While it is true that Mafia could easily use one player to "reset" the block-out on their scumbuddy, or otherwise use the fact that they are teamed to their advantage, I don't think it would be smart for them to overuse such an ability.

edit:
Time for bed. I have a 'Solstice Brunch" to attend tomorrow. I'll be around in the afternoon, and maybe before I leave, to look at suggestions and input from everyone. I think I have a pretty decent foundation now, but if you guys think I missed something then please bring it up.

Only if your "vote" is for a highly-valued government or administrative position, such as Head Solver of Puzzles.

Oh, I was making the opposite point. I don't really see a tactical use for scum that's meaningful since they'd only target a teammate with the intent of moving off (unlikely to bus with 2, but possible). Possible that waiting too long locks them out, but they'd have to misplay to get there.

You're right that they could tactically unlock, but in the scheme of things that's pretty minor.

Imagine I'm town and you're town. 5 votes are on the table (or deadline approaching) and one of them is me on you. Say I either realize through the course of conversation you're town or that drealmer is scum and want to switch my vote to drealmer as the better choice. But I unvote and have to wait for someone else, and say either votes 5/6 come at once, or deadline comes, or no one votes and I have to log and it's closed by the time I'm back, etc.

Town can't really "plan" for when enlightenment will come. Thus the mechanic gives them a slight penalty that scum doesn't really have. But with 8 town and 2 scum, if anything it probably moves slightly toward balance rather than away from it.

If it were 7/3, then I'd be more concerned.

My quick check shows that at the start of the shooting round, all shots have a 1 in 6 chance of killing. Not really sure about calculating the chances that the next shot will be the one to kill, but hunch says it is still correct.
So do keep it like that, seems to be easier to moderate.

All sounds good so far.

Speaking of locking the queue, does that occur as soon as you or I post?
So if I come on and there are two shots to resolve do I post and say no more shots, then check if either shot is a kill and announce the results and let shooting resume? Or do I juat resolve any shot as and when it occurs and let people keep posting more shots.
To be honest I don't really see a queue forming at all most of the time unless we specifically allow it as one of us is probably always going to be online...

Will it wrap around after the probablility of 1? I.e. will the revolver be reloaded and the 7-th shot will have a probability of 1/6 again?

Also: your list in the OP still says, that drealmer needs permission. But I already granted him permission in the post directly after the one where he asked for it.

Yes. After the sixth shot someone is guaranteed to have died, therefore the next 'Day' starts with a freshly loaded gun.

Let me just interject something here: BANG BANG!

I'm sure you are all ready to die of shock after hearing that from me.

What? Now he is already cheating on me? Oh noes!

I didn't ask permission yet (I was giving it a day), buuuut, I see the list is full. COUNT ME IN and LET"S GO!

I don't think you can back out of shots. and I don't think you should be able to either

this mechanic (you take your shot and you've taken your shot, no "un-shooting") seems crucial to the roulette game, IMO.

It depends... if for example three people take a shot and it's a few hours before a mod comes on and resolves them you may see something that convinces you your target is town, or another player is scum.
In that instance I think it should be allowable to change or remove your shot...

But I can see it working either way, not being able to change it just means you need to be more careful and very sure of each shot you take.

insta-kill bler

I think you should be really calculating with your shots, they are valuable and not to be used willy-nilly and you should not take your shot until you are sure you want your target to possibly die. If someone suddenly seems more scummy to you after you've taken your shot you simply have to hope you live long enough to make another shot the next day on the person you decided was more scummy.

I lean this way also because I much less enjoy the playstyle of shot-hopping and what it will make the game be like. and doesn't suit the setup as far as my logic goes: RUSSIAN ROULETTE. Also "pretend" shooting is what being able to remove your shot comes down to and that is counter-logic to russian roulette. Pretend shooting is not fun. Real shooting makes it more serious. The shot is taken, the shot is made, and you're stuck with it. Yes, it appeals much more to me that way running through it in my head.

Don't shoot at someone unless you want them to die! Seems logical! "I wasn't REALLY shooting at you!" just seems silly. YOU FECKING SHOT AT ME!!!


my post doesn't post, it just sits and spins and spins as processing....I'm quite adept at quoting in this forum and the adalia quote is quite simple...what is wrong and why am I not posting? Oh, I capitalized fuck...got it...

I would be in the category of if you take a shot there is no taking it back.