|
On July 05 2011 22:08 chaos13 wrote:
(Your Name)'s Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win
Nuke Policy
Fire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances:
Punishment
This is what happens if you break the rules:
Why
Explanation for why this is the best plan:
Support
How does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game?
Other Tidbits
Anything else you want to say.
##Vote: (Your Name)'s Plan
Chaos13 is the one person who's not been derping so far, but I'll humour the planners and do this.
Palmar's Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win
Nuke Policy
Fire only when you have a strong scum read on someone. You must in addition provide an analysis to support your launch. Remember, it's a good thing to bring up an analysis and try to get the person lynched instead, but if the town council shoots it down due to bads (like I did when people wanted to lynch VE on day 2 in RTM), then you should launch.
In addition, if you're a newer player, or a bad player, you should probably not launch anyway. Leave the nuking up to the pros.
There will be NO retaliatory nukes.
Punishment
If you provide an analysis that gets shot down because it's bad, not because the town is bad, and then you nuke anyway, the town will take swift action and lynch you.
Yes, we are policy lynching dumb nukes.
Why
Because it gives good people free hands on nuking, essentially giving us an additional way to deal with mafia. There is a chance that the will of the town is being manipulated by a good scum, this is where good analysts have a chance to show their worth.
Removing the opportunity for independent action is removing a tool from our arsenal to fight scum.
In addition, the "we lynch you if your launch is bad" policy should be enough to provide deterrent from nuking badly.
Support
WaW1 had much more trolls and idiots than this game has. I'd like to compare it to RTM where independently working vigis and hatters provided a great service to town.
Like, if we ever end up in a scenario where people are trolling, we hold our fire and lynch them all.
Other Tidbits
Not really, I've said what I wanted to say.
##Vote: Palmar's Plan
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:20 sandroba wrote:
@chaos13 as you can see my plan is extremelly pro-town and is gaining momentum. Now is the perfect time to discuss plans since the game has not even started. Most reasonable people are agreeing with it and others are trying to shut it down for no sane reason. If you don't agree with it you better provide some reason. We will not leave it to be discussed day1 when we have to focus on who to lynch. Also if you think I haven't done scum hunting so far you are in for a surprise.
Just agree to the majority lynch part of it, trust me. There's a reason why in games with double lynch the town doesn't always use them all up by the end of the game, there aren't always clear targets, we need an option for no nuking, and by having a majority lynch system we ensure we don't go through with stupid lynches.
|
@GM can we agree to reduce that to 40%? Considering 20% of people will most likely lurk this is going to be the majority of the active. I don't want us wasting an oportunity to lynch because players were not active enough. That's a nice compromise on my part and if you are reasonable you will agree =).
|
On July 05 2011 22:20 sandroba wrote:
@chaos13 as you can see my plan is extremelly pro-town and is gaining momentum. Now is the perfect time to discuss plans since the game has not even started. Most reasonable people are agreeing with it and others are trying to shut it down for no sane reason. If you don't agree with it you better provide some reason. We will not leave it to be discussed day1 when we have to focus on who to lynch. Also if you think I haven't done scum hunting so far you are in for a surprise.
That's exactly why I posted that. This has it outlined in a clear manner that I can easily see, and I'm making sure I know what's going on by day 1. After sleeping on it I came to the conclusion that we do need some form of structure in regards to nukes. The plan GM just outlined looks good to me, so long as it isn't the 24 hour lynch-nuke-24 hour lynch. I say we do 1 lynch/day. That needs some clarification to me before I vote on it. Will we nuke the top lynch target at 24 hours?
|
@chaos13 LOL why would you pass on the opportunity of having 2 lynches per night cylce?
|
btw, if you read the rules, my plan also ensure at most one nuke per day, it just removes the additional constraint of having to be approved by some part of town council.
|
On July 05 2011 22:26 sandroba wrote:
@chaos13 LOL why would you pass on the opportunity of having 2 lynches per night cylce?
Because one of those lynches raises the radiation level and we have half the time to decide on each lynch. 1 well-discussed, well-thought out lynch > 2 hasty lynches that +1 Radiation
Other than that I think the GMroba plan is brilliant, and I would vote for it without that. As it is though, I'm leaning towards Palmar's. The only problem with his is that I'm not sure there is great enough deterrence for nuking someone without good enough reason.
|
@Palmar It's not a council when anyone can vote. Nice try btw.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:23 sandroba wrote:
@GM can we agree to reduce that to 40%? Considering 20% of people will most likely lurk this is going to be the majority of the active. I don't want us wasting an oportunity to lynch because players were not active enough. That's a nice compromise on my part and if you are reasonable you will agree =).
Im not content with it, but compromise is acceptable I suppose. 40% it is, although higher vote still wins, e.g. if I have 55% of the votes and you have 45% only I am getting nuked. This is the minimum threshold to be able to nuke, ok?
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:17 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:08 chaos13 wrote:On July 05 2011 21:41 Palmar wrote:
Here's what I think about your plan
##Nuke: Sandroba Don't try to be a hero. Not only have you already stated you have no nukes, making this worthless and not about to help anything, but it's the night phase and you can't even use actions. If you don't agree with his plan, don't follow it. Simple as that. So far I'm seeing ten pages of "herp" "derp" "herp" "derp". I don't agree with any of the plans that have been proposed, and people didn't agree with what I suggested in lieu of them. All this arguing is doing is giving scum and conspirators a barrier to hide behind, and I can guarantee you that the conspirator(s) are somewhere in this discussion trying to influence our nuke policies. Have we done any scumhunting so far? No. So here's the deal. Come day 1, absolutely no more discussion about nuke policy. If we haven't decided on anything by then, too bad, but at that point we start scumhunting. This means that if you have a plan that you want put into effect, you need to be persuasive. If you have a plan, outline it as follows. (Your Name)'s Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator WinNuke PolicyFire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances: PunishmentThis is what happens if you break the rules: WhyExplanation for why this is the best plan: SupportHow does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game? Other TidbitsAnything else you want to say. ##Vote: (Your Name)'s PlanAnd people will vote on your plan. The goal for these plans will be to have 12/29 players vote for them. This is relatively close to a majority, and is achievable for anyone. If we're getting close to the end of day and no plan is close to achieving it, you'll have to consider moving your vote to a different one. If no plan results in 12/29 votes, we don't follow through with it. If we do, every player is required to follow it, and if you do not, you are lynched. A plan must follow the format as outlined above in order to be eligible for voting. Now stop derping and get stuff done. Im pretty sure theres only like 3 hours to game start. Anyway we are using the sandroba plan with majority vote unless someone (other than Palmar) objects strenuously. GMrobas's Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator WinNuke PolicyOne nuke is shot per day, if a majority of players (50%) agrees to it. no other nukes are fired for any reason PunishmentPolicy lynched, no excuses allowed, you fire, you die. Whydouble lynch, increased information, decent use of kp, no need to fire if its not necessary/an appropriate target cannot be deiced upon SupportIts not a clusterfuck Other TidbitsHi coag. ##Vote: GMroba's plan
First of all thanks Caller for such a great mechanic for us to argue over...
I fully agree with this we should just use the nukes as the majority see's it ( although I would personally have it a bit higher % or scum may be able to vote swing it if we have undecided townies around ) this way we don't fall into the conspirator's hand with all the nukes going off.
As I do not have any nukes I will put my trust in those that do and hope they do not screw it up.
|
24 hours is plenty of time. 2 well thought out lynches>1 any kind of lynch. Radiation is not going to be a problem as I've argued extensively already.
|
I respectfully disagree
##Vote: Palmar's plan
|
Also people stop claiming your nukes/lack of nukes until it's time for you to nuke.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:33 sandroba wrote:
24 hours is plenty of time. 2 well thought out lynches>1 any kind of lynch. Radiation is not going to be a problem as I've argued extensively already.
Radiation could be a huge problem, which is why I want us to be able to no lynch as we move into later into the game.
|
On July 05 2011 22:08 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:00 Palmar wrote:On July 05 2011 21:53 sandroba wrote:
Night has not even started and the nuclear phase is during the day after that. This is correct  And as I said, I don't have any nukes. Anyway, I still don't agree with the plan. All the mafia has to do is to not lurk and they will be able to sway the nuke votes in the wrong direction. We already have to deal with this problem for the lynch, so why the added reliance on outspoken players? Here's an alternative, since you guys like policies. a) Don't nuke unless you're sure. b) when you nuke, you must provide detailed reasoning of why you nuked c) If deemed satisfying, we proceed normally, if not, we lynch you. This is in effect the same thing you're suggesting sandroba, it just leaves a little wiggle room for independent thought. Except this is what is really going to happen a.) Town player A comes up with the crappiest argument in existence of why player b is scum. b.)Town shoots him down and tells him not to shoot, etc, Player A is 100% convinced though and shoots anyway c.) Player B rages and sends out retaliatory nukes, counternukes go out. d.) Player B flips green in a pile of rubble, with who knows how many others being killed in the process e.) furious lynch mob kills player A, who also flips green. f.) Rage from the previous days carries over, more nukes flying about. g.) mafia giggles. If everyone has a say in whether or not the nukes are used, and its clearly established that its the will of the town (by a MAJORITY), then player B if he is town won't counternuke, player A will never fire in the first place, and catastrophes will be averted.
Pretty much this. Two townies arguing is one of the biggest reasons for mafia to win. I've been guilty of this myself, and I've used it to manipulate town when I've been mafia. So just as a reminder to people:
IF YOU ARE TOWN AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE LYNCHED OR NUKED, DO NOT RETALIATE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I KNOW IT CAN BE FRUSTRATING, BUT DEAL WITH IT.
|
@GM Ok change the plan acordingly and I'll overlook the fact that you are taking credit for my brilliant plan. =P
##Vote: GMroba's plan (changed to 40%)
|
I think GMarshal's plan is the best. We want to be pretty certain before nuking, and if neccessary we can discuss relaxing the conditions later on in the game. We want as few nukes launched in the early game as possible.
##Vote: GMarshal's plan
|
Palmar: If there's no structure, it's quite likely your nuke will be shot down, gaining us little to no information and thus wasting a nuke and an anti-nuke. Stating you should nuke despite town objections if "town is bad" and then saying you shouldn't get lynched if "town was bad" makes no sense because presumably you will get lynched if the majority of town disagreed with your nuke and the target doesn't flip red. I do not see how this is in any way pro-town. Even worse, you may get retaliated. Nukes aren't exactly like vigi shots. Palmar plan is plain bad.
|
On July 05 2011 22:30 sandroba wrote:
@Palmar It's not a council when anyone can vote. Nice try btw.
...
Are you intentionally trying to be thick? You know just as well as I that the lynches are always led by some people. VE was never going to be hanged in RTM on day 2, because I was leading the town in the wrong direction. OpZ saw this, and fixed it, sparing us a fuckton of trouble.
@Chaos13, what more deterrence is there than being lynched? I am proposing exactly the same plan as GMarshal and Sandroba, just removing the voting process. If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears, cause I don't want stupid people nuking.
In essence, we are discussing the same plan three times, just with variable amount of agreeing by the town.
I'm not saying Sandroba's plan will autolose, it's actually a pretty decent plan for what it's worth, I'm just saying we have a better alternative.
|
@GM We can adjust/change/abandon the plan after a few days depending on how things are going.
I.E. I'ts day 4 we lynched/nuked 4 mafia, we can vote at night to change the plan to 1 lynch per day. If it's day 5 and we only lynched 2 mafia and we are nearing lylo we actually don't give a fuck as to who we lose to so we can keep it up, so we have a nicer shot at winning and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
