|
@Palmar When you get done with your whole "I'm a badass" routine, can we hear some reasoning behind why you are against the circle trade system? or anything that is actually constructive at all?
+ Show Spoiler +I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion.
@MeatlessTaco What is your reason for voting up risk.nuke? Also why do you think Palmar is scum? Voting people up with no reasoning is not good.
@LSB I am glad you are in agreement with the circle trading plan, but you need to read the rules a bit more carefully.
Wrong
On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
3. You can only give one vote to one player.
Correct
On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes.
Good idea, but this isn't correct.
On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing MechanismsEach day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3. + Show Spoiler [Example] +
DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3
A->B 1 vote
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1 vote
D->E 1 vote
E->F 1 vote
F gets killed
DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4
A->E 1 vote
E->A 2 votes
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1vote
D->A 1 vote
Here is the rule how deaths affect trading.
On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost.
Player A will have 3 votes after the night, assuming Player F traded properly. The only imbalance after the day will be Player E since his trade will not go through to Player F, thus Player E will have 4 votes. 2 votes are lost due to Player F's death.
This means there will be an imbalance after N1. We may be able to use your self correcting plan after two nights pass.
On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote.
BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies.
Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town.
This is WIFOM. We can't know if Player E is a townie or mafia.
I made a post about how this circle trading will work. The advantages and disadvantages of trade just 1 vote or more than 1 vote. I cover the WIFOM aspect as well.
@Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia.
So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people.
My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now.
|
Since I still have about 2 days to get things done I will temporarily abstain myself from doing analysis and focus sole on pushing forth my plan.
There are three main options we have available to us
1) Circlejerk (1 vote)
2) Circlejerk (1 vote) + Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms
3) Do our own things.
+ Show Spoiler [Rejected plans] +1) Give everyone all the votes - easiest way to lose a game
2) Circlejerk (2 votes) - allows mafia to build up 2 VP a night
First of all, I will say this, we need to decide on a plan and hold people accountable to the plan. This may be obvious, but until we have this explicitly spelled out, what we are going to get are mafia going day 2 "Oh I didn't circle jerk because I don't want to follow the plan".
My case for the second plan is located here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=15#287.
My plan is a direct improvement over plan 1. Plan 1 makes it a normal game at best, at worse it gives mafia 1 VP a night.
My plan at works is a normal game, at best we receive lots of insight or town gains VP.
Plan 3 (the sheep plan) is just a horrible idea. First of all, mafia will steadily gain VP from unwary townies. Second of all the townies with the most vote power will be night killed by the mafia. Sheeping looses you games
|
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:@ LSB I am glad you are in agreement with the circle trading plan, but you need to read the rules a bit more carefully. Wrong Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
3. You can only give one vote to one player. Correct Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes. Good idea, but this isn't correct.
I am correct, pm ROL about it or green font your question. I've already ran it through ROL
Even if I am wrong, it is incredibly easy to see if anyone gave their votes to more than one person...
Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing MechanismsEach day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3. + Show Spoiler [Example] +
DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3
A->B 1 vote
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1 vote
D->E 1 vote
E->F 1 vote
F gets killed
DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4
A->E 1 vote
E->A 2 votes
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1vote
D->A 1 vote
Here is the rule how deaths affect trading. Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost. Player A will have 3 votes after the night, assuming Player F traded properly. The only imbalance after the day will be Player E since his trade will not go through to Player F, thus Player E will have 4 votes. 2 votes are lost due to Player F's death. This means there will be an imbalance after N1. We may be able to use your self correcting plan after two nights pass. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote.
BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies.
Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town. This is WIFOM. We can't know if Player E is a townie or mafia.
Okay I will re-evaluate this. However you cannot forget the most important part about denying mafia additional vote power
I made a post about how this circle trading will work. The advantages and disadvantages of trade just 1 vote or more than 1 vote. I cover the WIFOM aspect as well.
@ Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
Let me guess, you'd determine these groups of 3 'randomly'?
|
EDIT: Your formatting confused me, Ignore this part I am correct, pm ROL about it or green font your question. I've already ran it through ROL
|
On January 27 2012 13:13 LSB wrote:
Let me guess, you'd determine these groups of 3 'randomly'?
Honestly I don't care how the groups are split up. The groups don't even have to be a size of 3. I am completely open to suggestions on the technicalities of this idea.
I was more focused on the main purpose of the concept. To limit the mafia's ability to choose who gets votes during a night kill.
Thinking about this more and more I am finding holes in the plan.
A group with 2 mafia could kill the inno and trade votes between themselves. They would also get the vote from the inno. This leads to a bunch more WIFOM. If we make the groups larger though, lets say 3 groups of 5, then randomness starts to favor town more as long as all four mafia aren't in one group.
There is a lot to this idea that needs to be thought through. That is why I hoping for some feedback and/or for people to find glaring flaws in it.
I am just spit balling to open up town's options. Anything to limit mafias control of the votes is good for town.
|
Preliminary Observations
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win.
But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act
Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to.
The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play
Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on.
Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included.
All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next.
Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynch
|
Notes: basically this plan comes down to smart play, if the town can outwit the mafia, or if the mafia can outwit the town.
Doesn't that remind you of some other game?
Circle-jerk reduces smart play a bit by always guaranteeing that the mafia will be able to gain or break even on VP. Also IMO I think it's less fun.
|
Sentinel
Eh. Is Sentinel new? Because in that case what you're experience is the "Someone is disagreeing with me, must be scum syndrome" Otherwise you just gained a few scumpoints.
Do you really think scum can you trade votes with eachother. Don't you think that would look ALITTLE suspicious? Everyone including scum will be forced to give their ONE vote. Because I'm not going to discuss any system where you give away more votes then absolutely neccersary. Why? Because only scum knows for sure who the townies are, giving away more is a stupid risk. Anyway back to scum will be forced to give their ONE vote to a player they can give reason for why is town. Because anyone who send a vote and can't later give an acceptable reason they will be sent to the block.
You vote for me which is +scumpoints in itself but you provide little reasoning in combination with the he's probably better of dead left jab. Don't care if your new or not that gives you more scumpoints.
meatless taco
So meatless taco. Do you think you can come into a game and have your first vote be a vote. with no reasoning. Are you trying to get lynched? Can mafia be this stupid?
But lets take a step back a second. A majority of the players haven't even had an opinion on vote-circles and there have been very little actuall discussion. Yet some fools people already seems to claim think vote circles is the correct way to go. And still meatless taco proposes both me and palmar (who objects to the idea) should be lynched. Only question which one dies first.
I'd like to note a very interesting observation for this game. This game has a no-flip mechanic. That means townies needs to be extra good in their scumhunting. Personally it makes me feel slightly nervous, as if town is already in a disadvantage. Meatless tacos posts show nothing of the sort a nervous player would post. They have likely had discussions in scum qt where they talk about how they would like to whack me and palmar. Then he comes to the thread. Not the slightest nervous and pulls the classic. "who do we lynch first" win-win situation.
Right now If someone pulled a gun to my head and told me to kill 4 people. I'd shoot meatless taco. Sentinel, wbg and paperscraps in that order.
Also I'd like to note something alot of you seem to not understand or you have missed.
We won't get the role or alignment of people we lynch.
We will not get the role of the people who dies at night. But they will almost certainly be town-aligned.
|
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@MeatlessTaco What is your reason for voting up risk.nuke? Also why do you think Palmar is scum? Voting people up with no reasoning is not good.
It is the same reason as the two people directly above me who voted for him.
|
The plan outlined in the first two posts since the game started is the safest town play for the first night. It is the safest because it preserves the most amount of information until/when we can be more aggressive with the vote trading mechanic.
My assumption was that any competent, rationale player would quickly arrive at the same conclusion. Obviously I was wrong. I will re read the counterarguments and try to find the flaw in my logic.
|
On January 27 2012 15:37 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@MeatlessTaco What is your reason for voting up risk.nuke? Also why do you think Palmar is scum? Voting people up with no reasoning is not good.
It is the same reason as the two people directly above me who voted for him.
Does anyone else here any bleating going on?
|
hear*
wow I shouldn't type so late at night. fail on my part haha.
|
I vote D1 we circle jerk and see what happens. Just saying "oh you know, there will be people who don't want to follow the plan" the way LSB did excuses that kind of behavior - the plan doesn't work unless we all agree to it. If we can't come to a consensus, then we're all going to just have to do whatever the fuck, and I already know where my votes are going in the event that happens.
Now, the lynch.
##Vote: Paperscraps
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:@ Palmar When you get done with your whole "I'm a badass" routine, can we hear some reasoning behind why you are against the circle trade system? or anything that is actually constructive at all? + Show Spoiler +I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion.
This set off alarm bells. My main problem is that he doesn't sound like someone with a town read on Palmar. He sounds like someone who already knows Palmar's alignment is town.
I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing.
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia.
So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people.
In the first paragraph he outlines a needlessly convoluted plan with the main goal of "keeping the mafia on their toes" by "randomly choosing" who votes go to within smaller groups of townies.
But in the second paragraph, he makes sure to agree with the circlejerk plan. Why? If you support the circle-voting plan then why are you coming up with more options? The day is half over bro, it's time to start thinkin about that LYNCH.
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now.
But not your vote. Why? Whether we've come to a consensus on how to deal with the votes or not, we still have to lynch someone today. That starts with votes. Now, I agree that MeatlessTaco doesn't look great with his lack of reasoning for his votes and blatant sheeping, but lynch? Not to mention the fact that you're in favor of this circlejerk plan...but...
On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:
Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching.
It was MeatlessTaco's idea! He was the first to suggest it! If it's "the best option", then why are you the most interested in lynching the person who brought it up first? My guess? He doesn't even realize that MT brought it up first. He's just looking for the easiest target, and right now that's someone who suspects Palmar and voted risk.nuke for no reason.
Paperscraps is scum
|
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
I vote D1 we circle jerk and see what happens. Just saying "oh you know, there will be people who don't want to follow the plan" the way LSB did excuses that kind of behavior - the plan doesn't work unless we all agree to it. If we can't come to a consensus, then we're all going to just have to do whatever the fuck, and I already know where my votes are going in the event that happens.
Thanks for repeating what I already said bro.
On January 27 2012 02:20 Paperscraps wrote:
One thing that needs to happen before this day ends, is unanimous agreement on a trading system.
The 3 decent ideas so a far are:
1. Circle trade 1 vote to the person below you.
2. Circle trade all but 1 vote to the person below you.
3. Everyone posts in this thread who they will trade their vote(s) to during the night.
All of these ideas have pros and cons, but the worst thing for town right now is not to be in agreement be the end of the day.
If we are split or have wild cards like Palmar, then we don't have the complete transparency we need for these systems to be effective.
Personally I think number 1 is the best, most town-favored option. I am always open to more discussion and more ideas.
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:Now, the lynch. ##Vote: PaperscrapsShow nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:@ Palmar When you get done with your whole "I'm a badass" routine, can we hear some reasoning behind why you are against the circle trade system? or anything that is actually constructive at all? + Show Spoiler +I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion. This set off alarm bells. My main problem is that he doesn't sound like someone with a town read on Palmar. He sounds like someone who already knows Palmar's alignment is town. I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing.
Did I say Palmar is town? nope
Did I say he sounds like town? negative
Does asking a player to give some real feedback make me scummy? nope
Are you basing your read on a player based completely off another players thoughts/questions? Yes
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia.
So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people.
In the first paragraph he outlines a needlessly convoluted plan with the main goal of "keeping the mafia on their toes" by "randomly choosing" who votes go to within smaller groups of townies. But in the second paragraph, he makes sure to agree with the circlejerk plan. Why? If you support the circle-voting plan then why are you coming up with more options? The day is half over bro, it's time to start thinkin about that LYNCH.
Apparently giving people who are against the circle trading plan more options is a bad thing..... /sarcasm
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now. But not your vote. Why? Whether we've come to a consensus on how to deal with the votes or not, we still have to lynch someone today. That starts with votes. Now, I agree that MeatlessTaco doesn't look great with his lack of reasoning for his votes and blatant sheeping, but lynch? Not to mention the fact that you're in favor of this circlejerk plan...but...
So, me not voting, because I am weighing options between other people I suspect to be scum, makes me scummy?
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:
Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching. It was MeatlessTaco's idea! He was the first to suggest it! If it's "the best option", then why are you the most interested in lynching the person who brought it up first? My guess? He doesn't even realize that MT brought it up first. He's just looking for the easiest target, and right now that's someone who suspects Palmar and voted risk.nuke for no reason.
Just because he has a good idea doesn't make him pro-town. My FoS is on him because of the sheeping.
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
Paperscraps is scum
Am I the only one going wtf? at this entire post.
I guess I have to reiterate my stance, because some people seem to be dense.
I am completely for the 1 circle trade system. My "suggestions" for other trading systems are just that, suggestions. I find it funny how Viscera has a stronger argument against Meatless, yet proceeds to vote me up on some pretty hilarious points.
|
The point is that if they don't agree with the circle-trading plan, then it doesn't matter what "suggestions" you make, we don't have enough time to come to a unanimous decision. Or more accurately, we don't have time to discuss a lynch AND decide on the plan. But the more pressing concern is the lynch, because we only have one more day to decide that.
And you don't vote. Are you afraid to be held accountable for your vote? Are you waiting for someone to tell you who to vote? You can always change your vote if you change your mind. What if YOUR vote spurs the scummy bandwagon that you catch the WHOLE SCUMTEAM on?
It just stinks of reservation and stalling man, that's all I'm sayin. No need to get all "some people are dense" on me.
|
On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing.
That's at best terrible, at worst scummy way of thinking. You cannot deduce anything about my alignment from how other people interact with me.
|
Can people stop suggesting more plans?!
We should go with voting with 1 vote to the next person for night1. I don't think its a valid plan on Night2.
If people don't follow that we lynch them.
On January 27 2012 13:09 LSB wrote:
Since I still have about 2 days to get things done I will temporarily abstain myself from doing analysis and focus sole on pushing forth my plan.
What?! No you may not abstain from scumhunting when you propose a plan that is basicly the same as everyone else is saying + a selfcorrection mechanism that is wrong.
Risk: Why can't you see that a votecircle (atleast night1) is the best way to make sure that mafia don't get a big amount of the votes? If everyone just give away 1 vote to whoever they want mafia will most likely give votes to themself and some town will give a vote to scum. This means scum will get an increase in votes. That increase could be anything from 0-11.
If you can't see that you are either not very smart or scum deliberatly trying to make us not follow this plan.
Palmar: You are disinterested and obstructive to the town. I don't like it! Get your head in the game!
|
On January 27 2012 17:55 VisceraEyes wrote:
The point is that if they don't agree with the circle-trading plan, then it doesn't matter what "suggestions" you make, we don't have enough time to come to a unanimous decision. Or more accurately, we don't have time to discuss a lynch AND decide on the plan. But the more pressing concern is the lynch, because we only have one more day to decide that.
And you don't vote. Are you afraid to be held accountable for your vote? Are you waiting for someone to tell you who to vote? You can always change your vote if you change your mind. What if YOUR vote spurs the scummy bandwagon that you catch the WHOLE SCUMTEAM on?
It just stinks of reservation and stalling man, that's all I'm sayin. No need to get all "some people are dense" on me.
Why do you keep bringing up this running out of time notion? We have a day and a half to decide still, unless my math is completely off. KST time is weird. That is plenty of time to discuss more without making rash decisions.
Why can't we discuss a lynch AND decide on a plan at the same time? Do you think that little of the town? Most of us here probably play Starcraft, so multitasking shouldn't be that big a deal.
"What if", "What if". What if statements do nothing to help.
I just want to clarify that I am not taking the lynch lightly. Rash decisions and shotgun voting are a bad idea. Honestly we don't have much to go on yet for the D1 lynch. Why am I the one stalling when the majority of the town hasn't voted yet either? By your logic they should all be scum as well for "stalling".
I am not waiting to vote. My mind is still changing. Just because I don't vote and unvote every other post doesn't make timid.
I will vote when I am ready to vote, not before.
|
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though.
|
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on.
I meant to say: What this plan does is remove responsibility, instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote. Everyone should simply give their vote to whoever they have a town read on.
funny how punctuation can fuck up a sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
