|
Same question as NMM3. If a vigilante is roleblocked on the night he sends in his hit, does it waste his shot?
(I ask again because it is not clear in the role descriptions.)
|
On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing.
This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him.
|
I'm off to bed now. My vote stays on chocolate.
|
I might have lied to you. I just went back to the voting thread and here is what I saw:
igabod - 5
k2hd
DoYouHas
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Chocolate - 5
phagga
JekyllAndHyde
slOosh
ghost_403
NightFury
Of the 5 voting igabod I have suspicions of 4 of them.
k2hd
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Of the 5 voting for Chocolate I have town reads on 3 (and a half) of them. Obviously not going to list them.
The way this looks to me, without one clear bus target is that we might be right. I think Chocolate may actually be scum. I think they are in a position where they have to stack on the inactive so as to save their team mate.
Potentially changing my vote, what does everyone think?
|
still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment?
|
On February 28 2012 08:59 DoYouHas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate NightFury, you wanted to know what I thought was invalid in your post. If I read this correctly your main point here is the pressuring someone with a vote causes panic which leads the town to make poor reads on a person. Sometimes true, but not always true. A panicking player's quality of post will probably go down, but you also are more likely to get posts that reveal their motivation, making pressure very very useful. You are using something that a townie would quite reasonably do to convince yourself of Chocolate's guilt. (In hindsight "invent" was a poor choice of words)
Yes, you read my main point correctly. And I do agree - applying pressure is a great way to reveal motivations. I do not agree with Chocolate's method though and it comes off as scummy (in my opinion).
My concern is that there may have been better ways to achieve this result. Pressuring someone by developing a case is one way. Pressuring a lurker by asking them questions is good. Just voting for someone to get a response can work too... but how useful is it? He claimed that his method targets newbies by making them panic. That's fair. He also claims that mafia are more likely to panic as well. Now I see two variables that may confound the read. I do agree that even this way can get someone posting. However, he believes that his method can draw out scumtells when it doesn't strictly probe affiliation - contrary to what he said (not saying it cannot though, just unreliably).
So yes, I do see there is some merit in what he did after some thought.
However, how he performed this doesn't sit well with me at this moment. For example:
He said he voted for FourFace to try to develop a case against him. He also said that FourFace never addressed his points and just kept on posting eventually. I looked at Chocolate's filter and I could not see what points he brought up. He basically tells him he is going to vote for him for acting weird and will not unvote him until he has explained himself. I don't think asking someone to explain themselves is a point... just a broad topic. It doesn't facilitate the idea to reveal motivation without giving the individual something specific to work with (in my opinion). Also saying that he will not unvote him unless he does so was an empty threat since he later stated there wasn't enough to go off of. Well there wasn't anything to go off of since he didn't propose any specific points. I don't see why Chocolate had to lie/make an empty threat. It comes off scummy.
Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same.
|
On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him.
It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me.
|
On February 28 2012 10:02 Chocolate wrote:
still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment?
Me being someone you find suspicious, I find it odd that you switched to my target so quickly.
|
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers. Why won't you list the ones you think are town?
|
On February 28 2012 10:04 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:02 Chocolate wrote:
still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment? Me being someone you find suspicious, I find it odd that you switched to my target so quickly.
I said an hour ago I was going to switch
|
It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT.
# and # for reference.
|
On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:04 Alderan wrote:On February 28 2012 10:02 Chocolate wrote:
still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment? Me being someone you find suspicious, I find it odd that you switched to my target so quickly. I said an hour ago I was going to switch
I'm actually an idiot. You're right.
|
On February 28 2012 09:56 DoYouHas wrote:
Same question as NMM3. If a vigilante is roleblocked on the night he sends in his hit, does it waste his shot?
(I ask again because it is not clear in the role descriptions.)
No it doesn't waste the shot. He doesn't shoot and he keeps his shot.
|
On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote:
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers. Why won't you list the ones you think are town?
I don't like post who is town, as those with town credibility are most likely to be hit. It's just how I operate. You will RARELY see me make a post about someone being town, at best they will get "less suspicious".
|
On February 28 2012 10:06 Qatol wrote:
It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT.
But apparently you will confirm that he is town...
|
On February 28 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:06 Qatol wrote:
It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT. But apparently you will confirm that he is town...
He's saying that if he's town, he has not found their qt. He could be mafia still.
|
On February 28 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:06 Qatol wrote:
It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT. But apparently you will confirm that he is town...
?
|
On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me.
I completely disagree with you there. The entirety of the game has built up to this moment. Lynching either of us will give the town a plethora of information. You can look back and see who pushed for what lynch, who supported them, who jumped on board, who jumped off... quite frankly, lynching someone other than the two of us is wasteful.
Lynching a non-posting lurker at this point tells you about them. Lynching either me or Chocolate tells you about everyone in the town.
|
On February 28 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:06 Qatol wrote:
It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT. But apparently you will confirm that he is town...
No, my post should not tell you anything about the alignment of anyone. If he is town, he did not hack into the mafia QT. If he is mafia, he did not hack into the mafia QT because he already had access to it.
|
It is possible Qatol is WIFOMing the crap out of us with, "I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT." But otherwise he just confirmed FF as town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
