Long Game 38: In the beginning...

[Aonar he/him]

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.

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

[Elenion he/him]

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.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

Whoah folks.

What in stormfather's name did I just return to.

You guys okay?

[Elenion he/him]

(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.

[Aonar he/him]

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.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

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.

[Elenion he/him]

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.

[little wilson she/her]

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?

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

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.

[Aonar he/him]

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

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.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

11 minutes ago, Aonar Faileas said:

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

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.

[DeTess she/her]

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 September 11, 2017 by randuir

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

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.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

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.

I 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. 

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

We'll call it the Cleansing.

Dibs on doing the cleansing.

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

they're a wolf like that.

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

Just now, winter devotion said:

Insert sarcastic comment here?

Insert apathetic comment here.

[DeTess she/her]

1 hour ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

I 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. 

Just out of curiosity, how do you think a simple moot would be abuseable? Or is that something you'd rather not share, in case we do decide to hold a moot like that and you'd prefer not to give anyone ideas.

[Steeldancer he/him]

I like the bunnies. 

Holy cow what is going on here? 

I was thinking of proposing a millennial style "everybody wins" rule in a few turns. But I'm still having fun just creating nonsense. I have a great rule for the next turn (I swear it doesn't involve animals). It should make dealing with bunnies easier, and should make several rule propositions right now more reasonable. 

As for a hard restart, I'm kind of liking the style of the game right now. I'm unaligned, and am just playing for fun. I honestly haven't had this much fun for a while. No real threats, and the whole rule proposition thing is allowing me to really be creative. 

I do not support making this more structured. I'm more interested in having fun with this game than winning, especially as all my win conditions are pretty much impossible (How are you supposed to complete vendetta against a boring player anyway?)

I sort of understand the reasoning behind Drake's idea, even if I don't support it. 

Again, this was my plan: play however I want for a game. Then, when all fun has been extracted, everybody wins, everybody is happy. The structure people are trying to impose will make this less fun. Don't get me wrong, I like mafia games. But it's nice to have a break and kind of have a free play. 

[Straw he/him]

Drake Drake Drake!

Kill him!

[Sparkrunner he/him]

15 hours ago, Arinian said:

You not alone, I too don't like rules like that.

And I think that Roadwalker is one who created this rule... He wanted me to roleclaim (with use of loophole in the rule) I declined his proposition.

... I had a PM with arinian, in which he lied about his role, then ranted some about roleclaiming, asked sheep to kill me for exploiting a loophole that me and my contacts believe was intentional, and proceeded rather snappishly from there, being apparently furious about the loophole. As such, he creates the Arinian rule, then says this ^ because he is still mad. Arinian for being positively nasty. And yes, I am mad that he tried to do this.

[Steeldancer he/him]

4 minutes ago, Roadwalker said:

... I had a PM with arinian, in which he lied about his role, then ranted some about roleclaiming, asked sheep to kill me for exploiting a loophole that me and my contacts believe was intentional, and proceeded rather snappishly from there, being apparently furious about the loophole. As such, he creates the Arinian rule, then says this ^ because he is still mad. Arinian for being positively nasty. And yes, I am mad that he tried to do this.

Hey road do you know my role now? I'm not sure if the adoption went through or not. 

On a side note I'm still interested in getting married. 

[Aonar he/him]

7 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

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.

 

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.

It's a dictator move because you're strongly encouraging players to comply with a large-scale change to the gamestate from a position of perceived superiority. Said position is false, but regardless your actions are somewhat irksome.

Anyways, I know what your role is. >> Everyone's known what your role is since the moment you claimed to have extra votes, my dude. On that note, let's take a closer look at the DM rules, shall we?

19 hours ago, AliasSheep said:

Dungeon Master
Each night a person with the Dungeon master role may do two of the following:

• Create a mob of NPCs, doubling their votes for the next day.
• Influence the dice, choosing a player and redirecting a random action targeted at the Dungeon Master to that player instead.
• Deny a player's request, roleblocking them for the Night.”

 

Emphasis mine. "Each night" implies that the ability is restricted to a single use each cycle, regardless of action periods. "two of the following" states that they can make two of the following actions. Not that they have two uses of the following abilities. That wording difference is crucial, since it means that they cannot use the same ability twice, per single use of the DM role. 

If the above was not the intent of your rule, Len, perhaps in the future you should be more careful with your wording. (And you know, not create intentionally broken rules.)

Edited September 11, 2017 by Aonar Faileas

[DeTess she/her]

1 hour ago, Roadwalker said:

... I had a PM with arinian, in which he lied about his role, then ranted some about roleclaiming, asked sheep to kill me for exploiting a loophole that me and my contacts believe was intentional, and proceeded rather snappishly from there, being apparently furious about the loophole. As such, he creates the Arinian rule, then says this ^ because he is still mad. Arinian for being positively nasty. And yes, I am mad that he tried to do this.

Alright, @Arinian, if this is what actually happened I'd just like to point that this is not a cool move.

Anyway, I'm now going to be a hypocrite, given what I've just put up, and ask everyone in the thread to take a deep breath and relax, as there's a lot of indignation going about over what are, in the end, trivial matters.

[Aonar he/him]

9 minutes ago, randuir said:

Alright, @Arinian, if this is what actually happened I'd just like to point that this is not a cool move.

Anyway, I'm now going to be a hypocrite, given what I've just put up, and ask everyone in the thread to take a deep breath and relax, as there's a lot of indignation going about over what are, in the end, trivial matters.

 

 Indignation? I'm enjoying myself. Some of Len and Drake's actions and suggestions have been mildly annoying, but it's more than balanced out by getting to mess with them. Talking long term I don't care what they do, but in the moment I'm enjoying attacking their position.