The funny part is Grandfather was a typo on my part or an autocorrect on my phone LOL

I'm also a bit frustrated because I was awake between when trentonlf got lynched and lifthrasil was online and I was waiting for him to switch it to night so I could send in my kill and kept waiting and waiting and finally had to pass out. Came back I don't know how many hours later after going to bed overnight to see it came not long after I went to sleep, and all I had to do was talk to myself a minute and send in the kill request. I had no one to discuss it with, it essentially went VERY FAST, but, yeah. lalala, don't mean to complain, I still had fun! I look forward to more with you all (:

I was going crazy waiting for you two. "What in the fidgeting hell are they waiting for? AAAARGGHHHH" Probably the stress of exams got to me. xD

Teams:
Luciano: bookwyrm, adalia, krypsyn, p1na
Capone: trent, bler, leonard, dedo
Torrio: JMich, drealmer, yog, hsl
Lansky: flubb, ix, HijacK, cristi


Night 1:
Leonard jails HijacK
HijacK wants to jail trent, but is already jailed himself
Krypsyn jails Bookwyrm
Yogs jails adalia

Ixam kills/cleans JMich
adalia wants to kill trent, but is jailed
bler tries to kill Krypsyn, but is too late.
team Torrio does not attempt a night-kill.


Night 2:
leonard jails flubb
krypsyn jails dedo
yogs jails drealmer
Hijack jails Bookwyrm

bler kills/cleans HSL
Bookwyrm wants to kill leonard, but is jailed
HSL wants to kill Bookwyrm, but is already dead himself
Ixam wants to kill trent, but is too late.


Night 3:
Kryps jails cristi
yogs jails drealmer
HijacK jails Ixam

trent kills yogs (just as he returns from jailing drealmer)
drealmer knows that he is jailed and tests how the 'you've been jailed' PM looks like by targeting Ix.
cristi tries to kill trent, but is jailed
Bookwyrm tries to kill yogs - but yogs is already dead.


Night 4:
Krypsyn jails cristi
Hijack jails cristi too

dedo kills Krypsyn
Bookwyrm tries to kill flubb - but is one hour late
flubb tries to kill bookwyrm - but is too late
drealmer wants to kill/clean flubb too - but is too late too.


Bodies were found in their room when the people didn't do anything at night. They were found in their door, when they were killed while moving out to kill someone themselves, but were intercepted. And they were found in the hallway, when they were returning from jailing someone when the kill occurred.

You should have sent your kill request in once the vote was final to his chat, even if he had not officially ended the day. He probably would have accepted that.

That is the entire point and yes it does make sense. You have to actually CHECK to make sure IT IS the majority vote come time to lynch the person. Exactly because people "go away" from "the active discussion" for periods at a time while discussion is going on and things can change before they see them change and therefore where there vote SEEMS to be isn't where they actually want it to be given more things having happened. So a "okay, the majority has been reached, but let's make sure everyone wants to keep their votes where they are" CHECK makes absolute sense.
well that would have been nice to know. really frustrating seeing the NK actions even more so now. I WAS ONLINE WAITING 'last night' so I could send in my night action but not typing in the scum-chat until it said it was open. Really don't like the mechanic of first-come first-serve, I must say. Especially considering I was on yogs team and each one of us had to read like 3-4 walls of texts from him before we could even begin to discuss what to do.

Damn, flub. You were a tasty target.

I've been a part of something, many times, where it works like this. It would especially work like this with a group of 16 people who are all supposedly "town" working together to KILL someone to have it work like this. "Are you sure that is who you want to kill?" is all that is being asked. It's completely reasonable. Especially considering changing votes is part of the game, especially considering people have different times to access and play the game. Especially in this game considering there was a prod mechanic and everyone was made sure to be attentive and active regularly anyway. It is completely reasonable and should be accounted for that discussion will happen and circumstances will change for people from one time to the next and there should be no haste in the the killing for so many reasons.

I think an affirmation period makes a lot of sense. L-0 is reached, the moderator stops all discussion, tells everyone to not say anything and the only things that can be posted are "vote / unvote" posts and that the FINAL tally will be counted within a specific number of hours. Before that period is over everyone can vote and unvote to their heart's content, but no discussion about it, and once the time is up, THAT is the final vote.

It just seems like a much better way for the game to be played.

I think the current design is the way it is because of the realities in trying to play this game online. Consider that we've got players in places as far apart as California (Yog) and Greece/Bulgaria (JMich/Dedo). That is a 10 hour time zone difference; you may have noticed commentary about how some people are going to bed just as others are waking up.

Also, consider what has to happen for the Moderator to immediately shut down discussion and then cycle through everyone to confirm votes. The Mod would have to be watching the thread nearly 24/7. Then the game basically has to completely stop for 1-2 days each time the lynch number is reached, and that is assuming that everyone is available every time the lynch number is reached. Personally, I think that would break up the flow of the game, and it can really screw with deadlines, too.

Remember your frustration on how the previous game's Day 1 dragged? Imagine what that might be like if the majority vote is achieved, then the game stops while everyone checks in, and then someone goes "No, lets not lynch this guy after all". So then the game has to continue, and you can just keep cycling like this. The current model tries to strike a balance between "Everyone has a chance to weigh in" and "Keep things moving".

Thematically, I think of it more as a lynch mob than a round table discussion; enough shouts go up for a particular person and that person gets the noose. The pre-lynch voting process is when you should be checking your vote. If you are bluffing with your vote, then you need to make a point of retracting said vote if you know you can't be watching the thread. Note the times someone has said something like "I want to prevent a sudden lynch, so I'm retracting my vote for now. I'll check in again tomorrow".

All that said, when your turn comes up, we can try out your idea. Theory crafting is all well and good, but nothing quite beats a play through test.

I never noticed he said "Grandfather" instead of "Godfather". I reread his post, then read the rest of your post here, then had to rereread his post before I actually saw that.

I thought that was just a typo, honestly.

Flub, I believe you should buy me a beer or something :D

We will just have to agree to disagree. All you are doing is adding another aspect to the game that is unnecessary and unrealistic. It would also extend the length of a day cycle for no reason but to give someone a chance to change their vote. Host a game like that and you will get a lot of FTSIQ. Your live games are different than a forum game too, a live game is over after a couple of hours and doing what you suggest might work.

I appreciate the points bookw and trent. It could become too cumbersome very likely and yes, the live-group game did operate differently than it would on here, I suppose. I am just trying to figure out a way to replicate that for a forum game because it worked very well for the game. The votes became something more to analyze on the fly rather than just wagon analysis afterwards, because there were times where they were bluff votes and the taking-off of them was more suspicious than others and there were times someone would remove their vote with a legitimate reason and so the angles of analyzing it all became very interesting and worked very well with the game. You had to be aware and really provide reasons for placing and removing votes, etc., but you could also bluff those reasons to varying degrees. It was good, so, yeah, I would like that replicated here.

I guess my solution to the problem of the mechanics I don't like is to never vote unless I am going to hammer. I can see games now being a stubborn challenge between HijacK and I, waiting to see who will budge first so that the other can hammer.

Even better. Let's force him to get TWAG while it's cheap and join us for a game or two on Wednesday when I'm done with exams, or Friday night (Saturday morning for you) if Wednesday doesn't work. :P