|
Trying to figure out who was voting for who and when, is quite a pain.
I think it would be helpful if players would vote, then announce that vote in the thread and attach the zbot vote count at that time to the post, (with their vote in it).
That way we can look back only events clearly and actually analyse it.
However this might lead to or force corrupted town to reveals themselves, which they might not wish to do and which might not be in town's best interests.
I suggest that every every 3 votes somebody should attach the vote count at that time (possibly in a spoiler), so that we can look back and have a clear picture of what happened.
@at everyone
Do you agree?
Should we have a different interval?(for instance 5 votes or every 12 hours)
|
If this plan is going to be carried out it need to best fully fleshed out before the daypost since it appears the RoL will not be able to post we need to either properly discuss it now or else we cannot follow it though.
I may have stayed up late last night but there isn't a chance of me doing it tonight so i would like to hear thoughts soon.
If nobody responds or they do respond but we cannot improve the plan i want it known that i oppose it.
|
On January 09 2012 04:16 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
Are people seriously trying to implicate me on the basis of "soft-defending" risk by voting Erandorr instead?
Well..
i made a slight error here (RoL had said he would vote for erandor here but he never voted)
Erandor had four votes when HoD voted: Grackaroni, Blazinghand, Tyrran and Cwave
Risk.nuke had 6 votes:syllogism, Refallen, Dirkzor, Zephirdd, layabout, Erandorr,
@HoD
your primary reasoning was to that to avoid a no-lynch you would vote for Erandorr because you were "fine with lynching him"
in light of all of the pressure of risk.nuke why didn't you comment on it?
if you wanted to avoid the no-lynch why did you vote Erandorr rather than voting for risk, who had the most votes?
|
Fun fact: risk nuke was agressive day 1 in steamship
On November 17 2011 01:24 risk.nuke wrote:
##Vote Forumite
I'm not okey with you not responding to a direct vote against you.
assertive vote for a clear reason
On November 17 2011 02:21 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:36 Forumite wrote:On November 17 2011 01:24 risk.nuke wrote:
##Vote Forumite
I'm not okey with you not responding to a direct vote against you. Please clarify, do you agree with the other votes and vote for that reason, or do you think me not responding is the scummy part? Neither and both. You're FoSing two people on nothing. And then there is a similar thing on Sabini. Add to that letting the vote on you slip by without a hint of defense from your side. I don't know what you are doing but it is not pro-town play and that is why I vote for you.
attacks Forumite for a reason
On November 17 2011 06:32 risk.nuke wrote:
Okey, but isn't this exacly one of those situations where we connected two people and should not lynch both of them incase they are town.
##Vote Kenpachi
throws around his vote
On November 17 2011 06:47 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 06:34 GreYMisT wrote:On November 17 2011 06:32 risk.nuke wrote:
Okey, but isn't this exacly one of those situations where we connected two people and should not lynch both of them incase they are town.
##Vote Kenpachi perhaps, but why choose to lynch kenpachi over the guy who anti-voted him? If kenpachi is green, then lanaia probably isn't scum. If kenpachi is red we got a scumkill even if that doesn't necessarily mean lanaia is his buddy. If lanai is green that means nothing for kenpachis alignment. If lanai is red then kenpachi is scum. I think we learn more from knowing kenpachis alignment.
gives some reasoning
On November 17 2011 08:40 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 08:31 sinani206 wrote:
scumbuddies
##Vote: Lanaia
##Vote: Kenpachi ##Vote: Sinani206
makes his second vote because of sinani's vote
(kenpachi and sinani got lynched and both flipped blue, risk was town)
So i actually this compared to this game risk nuke was aggressiv in attacking players even if he was relatively inactive.
So your meta reason is bollocks
|
On January 09 2012 05:29 Spaackle wrote:@RofL While I agree that we need a plan for day 2, yours is not the one I would go with. Mass claiming like that will only paint a target on our blues for the scumteams. We'll lose our blue powers so fast that we'll get almost no use out of them, and where will we be then? @risk Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 04:50 risk.nuke wrote:On January 09 2012 04:32 syllogism wrote:On January 09 2012 04:18 Dirkzor wrote:On January 09 2012 04:06 syllogism wrote:On January 09 2012 04:01 Palmar wrote:
yeah, this needs to be done now, or not. I'd rather go with not. This is palmar scum claiming. He has been trolling for a while now but this is as close at is gets If I had written that would you take that as scum claiming? No, but you aren't a player who I talk extensively about the game, in and out of the game. It's extremely unlikely that he would say that as town and I'm pretty sure that when he wrote that he knew very well how it would look like to me; he has by this point realized that there is little he can do to avoid being lynched so might as well have some fun. Imo a town Palmar would respond to that with a pretty huge post declaring why the plan is dumb alternativly if he approved of the plan he would write additional thoughts or/and reason further why it is a good plan. I thought you hated meta arguments?
He doesn't hate them he just ignores meta arguments against himself by default!
He is still allowed to use them you just can't use them against him, why can't you understand that?
Also don't try to hold other players up to standards.
|
Eventually he became aggressive, but he wasn't right off the bat. If my meta reason is bollocks, then what, did I magically post that in a prior game to cover my ass in this one? Don't be dense.
Your reasoning this game fir him being not scummy is that:
In a previous game you felt he wasn't being aggressive at a certain point during day1 and that this might have made him scummy.
He turned out to be town.
In this game at a point near the end of day 1 risk nuke hadn't been aggressive
and conclude that he isn't scummy, or completely dismiss the difference in play style.
There is a difference in his play style and it was apparent when you voted.
In this game he had had an awful lot longer to be aggressive but he wasn't (and still hasn't been).
This means that actually his meta was different
There were numerous other reasons that had been pointed out which you completely disregarded.
Also, if you were in this game, you would know that this is his vote being "thrown around" is the farthest thing from the truth. By "throw around" i mean used for pressure. In that game he was exercising he voting power and using it to get reactions out of people, in this game he hopped on erandor at the brink to save himself.
|
On January 09 2012 05:44 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 05:02 Dirkzor wrote:
Oh I love your cases Jackal. Oh well thought out and in depth they are.
/Sarcasm end It doesn't take a 3000 word essay to point out the obvious. /No sarcasm.
What if the person you are talking to is incapable of noticing the obvious?
|
It doesn't take a 3000 word essay to point out the obvious.
my comment was really only about that point
but thanks for actually writing something!
|
I think you are drastically underestimating human stupidity
|
Lets assume everybody follow your plan (which they will not)
No mafia has the opportunity to claim a blue role without instantly getting caught and killed. There is a counter claim, we will figure it out, and the scum faction loses a player and all we lose is 1 confirmed townie and a voting block in the worst case scenario for us, but regardless they lose the mafia.
can you explain the logistics of this?
Why wouldn't the scum team know who there own player is? That's like my mom not knowing who I am when shes sober. The latter half is just asusmign the townies and blues are being dicks and lying when its incredibly anti-town to do. the point is that scum can trade a player they don't think will survive long to for all blue to reveal themselves. The angelic observers power is to help figure out blues (+demons) and getting all four blues might not be acheivable in normal play so there is potential gain there for angels.For demons they could probably waste the concealer and then know for certain who the demon hunter and sage are. If either team does this the other team can reap the benefits without the cost.
How many blues do you expect to still be alive night 3 and how many scum?
|
I think this breaks your plan
claiming
any scum except for the AoD or acolyte claim channeller
real channeller claims channeller
real channeller cannot be protected by anyone other than the transporter or the twister at night but they don't protect
day2
case 1
we lynch real channeller
demons conceal
night 2
angels kill 1 or 2 blues
demons corrupt
we have 1 blue left + 1 fake blue left
case2
we lynch fake channeller
demons conceal
night 2
angels still get at least 1 kill possibly 2
demons corrupt a player
day 3
We would not be able to accurately figure out which happened
so we lynch the other claimed player
Angels can now kill remaining 2 blues or 1 blue +acolyte on another target if they killed 2 blues
Wouldn't this be not only extremely feasible for scum to do but also completely fuck town?
|
I should probably add that the like scenario after all of that leaves
Day3
2 players for scumteam 3 player other scumteam
(if the demon hunter does well for us maybe 2 on each or 1 / 3)
0 blues alive
7 vanilla alive
6 vanilla alive (if angels get two night kills)
5 vanilla alive (if angels get 2 night kills and demonhunter hits town
+ 1 corupted townie or no corrupted townie.
which could be lylo? (if i am right)
|
uses 1 conceal day 2 in both cases
|
besides if scum take those actions how can we avoid that scenario?
i beleive i have accounted for nearly all of the uncertainty
how would you have us believe a demon or observer claiming channeller would play out if scum take those actions?
|
|
|
Possible actions to yield last nights results:
Syllo and HoD sent to purgatory
palmar tageted Syllo/Hod channeller targeted the other HoD/Syllo
Palmar flipped scum
Demon Hunter attacked him Acolyte missed (they picked a vannilla; picked wrong role; the target was twisted or sent to purgatory; or they picked correctly and target was twisted or sent to Purgatory.) this seems likely.
OR Acolyte picked demon on palmar and slayed him and demon hunter missed but didn't hit town (they picked a target in purgatory or was sent there or picked an angel or didn't attack)
No AoD kill:
either the AoD was sent to purgatory and is syllo or HoD. -likely
OR the AoD targeted a player sent to purgatory (either syllo or HoD). -likely
OR the AoD targeted a player that was twisted. -less likely
OR didnt send a kill. -makes no sense
To me it seems most likely that syllo or HoD is the angel of death but with only the channeller and likeliness of neither being the angel of death it seems very dangerous to assume that one of them is.
+I can (99%) confirm that i sent my vote before refallen last night so when he wrote "done" he was lying about his vote at the last minute
+ Show Spoiler +Original Message From Zona: The list of votes (and unvotes) on the same target are in the order that ZBot received them, even in the same refresh cycle. Suppose "Player A" voted on Zona at 10:07, and "Player B" voted on Zona at 10:09, and ZBot refreshed at 10:05 and 10:10. 10:05 would show no votes 10:10 would show Zona (2): Player A, Player B I have in the past, tried to determine for myself whether or not TL consistently lists pms sent during the same minute in the order that they were sent and vaguely remember an incident in which TL did not, but even if I am remembering correctly, this rarely happens. Show nested quote +Original Message From layabout:
How does zbot handle mutiple votes for the same target sent in the same refresh cycle?
In what order does it receive them?
(does it sort by time sent, alphabetically, asccending or decending etc..?)
I know you have answered something similar but it still seems unclear exactly how it would work in practice.
If for instance someone named "Player A" sent a vote at 10:07 and "Player B" sent a vote at 10:09 for the same person which would appear first?
I have asked Zona what would happen if the demon hunter and AoD picked the same target too.
|
Suspicious bastards:
risk.nuke
Refallen
Tyrran
Dirkzor
RoL
Jackal?
(there is town there but i think these players should receive heightened attention)
|
i didn't feel it was worth pointing out specifically but it is probably worth noting.
@cwave what are your thoughts on the game so far?
who do you think we should be lynching?
|
On January 10 2012 03:16 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:Why I think I was put in purgatory: I think Palmar and/or his team mistakenly believed that I was the demon hunter due to these posts: + Show Spoiler +Detailed understanding of the role: On January 04 2012 17:56 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 17:46 Dirkzor wrote:
Game on!
This setup scares the living shit out of me. So many nuances to keep track of. Anyway...
I agree that Angels appear to be strongest in the beginning with 1/2 KP. But what haven't been mentioned is that Angels can kill the demon for us aswell. If we lynch Angel of Death and Angelic Acolyte we will have to lynch/Demon hunter the Demons. Since I don't know the Demon hunter or how good that person is, he could just aswell kill 3 town people the first 3 nights which of course would not be very favourable for us. It basicly means we would need to do more correct lynches while having a good demon hunter that don't fuck us over with continously town kills.
Demons also have the Twist ability which basicly makes one (1) of their members immune to night actions, rendering the demon hunter to be less useful.
What i wanted to point out that even if we get 3 correct Angel lynches (unlikely) the first 3 nights. The demons are equally capable to fuck us over. That is why I think that killing any angel or demon is good. Not one over the other. If we knew which angel or demon, it would be a different matter. Demon Hunter: Twister: Doesn't make any mention of attack (nor of sense). Demon hunter should be good to go on any twisted demons. First to point out that the demon hunter is also effective vs angels: On January 05 2012 03:55 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
Some things to think about:
If the town seer claims after finding a single angel we have a 2/3 chance of reducing their kp, 2/3 chance of making it much safer to claim corruption, and a 100% chance of getting a lot of good information after the angel flips. There are no abilities in the game which make the reads come back incorrect. The angels also DO NOT have a roleblocking ability, so they then have to decide if they want to target the seer and risk missing a kp if the seer is sent to purgatory or leave him be. Obviously this becomes much riskier if we have already lost our channeler. I'd be interested to hear if other people think having the seer claim after their first angel find is a good idea as well.
The sage on the other hand probably shouldn't claim unless he has 2 demons identified. If he claims with only one identified, 0% chance of reducing kp or reducing the corruption ability, demons have a roleblock ability, angels can kill the sage to make demons a larger threat to town thereby reducing focus on them. Still gain information obviously, but overall seems like a much weaker play than the seer claiming after finding an angel.
The demon hunter is not only useful against demons. His attacks kill anything that isn't an angel....meaning if his target lives and wasn't sent to purgatory, he has successfully identified an angel. However, since he poses a significant threat to both angels and demons, I don't really see much of a reason for the demon hunter to ever claim, except perhaps to avoid a lynch if he fucks up and appears scummy. So please don't do that.
On Bluelightz:
I will go check out his filter in the newbie game to see what all the fuss is about. Unfortunately for the demons, and fortunately for us, they were incorrect and Palmar got stabbed in the face. (Yes, it is possible that it was the acolyte, but why would the angels kill someone they could get lynched when lynching is the only way for us to kill the angels?)
Gloating and WIFOM in the same post?
scummy?
|
What Purpose does the Post "Why I think I was put in purgatory" serve?
How does it help town?
I think Palmar and/or his team mistakenly believed that I was the demon hunter due to these posts:
You connect the idea of you being sent to purgatory* with the idea that your posting caused the demons to think that you were the demon hunter. You present the idea of your posts being responsible for the angels banishing you because you have made them think that you were the demonhunter.
From this it would easily be infered that you posted TO make them think you were they demon hunter.
You then say fortunately for us, they were incorrect and Palmar got stabbed in the face To me this seems like gloating because you associate the demons thinking that you were the demon hunter (which is WIFOM and total speculation) with a demon being lynched
I don't see how this helps town but i do see how you associate your posting at the start of the game and a demon flipping and how this tries to put you in a better light despite the fact that your decisions about how to behave were almost certainly not made with that goal in mind and if they were the actual chance of them acheiving the result of a dead demon is next to none.
That is why i see it as gloating. Speculation about scum motivation and scum goals when they commit actions that will be subject to scrutiny is what part of your post is and is almost the perfect example of WIFOM.
*which could have been because either the channeller though you were a town asset to protect or a demon or angel to roleblock OR the demons felt that you were a blue or an angel OR you were targeted by one of the two because they felt night actions would land on you and they wished to roleblock those targerting you OR they may have simply wanted increase attention on you. There is a plethora of reasons that could be the case and without addition information we cannot rule many out. If the demons send a player to purgatory they know towwn will find out and this will impact their decision making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
