In post 1913, yessiree wrote:As of now, these PTs are already released, with the exception of Mafia chat, because Kerset still has not given their consent!! You're in deep trouble young man or woman.
I thought that redactions imply that.
how do you expect me to know when you're done making redactions... you had to let me know
In post 1706, Bambi Jay wrote:@Mod: since Llama surpassed me in votes for a bit but we're tied again, is he set to die in plurality or is it me since I was at 3 first? That seems like important information to have rn.
In case of ties, the player who reached the most votes
first
will be eliminated
I just noticed this (and it's in the rules so it's how plurality should work in this game) but this is actually not the standard implementation of plurality.
Standard is most recently highest:
If A is at four and B is at three then someone unvotes A, A would be on the chopping block.
If A and B are at 2 and someone votes A then someone votes B, A would be on the chopping block.
I'm only bringing this up because I thought I'd explained that in the setup thread before game start, but apparently I hadn't. If you were aware of this but chose to implement plurality the other way that is also fine, I just like being informative.
I'm a little confused by your example I underlined.
A got to 3 first, then B got to 3. Using my rule, A is limmed (most votes
first
). Using most recently highest, B should be limmed as B's 4 votes is more "recent" than A's 4 votes.
My idea was to give more agency to players voting first, and to force more interactions between players if they want to change the elimination target.
Most recently highest is you rewind time until there isn't a tie, and then lim based on who would have been highest there among your tied players (continuing the process after dropping players if there's a tie)
Your ruleset, as I understand it would allow for the following situation: A gets 4 votes out of the gate. B then gets four votes. Everyone unvotes A. A gets run up to 4 again. A would then be the lim, because A was the first person to reach 4 votes that phase.
oh okay, then the 2 rulesets are actually the same. The "most recent highest" and "most votes first" should be same in spirit when they should really just be "look at the most recent snapshot of the vote count before a tie is reached, whoever had more votes is the target"
The scenario you mentioned should have had B be the lim under my interpretation of plurality voting as well. Looking at VC 2.21 when Bambi asked me the question. Bambi was at 3, then Llama got to 4, but dropped to 2, if they were tied at 3 again, Bambi would have been the lim since at the snapshot before the tie, Bambi had the most votes (of 3) first.
In post 45, RationalMadman wrote:You should stop just posting stuff about Kerset and whatever, it isn't going to be a towntell no matter how you try to play it off, especially as people saw you last game. Try and out a read or two if you can over time.
In post 45, RationalMadman wrote:You should stop just posting stuff about Kerset and whatever, it isn't going to be a towntell no matter how you try to play it off, especially as people saw you last game. Try and out a read or two if you can over time.
How rude
How is that rude?
Everyone's a fool in some ways, we all can only try.
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
how do you expect me to know when you're done making redactions... you had to let me know
