|
On February 03 2012 05:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm back.
I have a history of voting for people who fluff. My primary reason being that they're derailing the discussion and possibly doing it on behalf of scumteam, but also because, at least in the beginning, these are the kind of people impeding progress anyway.
Like if there's 7 of us left with 2 mafia and 5 towns, I wouldn't advocate a lynch like that because we need all the votes and information we can get to lynch the right people, as if we lynch a random townie we won't get his power (if blue) and the next day it's 3 townies and 2 mafia left. lynch or lose that day, then the next there's 2 towns and 1 mafia, another lynch or lose.
Right now however it's not that drastic. It's 9 on 3. Best case scenario we lynch the right person, mafia kills one of us and it's 8 on 2. Much more favorable odds. Even better if the doc manages to bring that up to 9 on 2.
Worst case scenario it's 7 on 3, townie lynched and townie shot. This is pretty bad, but unless we lynch the vigilante then we can still pull out with a well-placed bullet. I don't like this scenario, but accidents do happen.
Pretty much every plan I can think of in my semi-awake state gets blocked by that damn hedonist. I think I'll take a nap and then get back to this.
Did I understand it right that the day 1 lynch isn´t as important to you as other lynches? This can give scum a good opportunity to vote without proper reason... and that´s not what we want.
Also I don´t like how you just assume there´s a Vigilante and a Hedonist in this game. The setup is semi-open, so we can´t be sure about that. Especially "knowing" about a Hedonist in the game indicates that you might be scum... a town player shouldn´t know that.
These are minor aspects off your play and don´t mean you´re scum, but right now you´re my top suspect. Along with the easily following the votes on Sinensis it justifies a vote from me.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
I'm just going to point this out from prplhz's only big post:
like he did in III (that I was scum in, we lynched the two veterans for a flawless victory ezpz).
and then later on down the post votes sinani206, the other veteran.
Are you using the same strategy as last game prplhz? You scum this game too?
Also I noticed you changed your vote to me as soon as I was the first one to even attempt to talk organization/strategy.
|
Then Sentinel bandwagon voted me too. Look at mderg's post about Sentinel.
|
Right now, Sentinel and prphlz are my two. Especially since Sentinel seems to be more active of late, mderg's recent post, and Sinensis' recent find on prplhz (which I think is pretty reasonable).
But since we have a vote rolling for Sentinel, that's the way I'm going.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
Sorry, Edit:
##Unvote: Visoni
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
On February 03 2012 06:16 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 05:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm back.
I have a history of voting for people who fluff. My primary reason being that they're derailing the discussion and possibly doing it on behalf of scumteam, but also because, at least in the beginning, these are the kind of people impeding progress anyway.
Like if there's 7 of us left with 2 mafia and 5 towns, I wouldn't advocate a lynch like that because we need all the votes and information we can get to lynch the right people, as if we lynch a random townie we won't get his power (if blue) and the next day it's 3 townies and 2 mafia left. lynch or lose that day, then the next there's 2 towns and 1 mafia, another lynch or lose.
Right now however it's not that drastic. It's 9 on 3. Best case scenario we lynch the right person, mafia kills one of us and it's 8 on 2. Much more favorable odds. Even better if the doc manages to bring that up to 9 on 2.
Worst case scenario it's 7 on 3, townie lynched and townie shot. This is pretty bad, but unless we lynch the vigilante then we can still pull out with a well-placed bullet. I don't like this scenario, but accidents do happen.
Pretty much every plan I can think of in my semi-awake state gets blocked by that damn hedonist. I think I'll take a nap and then get back to this. Did I understand it right that the day 1 lynch isn´t as important to you as other lynches? This can give scum a good opportunity to vote without proper reason... and that´s not what we want. Also I don´t like how you just assume there´s a Vigilante and a Hedonist in this game. The setup is semi-open, so we can´t be sure about that. Especially "knowing" about a Hedonist in the game indicates that you might be scum... a town player shouldn´t know that. These are minor aspects off your play and don´t mean you´re scum, but right now you´re my top suspect. Along with the easily following the votes on Sinensis it justifies a vote from me. ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
Alright, I'll explain the Hedonist bit. My train of thought revolved around using detectives to check suspicious players, which goes to nil if the Hedonist can just target the same player, so either he's scum and gets saved or he's not scum but is under suspicion.
For blue roles, I'm just assuming that. There's 9 citizens, I'm betting 3 of those are out there, maybe 4 if we're lucky. If you go check bluelights, he actually went as far as to say "1 of each role, 1 of each scum but the hedonist, and 5 townies." I'm wondering why you didn't say anything about that. Assuming there's 1 of each except for the hedonist (a 25% chance, there are 4 possible permutations if no scumrole is doubled) is a bit more scummy than assuming scum has a hedonist (75% chance by same prediction).
And what I'm saying is that Day 1 mislynch (after confirmation) is worse than Day 1 no lynch. At least in no lynch we spare a potential townie.
Given that you're following the vote on me from Nisani's same train of thought (and completely ignoring Messrs. Bluelightz and prplhz), I could use the same argument on you.
And time, I just saw you declare bandwagoning. You're next on my suspicion list after Sinensis.
Time to nap.
|
Yeah, I mentioned bandwagoning because prphlz did it without any logic to back it up. I at least gave a reason and I think both mderg and Sinensis are on to something here. So, yeah bandwagoning is bad when its mindless. But when there's good reasoning behind it I call it "agreement". And yeah, I agree with mderg that you are probably scum.
|
On February 03 2012 06:19 Sinensis wrote:I'm just going to point this out from prplhz's only big post: Show nested quote +like he did in III (that I was scum in, we lynched the two veterans for a flawless victory ezpz). and then later on down the post votes sinani206, the other veteran. Are you using the same strategy as last game prplhz? You scum this game too? Also I noticed you changed your vote to me as soon as I was the first one to even attempt to talk organization/strategy.
I noticed that too.
I'm curious, who do you think should get taken down first?
|
So far Sentinal, prplhz, and Bluelightz. I haven't narrowed it down to one yet but as of this moment it's them, in that order. Bluelightz could easily be innocent...Sentinal and prplhz I'm not so sure about.
|
On February 03 2012 07:19 Sinensis wrote:
So far Sentinal, prplhz, and Bluelightz. I haven't narrowed it down to one yet but as of this moment it's them, in that order. Bluelightz could easily be innocent...Sentinal and prplhz I'm not so sure about.
If it's not Bluelightz, who do you think the third person could be?
|
Sup guys awake. I'm on an iPad right now. Later when I get access to a computer back I'll make a list of reads
|
On February 03 2012 02:58 Timeaisis wrote:
OK, well I checked and it looks like everyone has posted something, however Vilonis had one introductory post and hasn't said anything since. So...
##Vote: Vilonis
No offense man, I just want a response.
None taken, I suppose. I attend school and live on the west coast. I made a post as late as I could last night, and only now have time to make another.
Day1 Lynching?
You should lynch D1, it should not be random...
Not lynching D1 is like starting a new game where chaos either has an extra vote or there is one less townie. Any reasoning that could be done in D2 after not lynching could equally be done in D1, so lets lynch.
That being said, don't random lynch. People are already saying dumb/incriminating things. Let it play out. If I were chaos, a random lynch would not scare me. But as an imperial, random lynching scares the hell out of me. I don't want to die D1 for no reason. So I'm going to fight random lynching.
Advocating random lynching will put you first on my suspicion list, and will, most likely, earn you a vote
A vote leader is dumb...
Why would any townie trust a vote leader. I am talking to you, Sinensis. Don't discourage discussion. Don't try to control votes. Don't pretend that the ONLY way to get a majority vote passed is by way of a vote leader. The town out number the mafia drastically, such that all town can vote for one player and even if the mafia vote no lynch, the vote would still go through.
Who has been the most destructive?
Possibly Sinensis. The swapping back and forth on random voting, advocating a vote leader and nominating himself to be that leader. Much discussion has arisen over this (not much of it particularly useful). Seems he has backed off of random lynching for now though...
Nisani201. Started this whole bandwagon discussion. IMO, it is too early to start claiming bandwagons. We are not close to a vote, there were not many people, and the 'bandwagon' was probably the best candidate to be lynched anyway. As far as I can see it, this is only really preventing pressure on players that deserve it, as having 3 votes on you is nowhere as demanding that you make a post as having 7+ votes on you would be.
Also, "You guys make this too easy" with an explanation-less vote, followed by claiming a few people voting on suspicions are a bandwagon. Stop make a virtue out of keeping you options open. You should vote on suspicion. It makes your opinions and intentions clear. It makes you (somewhat) committed.
Suspicious
Prplhz (anyone else read this name as Purple Haze, then have the Jimmy Hendrix song stuck in their head?). Lots of votes, not many posts. Short, mostly useless posts. Probably a time zone thing, but I would like to see more discussion from him.
Who is probably scum?
My vote is for Nisani201.
And as I think you should put your vote where your suspicions are...
##Vote: Nisani201
What is FoS: Player
+ Show Spoiler +In code tags so you can see the bold tags, and so it doesn't look terrible.
If [b]##Vote: Player[/b] is in a quote, it will not be counted as your vote, right?
|
|
|
|
|
On February 03 2012 02:28 Timeaisis wrote:
Yeah, that may be true. Those who start the bandwagon are seeming a little more scummy to me right now. Bluelightz voted for Sinensis but unvoted before people started pointing fingers (except for him). That leaves prplhz who pretty much started the "lynch Sinensis" thing. So right now I'm leaning between voting for prplhz or Sinensis, because they both seem a little suspicious.
On another note, Sinensis has 4 votes (if I counted correctly), I mean unless people retract in the next couple posts. Still not voting yet, though...
So you think Sinensis is supicious for... you don't mention why actually, alright whatever. But you are suspicious of prplhz for starting a motion against someone you find supicious? Should you not be supportive of this move?
As far as I'm concernced, prplhz and Sinensis are on opposite sides, at least ideologically if not red/green. Don't see how you can be suspicous of both when you posted this.
On February 03 2012 03:31 Timeaisis wrote:
Well prphlz and you are tied for most suspicious in my mind. Just saying.
Ok, you still are against them, ok consistency at least-
On February 03 2012 06:20 Timeaisis wrote:
Right now, Sentinel and prphlz are my two. Especially since Sentinel seems to be more active of late, mderg's recent post, and Sinensis' recent find on prplhz (which I think is pretty reasonable).
But since we have a vote rolling for Sentinel, that's the way I'm going.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
Wait what da faq? 3 hours later you're on sentinel. But why? Oh right, there's a vote rolling on sentinel, that's your "reasoning". You realize, this is commonly known as bandwagoning. Care to consolidate your opinions?
|
Who I think is scum:
Timeaisis: Sheeping as pointer by ET above, he wants to lynch prp but later when everybody votes Sentinel he votes Sentinel too!
Sinensis:
Random Lynching, Really?.Random lynching can be easily sabotaged because mafia can "fake" their random number.
Vote Leaders, More easily sabotaged, the leader's opinion can be easily changed.
Voting early is scummy?, what is your problem with people voicing their opinions?. It opens up way for more discussion.
So,
FoS:Sinensis
FoS:Timeaisis
|
I agree with Vilonis, I think it's a bit early to start calling people out for "bandwagoning". It's the first turn and we're all trying to get a feel for how each other posts etc.
Suspect:
Sinensis:
I'll keep my vote on Sinensis, for reasons stated before. Just seems like a very black and white type of person with the "I'll be the kill leader, and we'll decide using an RNG" without really waiting for talk.
prplhz:
Seems to throw votes around, I'm not sure if he's just trying to stir up stuff but I don't think it's a good mindset.
|
On February 03 2012 08:47 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 02:28 Timeaisis wrote:
Yeah, that may be true. Those who start the bandwagon are seeming a little more scummy to me right now. Bluelightz voted for Sinensis but unvoted before people started pointing fingers (except for him). That leaves prplhz who pretty much started the "lynch Sinensis" thing. So right now I'm leaning between voting for prplhz or Sinensis, because they both seem a little suspicious.
On another note, Sinensis has 4 votes (if I counted correctly), I mean unless people retract in the next couple posts. Still not voting yet, though... So you think Sinensis is supicious for... you don't mention why actually, alright whatever. But you are suspicious of prplhz for starting a motion against someone you find supicious? Should you not be supportive of this move? As far as I'm concernced, prplhz and Sinensis are on opposite sides, at least ideologically if not red/green. Don't see how you can be suspicous of both when you posted this. Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 03:31 Timeaisis wrote:
Well prphlz and you are tied for most suspicious in my mind. Just saying. Ok, you still are against them, ok consistency at least- Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 06:20 Timeaisis wrote:
Right now, Sentinel and prphlz are my two. Especially since Sentinel seems to be more active of late, mderg's recent post, and Sinensis' recent find on prplhz (which I think is pretty reasonable).
But since we have a vote rolling for Sentinel, that's the way I'm going.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel Wait what da faq? 3 hours later you're on sentinel. But why? Oh right, there's a vote rolling on sentinel, that's your "reasoning". You realize, this is commonly known as bandwagoning. Care to consolidate your opinions?
Well, regarding your last part. Three hours later, yeah, I'm on someone else because frankly, Sinensis has been acting less and less scummy since his initail "RNG lynch" idea. And throughout further review on my part, Sentinel seems to have it out for some people regardless of what they say. I'm simply trying to move this along, because both prplhz and Sentinel have seemed hositle and or scummy in the past 3-4 posts. Since Sinensis seems to be making a reasonable claim against prplhz and mderg's opinions about Sentil make good sense to me. So no, I'm not "changing my vote", I just think, due to recent events, Sentinel seems more of a threat than Sinensis and prplhz right now.
So, yeah, call me "bandwagoning" or whatever. I'm voting for someone who I think is scum due to someone else's (mderg's) reasing, who, honestly, has had the only pretty reasonable piece of evidence against someone in this entire game. So yeah, I'm still voting for Sentinel. And you're defense of Sentinel is starting to make you look like you know something the rest of us don't...
|
Yes I have backed off random voting because no one was for it. I said when I proposed all of my ideas that they were up for debate/criticism/modification, that I was just trying to talk strategy. Then people started voting me.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
On February 03 2012 09:43 Timeaisis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:47 EchelonTee wrote:On February 03 2012 02:28 Timeaisis wrote:
Yeah, that may be true. Those who start the bandwagon are seeming a little more scummy to me right now. Bluelightz voted for Sinensis but unvoted before people started pointing fingers (except for him). That leaves prplhz who pretty much started the "lynch Sinensis" thing. So right now I'm leaning between voting for prplhz or Sinensis, because they both seem a little suspicious.
On another note, Sinensis has 4 votes (if I counted correctly), I mean unless people retract in the next couple posts. Still not voting yet, though... So you think Sinensis is supicious for... you don't mention why actually, alright whatever. But you are suspicious of prplhz for starting a motion against someone you find supicious? Should you not be supportive of this move? As far as I'm concernced, prplhz and Sinensis are on opposite sides, at least ideologically if not red/green. Don't see how you can be suspicous of both when you posted this. On February 03 2012 03:31 Timeaisis wrote:
Well prphlz and you are tied for most suspicious in my mind. Just saying. Ok, you still are against them, ok consistency at least- On February 03 2012 06:20 Timeaisis wrote:
Right now, Sentinel and prphlz are my two. Especially since Sentinel seems to be more active of late, mderg's recent post, and Sinensis' recent find on prplhz (which I think is pretty reasonable).
But since we have a vote rolling for Sentinel, that's the way I'm going.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel Wait what da faq? 3 hours later you're on sentinel. But why? Oh right, there's a vote rolling on sentinel, that's your "reasoning". You realize, this is commonly known as bandwagoning. Care to consolidate your opinions? Well, regarding your last part. Three hours later, yeah, I'm on someone else because frankly, Sinensis has been acting less and less scummy since his initail "RNG lynch" idea. And throughout further review on my part, Sentinel seems to have it out for some people regardless of what they say. I'm simply trying to move this along, because both prplhz and Sentinel have seemed hositle and or scummy in the past 3-4 posts. Since Sinensis seems to be making a reasonable claim against prplhz and mderg's opinions about Sentil make good sense to me. So no, I'm not "changing my vote", I just think, due to recent events, Sentinel seems more of a threat than Sinensis and prplhz right now. So, yeah, call me "bandwagoning" or whatever. I'm voting for someone who I think is scum due to someone else's (mderg's) reasing, who, honestly, has had the only pretty reasonable piece of evidence against someone in this entire game. So yeah, I'm still voting for Sentinel. And you're defense of Sentinel is starting to make you look like you know something the rest of us don't...
Woke up. I thought I would be guillotined by this time but apparently so far nobody else has voted for me.
Voting because someone else said so is not a good policy. You should at least justify why you think his is the only reasonable evidence when I clearly addressed and refuted his every point.
Sinensis is turning slightly greener for me, but your actions thus far have just been a giant WTF for me. So until then,
##Vote: Timeaisis
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
