|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 20 2012 06:26 chaos13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:21 Blazinghand wrote:On February 20 2012 06:19 chaos13 wrote:On February 20 2012 06:06 Dirkzor wrote:
Lets say the day 2 team complete the mission. Why would i change that team for day 3 - even if i was not included in the day 2 team? This is correct, I believe. If a team is successful with 0 spies sabotaging it, that team goes again. Yeah, but Dirkzor's point is "I think that if such a team fails it's the fault of the guy who picked it, we should be suspicious of him" and I'm not sure that's the case. Obviously we should be suspicious but like if something's a reasonable choice anyone would make (as in that particular instance) then dirk is wrong If a Leader's team is sabotaged, they and everyone who voted "Yay" should immediately be placed under scrutiny. That's simply common sense. Should they be eliminated from future teams? No. I think you're exaggerating the point Dirk has made to black and white, when of course there will be grey areas.
Really? You think that someone who revotes in a 4-man team that was successful D2 that then failed D3 should be "immedately placed under scrutiny"? I think it's honestly an more anti-town move to vote Nay on a team we know has been successful, even if that team goes on to fail, unless you have some seriously good reasoning for it.
If on D3 we had a D2 success, I would be very VERY suspicious of anyone who was nayvoting a re-suggestion of the D2 team, and they better have some incredibly good reasoning.
|
On February 20 2012 06:30 Blazinghand wrote:
Really? You think that someone who revotes in a 4-man team that was successful D2 that then failed D3 should be "immedately placed under scrutiny"? I think it's honestly an more anti-town move to vote Nay on a team we know has been successful, even if that team goes on to fail, unless you have some seriously good reasoning for it.
If on D3 we had a D2 success, I would be very VERY suspicious of anyone who was nayvoting a re-suggestion of the D2 team, and they better have some incredibly good reasoning.
...that's exactly what I'm saying
|
On February 20 2012 06:14 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:06 Dirkzor wrote:
Lets say the day 2 team complete the mission. Why would i change that team for day 3 - even if i was not included in the day 2 team? Okay, and in that situation, you're imagining the team will fail?
Wat?
On February 20 2012 06:18 Blazinghand wrote:
got you there don't I
No?
On February 20 2012 06:30 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:26 chaos13 wrote:On February 20 2012 06:21 Blazinghand wrote:On February 20 2012 06:19 chaos13 wrote:On February 20 2012 06:06 Dirkzor wrote:
Lets say the day 2 team complete the mission. Why would i change that team for day 3 - even if i was not included in the day 2 team? This is correct, I believe. If a team is successful with 0 spies sabotaging it, that team goes again. Yeah, but Dirkzor's point is "I think that if such a team fails it's the fault of the guy who picked it, we should be suspicious of him" and I'm not sure that's the case. Obviously we should be suspicious but like if something's a reasonable choice anyone would make (as in that particular instance) then dirk is wrong If a Leader's team is sabotaged, they and everyone who voted "Yay" should immediately be placed under scrutiny. That's simply common sense. Should they be eliminated from future teams? No. I think you're exaggerating the point Dirk has made to black and white, when of course there will be grey areas. Really? You think that someone who revotes in a 4-man team that was successful D2 that then failed D3 should be "immedately placed under scrutiny"? I think it's honestly an more anti-town move to vote Nay on a team we know has been successful, even if that team goes on to fail, unless you have some seriously good reasoning for it. If on D3 we had a D2 success, I would be very VERY suspicious of anyone who was nayvoting a re-suggestion of the D2 team, and they better have some incredibly good reasoning.
Either I am mis-reading or you are... Or maybe you just don't make sense.
As I read this:
D2 team of 4 persons succeeds then you want the same 4 persons to go on D3 mission. So if you are leader D3 you would send the same 4 persons as on D2? Even if you yourself were not on the team D2?
Wasn't that exactly what I wrote?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
I'm saying the scenario you describe is unreasonable. If someone suggests a team for D3 and it is the same as the successful team for D2, and it fails, do you really think that that person deserves extra scrutiny (over, say, the members of the team that failed, or people who voted yay, or some hypothetical person that voted nay)? I'd believe that a D3 team that's the same as a D2 team would succeed, and anyone who votes against it better have a great reason or clearly there's something afoot. I think the situation you described initially basically is pretty unlikely to happen, and if it did happen, the correct response is not the one you delineated.
|
I see Blaze is town from how spammy he is - sounding exactly as he did in Resistance 1. And unless Palmar's scum play has improved dramatically, he's pretty much confirmed town now to me too.
Palmar's right, this should be E-Z-P-Z.
chaos13 is looking pretty bad imo. Am I seeing things? Examples to follow.
|
You're mixing things up blazinghand... O_o
You said that you couldn't see a way to EVER put out a team without yourself on it. I gave a good reason for doing exactly that.
I never said that only in that scenario I wrote should the leader be under extra suspicion. Its two opinions.
1) you can put up a team without yourself and still be doing the best for town
2) if a leader put up a team and the team fails - even if the leader was not on the team - the leader should be under suspicion.
I agree that sending the same team as the one that just succeeded is the best play, so anyone doing that would be doing the pro town thing to do.
(The example I used was just that. An example. I can see atleast 1 other scenario where I would consider not putting myself on the team if I thought it was best for town.)
|
On February 20 2012 04:06 chaos13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 19:21 Blazinghand wrote:
That being said, unless I see a team I like, I'm just gonna "nay" everyone until it's my turn to suggest a team, since that's the only way I can know 100% that the guy setting up the team isn't scum. When you make your team, make a good case for it. I hope to see Navillus in the thread pushing his ideas, getting reads and stuff before committing to a team. A baseless team suggestion will have well earned my Nay vote.
Furthermore, the deadline is a little flexible since we will be going through several rounds of team suggesting / rejecting / argumentation today (probably). The single biggest thing that will help us win this game is if scum do sabotage a mission, and we learn exactly how many spies are in that team after it fails.. Getting reads will be difficult, as the setup is so drastically different from a standard mafia game: no lynches, no night kills, just team picking.
However, I certainly agree with you on Navillus. Whoever the day's leader is needs to be present and active in discussing their pick, or else they've wasted our time.
What bothers me about this post is how he simultaneously seems to know what's going to help us "win the game", yet thinks the game is going to be more difficult "as the setup is so drastically different".
To me, the game is essentially the same - you don't lynch anyone, but if enough people think someone is scum that person isn't going on any of the teams and they're essentially "lynched" from participating in the missions. Scumhunting is pretty much identical, you're just getting your information from success or failure of a mission rather than someone flipping and not surviving to give you FURTHER information.
So, yeah. FoS: chaos13
I'll be Nay-voting any teams that include this guy for the time-being.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:04 VisceraEyes wrote:
I see Blaze is town from how spammy he is - sounding exactly as he did in Resistance 1. And unless Palmar's scum play has improved dramatically, he's pretty much confirmed town now to me too.
Palmar's right, this should be E-Z-P-Z.
chaos13 is looking pretty bad imo. Am I seeing things? Examples to follow.
Chaos13 has been worthless imo. Pending further information I will Nay any vote with him on it.
|
If someone submits a team that doesn't include themselves, they can explain their reasoning. You're spamming the thread arguing about it in my honest and humble opinion.
This has been a public service announcement.
|
On February 20 2012 07:12 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:06 chaos13 wrote:
The single biggest thing that will help us win this game is if scum do sabotage a mission, and we learn exactly how many spies are in that team after it fails.. Getting reads will be difficult, as the setup is so drastically different from a standard mafia game: no lynches, no night kills, just team picking.
However, I certainly agree with you on Navillus. Whoever the day's leader is needs to be present and active in discussing their pick, or else they've wasted our time.
What bothers me about this post is how he simultaneously seems to know what's going to help us "win the game", yet thinks the game is going to be more difficult "as the setup is so drastically different". To me, the game is essentially the same - you don't lynch anyone, but if enough people think someone is scum that person isn't going on any of the teams and they're essentially "lynched" from participating in the missions. Scumhunting is pretty much identical, you're just getting your information from success or failure of a mission rather than someone flipping and not surviving to give you FURTHER information. So, yeah. FoS: chaos13I'll be Nay-voting any teams that include this guy for the time-being.
Would you rather I said I think the game will be more difficult and left it at that? You're FoS'ing me because I'm attempting to figure stuff out. That's a load of bullshit.
|
Come on chaos, that's not what I'm doing. I'm FoSing you because I think you're trying too hard to appear town with apprehension - or maybe it's genuine apprehension because you can't speak with your buddies.
And it's just a little finger choas, no harm in one guy's little finger, right? 
|
Right 
Navillus, you don't have to wait for clarification to your question. You've only got 24 hours to submit a team, so get on it.
|
Finally arrived. Sorry for the wait.
I like Dirkzor. He's been keeping the ball rolling, engaging others, etc. and right now he's looking green to me.
Chaos is being fluffy but I'm not too sure he's an outright spy.
Blazinghand's a bit stubborn, but he knows he wants. That could really go either way, but you generally see that kind of behavior on townies, so I'd put him in as guy #3.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
I like Dirkzor actually. I think he articulated his point and defended it adequately. I would approve of a team that included Dirkzor.
C13's defense leaves much to be desired. I maintain my current nay vote on any team including him.
|
On February 20 2012 04:20 Navillus wrote:
Oh wow I've been busy for a bit and haven't been on TL in a couple days, it's really lucky that I went on today. Anyway
Can I put forward team members one by one, or do I have to put all 3 at once and do I only get to put forth 1 team idea?
You have to submit the whole team at once. You can´t change the team once submitted.
|
dirkzor and me confirmed town, let's find one more.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:04 VisceraEyes wrote:
I see Blaze is town from how spammy he is - sounding exactly as he did in Resistance 1.
Buddying.
On February 20 2012 07:04 VisceraEyes wrote:
And unless Palmar's scum play has improved dramatically, he's pretty much confirmed town now to me too.
Buddying.
On February 20 2012 09:23 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I like Dirkzor. He's been keeping the ball rolling, engaging others, etc. and right now he's looking green to me.
Buddying.
On February 20 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
I like Dirkzor actually. I think he articulated his point and defended it adequately. I would approve of a team that included Dirkzor.
Buddying.
On February 20 2012 10:31 Palmar wrote:
dirkzor and me confirmed town, let's find one more.
Buddying.
Oh I get how this works.
Nav, Palmar, dirk, VE you so town. Include me on your list! thx <3
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Oh yes you're right we're a 4 player scumteam you have figured us out so well
|
On February 20 2012 10:49 Blazinghand wrote:
Oh yes you're right we're a 4 player scumteam you have figured us out so well
OP says 3 spies. He was pointing out an example of shitty play, not calling anyone scum.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Oh Chaos thanks for clarifying I thought there were 4 scum, what would I do without you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
