##GM NOTE:
Some people were asking. I wanted to include it as a reminder, but there is still 26 hours and fifteen minutes to vote.

Oops, apparently I am not good at telling the time.

##GM NOTE:
Flum: The majority of masons are required to visit for a conversion. Masons vote in their QT who they will convert, and 51% of masons voting is required to convert. All players who voted for that player visit them.

Jamiet: It still counts. Also, that's not how QT voting works.

So, TrPrado, just to be clear, the voting mechanic for masons is the opposite of the voting mechanic for Cult Leaders, yes?

"The majority of masons are required to visit for a conversion."
"51% of masons voting is required to convert"

Those two don't mean the same thing.

Yeah, that makes sense for the majority of masons visiting, as opposed to cultists where it's irrelevant.

@Jamie
Just remove the ## next time. Given the massive speed this thread is flowing at, they're probably not reading every individual post, but just ctrl + F'ing their way through for the ##.

I'm still not clear on what the rule for masons is. If there are three masons, can two of them abstain and thus only one make a visit?

@xorxes: I think it means this:
If more than half of the masons vote to convert someone, the person with the most votes will be converted. All masons voting for someone will visit whoever they voted for.

Is this correct?

##CALL GM

Please can we have clarification of the voting rules for both Cult Leaders and Masons?

The rule for masons, as you have written it, says:

"If there are only two masons then both masons must vote for the same target or one must abstain by not voting/retracting their vote...

and:

"ALL masons who are part of the voting majority will visit the player target. The masons who are not part of the voting majority will appear to visit no one."

This would appear to state that if there are two masons, and one votes and the other abstains, then only the mason who voted visits the target. That contradicts what TrPrado just posted.

Surely if there are two masons and one abstains, the abstaining mason is NOT part of the "voting majority", yet the vote still goes through.

##GM NOTE:
I meant that 51% of the voting masons must vote for a particular player.

## CALL GM

So, if there are two masons, and one of them votes and the other one abstains, only the mason who cast a vote will visit the target. Correct?

Wait. So is voting no one not counted as an actual vote?

I think it's important this is properly resolved. The situation is very unclear.

@ Vashta - the rules use the phrase "abstain by not voting" so I'd interpret that accordingly.

(i.e. if a mason abstains, that is *not* a "vote" )

Maybe the intention was that at most one mason could abstain, and only to prevent a tied vote.

I'm back. I suspect our co-GM is being intentionally obtuse because he's waiting to consult with ND. Give him time.

Balki continues to be awful. The purpose of day one is primarily to force people to establish connections that we can look back on later. In that sense, this game is no different than any other. Balki knows this. He also knows that we are often able to catch scum day one despite their not having anyone to be connected to yet, and that this game is just like any other in that sense too. His refusal to acknowledge these things and continued persistence in trying to end the day is scummy (towny?) as fuck.

Beyond this, his defense is terrible. He claims that as scum he'd be trying to avoid attention. This opens a big fat can of WIFOM rendering his argument worthless. He also claims that he's allowed plenty of information to be exposed about himself, which is both contrary to his claim that there's no information to be gleaned from the day and simply false given that he hasn't had any meaningful direct interaction with anyone outside of the easy and self-serving bo vote and the weird alliance thing with Flum. Useful information comes from interacting with people, not from proposing dumbass, mafia-aligned plans. The only information that gives us is that we should lynch him.

I agree with ghug. ##Vote Balki

This is strange. I usually have a bad feeling about day 1 wagons, and yet I am fine with a lynch of either bo or Baliki.

What a peculiar little setup for this game. Im guessing town will have to kill the cultists and visa versa and mafia will just slowly see their ranks dwindle and die. With the way its setup id be very very surprised if the mafia guys (or whatever remains of them after a few nights) manages to win this one,

Having a lot of trouble over here due to a little snow and power outages the last few days so I havent been at work to catch up with the thread. Look at me anchor again. Come at me Ghug.

I will clarify this matter shortly. Have patience.

@Flum: why do you want bo to claim town PR?

##GM NOTE

If there is one mason alive then that mason must act at night.
If there are two masons alive then one mason vote is considered a majority.
If there are three masons alive then two mason votes make a majority.

Further Clarification:

The 51% voting majority is intended for mason groups with more than two members. Each new mason has voting privileges unlike new cult members. To be consistent with how we established Cult Leaders, we agreed to allow one mason to abstain in voting if there were two masons alive. This means that as long as there are two or more masons alive it is likely that there will be at least one mason that will survive any catastrophic loss to the mason organization (consistent with the Cult). This was done to keep both organizations in play for as long as possible by allowing them to safeguard some members in the event of a catastrophic loss.

All Masons and all Cult Leaders could vote the same target rendering this discussion moot. But, the game was built with the option of allowing both groups to protect some members each night UNLESS there was only one left in the organization and then that member has to act.

Then if there are four masons, they need a party of at least three to convert, yes? They can't make it a 2-1 vote with one abstaining?

Thank you, ND.

Kinda sounds like you're saying you're not a traitor, Vec.

##GM NOTE
@Xorxes: Correct. They would need three votes in the voting majority.

Argh, smart play would just be to ignore this game for a while and fade into the background...but I can't! Must...respond...to ghug's...poor logic!!!

"Balki continues to be awful"
"his defense is terrible."
"His refusal to acknowledge these things and continued persistence in trying to end the day is scummy (towny?) as fuck."

✧Let's all be conscious of when people argue by offering strong logic, versus when they argue by flinging strong adjectives.

"this game is just like any other in that sense too."
"In that sense, this game is no different than any other. Balki knows this."

✧I have expounded at length about why I think this game (and in particular, this Day 1) is very different. You have not responded to my arguments, you've just asserted that Balki knows it's really the same. I don't know it's the same. I don't agree that it's the same.

I'll provide a shorter version of my earlier arguments here. I believe that (1) every role's motivations on this day are almost identical. And thus (2) it is unlikely we can draw meaningful distinctions between roles during this day phase.

The only exceptions to (1) are that a few roles (Cult, Mason, Mafia) are also interested in their known partner's survival. But with 19 players, a few of them only having to save a couple of others, and the ease with which anyone can soft-bus, that is just going to be so imperceptible.

Moreover, in a typical Town v. Mafia game, with the Town both in the majority and in the dark, it is clear that more info and more connections, are good for the majority. Here, with shifting alliances, and the Mafia in the majority, it is not CLEAR that more information is good for anyone in particular. It is possible. But it is not clear at all. It is very hard to tell which way "more information" cuts.

Even if I thought that engaging in a "scumhunt" today made sense and could harvest more information down the road, it is not at all clear which faction that more information will benefit, or whether I am or will be on that faction.

"He claims that as scum he'd be trying to avoid attention. This opens a big fat can of WIFOM rendering his argument worthless."

✧No it doesn't. Not if I'm a halfway decent player. The smart move as Cult Leader/Mason is to stay in the shadows. That is how to avoid getting lynched when playing Webdip Mafia. It's a sad indictment of the meta on this site, but it's true.

"He also claims that he's allowed plenty of information to be exposed about himself"

✧That is false. I absolutely never said that. I said and implied that I have been contrarian and outspoken, not that I have "allowed plenty of information to be exposed about" myself.

When you correct your false statement, your argument and your alleged contradiction fall away.