Day Two -- Monster Manual Mafia

[Eater of Socks]

Can I bring something up? This is a Pleo game, so multivotes are part of the deal. Do we need to consider that it's possible multi-lynches will occur every day, and vote accordingly? What risks are involved in doing so? We seem to all be multi voting anyway, I'm just worried about losing too many monsters every lynch.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by vichyssoise please

For the "Bullshit" comment overreaction yesterDay.

You mean this one?

Originally Posted by Bahamut

This is bullshit.

How, pray tell, is this an overreaction?

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Eater of Socks

Can I bring something up? This is a Pleo game, so multivotes are part of the deal. Do we need to consider that it's possible multi-lynches will occur every day, and vote accordingly? What risks are involved in doing so? We seem to all be multi voting anyway, I'm just worried about losing too many monsters every lynch.

That thought had crossed my mind, which is part of the reason I have elected to cast only one vote at a time per phase.

[PurpleWorm]

OOG:

Originally Posted by Erinyes

Quick thoughts between baseball and bedtime

What a game! I can't believe I stayed awake for 13 innings.

[PurpleWorm]

Originally Posted by Eater of Socks

Can I bring something up? This is a Pleo game, so multivotes are part of the deal. Do we need to consider that it's possible multi-lynches will occur every day, and vote accordingly? What risks are involved in doing so? We seem to all be multi voting anyway, I'm just worried about losing too many monsters every lynch.

What do you mean by vote accordingly? How would we vote differently if it is a multi-lynch?

I don't think it is a multi-lynch game. If multi-lynch were part of the rules, we would have seen it in the rules. It has to be a power. And Pleo did say that there might be powers that affected the lynch. I guess we'll see Tonight whether the power was 1-shot or not.

[vichyssoise please]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

You mean this one?

How, pray tell, is this an overreaction?

Because the statement is not bullshit. We were having a discussion of "no lynch" and all of a sudden that harsh commentary comes out of nowhere about a statement that is not bullshit at all. If I express suspicion of someone and then change my mind, I should explain why. Exculpatory thoughts are as important as accusatory thoughts.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by vichyssoise please

Because the statement is not bullshit. We were having a discussion of "no lynch" and all of a sudden that harsh commentary comes out of nowhere about a statement that is not bullshit at all. If I express suspicion of someone and then change my mind, I should explain why. Exculpatory thoughts are as important as accusatory thoughts.

Not exactly how I would have answered that question, but yours doesn't look like a manufactured response.

You can be town for now.

[Owlbear]

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

For lack of a better target, I agree with this premise.

[Eater of Socks]

Originally Posted by PurpleWorm

What do you mean by vote accordingly? How would we vote differently if it is a multi-lynch?

I don't think it is a multi-lynch game. If multi-lynch were part of the rules, we would have seen it in the rules. It has to be a power. And Pleo did say that there might be powers that affected the lynch. I guess we'll see Tonight whether the power was 1-shot or not.

Either we all vote our top two suspects at least, or we try to keep it to one person to preserve our population .

Sorry it's hard to type right now, just got a wellness screening and i'm down one finger

[Alan_Tudyk]

On second thought, a vote for kali is about as useful and informative as a no-lynch.

[Eater of Socks]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

On second thought, a vote for kali is about as useful and informative as a no-lynch.

But what about the risk that Owlbear mentions of a mod kill on both Kali and a monster? We do have to at least weigh the possibility right now.

[Owlbear]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

On second thought, a vote for kali is about as useful and informative as a no-lynch.

How do you figure that? It will narrow the voting pool, and there's a chance kali is scum.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

Where in the rules is that? This is all I can see about mod-kills

Originally Posted by Pleonast

A violation of these rules will result in an infraction point. At the discretion of the moderator, infraction points may result in the mod-kill of the player, which will result in that player losing the game.

We can use from 12 to 21 players. There will be no substitutions, only mod-kills, so please do not sign up if you cannot dedicate a minimal amount of effort.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Eater of Socks

But what about the risk that Owlbear mentions of a mod kill on both Kali and a monster? We do have to at least weigh the possibility right now.

Kali shows up or dies. We have effectively played without them to this point, so there is no real loss to the monsters without them. If Kali is a hero and dies, then they have lost an actual asset.

Voting for Kali is just about as effective as a no lynch because they have yet to contribute anything, and a vote for them gains us no additional knowledge. Why bother lynching someone that may end up dead without our support? Instead, voting for someone actively playing, even if that player is a monster, is informative. We can look at wagons and counter-wagons and judge our scum from there.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Where in the rules is that? This is all I can see about mod-kills

That's the part I think that Owlbear is referring to. Kali is the only player that has publicly known infraction points. Pleonast may mod-kill due to infraction points. Therefore, Kali may die if s/he doesn't show up to play.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

How do you figure that? It will narrow the voting pool, and there's a chance kali is scum.

The voting pool is already narrowed if we ignore kali. How does the game change if Kali doesn't show up and we vote some other player? We lynch someone that was playing and have reason to believe may be scum. We look at wagons and counter wagons to that player to gain information.

Lynching kali before they are modkilled tells us... we killed a player that had a death warrant anyway, scum or monster. Why bother with Kali?

[Erinyes]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Where in the rules is that? This is all I can see about mod-kills

Seconded. I skimmed Pleo’s post in the rules thread as well and didn’t see anything there, either.

P-edit — I read Owl as saying that if Kali is modkilled as a monster, then a second, different monster will then be modkilled. (I could maybe understand if Kali were a hero, but Owl doesn’t make sense to me.)

[Erinyes]

NETA: I skimmed Pleo’s other posts in the rule thread.

[Owlbear]

I just re-read the Rules. I coulda sworn there was a special clause about balance in Mod-kills but it's not there now. I've asked Pleonast.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Erinyes

Seconded. I skimmed Pleo’s post in the rules thread as well and didn’t see anything there, either.

P-edit — I read Owl as saying that if Kali is modkilled as a monster, then a second, different monster will then be modkilled. (I could maybe understand if Kali were a hero, but Owl doesn’t make sense to me.)

I think Owlbear is implying that Kali is modkilled and we have a chance to lynch a monster.

If he's saying anything else, that went right over my head.

[Alan_Tudyk]

DERP - I see where owlbear said 2 modkills now.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

That's the part I think that Owlbear is referring to. Kali is the only player that has publicly known infraction points. Pleonast may mod-kill due to infraction points. Therefore, Kali may die if s/he doesn't show up to play.

No the bit where he said if kali is killed and is a Monster another Monster will be killed for balance. Which doesn't make a bunch of sense to me balance wise

[Friendly_Illithid]

Hah, should refresh before I post, sorry.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Hah, should refresh before I post, sorry.

I should read before I post, sorry.

[Owlbear]

Okay, Pleonast says I am just plain wrong, so we can go back to our regularly scheduled scumhunting. Mea culpa.

[PurpleWorm]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

I must be blind. Can you point that out in the rules for me?

[PurpleWorm]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Hah, should refresh before I post, sorry.

Ditto.

[Owlbear]

I checked. That rule is on another game on another board. This is the last time I try 2 games simultaneously.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

I checked. That rule is on another game on another board. This is the last time I try 2 games simultaneously.

Not enough WIM. I'm in 2, dead in another, and on standby for auto-replacement in yet another.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

I don't remember reading that.

[Mad Mage]

I should read to the end of the thread before I post.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

DERP - I see where owlbear said 2 modkills now.

I have read everything now and I don't see that.

[Mad Mage]

Owlbear, are you going to keep your vote on Kali now that you know that there won't be another player killed if he is Modkilled. I think it would be a waste of a vote at the moment.

[Owlbear]

We have multivote, so it shouldn't matter.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

I have read everything now and I don't see that.

Originally Posted by Owlbear

vote kali

We should ALL vote kali. Why? Because kali isn't playing. Eventually, if this continues, kali will be Mod-killed. And when kali is Mod-killed, if he/she is a Monster, another Monster will ALSO be Mod-killed for game balance. (See the Rules.)

This is what Owlbear said (but no longer believes) about 2-modkills.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

We have multivote, so it shouldn't matter.

But you are diluting your vote if you let all your prior votes stand.

[Roving Mauler]

I have some weird information, or rather, a lack of information. I know that either:
a) Friendly_Illithid was not sent to kill anybody by their master, or;
b) They were protected by somebody.

Given that they are largely immune from being killed, I hope they weren't protected. It seems like it would be a waste. And it also seems odd that they would not be sent out to kill because why not use what's essentially a vigilante power? And for there to be three night kills with one known available kill on the sidelines seems crazy too.
(The information comes from my power, but I'd rather not go into too much detail about how it works because it could be easily circumvented if described fully.)

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Roving Mauler

I have some weird information, or rather, a lack of information. I know that either:
a) Friendly_Illithid was not sent to kill anybody by their master, or;
b) They were protected by somebody.

Given that they are largely immune from being killed, I hope they weren't protected. It seems like it would be a waste. And it also seems odd that they would not be sent out to kill because why not use what's essentially a vigilante power? And for there to be three night kills with one known available kill on the sidelines seems crazy too.
(The information comes from my power, but I'd rather not go into too much detail about how it works because it could be easily circumvented if described fully.)

I can think of an alternative:
c) Friendly_Illithid was jailkept.

[Onna Role]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

I can think of an alternative:
c) Friendly_Illithid was jailkept.

Why?

I can see Hero(Scum) blocking Friendly but since 'e needs no protection jailkeeping would be pointless

It is possible that the 'master' is/ was gun shy and didn't call for a kill.


Friendy doesn't choose the target so that changes the matrix for possible blockers.


Roving Mauler, do you have additional information about your role that might shed more light? ( that you can/will share?)


_{Friendly's role makes the sock's name even more humorous}

[PurpleWorm]

Originally Posted by Roving Mauler

I have some weird information, or rather, a lack of information. I know that either:
a) Friendly_Illithid was not sent to kill anybody by their master, or;
b) They were protected by somebody.

Given that they are largely immune from being killed, I hope they weren't protected. It seems like it would be a waste. And it also seems odd that they would not be sent out to kill because why not use what's essentially a vigilante power? And for there to be three night kills with one known available kill on the sidelines seems crazy too.
(The information comes from my power, but I'd rather not go into too much detail about how it works because it could be easily circumvented if described fully.)

Quite a few people didn't want to use their lynch power yesterday. Why do you find it so surprising that someone didn't want to use their vig power? It's the same problem -- you're likely to kill a town power that could have been useful if alive.

[Owlbear]

I don't have a vig power. Never have. But I have been told repeatedly that it's a bad idea for a vig to use his power on N1.

[Onna Role]

To see if they will do more than question their own answers ( see D1)

[Onna Role]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

I don't have a vig power. Never have. But I have been told repeatedly that it's a bad idea for a vig to use his power on N1.

We have witnessed a few rogue vig powers (Townside) in our days

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Onna Role

Why?

I can see Hero(Scum) blocking Friendly but since 'e needs no protection jailkeeping would be pointless

It is possible that the 'master' is/ was gun shy and didn't call for a kill.


Friendy doesn't choose the target so that changes the matrix for possible blockers.


Roving Mauler, do you have additional information about your role that might shed more light? ( that you can/will share?)


_{Friendly's role makes the sock's name even more humorous}

Jailkeeping also role locks. So why might someone jailkeep Friendly? Perhaps it was a scum jailkeeper trying to prevent an errant death coming their way. Perhaps it is a paranoid monster thinking that friendly should be holstered for the night. There's plenty of possibilities that we don't have time to delve into because we dont have all the motivations of 21+ players.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Onna Role

_{Friendly's role makes the sock's name even more humorous}

I just really REALLY like brains

[Friendly_Illithid]

I will say that if I wasn't sent to kill someone last night then that's a really worrying number of deaths.

[Roving Mauler]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

I can think of an alternative:
c) Friendly_Illithid was jailkept.

Jailkeeping would probably be considered protection. I suppose it would technically mean both a) and b) are correct.

Originally Posted by PurpleWorm

Given that they are largely immune from being killed, I hope they weren't protected. It seems like it would be a waste. And it also seems odd that they would not be sent out to kill because why not use what's essentially a vigilante power? And for there to be three night kills with one known available kill on the sidelines seems crazy too.
(The information comes from my power, but I'd rather not go into too much detail about how it works because it could be easily circumvented if described fully.)

Quite a few people didn't want to use their lynch power yesterday. Why do you find it so surprising that someone didn't want to use their vig power? It's the same problem -- you're likely to kill a town power that could have been useful if alive.[/QUOTE]

This is a good point that crossed my mind. It still means there were three kills with one on the bench, which I suppose is appropriate for a game filled with monsters.

[Roving Mauler]

Originally Posted by Onna Role

Roving Mauler, do you have additional information about your role that might shed more light? ( that you can/will share?)

I have more information that's not useful in isolation, but might be with more information. Did anybody protect or otherwise visit Illithid? (I don't need to know the power if you don't want to disclose.)

[Owlbear]

For not playing so far toDay.