Mini 612 Akatsuki: The End

[farside22]

Reading my reason is fundemental.

Some people knew each other coming into this. Most people did not and had to take a shot in the dark on who might target or worry from with there alerts.
I was trying to say that without saying it. Oh well never mind at this point. Ruins the plan.

[farside22]

Also do we want to talk about who we think should be shot and make is so the person who has the kill does it before the week is up so we know who we feel we can trust.

[SleepyPanda]

Reading my reason is fundemental.

Some people knew each other coming into this. Most people did not and had to take a shot in the dark on who might target or worry from with there alerts.
I was trying to say that without saying it. Oh well never mind at this point. Ruins the plan.

Can you please clarify? I don't see why people who played games with others will be more likely to place an alert on them for that sole purpose. The games are separate and the roles are different.

Also do we want to talk about who we think should be shot and make is so the person who has the kill does it before the week is up so we know who we feel we can trust.

That sounds good. I think we should just think of the amount of time we can hold the kill as a deadline. The deadline for every meeting is a week. Instead of lynching, we decide by majority vote who should be assassinated.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Bah! Damn you ABR for screwing up my master plan. Aye, second best is a town-directed assassination. Votes for assassination should be conducted in the form:

Ass: farside

...cuz it amuses me...

[Albert B. Rampage]

Bah! Damn you ABR for screwing up my master plan.

Hehehehe hilarity shall ensue *rubs hands*

[SleepyPanda]

Should we also be assassinating before the week expires, like say, a day before it does, just in case? Like right now, the week will expire 5 days from now, so we will assassinate 4 days from now.

[farside22]

Reading my reason is fundemental.

Some people knew each other coming into this. Most people did not and had to take a shot in the dark on who might target or worry from with there alerts.
I was trying to say that without saying it. Oh well never mind at this point. Ruins the plan.

Can you please clarify? I don't see why people who played games with others will be more likely to place an alert on them for that sole purpose. The games are separate and the roles are different.

Also do we want to talk about who we think should be shot and make is so the person who has the kill does it before the week is up so we know who we feel we can trust.

That sounds good. I think we should just think of the amount of time we can hold the kill as a deadline. The deadline for every meeting is a week. Instead of lynching, we decide by majority vote who should be assassinated.

Scum know each other. Therefore they need not worry about putting an alert against there scum buddy. The rest of us don't have that knoweledge and would have picked someone just at random for what ever reason we could think of.

[SleepyPanda]

Scum know each other. Therefore they need not worry about putting an alert against there scum buddy. The rest of us don't have that knoweledge and would have picked someone just at random for what ever reason we could think of.

But the thing is, not everyone has alerts. It's also unknown if only loyalists can have them, or if rebels can too.

Is mod able to clarify this?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Use your head. Does being evil ever exempt you from having skills ?

[SleepyPanda]

Y...yes?

[farside22]

Page 1 has the answer

Yes. I need a way to quickly screen my PMs and save the relevant changes in their respective folders.

Yes. Everyone can steal,

but not everyone can block

.

Moving on. I thought it might have been a good idea, but I forgot about this myself.

[SleepyPanda]

Page 1 has the answer

Yes. I need a way to quickly screen my PMs and save the relevant changes in their respective folders.

Yes. Everyone can steal,

but not everyone can block

.

Moving on. I thought it might have been a good idea, but I forgot about this myself.

Don't really see how that answers it as it's pretty vague. You can interpret "not everyone can block" as in only loyalist can block. That fits the clause as not everyone can. But from how he replied, I guess they can.

[andersonw]

I think the answer to that is also on page 1:

2.c)

Some of you

have alerts. Before an akatsuki meeting begins, you will PM me your alerts in the following format:

He implied that not everyone has alerts, so that means not everyone can block.
So I'm guessing that most likely, all or almost all of the scum have alerts, and there are at least 1 townspersons with no alerts.

@Claus: could you explain why guessing the setup day 1 is bad? I've been thinking about it and I can't seem to figure it out.

[andersonw]

EBWOP: Whoops, just noticed that sleepypanda already posted that in 82.

Addendum:

Scum know each other. Therefore they need not worry about putting an alert against there scum buddy. The rest of us don't have that knoweledge and would have picked someone just at random for what ever reason we could think of.

But couldn't they just lie about their alerts anyways? I don't think there is anything useful about everyone claiming who their alerts are.

Moving on. I thought it might have been a good idea, but I forgot about this myself.

ABR just implied that scum do have alerts, so this is not the case, although the whole point is moot because of the fact that scum could lie.

[farside22]

EBWOP: Whoops, just noticed that sleepypanda already posted that in 82.

Addendum:

Scum know each other. Therefore they need not worry about putting an alert against there scum buddy. The rest of us don't have that knoweledge and would have picked someone just at random for what ever reason we could think of.

But couldn't they just lie about their alerts anyways? I don't think there is anything useful about everyone claiming who their alerts are.

Moving on. I thought it might have been a good idea, but I forgot about this myself.

ABR just implied that scum do have alerts, so this is not the case, although the whole point is moot because of the fact that scum could lie.

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

[Mastermind of Sin]

We should assassinate DGB.

Ass: DGB

<3

I've always wanted to do that.

[SleepyPanda]

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

Catch them off guard how? By having them admit who they placed their alerts on? And you somehow believe that they would not place their alerts on a fellow scum buddy, right? You seem to have an awfully lot of faith in scum telling the truth. What if a loyalist revealed who they placed their alerts on? That would completely ruin your plan. Besides, I don't see how admitting alerts will help everyone else narrow down anyone. You don't know their alignments, and you don't know if they are telling the truth. The only thing it does is help the rebels.

[farside22]

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

Catch them off guard how? By having them admit who they placed their alerts on? And you somehow believe that they would not place their alerts on a fellow scum buddy, right? You seem to have an awfully lot of faith in scum telling the truth. What if a loyalist revealed who they placed their alerts on? That would completely ruin your plan. Besides, I don't see how admitting alerts will help everyone else narrow down anyone. You don't know their alignments, and you don't know if they are telling the truth. The only thing it does is help the rebels.

Would you place your alert on a scum buddy day 1? No I don't expect them to tell the truth now, but at the time they may have flobbed and gone along with it without realizing the information they were giving away.

[SleepyPanda]

I was hoping to catch them off gaurd, but alas I explained myself poorly.

Catch them off guard how? By having them admit who they placed their alerts on? And you somehow believe that they would not place their alerts on a fellow scum buddy, right? You seem to have an awfully lot of faith in scum telling the truth. What if a loyalist revealed who they placed their alerts on? That would completely ruin your plan. Besides, I don't see how admitting alerts will help everyone else narrow down anyone.

You don't know their alignments,

and you don't know if they are telling the truth. The only thing it does is help the rebels.

Would you place your alert on a scum buddy day 1? No I don't expect them to tell the truth now, but at the time they may have flobbed and gone along with it without realizing the information they were giving away.

You're still assuming that anyone that reveals their alerts would be scum. If a loyalist revealed, you'll be on the completely wrong track then.

[Claus]

@Claus: could you explain why guessing the setup day 1 is bad? I've been thinking about it and I can't seem to figure it out.

Hey!

Sorry for not being around. Weekend and stuff (points at profile).

Setup discussion is bad because it detracts from scumhunting. Scum can discuss the setup just as well as town, without leaving out the necessary clues we need to hunt them down.

A certain ammount of setup discussion, of course, is necessary - but speculation about the number and groups of scum like batt did on page 2 at this stage of the game is empty discussion.

I think there is a thread at MD right now that talks about it.

I'll be back to play later.

[L]

A majority vote on who should be assassinated is a good idea. We can still lynch someone, but every two kills a new meeting starts. That resets the steals and alerts. This means we really need to keep track of a majority vote of who should be killed. If the person with the kill doesn't follow that, we can be sure they aren't being loyal.

Discussing the set-up is bad, because the Mod warned us that claiming is not helpful, ever. As Claus said, "it detracts from scumhunting." No reason we need to.

Hehehehe hilarity shall ensue *rubs hands*

I would like to point out that this post throughly matched your avatar.

[SleepyPanda]

I'd also like to establish how assassintions would be done.

1) Assassinate instead of lynching so we can prevent it from going silent.

2) Using

Ass:

to place assassination vote instead of lynching vote.

3) Assassinate a day early before deadline. This is to prevent the assassination skill from accidentally going silent. I rather not wait until the point of the deadline to take action.

4) Have a follow-through, lynch when no assassination takes place. For example, say our majority vote is on a rebel, but the person who holds the assassination skill also is a rebel. They might be inclined to not assassinate their partner.

Do the rebels also have a time limit to how long they can hold the assassination skill?

Discuss, modify, add to your heart's content.

[ashmite84]

This new rule makes things very interesting. You didn't think ABR would make a vig themed game and allow the vig kills to not be utilized did you? :p I personally like the new rule, that's why I joined this game in the first place. Having said that, if assassinating against the majority's wishes, and you get it wrong, do so at your own risk. We should stow the set-up talk for now, as has been noted. Also I don't think alerts should be discussed unless you are desperate (about to get the chop etc.)

[Mastermind of Sin]

bump past meme

[ashmite84]

Vote Count

Battousai - 3 (farside22, SleepyPanda, Claus)
farside22 - 3 (Mastermind of Sin, DrippingGoofball, Megatron)
Claus - 1 (MafiaSSK)
DrippingGoofball - 1 (andersonw)
L - 1 (Ghostwriter)
Ghostwriter - 1 (L)

Not voting - ashmite84, Battousai