Board 8 > Ace Attorney Trilogy Mafia Topic 7: I Just Want Love

(+) Yeah! (+)

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Scum power roles, Roleblocker and Flavor Cop, both had counterparts in the Town.

They also had a counter to death miller

>_<

Lol I'm honestly laughing it was a fun game. Nothing for Hb to feel bad about

Damn I tracked 5tar to myself and was about to let Ulti style on scum but I'll take the concede

I think I played well

---

Yeah. It's just a game. And we didnt play well in the slightest, so I'm not upset at all (except for not really getting allowed to play for two days because of quick hammers). It's just better to keep things in mind for the future.

---

Fun game and wow how about the ending so everyone is dead?

---

1. Everything gravy said should be discarded. It is mostly nonsense.

2. Scum twice had two much information in what they were saying. They both died for it. Gravy was one of them.

3. I like how everyone is acting like Chris just "had himself a game".

4. HB, never talk to town about in game stuff. Never allow outside of the game stuff to be used to confirm people secretly in that situation. I was hella surprised you allowed that and assumed it wasn't allowed.

5. Thanks for having me.

---

TheSultanOfSlam posted...

Fun game and wow how about the ending so everyone is dead?

No, that was a joke. Town won.


---

Yeah scum big brained the shit out of you guys. Easy win with 5tar's atomic bomb role. Tricking you guys into lynching the scum team one by one was way too easy.

Oh haha! I felt like this might have been my best town game yet o felt like i had my feet under me pretty well

---

I seriously considered not doing anything every night because I felt like my role had a chance of doing more harm than good.

Mostly just tossed the roleblocks out on the chance I needed to confirm myself

---

red13n posted...

I seriously considered not doing anything every night because I felt like my role had a chance of doing more harm than good.

Mostly just tossed the roleblocks out on the chance I needed to confirm myself

Yeah roleblocker can be a detrimental role.

---

I have to say I thought it was weird when 3 town power claimed randomly after I was already pretty much dead

Didn't matter though, apparently!

I appreciate you letting me jump in, HB! I had fun, even though I don't think I did very well.....

---

The work around hammers is have, at least day 1, be No Majority Lynchh

---

DoubleTangicide posted...

I appreciate you letting me jump in, HB! I had fun, even though I don't think I did very well.....

For what you had to work with you did ok.

---

ScareChan posted...

The work around hammers is have, at least day 1, be No Majority Lynchh

Make it plurality for the first 24 hours, majority for the second 24 hours each day, maybe?

---

Nah, just leave it at no majority and whoever has the most votes at the end of the day gets lynched

and you can start majority day 2 if you want

---

My best scum performance ever came from a no majority game where the *entire* game, including myself, voted for me at the same time and I still came back and ended up winning it

---

hammers are fun don't take them away.

---

Why would you remove hammers.

---

several people. town and scum, were dissapointed they didnt have more active play time due to short days

---

red13n posted...

hammers are fun don't take them away.

Yeah I don't hate the ability to hammer in and of itself. Even if I gave that impression this game.

---

ScareChan posted...

several people. town and scum, were dissapointed they didnt have more active play time due to short days

And? Who cares? That's why it requires a voting majority. Meaning more than half of the game agrees to it is right.

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Make it plurality for the first 24 hours, majority for the second 24 hours each day, maybe?

Still think this is a decent compromise that doesn't entirely eliminate the hammer.

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Still think this is a decent compromise that doesn't entirely eliminate the hammer.

Until you realize you are catering the rules to the less actives?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Until you realize you are catering the rules to the less actives?

Yeah, so?

It's not going to stop the active people from being active, and if there's a majority at the end of the 24 hours, the day's going to end right at that mark, letting the next day get up a day early (which I know is one of the reasons some people like the hammer)

I mean, what would you get under these rules this game. Probably just more votes on Death, maybe a 10th, or 11th. ;)

---

There's a difference between catering to the inactives and making it easier for people with differing schedules and timezones to all get a chance to participate.

It also makes it a bit easier on the host, too!

---

Also MZero is always scum has become MZero is always tracker

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Yeah, so?

Rules should never be catered to the less active. If the game has a majority that wants a hammer, it should be done. The lynch becomes even moreso adamant when the less active who aren't there didn't even get to vote for the hammer, making it moreso a super majority at that point.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Rules should never be catered to the less active. If the game has a majority that wants a hammer, it should be done. The lynch becomes even moreso adamant when the less active who aren't there didn't even get to vote for the hammer, making it moreso a super majority at that point.

Rules should be catered to whatever actually gets people to think they have enough time to sign up for a game of mafia. ;)

And hammer rules as current are really just not it.

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Rules should be catered to whatever actually gets people to think they have enough time to sign up for a game of mafia. ;)

And hammer rules as current are really just not it.

Rules shouldn't be catered to that, imo. We have a fundamental difference.

Why should anyone fear any pressure for half the day if they can't be hammered during it? What if this leads to less activity for the active?

Should we have floating end of days to cater to those who signed up? I mean, I think it's just a slope that there is zero reason to even tread onto. It's just catering to less active players, and it is about a thing that happens infrequently. An early hammer happens when the majority of the game feels compelled that the evidence exists to do so.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Rules shouldn't be catered to that, imo. We have a fundamental difference.

Fair enough.

Corrik7 posted...

Why should anyone fear any pressure for half the day if they can't be hammered during it? What if this leads to less activity for the active?

Frankly, I'd expect the game to adapt and have MORE votes during the first half of the day as a result, not less.

Corrik7 posted...

Should we have floating end of days to cater to those who signed up? I mean, I think it's just a slope that there is zero reason to even tread onto. It's just catering to less active players, and it is about a thing that happens infrequently. An early hammer happens when the majority of the game feels compelled that the evidence exists to do so.

Hammers quite literally are forced floating end of days.
So clearly, you want them, or you wouldn't be advocating for the hammer period!! =P


---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Fair enough.

Frankly, I'd expect the game to adapt and have MORE votes during the first half of the day as a result, not less.

Hammers quite literally are forced floating end of days.
So clearly, you want them, or you wouldn't be advocating for the hammer period!! =P

Hammers are not game enforced rules. I am talking about enforced rules.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Hammers are not game enforced rules.

what does this mean

of course it's enforced

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

what does this mean

of course it's enforced

Hammers are an option. The host isn't saying, today the deadline will be 7 pm because 3 people work late tonight.

Tomorrow the deadline will be 10am because 4 people want to go to a magic tournament. Etc.

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

what does this mean

of course it's enforced

I bEg To DiFfEr

yeah, you can't mess with those rules. It's unfortunate for those who have issues making deadline (myself included), but it's part of the game

---

The host sets the rules at the start.
A good host is not going to be changing the rules midgame to appease players or make it easier on the host.
(as a note, subtle dig at HB here for caving to pressure and pushing the end of day up an hour, lol)

That is what would be wrong with a floating-deadline system.

I personally found the hammer rules as written detracted from my enjoyment of this game. As such, it is within my rights, when I host a game, I can set the rules differently. If it ends up not being a popular and good rule so be it. I was not advocating for the hammer rules to have changed in the middle of this game.

---

that's a fair point, too, Lolo.

It's up to the host.

---

I will say that a number of factors contributed to doom me. (Because clearly that was the worst scumgame ever)
1. I hadnt been scum for far too long, nor was I used to pressure.
2. Crescent knows me waaaaay too well. (Chris too, but him at least I know I have been able to fool in the past once or twice)
3. I had some real life stuff going on as well.
4. I posted from the phone, I never should do that. It keeps me from being erudite and drags me into the heat of the moment. I stumbled over way too many words and I feel I at least could have explained myself better on a PC (at least some people did agree that this was clearly Caught for the Wrong Reasons syndrome)

But really we all know the clinching moment was that vote I made.
Thats on me, I got too cocky after the last towngame because I early voted there as well. It IS a thing I do. But I did it too easily here.
---

Hammer rules don't need to be changed. The community just needs to understand that that sort of behavior, if consistent, will reduce signups.

What does need to be addressed is this: Is page 10 of topics a part of the game?

---

Page 10 usually is up until everyone has moved on, which never happens exactly at post 450
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

What does need to be addressed is this: Is page 10 of topics a part of the game?

When posting new topics, hosts used to say that no votes after their post (or post X, usually 450 if they were posting it early) would count.

Did this quit being common practice, and if so, when/why?

Probably because hosts don't really post rules anymore.

Does not allowing votes after 450 make sense if there's not a new topic up?

With longer purge rate and log faqs, do we need to move to the next topic at 450?

---

Topic was up in the case of 5tar's day 2 hammer, posted by the host, noted by the host in that topic to move at 450, wasn't it?
---

Oh yeah...

Obviously I couldn't argue this during the game but I was not "trapped" into voting red. That reasoning was bad and wrong (and highly ego driven!)

At no point did I think "oh I can trick chris into driving a mislynch on red" like that's a stupid plan. I was just earnestly trying to emulate something I would do as town where I vote without a detailed explanation to see who reacts and how. Then follow up later with the reasoning.

Clearly a misstep in hindsight for other reasons but the whole ONE VOTE TWO TRAPS thing was frustrating. >.>

Basically my point is, what I did was fine in a vacuum but because it was specifically red that I targeted, it caused Chris to look sideways at me and start scrutinizing me a lot. Which once the heavy scrutiny came my way yeah I crumbled a bit, and that then turned into affirming the conclusion of me as scum by retconning my motive to be "voted red because he thought chris would lynch him".

When I read back over that sequence of posts where I got votes I can literally hear my voice rising in pitch like it does if I'm accused in a live werewolf game.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Probably because hosts don't really post rules anymore.

Does not allowing votes after 450 make sense if there's not a new topic up?

With longer purge rate and log faqs, do we need to move to the next topic at 450?

Hosts should post full and detailed rules. In general.

If there is no new official topic up and no directions to the contrary, there really isn't a reason for votes after 450 to not count. That was the standard at some point.

The main reason we don't 500 the game topics in general, I think, is to make it easier to quote later (and to not purge preemptively). But with the purge as is, one bump or two is all old topics need.

Next time just go after me puns. ;)
---

So what if the host doesn't post the new topic until post 452, and a hammer vote is put at vote 453, 5 seconds later?

Somebody unvotes at post 454, misses it, but then hops to the new topic and unvotes before the hammer vote gets posted in the new topic?

---

I think in that case the hammer counts because the intention was made before they knew there was a new topic

The situation here was there was a long warning of "use this at 450" and the vote was after 450

---