This market is for the second formal alliance between FOLDED contestants. Discussion on what we want to do can be done in the comments.
0) This alliance shall not exceed 50% of the player pool upon creation.
1) Non-aggression towards each member unless they consent. If aggression towards each other is necessary, we discuss a plan on how to execute it.
2) Information shared within the alliance shall not be shared with outsiders. Especially Bandors.
3) 121 cannot join this alliance.
4) No entry fee to join the alliance.
5) Alliance members shall not be forced to drop out from FOLDED without their consent.
6) Initially, all members of the alliance are secret to outsiders. We may discuss if we want to repeal this.
7) This alliance disbands if every member remaining is a member of the alliance, or there is a voluntary disbandment.
8) Do not leak exploits to others outside the alliance
9) Do not leak the existence of this alliance to others
General, unenforceable requests:
Knowledge sharing on exploits.
We may discuss prize pool sharing if the alliance is a majority of the remaining contestants
We will discuss who will benefit from vote pooling for buffs, and who to vote for if debuff
These items can all be negotiated.
Members:
1,000People are also trading
Bad news! ziddletwix was right and this market is basically public. If it only took a few minutes for me (with no web dev experience or previous knowledge of manifold's architecture) to find this out, you can probably assume people not in the alliance will read what you write here so be careful! (And I should probably apologize to Wott-tan, she was probably no snitch (though I still don't trust her in-game and am still okay with targeting her after 121))
@Quroe this is a json of the last 100 unlisted markets created. You can use the slug and creatorName fields to construct the url which makes it possible to access the market
Vote for 100Anonymous if 100Anonymous is 1 vote ahead or less
Otherwise vote 121. The plan is to have 100Anonymous lead until our bloc votes 121 as second place
@nikki after my vote, 100Anon has 3 votes, 121 has 2 votes, and someone else had 2 votes, I think it was Mattt?
@nikki oh cool, I thought someone was updating that manually after each day, I didn't realize it was live
who should i vote for? the second most voted for will suffer
EDIT: i voted for 121, later alliance member should change their votes if 121 leads i guess
Something I would like to "lobby" for in general is for the game difficulty curve to be ramped up as fast as possible.
My reasoning is that if I lose, it'll likely be because I somehow forgot or was busy on a particular day, not because I failed to complete the level on a technical/skill level. Therefore keeping the game short (due to high difficulty) maximises my win chances.
As an alliance I think we have a collective skill buff due to information/strategy sharing, and so I think we would all benefit from a sharper difficulty ramp.
@retr0id I think our main strength as an alliance is in our consolidated voting bloc which we can use more times and with likely more powerful effects as time goes on (imagine how easy the game would be for us if we arrived at Day X: DEATH). So I say let's wait a few days at least before asking for a ramp up.
@koadma wouldn't it be better for us to arrive at a hypothetical "Day X: DEATH" sooner rather than later?
@retr0id definitely better if we arrived at that sooner, but I think if you ask for the difficulty curve to be ramped up faster, the annoyance part will be ramped up more and the voting part's effects less, but I might be wrong ofc.
@retr0id fwiw I sold my captcha-bypass to bagelfan earlier, which is also evidence towards him not being the recipient of leaks from the prior group (mod-power-abuse or otherwise)
@nikki My only suggestion is that if it's a buff, someone other than me gets it. I have some experience in platformers, so I don't need it at all and making the game easier would probably just decrease my fun. I have no other preference, and I will vote for whoever you want me to.
@nikki However, if there is no other target for debuff, then I'm particularly okay with targeting Wott. I have no personal problem with her (and her "loading screen behaviour" joke was very funny imo), but I do think she is most likely to have been the snitch and in personal communication she was very likely dishonest with me two times already.
She claimed that she didn't remember who she voted for 15 minutes after she voted and probably taking up 121's offer to not vote for them (based on mana transfer).
She claimed that she was very bad at platformers. I guess possible, but she has a poll about keyboard stagger on manifold. That's not something I would expect a normie to have and of course it's advantageous to let others believe you have no platformer skills in this game.
@koadma > She claimed that she didn't remember who she voted for 15 minutes after she voted
yes, that was a big red flag for me! Although, that is a reason I don't trust her, not necessarily a reason to target her
@nikki I would like to target 121, for the reason that I have M9K at stake in a NO bet here: https://manifold.markets/evan/who-will-win-folded
@retr0id would be open to sharing some of my NO bets with other group members via limit orders, if we decide to go that route
@koadma I just found it amusing to be honest, when we were arguing about who should get the "suffering" votes. I'd pretty much buried the hatchet but then I saw a limit order and just had to fill it (thought it was an objectively good deal), so now I'm invested on that front!
And, the reason I originally requested that 121 not be a member of the alliance was because I didn't trust his rational judgement (and he leaked my dm!). Also motivated by the beef for sure, but I wouldn't have made the request if I couldn't back it up with something more grounded.