|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:11 VisceraEyes wrote:
Why Zona in particular Blaze? Only 4 people in the game HAVE posted so far, were you expecting to hear from Zona early or something?
Hm, good point. What's the deal with all these AFK people?
|
Zona has posted, dont you people read?
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms.  Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense.
?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc.
The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:15 GreYMisT wrote:
Zona has posted, dont you people read?
OH LOL YOU'RE right. It just feels sort of non-postey I guess. Can someone make a list of filters or something.
|
On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2.
how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:27 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2. how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are.
What? I voted Nay on the team. Radfield was scummy... and then the mission failed. At the very least, from my personal view, you have to admit-- if I'm town, I'm a fucking G. I'm da man. I called it like I saw it and I was right.
|
On December 29 2011 11:29 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:27 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2. how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are. What? I voted Nay on the team. Radfield was scummy... and then the mission failed. At the very least, from my personal view, you have to admit-- if I'm town, I'm a fucking G. I'm da man. I called it like I saw it and I was right.
If your town you shouldnt worry about how this is making you look. Instead you are...interesting
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:31 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:29 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:27 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2. how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are. What? I voted Nay on the team. Radfield was scummy... and then the mission failed. At the very least, from my personal view, you have to admit-- if I'm town, I'm a fucking G. I'm da man. I called it like I saw it and I was right. If your town you shouldnt worry about how this is making you look. Instead you are...interesting
?? If I'm town I should totally worry because IF I AM THE ONE WHO GETS REPLACED WE LOSE ANOTHER MISSION. are you kidding me? I should try as hard as I can to make sure the other dudes get replaced instead of me... since I know the traitor is one of them two. If I'm town, it is exigent that I try as hard as possible to look good. ._. Have you even thought this through?
|
On December 29 2011 10:50 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 10:43 Toadesstern wrote:On December 29 2011 10:01 VisceraEyes wrote:
SPECULATION TIME!!!
Is it possible that more than one spy was sent on last night's mission?
My guess is no, because only one sabotage attempt was made. Because there's no out-of-thread communication, spies aren't going to assume their buddies are going to sabotage (if they wanna win anyway,) and because all their communications happen inside the thread, we have to assume that only one spy was sent last night.
Anyone have thoughts on this matter? well that's kind of what palmar was talking about. thoughts about this is talking about spy strategy. That could very well be spies breadcrumbing each other because they at least will know where to look at. So I'd say everyone think for themselves on that matter :p Oh and @blazinghand: I actually didn't see your PS post earlier because I was in a rush typing. Looks like we both got the same idea about VE and didn't understand each other :D Wait a second...the bolded statement seems to imply that you agree with Blaze that I'm SPAI, but all your previous posts seem to indicate that you think I'm NOT SPAI. Please clarify.
what blazinghand said. Just in case you want me to mention it as well after he already posted it.
|
On December 29 2011 11:32 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:31 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:29 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:27 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2. how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are. What? I voted Nay on the team. Radfield was scummy... and then the mission failed. At the very least, from my personal view, you have to admit-- if I'm town, I'm a fucking G. I'm da man. I called it like I saw it and I was right. If your town you shouldnt worry about how this is making you look. Instead you are...interesting ?? If I'm town I should totally worry because IF I AM THE ONE WHO GETS REPLACED WE LOSE ANOTHER MISSION. are you kidding me? I should try as hard as I can to make sure the other dudes get replaced instead of me... since I know the traitor is one of them two. If I'm town, it is exigent that I try as hard as possible to look good. ._. Have you even thought this through?
yes i have, but the best way to look town is to not say: guys look how town I am.
who would you send on the next mission?
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 11:49 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 11:32 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:31 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:29 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:27 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 11:17 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 11:10 GreYMisT wrote:On December 29 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:On December 29 2011 09:55 VisceraEyes wrote:/:| (that's a raised eyebrow...at you sir.) Calm down a second. First of all, you just got back from a failed mission, and you shouldn't be calling ANYONE spy. Now, I found your post suspicious REGARDLESS of when it was made. The content was what I had a problem with (if you'll kindly read MY post on the matter...which you're either ignoring or intentionally overlooking.) The fact that you Nay'd a team that included you (as town) doesn't make any sense. I can understand after N1 maybe because you have more information, but ALL you have to go on, as town, is YOUR alignment...so a team that includes you is more likely to succeed by virtue of yo being town. But I wouldn't expect a Spy like you to think in those terms. Let me refer you to my previous post... which it seems you still have not read. Am i town? Yes. I like teams with me on them and will vote yay on them... unless of course they include obvious sxum like Radfield. I made a read and made a call. It's a vote i stand by. wait, did you not just say you will vote nay for any team with the previous night's members....and then just said you will vote yay for teams with you on them? Also why would we be worried about a quickhammer on a day1 team. we have almost 0 info on teams day one as this is a game of logic. we have to send someone, and rad's picks made sense. ?? I will vote nay for teams with the previous nights members who aren't me. ._. Also, I will vote yay for teams with me on them. However, as always, this is subject to things like "obvious scum on a team" which I will vote nay for, etc. The fact of the matter is, the quickhammer on the day 1 team is the reason we have so little info now re: reads on people and their reasoning and post history. Do you really think that there's no way to make a read day 1? I disagree. I made a read, and I was right. The fact of the matter is, a quickhammer on day 1 reduced our information and our histories of people's posting here on day 2. how were you right? that radfield is for sure scum? I'm afraid I must not be privy to the same information that you are. What? I voted Nay on the team. Radfield was scummy... and then the mission failed. At the very least, from my personal view, you have to admit-- if I'm town, I'm a fucking G. I'm da man. I called it like I saw it and I was right. If your town you shouldnt worry about how this is making you look. Instead you are...interesting ?? If I'm town I should totally worry because IF I AM THE ONE WHO GETS REPLACED WE LOSE ANOTHER MISSION. are you kidding me? I should try as hard as I can to make sure the other dudes get replaced instead of me... since I know the traitor is one of them two. If I'm town, it is exigent that I try as hard as possible to look good. ._. Have you even thought this through? yes i have, but the best way to look town is to not say: guys look how town I am. who would you send on the next mission?
Did I say "guys look how town I am" in the post you quoted initially? no I said "if I am town I am a baller"
I think it's reasonable to say that if I am town, I am a HUGE baller. After all, if I'm town I totally called it on the first day and Nay-voted that scum-infested team. :D
I'm not sure who I'd send on the next mission. If I were leader I think I'd bring myself, obviously, but I think I'd interrogate some of the people who haven't posted much to try to get reads. I'd also try to ask people what they think about Palmar and Radfield and whether it's possible Palmar is scum. If most people agree with me, I'd replace Radfield with a town-looking player.
|
What about something like this:
Leader + one of the vets + 2 other people that look town?
That would be something like Truthbringer + Greymist + VE + either radfield or Palmar.
Truthbringer would be the leader and obviously wants to send himself. Both Greymist and VE look townish to me and sure I'd like to be on the mission as well but suggesting youself is and issue we all know and therefor I'm just leaving it up to you guys and finally Radfield or Palmar. If the mission fails we get decent information and if the mission is a success we're good and have decent information or forced a mafia to not sabotage.
It's pretty much about the question if we should risk to send anyone who was part of the last mission at all or a completly new team.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
Truthbringer is the upcoming leader.
Why would it be better to send a Vet than a non-Vet? Any particular reasoning behind that?
|
After thinking about it for a bit, im starting to think it might be a better idea to create a new team of 4 players as someone else mentioned. Here is why: the scientific method of just changing one thing in the system no longer works at the moment, because we have to add 2 members instead of just changing out 1, thus impeding our efforts to find the spies. of course a new group of 4 does bring its own risks, but we now know at least one of the 3 spies is among rad, palmar, and blazing.
Thoughts?
|
it's not about the vet but about the last mission. Obviously Zona jackal and so on are all vets too but I was refering to our two vets from mission 1: palmar and rad
The reasoning behind that would be information gain. Right now we don't know which one's the spy. If we keep radfield or palmar and the mission fails we get pretty decent information or even force a spy to not sabotage at all because he would no longer be undercover or the mission succeeds because we picked the right one which is great, too.
I know it's risky as it can get, that's why I'm asking but on the other hand a completly new team might just randomly get us another spy on the team and we're still on 0 information because we only know one out of 3 is a spy and one out of 4 is a spy while those 3 and 4 have nothing in common.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 29 2011 13:15 GreYMisT wrote:
After thinking about it for a bit, im starting to think it might be a better idea to create a new team of 4 players as someone else mentioned. Here is why: the scientific method of just changing one thing in the system no longer works at the moment, because we have to add 2 members instead of just changing out 1, thus impeding our efforts to find the spies. of course a new group of 4 does bring its own risks, but we now know at least one of the 3 spies is among rad, palmar, and blazing.
Thoughts?
A new team of 4 player is literally the worst possible move behind "A team that includes all three of the night 1 players".
Assuming there was 1 and only 1 spy in the 3 who went last night, there are 2 in the 6 who didn't go. This means that if we pick 4 players who didn't go, IT'S SUPER DUPER EASY TO PICK A SPY IN THERE AND SUPER DUPER HARD TO MAKE THE ONE POSSIBLE COMBINATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SPY.
If you don't want throw this game you have to pick some people from last night AND some people who didn't go last night, imo. There's a possibility there was 2 spies on board rather than 1 last night, in which case it would be reasonable to pick entirely from the people who didn't go, but we can't know that.
|
Firstly, I will go on the mission.
Second, Palmar has given the strongest town read so far, imo, so I'll include him. He has had no opportunity for subtle communication with teammates, plus he gave helpful advice with his one post.
Third, Zona has been similarly quiet, so if he suddenly started talking to communicate with his teammates it would be noticed. My read on him otherwise is null, but my read is similarly null or scummy on his competition.
Finally, VisceraEyes is giving me a townread.
I want to do these four, because I want to pick the highest likelihood of all townies. I think that if I tried to go with an information gain squad, it would put us at 0-2, which we really can't afford.
So,
Truthbringer
Palmar
Zona
VisceraEyes
|
Oh come on, can you at least wait for a few hours before you propose the team? The day post came up around 23:00 my time and you suggest a team before 9am the morning after.
I don't agree with Zona on your team. I think the rest looks fine. The reason of why I'm a bit vary of zona is this:
On December 27 2011 06:54 Zona wrote:
claring his desire not to contribute today, yet implies that he'll examine what we contribute today. Unless the ideal strategy is to not say anything of importance Day 1...but he should have said that specifically if he believed it.
Obviously, it's dumb as fuck to not contribute on day one, this was just a misunderstanding, when I said I'd "read this tomorrow", I meant tomorrow IRL, thus same game-day, just after I had slept.
However, if he indeed understood me to mean I'd not post/read anything until day 2, the reasonable town response is to call me out hard on it, instead of vaguely claiming he doesn't agree with it. There is literally no reason not to talk in this setup, especially with no chance of dying at any point in the game, mafia can't take out good townies in this game, so offering the idea that there might be some "ideal strategy" of saying nothing of importance day 1, which is just... bad.
So yeah, I'll be voting against this.
About last night's mission, that stuff gave me more information than any of you, because I know there is one scum between blaze and radfield. Seeing as we'll need 5 people on the day 5 mission, I think I'm going to suggest we include one of them in the mission today along with me. If we pick our shots well we can potentially clear 2-3 people today, which would take us a long way to winning.
Another thing to mention, Jackal58 hammered the vote, not Radfield.
|
It is highly unlikely there were two scum on last day's team, I've gone through both Rad's and Blazinghand's filters, and neither of them posted anything that can be called out for being communication about whether or not they'd sabotage. The closest thing is this post from Blazinghand which could possible be him claiming he'd not sabotage:
On December 26 2011 17:03 Blazinghand wrote:
If your mission succeeds, you've pinned down a mafia member! (WIFOM alert: Mafia, knowing this, might intentionally not sabotage, etc).
|
Stuff like this is the reason I said there should be absolutely no talk about Spy strategies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
38241
2220
124
81
EPT
