. Let me know, ask me questions, but don't abuse my mistakes.

15-1. To get my attention in-thread, use the MOD: <Your message> format. Or, y'know, you could PM me.

 

Special Rules

 

1. In this game you are fighting over a battlefield. The more posts you make in thread with applicable content(determined by me), the more your side advances against the opponent.

1-1. Double posts(or triple posts etc) will only count as a single post.

 

2. As such, this game does not have traditional win conditions. Each side wins when they move a predetermined amount of space across the battlefield. (and yes it is balanced and fair)

 

3. Mafia post counts will be multiplied by (# of townies) / (# of mafia).

 

4. Any third-party roles will not affect the # of posts for either town or mafia. However, it may play a part in their own powers(if they have any) or win condition.

4-1. Power roles(if there are any) may or may not be affected in a similar way by their post #.

 

5. The amount of ground controlled by each side will be updated at the start of every day. Note: post numbers will not be revealed, only the percentage of ground each side controls.

 

6. When a player dies, the amount of posts they were contributing to their side is removed.

 

7. Due to the inclusion of this mechanic, a side may win before, or after, where they normally would. (ie. mafia may still lose even if they have more then 50% of the remaining players)

 

8. If you have any questions regarding this mechanic, just ask. I may, or may not, answer it.

Edited October 7, 201016 yr by Narsis

 

Yes, the goal is still scum hunting. However, there are a few reasons why I want to reduce the amount of double posting/spam. First of all, this new mechanism gives us a new way to scum hunt. If we can keep track of the number of meaningful posts everyone has, then we can get some extra information from the battlefield percentages. Double posting and spamming make keeping track of the meaningful posts harder and should thus be avoided. On top of this, spamming is never something I like to see. So even without the new mechanism, I would be disencouraging it. Finally, what I saw on the first few pages were plenty of very short posts. Sure they contributed to the game, but 4 of those one lines could have easily been taken together in one post. Now with the mechanism, there is a reason to split up your posts. But from a general mafia playing point of view, I don't like this direction. Anyway, I am not saying people should stop splitting up their posts, as the mechanism is encouraging it and differences in post counts can help us with the scum hunting. However, this splitting of posts already makes the thread a little harder to reread, so if someone were to start spamming it up, it would be even harder.

 

I'll have to say i agree with you Martino, double posting and spamming should be avoided.

Actually double posting could be a good way to split the people into what CD is suggesting (the top 3 posters and the rest of the guys).

The maximum points in double posts is one right?

If they split their posts, they'll have more than one points right but there's a possibility

that one of their posts won't match Narsis's criteria whereas if they double(or more) post,

there's a greater chance that they'll only get 1 point.

 

This strategy is only good if we're going with CD's strategy.

 

Huh?

 

I don't want double posting as it will clutter the thread.

I just want the update to figure out whether or not the top 3 posters are townies or mafia.

I would think it would be in the best interest to the town.

 

@Everyone - What do you all suggest? Since a majority consensus is required to request the update.

Let me explain it better...

 

If we're going with your strategy we need to make it so that the other 7 posters

will be significantly lower than the top 3 posters.

 

To keep their post counts at a minimum, they'll

try to double post or triple post as much as possible.

 

There are pros and cons to this strategy however.

Let me explain it better...

 

If we're going with your strategy we need to make it so that the other 7 posters

will be significantly lower than the top 3 posters.

 

To keep their post counts at a minimum, they'll

try to double post or triple post as much as possible.

 

There are pros and cons to this strategy however.

 

 

OK...I see what you are getting at.

I don't think I would want to limit or change a player's posting habits.

This is a game and it should be fun for everyone.

Anyway I believe we should request for an update right now

so that we can discuss something more. There's nothing more

to discuss if we don't.

Let me explain it better...

 

If we're going with your strategy we need to make it so that the other 7 posters

will be significantly lower than the top 3 posters.

 

To keep their post counts at a minimum, they'll

try to double post or triple post as much as possible.

 

There are pros and cons to this strategy however.

Actually, they could just post all their info in one post instead of double or triple posting. Anyway, I agree with trying to get three people with clearly more posts than the others. I suggest that the top three posters try and post as much content as possible in the next two days and that everyone else doesn't post in the meantime. I'd suggest that if you are not in the top 3 that you will only post if you desperately need to get something out now or if you disagree with the strategy. We can request the update at the end of the two days when the differences are even bigger. We don't want a spread of post counts, we want three clear leaders and the rest clearly behind. This is the best way to be able to say something about the top 3. With a spread it could be that #4-5-6 are mafia and we may falsely conclude that someone from the top 3 must have been mafia.

I want everyone to post as much as they can. The spread will naturally occur.

 

Two medium-activity posters that are scum will look exactly the same as one heavy-activity and one light-activity poster.

 

The suggestion to only have three players with alot of activity is bad. If two of those three are scum, it's possible they'll reach 90%. If one of those three are scum, the information gained that each has a 1/3 chance of being scum is not much better than knowing that 3 of the other 9 of you are scum.

 

Unvote.

 

Keep posting. I'm interested in the battlefield shift but it will be of more use if we get the update later rather than sooner. If one player lags significantly behind in post count, they will probably get my vote.

Keep posting. I'm interested in the battlefield shift but it will be of more use if we get the update later rather than sooner. If one player lags significantly behind in post count, they will probably get my vote.

What? Why?

 

And what you can see in the last few pages is completely why this strategy can't and won't work.

1) People post when they want to. They can have periods of more activity. They won't be constrained by people saying "Hey dude post less so we can find scum". A "nominated" person to post might drop down and be overtaken because of RL or whatever. The aim of this game is not to discourage activity by people, it's to encourage it for everyone to help their faction.

2) I imagine with such a large amount of posting everyone will be at an even-ish keel in terms of posts. Thus, using them to try and track scum is next to impossible.

3) 'Content' posts are completely subjective. What person considers to have content the mod might not. Hell, he might even discount posts which talk about using this method to find scum for all we know. Thus, using this method, we may get it completely wrong.

 

WHY WE SHOULD SCUMHUNT INSTEAD: The more dead scum, the less they can influence the battlefield in their favour. And even if we don't, for instance on Day 1, the posts we make don't have to be correct to be counted as contentful and to influence the battlefield in our favour.

I don't disagree with scum-hunting. Unfortunately, on day 1 it is pretty much random. How many times have I said "I told you so"?

 

Point 1 supports my position. People post when they can. I want that to continue.

 

Point 2 might happen but from past experience there are always a few "lurkers".

 

Point 3 is subjective but I would consider most of the current posts valid. Don't you miss my poetry?

I meant about voting the lurker, actually. my bad, I should've trimmed more of the quote.

 

Lots. And every single one of those times we've got valuable information from that Day 1 where we lynched. I'm quite happy to do it again.

If we get the update up it will be less random and we can move on. I also don't know what double or triple posting will do since they won't count if they aren't relevant or helpful to the game.

The aim of this game is not to discourage activity by people, it's to encourage it for everyone to help their faction.

 

QFT.

Simple case (1 scum left):

Player A: 5 posts

Player B: 10 posts

Player C: 15 posts

 

If battlefield is 71% townie, then Player A must be scum.

If battlefield is 50% townie, then Player B must be scum.

If battlefield is 33% townie, then Player C must be scum.

Simple case (1 scum left):

Player A: 5 posts

Player B: 10 posts

Player C: 15 posts

 

If battlefield is 71% townie, then Player A must be scum.

If battlefield is 50% townie, then Player B must be scum.

If battlefield is 33% townie, then Player C must be scum.

 

Good Point, i like this strategy Kevin, well thinking

i agree with KevinH aswell its just the math gets a little screwy when more scum are included

Including this post (by page)

 

1. molestargazer - 2+4+2+0+2

2. Chaoshawk - 2+1+1+1+1

3. CanucksDynasty - 7+1+7+4+1

4. Nerau - 0+2+0+1+1

5. ccabal86 - 0+2+2+2+0

6. KevinH - 2+4+2+2+3

7. Kasabian - 0+2+0+2+1

8. Alasdair - 0+0+2+1+0

9. Martino - 0+0+1+1+1

10. Kaziocore - 0+1+1+3+1

 

 

I've taken account for every post except double/triple post (counts as 1).

I checked and every post is talking about the game so they should be valid.

No one has put in poetry or "no u" in the posts.

 

 

Cleary the top 3 posters are:

CanucksDynasty 20

KevinH 13

molestargazer 10

 

 

The next nearest are:

Chaoshawk 6

ccabal86 6

Kaziocore 6

Kasabian 5

Nerau 4

Martino 3

Alasdair 3

 

 

I vote to put in the request for update asap.

Kaziocore agrees with me...so that's 2 votes.

Chaoshawk is in somewhat of agreement...so maybe it up to 3 votes.

 

What do the rest of you say?

I'll just say that we should get update now. There's not much else to discuss until we get that information.

I'll just say that we should get update now. There's not much else to discuss until we get that information.

 

 

OK that's 3 votes for update now....only need 3 more for a majority consensus.

 

 

Including this post (by page)

 

1. molestargazer - 2+4+2+0+2

2. Chaoshawk - 2+1+1+1+2

3. CanucksDynasty - 7+1+7+4+2

4. Nerau - 0+2+0+1+1

5. ccabal86 - 0+2+2+2+0

6. KevinH - 2+4+2+2+3

7. Kasabian - 0+2+0+2+1

8. Alasdair - 0+0+2+1+0

9. Martino - 0+0+1+1+1

10. Kaziocore - 0+1+1+3+1

 

 

CanucksDynasty 21

KevinH 13

molestargazer 10

Chaoshawk 7

ccabal86 6

Kaziocore 6

Kasabian 5

Nerau 4

Martino 3

Alasdair 3

 

 

I'm #1...yay...however the gap between #3 and #4 is shrinking.

Well it seems like my plan got shot down. Anyway I am last on the postcount, so I suppose one more post won't matter that much.

What? Why?

 

And what you can see in the last few pages is completely why this strategy can't and won't work.

1) People post when they want to.

Then those people have very poor discipline. I am not asking them to remain silent for the complete D1. I am asking them to refrain from posting for 48hrs unless they have something extremely urgent to post. They will still have enough time to post their opinion after the battlefield update.

 

They can have periods of more activity. They won't be constrained by people saying "Hey dude post less so we can find scum".

I'm not just saying hey dude post less. I'm saying: "Hey if we have a large difference in posts, we can gain valuable information about the top three posters. So could you please wait with posting until we have a large gap and are able to extract maximum value from our ability(battlefield update)."

 

A "nominated" person to post might drop down and be overtaken because of RL or whatever.

Well yeah that could happen. That would still leave two people with lots of posts and the rest with very few. It would still give a lot more information than a battlefield update when we have a nice spread in posts.

 

The aim of this game is not to discourage activity by people, it's to encourage it for everyone to help their faction.

The aim of the game is primarily to win it. The aim of the battlefield mechanism was obviously to encourage activity. However, the objective is so steep that it doesn't really matter. There is no way it will be achieved before the fate of the game has pretty much been decided anyway. (In fact, I really can't see the town reaching our objective with any scum left alive) So sure the mechanism may be designed to encourage activity, but there is no way we will win this game with activity. However, we can win this game by using the battlefield update to get an idea about the top posters.

 

2) I imagine with such a large amount of posting everyone will be at an even-ish keel in terms of posts. Thus, using them to try and track scum is next to impossible.

That is what we have been saying. We don't want an even spread, we want a few clear leaders.

3) 'Content' posts are completely subjective. What person considers to have content the mod might not. Hell, he might even discount posts which talk about using this method to find scum for all we know. Thus, using this method, we may get it completely wrong.

Yeah, more likely though we won't get it completely wrong. Sure we may think X has 20 content posts and the mod may only count 15. But if the other posters are around 5 that is still a big difference.

 

WHY WE SHOULD SCUMHUNT INSTEAD: The more dead scum, the less they can influence the battlefield in their favour. And even if we don't, for instance on Day 1, the posts we make don't have to be correct to be counted as contentful and to influence the battlefield in our favour.

Getting a spread in postscounts IS scumhunting. It is not traditional scumhunting, but it will give us valuable information. Anyway, I'm starting to think that it is not so much that you don't see the value in the strategy, but that you know it will harm you.

 

vote molestargazer

Getting a spread in postscounts IS scumhunting. It is not traditional scumhunting, but it will give us valuable information. Anyway, I'm starting to think that it is not so much that you don't see the value in the strategy, but that you know it will harm you.

It could very well harm me, doesn't mean I'm scum, does it?

 

Fine, fine, I'll support the update. But I hope everyone will realise how futile this is when the results are wide open to interpretation and don't show us anything about who's scum with any level of confidence.

Maybe then we can actually scumhunt, hmm?

I think that was the purpose of getting update to make it easier for scumhunting.

We will have 2 major tasks to accomplish after getting an update.

 

1) Play with the math and agree on some conclusion about the best lynch candidate.

 

2) Get enough players to vote for the chosen candidate.

 

In a perfect world, I would prefer to wait a bit. More data would yield better results.

 

However, it will probably take some time to accomplish our 2 major tasks; I support the update.

It could very well harm me, doesn't mean I'm scum, does it?

 

Fine, fine, I'll support the update. But I hope everyone will realise how futile this is when the results are wide open to interpretation and don't show us anything about who's scum with any level of confidence.

Maybe then we can actually scumhunt, hmm?

 

With or without this update thingy,

there will always be inactive people.

 

With this update, at least we might have a chance

to pinpoint the scum instead of outright guessing.

We will have 2 major tasks to accomplish after getting an update.

 

1) Play with the math and agree on some conclusion about the best lynch candidate.

 

2) Get enough players to vote for the chosen candidate.

 

In a perfect world, I would prefer to wait a bit. More data would yield better results.

 

However, it will probably take some time to accomplish our 2 major tasks; I support the update.

 

more data so also support the updated

 

it can help give us a clearer picture on what the math is doing due to mutliplier and such

I also vote for getting the update now