|
On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:
First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Please explain why you think this way.
Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote.
If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned.
this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
What?
|
Now that I'm back,
On January 29 2012 22:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Please explain why you think this way.
wbg never posted in his defence and i didn't have computer acess, i don't see what would be prodictive about me explaining why i think you made a bad decision.*
Never posting in his defense =/= awful lynch, could just mean he has nothing left to back himself with.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned.
Fluff my arsehole. There are still a number of player who have not yet said that they are on board. Additionally the number of votes people trade is important and is one of the only things that we can actually discuss.
But it has been discussed, time and time again. Everyone can read, or state their opinions which you can then refute, which is why I think this is all grade-A fluff.
Show nested quote +
If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
What? maybe you could try reading?
If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason
This is what confuses me.
Everyone knows they are town, and those who aren't sure as hell aren't going to say "look at me i'm scum watch me give away multiple votes".
The whole point of the plan is to say, "I've got a strong read on this player, so here's my votes. If I die, he can keep the votes. If I survive, then he has to give them back or else it's lynching time."
You then publical announce that you are new (which if you are town is fucking dumb).
I have a feeling it's part of the reason I got saved (the other part is that bugs looked more suspicious). Like LSB said, mafia pretends to be noob to avert suspicion, but the fact that I'm not pretending to be noob, I AM noob (IDK if this can actually be confirmed, but it can be supported with evidence) does help my case.
You then write that you have "discussed plans", then "I'm done vouching my defense for now."
Which is exactly what I did.
Out of context. Here's the full line:
Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did, but when I asked him about it, Paperscraps just took over and I never got a reply from bugs.
This is the whole no-defense thing that you were talking about, how bugs just suddenly stopped justifying his words.
Show nested quote +Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. do you mean especially the night 2 post 211 pages into a game? because that isn't really a fair comparison. I am not sure what the comment about ViceraEyes is doing there.
Why I'm voting for bugs instead of Viscera.
I think you didn't have good reasons for voting WBG. You do not provide anything original. You do not explain why you agree with prplhz's case.
False, I explained why his lynch had no defense, using prp's evidence that bugs will use any evidence he has. Even at D1, there are still pieces of evidence to use to come up with at least something to condemn me, or better yet, something original. But he just shut up after I called him out. Didn't even back up what paperscraps was calling me out on.
I think you only voted him because you would have been lynched if WBG didn't get votes
That is correct, because it was him, then me, then no-lynch. Better get rid of me than to waste a night. But in the same way, that's like saying "I came second in a race because the other guy was faster than me, if he didn't exist I would be first." The runner in that scenario is faster than you and that is why he won the race. Bugs is more suspicious of being scum than me and that is why he won the poison.
|
I sent prphlz 2 votes due to trust.
|
I think Zbot didn't count multiple votes for some reason.
|
For prplhz
1) He came to my defense,
2) After that bit of reasoning he's either really trustworthy or really good at lying, just need to see if he gives those votes back to know which.
|
##Vote layabout
For reasons stated before.
|
On January 31 2012 03:58 Palmar wrote:
hey layabout, you need to take a stance, you being scum is irrelevant atm.
Do you want to lynch me or VE?
Live another day.
You see, I was actually hit last night, meaning one of only a few possible scenarios is going on:
Palmar lied and was not hit: this is my guess.
Palmar was hit by a vig and I was hit by scum: Not as likely, considering scum's gimped kp and no-flip mechanic.
Palmar was hit by scum and I was hit by vig: see above.
Now, we're at a crossroads. I've got a scum read on Palmar and a town read on LSB, and Palmar is pushing for an LSB lynch. This much doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the wagon that's on LSB. Other than misunderstanding the rules early on, LSB has clearly been trying to figure out the best way for town to come out ahead with the vote-switches. I can't and won't support a lynch of LSB. But I feel like everyone should vote at once for Palmar because he's only interested in confusing town and keeping town in the dark.
This seems like the exact opposite of what I've been perceiving in this thread off of the two of you. LSB I still don't have any suspicion as of this posting.
You were #2 on my suspicion list before layabout made that post, so:
##Vote: VisceraEyes
|
On January 31 2012 07:46 Palmar wrote:
here's the deal. Layabout and LSB must give away as many votes as they can. They can pick the receiver themselves. No one can give them any votes.
If they fail to give away votes, they're basically confirmed scum. They cannot give each other votes. If they actually both end up at 1 vote or so after the night, I'll consider my stance on them.
I like this idea. It was basically the intent of the plan, people with lots of votes -> people with not lots of votes. Then again LSB can only give away 1 vote. And prp has to give away 1 by law, but it would be nice (and paint him greener) to give away more than that.
|
On February 01 2012 01:43 Dirkzor wrote:
My VP is not weird from my perspective. I genuinly think Jackal is town this game. I still think that and his last post just pointed me even more in that direction.
What i find weird about LSB is that he have fairly active in the beginning. Then Palmar started to accuse him and he have posted less and less and the stuff he have been posting have made little sense. The typo thing is just weird in my opinion.
Isn't that the same reason we lynched bugs? Lots of posts up until a short while after voting me where he just shuts up?
Right now I'm looking through LSB's filter, and most of his posts were either:
1) "Support my plan instead of the circle jerk" (and "then okay nevermind support my NEW plan instead")
2) "Lynch [UoN]Sentinel"
Night 1 passed, and he went on to talk about voting patterns, going back to his plan. Then that passed since we haven't gotten to Day 3 yet. The "Lynch Sentinel" campaign died down, at least for now, so unless he's got some serious beef with me that's gone.
Then come the posts that don't make sense which ends in a justification of lynching VisceraEyes.
So what does that leave LSB to talk about?
|
On February 01 2012 06:03 layabout wrote:
does keeping votes count as sending them to myself?
Not at all. If you're pretty sure you have a green read on yourself, go ahead and send them.
|
EBWOP: I think I said that wrong...
|
On February 01 2012 06:24 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 06:20 Palmar wrote:
if you don't give away the votes layabout we'll be forced to lynch you tomorrow, this is because you're quite suspicious and have a lot of votes. Even if we assume both VE and Bugs were town (very unlikely) it's only 4 mafia in 13 people, so that means you have 8 people to look for as town if you somehow happen to be town.
You only need to figure out one townie, and pass away your votes. But if you keep them, we're hanging you. If you agree with this please say so. Soon.
By your words "I'm parroting Palmar", so might as well live up to your expectations. Agreed.
|
On February 01 2012 07:46 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 07:18 MeatlessTaco wrote:On February 01 2012 07:16 layabout wrote:
wouldn't you prefer to see my flip? We can have the coroner dig you up. the coroner that we know exists? Don't you think it's strange that : in this game lynched players do not flip. there was minimal lynch discussion day1 and town rushed the lynch ending in a ??? flip. there were no night kills. there were two claims + no scumhunting day2, we lynched a claimant, who flipped ???. And now there are individuals that are trying to draw conclusions about players based upon their reads of the players that are interacting with them. Speculating about the set-up and drawing links between players whose alignments we do not and may never know in order to lynch other players is very anti-town.
Okay then, if you're so against the current chain of events, what's your idea?
|
On February 01 2012 08:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 08:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On February 01 2012 07:46 layabout wrote:On February 01 2012 07:18 MeatlessTaco wrote:On February 01 2012 07:16 layabout wrote:
wouldn't you prefer to see my flip? We can have the coroner dig you up. the coroner that we know exists? Don't you think it's strange that : in this game lynched players do not flip. there was minimal lynch discussion day1 and town rushed the lynch ending in a ??? flip. there were no night kills. there were two claims + no scumhunting day2, we lynched a claimant, who flipped ???. And now there are individuals that are trying to draw conclusions about players based upon their reads of the players that are interacting with them. Speculating about the set-up and drawing links between players whose alignments we do not and may never know in order to lynch other players is very anti-town. Okay then, if you're so against the current chain of events, what's your idea? You lot start trying, thinking, reading, posting or analysing with pro-town goals. I get to stop playing without getting myself mod-killed.
Trying to lynch potential scum is not pro-town?
|
On February 01 2012 08:27 layabout wrote:
Every player is potential scum.
Not providing reasoning, not establishing your innocence, deliberately misleading or misinterpreting to kill other players is not pro-town and it's what you have all been doing.
We have provided reasoning. And this reasoning is pointing to you. And all you have to do to deflect the FoS is give your votes to the town. We'll give them back, anyone who doesn't give them back is the scum.
|
I gave one to Paperscraps, Palmar was my strongest read but I felt he'd get a lot of votes so I sent to Paper, who I also have a strong read on.
|
On February 01 2012 10:14 Paperscraps wrote:
Should I wait to post to see if I died or not?
Up to you, but the town could always use the info 
|
Who gave votes to layabout?
|
†LSB -> 1 -> †Palmar
†Palmar -> 1 -> prplhz
chaoser -> 1 -> †Palmar
[UoN]Sentinel -> 1 -> Paperscraps
Paperscraps -> 2 -> risk.nuke
Node -> 1 -> [UoN]Sentinel
prphlz -> 5 -> †Palmar
MeatlessTaco -> 1 -> jaybrundage
??? -> 6+ -> layabout
layabout -> 1 -> ???
That's what I have so far. Too lazy to do the counting.
##Vote: layabout
|
I think that layabout's been offering too little reasoning to be town, and also he was backing LSB. Now that we know where Mr. LSB's loyalties lie, I think the evidence points towards him being scum.
But if this entire plot was set up, the mafia would deserve that win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
