Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, little wilson said:

The rules already state that there is no world where the Brotherhood and the WorldSmiths can win together so pray tell, why exactly are you two working together, hm?

Because we're married. We're both WorldSmith and Brotherhood, and so per Sheep's clarifications we have to go for a dual win. There's no alternative for us.

(Also, because we're married, I'm packing the same number of votes Drake is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@little wilson Please don't be so condescending with us. Drake and I between us are completely overpowered. Based on role and rule interactions never meant to happen, we're on both warring teams, have a private communication, 4 lives, basically infinite votes, and a win con to ensure that the Brotherhood and WorldSmiths both win. If one of us is killed the other can remarry, gain another role, and the next duo would be even stronger. This won't be a fun game for the non-EDrakeion players if we don't rebalance the game, so we're trying to show everyone that a rebalance needs to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, little wilson said:

So let me ask this: Whose fault is it that you're in this predicament? Might it not be the rules that you guys put in place and forced into play so you could get into this position? You can't complain about the game being broken when you broke it in the first place.

Wilson, we weren't trying to put rules into play that would break the game. For one, I haven't voted for a single rule all game since I put my starting rule in. I can't explain what rules are interacting because of roleclaim restrictions, but the majority of them aren't ours or even our allies'. They just apply to us, and we're trying to fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote on you Drake, and you too, Len, but I'm boring, and would like to remain so out of a stubborn sense of pride in my mundanity. :P (For your information, you should read the rules a little closer. You achieved literally nothing with that vote, since A: You affected 6 people tops, and B: people are only unboringified if they vote for themselves. Make sure you can actually do whatever dumb thing you're trying, next time please.) Also, the Worldsmiths explicitly cannot work with the Brotherhood. Please check your facts. I do agree that a lot of the rules in place are dumb, and should be fixed. However, You clearly haven't thought through your plan, and on top of that I don't trust you.

Oh, you two married each other? How sweet. I'm assuming you left out the part where all your teammates have to die in order for said combined win to actually work, yeah? Now, how hard is it for literally anyone who wants to kill one of your and end it all... 

Umm... bro. Have you been taking advantage of Sheep's headache to get weird rule clarifications? Between the two of you, you have twelve votes. You cannot make people not boring. You each have two lives, since the ability does not stack, as it's one you both have. Marriage is not annulled after death, and you cannot marry multiple people at the same time, ergo, you can only marry once. This is RAW. Now go rethink your plan, and come back if you have something actually valid to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Oh, you two married each other? How sweet. I'm assuming you left out the part where all your teammates have to die in order for said combined win to actually work, yeah? Now, how hard is it for literally anyone who wants to kill one of your and end it all... 

That is a very good point, Aonar. Len, you and Drake might be able to win together, but that doesn't mean that the WorldSmiths and the Brotherhood can win together. That just means that your win con doesn't conflict with Drake's win con. But Drake's teammates' win con still conflicts with yours. As does your teammates' with Drake's. This doesn't magically disappear just because you two up and decided to get hitched.

EDIT: And to all of Drake and Len's teammates: unless you all are planning to marry each other, none of you can win with the other team. One of you will lose. Do not just follow them because they're telling you you can win together. They can win together. You cannot. Not without getting married as well. The rules very clearly state  this. Drake and Len are in this together and if they can fool their team into helping them win and their team lose, you can bet they will. Len in particular. I hear he enjoys stabbing teammates in the back. Don't be the next back he stabs.

Edited by little wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aonar Faileas said:

(For your information, you should read the rules a little closer. You achieved literally nothing with that vote, since A: You affected 6 people tops, and B: people are only unboringified if they vote for themselves. Make sure you can actually do whatever dumb thing you're trying, next time please.)

From the rules:

Quote

If a player receives no votes, that player is Boring.

Drake has enough votes to affect all of these players per Sheep's clarification. Since each of these players has no longer received no votes, therefore they are not boring. Please read the rules a little closer yourself before you accuse me of being not actually able to do this "dumb thing".

2 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Also, the Worldsmiths explicitly cannot work with the Brotherhood. Please check your facts.

We have a plan for a dual victory, and it involves reducing the game to only WorldSmiths and Brotherhood (a non-aggression pact, if you will), and then passing a rule that ends the game with a cooperative win. Possible, plausible, and no backstabbing of any of our factionmates.

4 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Oh, you two married each other? How sweet. I'm assuming you left out the part where all your teammates have to die in order for said combined win to actually work, yeah? Now, how hard is it for literally anyone who wants to kill one of your and end it all...

Again, no backstabbing would be necessary per our plan.

4 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Have you been taking advantage of Sheep's headache to get weird rule clarifications?

I would not stoop to that just for a small game of SE.

5 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Between the two of you, you have twelve votes.

Wrong. Per Sheep's clarifications we can field 51 this cycle, and 96 the next.

6 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

You cannot make people not boring.

Incorrect and addressed above.

7 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

You each have two lives, since the ability does not stack, as it's one you both have.

No. Per the rules:

Quote

Each player has two lives.

We are two players with 2 lives each, therefore 4 lives.

8 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Marriage is not annulled after death, and you cannot marry multiple people at the same time, ergo, you can only marry once.

You are likely interpreting the phrase in the rules that says:

Quote

 This remains true even if one of the pair dies.

However, I believe this only applies to the previous sentence, or at least that's how it sounds when I read it. @AliasSheep clarification please.

10 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Now go rethink your plan, and come back if you have something actually valid to say.

No comment here.

Just now, little wilson said:

That is a very good point, Aonar. Len, you and Drake might be able to win together, but that doesn't mean that the WorldSmiths and the Brotherhood can win together. That just means that your win con doesn't conflict with Drake's win con. But Drake's teammates' win con still conflicts with yours. As does your teammates' with Drake's. This doesn't magically disappear just because you two up and decided to get hitched.

I addressed this above: we can pass a rule to modify the win cons once there are only Brotherhood and WorldSmiths left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...basically this is your confession of what I accused you of before: Taking advantage of the game and breaking it and then complaining that the game is broken because you broke it.

Also, re-read the rules for boring and interesting again. I think you'll find them rather illuminating.

EDIT: Here, I'll help you out.

Quote

If a player receives no votes, that player is Boring. Boring players can't be targeted by other players because no one pays attention to them. Further, since no one pays attention to Boring players, no one is affected by their actions. No one pays attention to their votes, because they're so boring, unless they vote on themselves, which makes them interesting, and stops them from being Boring.

So yeah. Voting on any of the currently boring players does literally nothing to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If a player receives no votes, that player is Boring. Boring players can't be targeted by other players because no one pays attention to them. Further, since no one pays attention to Boring players, no one is affected by their actions. No one pays attention to their votes, because they're so boring, unless they vote on themselves, which makes them interesting, and stops them from being Boring.

As I said before, Boring occurs originally when "a player receives no votes". Now at minimum, by this sentence alone, Drake's votes will prevent any players that were Interesting last cycle from being boring for this cycle. Boring players are untargetable, can make no actions, and can't vote except on themselves. If you remove the appositive phrase from the last sentence, you get "no one plays attention to their votes... unless they vote on themselves, which makes them interesting". This phrase describes how a Boring player can have their vote count if they vote on themself. It says nothing about a player voting on another to make the second player interesting, which is covered in the first sentence.

@little wilson To address your second point.

Edited by Elenion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AliasSheep said:

No one pays attention to their votes, because they're so boring, unless they vote on themselves, which makes them interesting, and stops them from being Boring.

^Ahem. The implication here is that once boring, one cannot become not boring unless they vote for themselves. Sorry. The small, cherry picked part of the rule you quoted involved becoming boring in the first place.

Sure, sure. You don't backstab each other... and you earn yourself a hearty "storm you" from all the factionless. Yeah... not happening sorry.

Umm... no? You can't vote that many times. Explain to me, exactly how the hell the rules allow for that. The reference to Sheep's headache was facetious, but there's no way the rules as written allow for that.

You both have an extra life. You both already have this feature. Being married does not give you both two extra uses of this feature. By your logic, without the extra lives rule, marrying would innately grant you an extra life, which is stupid and illogical.

Actually, I was referring to the "Marriage is irreversible," statement. Irreversible. You do not stop being married. Period. If one of you dies, that corpse is being buried with that ring and heaven help you if you try to take it off. :P

And yes, voting on someone interesting will prevent them from becoming boring. This is not being debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, little wilson said:

Ahem.

Kind of hard to vote on someone you don't pay attention to.

To quote from the SE lexicon:

Quote

Target: Some roles require you to perform an action on or against another player (sometimes including yourself). This player is the target for your action.

 

In SE, a vote does not "target" another player. Boring players are only immune to targeting, not to votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(no quotes in edits per the glitch)

3 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

You both have an extra life. You both already have this feature. Being married does not give you both two extra uses of this feature. By your logic, without the extra lives rule, marrying would innately grant you an extra life, which is stupid and illogical.

Of course it would be stupid and illogical. I never said we were packing 4 lives each, I said that between the 2 of us we had 4 lives, which is true.

 

4 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

and you earn yourself a hearty "storm you" from all the factionless. Yeah... not happening sorry.

At least to me, this crosses the boundary between pointed debate and outright incivility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Elenion said:

(no quotes in edits per the glitch)

Of course it would be stupid and illogical. I never said we were packing 4 lives each, I said that between the 2 of us we had 4 lives, which is true.

 

At least to me, this crosses the boundary between pointed debate and outright incivility.

I'll admit misreading that, I suppose, although why bother mention it then? Its true for everyone, and not really a consideration.

:shrug: Am I wrong? You're casually admitting you plan to kill all the factionless and then exploit the structure of the game to get yourself out of a sticky situation of your own making. Now, you currently have... one faction kill, one possible elementalist kill, and some item kills you won't want to use since doing so harms your chances of winning. Have fun killing all the factionless before we band together and kill the lot of you. That's a fact. Heck, odds are it might happen anyways, even if you decide not to go through with the plan. I don't consider it uncivil to point out what the consensus of the majority of the players will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

I'll admit misreading that, I suppose, although why bother mention it then? Its true for everyone, and not really a consideration.

:shrug: Am I wrong? You're casually admitting you plan to kill all the factionless and then exploit the structure of the game to get yourself out of a sticky situation of your own making. Now, you currently have... one faction kill, one possible elementalist kill, and some item kills you won't want to use since doing so harms your chances of winning. Have fun killing all the factionless before we band together and kill the lot of you. That's a fact. Heck, odds are it might happen anyways, even if you decide not to go through with the plan. I don't consider it uncivil to point out what the consensus of the majority of the players will be.

Please note that the Brotherhood of Peace is in the possession of a conversion power.

Also please note that we are in fact trying to restructure the game, according to a vote by all players, that I will not be using my absurd vote manipulation powers to sway in any way.

Thank you for your consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aonar Faileas said:

I'll admit misreading that, I suppose, although why bother mention it then? Its true for everyone, and not really a consideration.

:shrug: Am I wrong? You're casually admitting you plan to kill all the factionless and then exploit the structure of the game to get yourself out of a sticky situation of your own making. Now, you currently have... one faction kill, one possible elementalist kill, and some item kills you won't want to use since doing so harms your chances of winning. Have fun killing all the factionless before we band together and kill the lot of you. That's a fact. Heck, odds are it might happen anyways, even if you decide not to go through with the plan. I don't consider it uncivil to point out what the consensus of the majority of the players will be.

The goal of any eliminator is to kill all of the village, that's how the game goes. Since I'm playing on what's widely considered the elim team, and what Wilson has already painted at the elim team, I have no qualms about saying that I want to either kill (or better, convert) the vanillas. That's SE.

I'm going to go to bed and sleep this off.

@little wilson I know you're off, but I'm interested in carrying on our discussion about whether voting on another player counts as targeting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Elenion said:

I know you're off, but I'm interested in carrying on our discussion about whether voting on another player counts as targeting them.

I have virtually no desire to get pedantic with you, and that's what you're asking. This is something that could only be clarified by @AliasSheep

Can a person cast a successful vote on a person who is currently boring? My personal interpretation of the boring rule is that this is not possible. Len insists that it is. Which one of us is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... I guess that's that for now, cuz I got stuff to do and won't be in this thread. Night Len.

Now, I'm just sorta walking into all this, and don't take this the wrong way or whatever.

But it strikes me that y'alls should all chill out some. I am seeing people making more effort to cast blame then they are to understand where the other might actually be coming from.

 

Anyways, I'll be going now. See you all in a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I'm considering Drake, but you've got my back up now, and I'm feeling... obstinate. :P

You've got a convert, yeah... that has odds to fail on a not insignificant chunk of players. And it's one per cycle. You'll probably end up killing more than you convert, off pure logistics. 

Again, I'm aware. But like I said, I'm feeling just the slightest touch uncooperative. I agree that the rules are broken. (Although I don't believe your voting powers actually exist. No one has yet to explain why I should.) However, I think I'd prefer to restructure them myself, thanks. I don't need or want your rule to reset the game.

Oh, is that so Len? Now I don't believe that's true. I'll admit I haven't been paying too much attention until recently, but the Worldsmiths are neutral, are they not? They only wish to survive with items. Honestly I'm not sure why they were given a kill; it feels extraneous. They only reason you oppose the "village" is because the village opposes itself, and no one bothered giving this game a clear end condition. Both of these are things that need to be rectified. Funnily enough, we can put three rules into place this turn. The steriotypical village rule, although somewhat offensive, would at least unite the factionless, and make you an eliminator in truth, if that is what you want. And then we'll go from there. We don't need more weird niche rules, or to throw everything out and start again, just a few consice ones to get things working again. 

We need to scrap the double life rule. We need to unite the faction less into a single group. We need to lay out clear parameters for the game to end. That done, we can adjust till we're happy. No more, no less. Any "broken" interactions can be resolved by GM ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

Oh I'm considering Drake, but you've got my back up now, and I'm feeling... obstinate. :P

I take no issue whatsoever at obstinancy. You are, of coarse, utterly and perfectly free to disagree with anything I say at any time, for whatever reason. I am merely suggesting that some forms of disagreement are more productive than others.

 

4 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

I don't believe your voting powers actually exist. No one has yet to explain why I should.

The explanation I can give is somewhat limited by the questions you ask, because roleclaiming results in death.

However, I believe I can say this much.

A player starts with 3 votes.

Over the course of two action slots, one as a result of a ketek, this can be doubled a total of 4 times.

That's 3*(2**4), or 48.

But there's 2 of us, so 96 votes in total.

 

I find it extraordinarily perplexing that anybody would find the push for a reconsideration of this game remotely like a dictation.

It is quite probably in my power to force a rule into this game, because my vote manipulations quite probably apply to rule voting as well, by the wording of the rules.

But I'm quite pointedly not doing that. I am instead asking that people consider voting on a rule that will immediately result in giving people another vote.

I'll be going now, but I would be interested in discussing this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really don't think Drake's and Elenion's action here can in any way be described as a dictatorship in wording. The only way it would be was if they found a way to fore suggestion #2 to be picked. I find it also hard to blame them for their dastardly plan to win the game in other situations, since they seem to be explicitly out to prevent it from happening. (and FYI, despite my best attempts to change this, I'm still faction-less, and not part of Drake and Elenion's group).

What would the opinion be on a slightly modified version of the silver bullet, without rule #2 to remove any risk of a dictatorship? 

1. Complete game wipe. Elim team randomly created, and the game becomes a true vanilla game.

2. Complete game wipe. The rules of this game are set to those of a random, previously-run LG.

3. Complete game wipe. Each player submits one rule, and the game begins again from C1 with no new rules being introduced.

4. The game unfreezes and resumes as before.

5. The game is over. All players win.

6. All players vote on whether to keep or remove each individual rule in this game, then the game restarts with the new rules.

Even if you don't have time to discuss the thing in full, I'd like to hear a yes or no.

Edited by randuir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to get rid of these damnation rabbits.

Seriously, y'all who voted for them are frackin idiots.

I also don't know what all ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is about.

So Arinian is confirmed to be in a group at least? Y'all factionless should PM me. I have (don't) have a (don't) have a plan.

The Axehound rule is mine, going to add a thing called the Axehound Horde. Kill all the  bunnies. Also spread some love cos everyone loves Axehounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much don't like the rule suggestion, Randuir. I signed up to play this game, not Elenion/Drake's game, and not a previously run long game. I think this game is very fixable, if we're sensible about removing problematic parts, and if we're selective about adding new rules.

would support a moot being held to vote on each individual rule, but think it easily abuseable. If so inclined, we could use it to get rid of the factions, which, whilst useful to our win conditions, is detrimental to the fun in the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...