Posts: 4,778
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,160
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2010
What perfect timing. My personal life allows me to commit to this the day that it posts. I'm in! 
You can get a look at a t-bone by looking up the bulls ass but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
I see you added a set of proposed rules, Uberfish.
uberfish Wrote:Rules (up for discussion)
1. 48 hour days / 24 hour nights. Phase ends at 2100 GMT even if the moderator isn't online.
2. Roles will be randomly assigned. Players will be either human or alien and may in addition have a secret role. Quoting PMs from the moderator is forbidden, you may paraphrase in your own words.
3. Humans win if all aliens are eliminated from the game.
4. Aliens win if they make up 50% or more of the remaining players at the end of a phase.
5. Aliens may communicate out of thread, humans may not unless allowed to by their role.
6. During the day each player may cast one vote for someone to be lynched.
7. Votes must be posted in red or they will not count.
8. The player with most lynch votes at the end of the day is killed. In the event that two or more players are tied for the most votes, exactly one random player from the group with the most voters will be killed.
9. Aliens may pick one of their number to carry out a kill at night. Aliens may submit a kill order on behalf of their teammates, but in case aliens submit conflicting orders as to the kill details, the last received order has precedence.
10. Night actions resolve in the following order simultaneously within each group: Roleblocking, Other actions that interfere with actions, miscellaneous actions, Kills. This should not be taken as confirmation or denial that such roles are present in the game.
11. Dead players may make one posthumous post that doesn't contribute to discussion.
12. Breaking the rules will result in penalties ranging from warnings to being mod killed depending on the severity of the infraction.
My take: - For #1 to work we would need an accurate forum clock. Then we could simply disregard any votes being cast after the deadline. I would support that.
- I don't like randomly breaking ties (#8), that could get pretty frustrating, particularly in the end game. I propose either an elected Mayor to break ties, like in WW3, or the following tie-breaking rule: In the event of a tie, the tied player who least recently received a vote is lynched.
- To keep things tidy I am inclined to disagree with #11. Let's just make our humorous posthumous posts in the lurker thread.
- I propose the following no-editing rule: Posts may not be edited more than 15 minutes after they were posted.
- I propose the following inactivity rule: Players who fail to vote for two consecutive lynches are mod-killed.
Posts: 4,471
Threads: 65
Joined: Feb 2006
The random tiebreak is supposed to encourage people to actually reach a majority vote. I'm not a big fan of the mayor mechanic.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
uberfish Wrote:The random tiebreak is supposed to encourage people to actually reach a majority vote. I'm not a big fan of the mayor mechanic.
How will it encourage that? If I want someone lynched, I'd rather have a 50% chance at it than a 0% chance. It will just be frustrating that it comes down to a die roll.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
Happy with that in general, but the least recently thing needs rewording
A = 4 votes
B = 6 votes
C votes for A
D switches from B to E
I think B should swing, your rule has A swinging
Posts: 12,335
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
Wait does a tie kill one of the two who are tied or just anyone who is voting for those in a tie. It says:
Quote:exactly one random player from the group with the most voters will be killed.
So awesome if voting in a tie meant random death for the actual voters and not those being voted for. 
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Jkaen Wrote:Happy with that in general, but the least recently thing needs rewording
A = 4 votes
B = 6 votes
C votes for A
D switches from B to E
I think B should swing, your rule has A swinging
Yeah I know... personally I think that is fine (A swinging), and it's harder to formulate a clear rule that has B swinging. The rule that was used in WW1 and WW2 would have B swinging, though (but I don't think it was very clear).
Edit: Actually my rule would have B swinging in that scenario, since A received a more recent vote than B. We had this discussion before, and you need a 3-way tie to see any difference between my rule and the one that was used in WW1 and WW2.
Posts: 4,471
Threads: 65
Joined: Feb 2006
Well the vote-order tiebreakers lead to some confusing situations when people switch on and off. If you really want to lynch someone then you should be more convincing so that they get an absolute majority
I forgot to put in inactivity/post editing rules, thanks for the catch
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
I'm happy with a random choice of those being tied.
Or the one recieving the most recent vote swings.
|
