|
I realized that I needed to revise my earlier analysis:
If a GF claims vig and then has a Goon shoot his claimed target, we lose the ability to deduce the results of night actions, unless a tracker is lucky enough to track a GF doing nothing while his claimed target dies, or a JK goes against the plan, jails one of the vig claims, and that player's target dies.
That does suck, but I'm glad I realized it now and not later. While this greatly reduces the merits of the plan, it still has a few things going for it:
1) We have a list of players who could potentially flip GF. Any GF flips outside of this list would be actual GFs, and we'd prevent players from claiming vig later in the game. This neutralizes the death miller effect, and I'm highly in favor of doing this, as that is the major scum advantage in this setup. Also, if no vigs claim at all, then we're in the clear in terms of flipping GFs.
2) If a vig claims a target and that player doesn't die, then we lynch them both: either it was a GF shooting without having a Goon fake the shot, or an actual vig hit a GF. Either way, we hit scum.
On April 21 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:
ANYONE PUSHING A MASS-VIG-CLAIM IS DOING SO ALONGSIDE CLAIMED SCUM
That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Feel free to continue discussing this ad nauseum.
I'm town this game, so I'm going to die N1 unless some super intelligent JK protects me. Thank you, that is all.
Just how confident are you that his word choice confirms him as scum? Enough to push him immediately, when more than half of the players have yet to post?
On April 21 2012 11:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Just wondering, what's the chance gonzaw's not mafia but just making an extremely retarded point?
At any rate, what I don't get is number 6. If I was GF pretending to be vig, I'd shoot as many of the other vigs as I could. And if I was JK, I'd protect those vigs who I trust to be either town vigs or some other blues.
Every vig that is night-killed reduces the impact of the death miller mechanic, which I think is terrible for town scumhunting. Do you disagree?
If the JK attempts to protect players he believes to be vigs, it makes it impossible to deduce anything. Coupled with the death millers, we could easily drown ourselves in WIFOM.
|
But I do agree with you VE. Giving scum any more info puts them in an even greater advantage over us. A mass vig claim would be the same as handing them a hit list.
some of gonzaw's points however are pretty valid (no late-game chaos with vig claiming before lynch, etc etc).
Either way, I can't see a vig following either one of y'alls policies.
He claims, town lynches him and nothing is gained.
He claims, chance of mafia taking him out or keeps him alive, either way there's chaos.
I suggest that our vigilante (if we have one) doesn't claim at all. If he's about to be lynched then he needs to defend himself as a normal townie because claiming vig is going to create a shitstorm for us, which gives scum the upper hand.
If he's going to use his kp one someone, he doesn't need to claim before or after the kill. It's going to create too much confusion and WIFOM and finger-pointing and shit.
So I think that vigilantes should not make any claims this game.
|
Since my post retelling people to read my plan was buried at the bottom of the last page, please read it  I think my plan is a good one and I want people's thoughts on it.
On April 21 2012 11:21 johnnywup wrote:
@gonzaws post directed at me
We can't be certain claims are true. So hows that gonna help with chaos later?
I say lynch all vig's day after they shoot and only if its a misfire. That way, like I said, theres NO WAY scum would claim. obviously there could be a jk and claim it didn't go through. I also say that JK's shouldn't protect/rb claimed vigis or the person they claim to be shooting, that way there's no way that they can argue their way out of it. If there's a JK and he goes by this rule and the scum does it anyways, the JK could claim. If there isn't a JK, then no one will claim it's true/isn't true.
If we go by this rule, then if there is some scum that claims anyways, then we can know right away. we lynch if they misfire, we lynch if they don't try to move out, we lynch if they claim they or person they're firing at was JK'd. We're almost guaranteed at least 2 of those tells, possibly 3.
I want people's thoughts on this.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 21 2012 12:02 johnnywup wrote:Since my post retelling people to read my plan was buried at the bottom of the last page, please read it I think my plan is a good one and I want people's thoughts on it. Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 11:21 johnnywup wrote:
@gonzaws post directed at me
We can't be certain claims are true. So hows that gonna help with chaos later?
I say lynch all vig's day after they shoot and only if its a misfire. That way, like I said, theres NO WAY scum would claim. obviously there could be a jk and claim it didn't go through. I also say that JK's shouldn't protect/rb claimed vigis or the person they claim to be shooting, that way there's no way that they can argue their way out of it. If there's a JK and he goes by this rule and the scum does it anyways, the JK could claim. If there isn't a JK, then no one will claim it's true/isn't true.
If we go by this rule, then if there is some scum that claims anyways, then we can know right away. we lynch if they misfire, we lynch if they don't try to move out, we lynch if they claim they or person they're firing at was JK'd. We're almost guaranteed at least 2 of those tells, possibly 3.
I want people's thoughts on this.
What if GF fake-claim and then Goon kills the target?
|
There will be a tracker on the GF, if person GF says they'll kill is killed but GF didn't move then they'd obviously be scum which results in gf dying. without a tracker this works too, we kill misfires the day after.
|
WARNING, Big Post coming up, be sure to read all of it, or at least the end and the part between the red asterisks:
To VE:
On April 21 2012 11:04 VisceraEyes wrote:
Scum start off with an information advantage. Any plan that involves giving information to scum (like, who all the vigs in the game are) is a net loss for town 100% of the time. I'll address your points individually, for ease of comprehension.
Scum already have the info of who is town and who is scum.
Like someone else already stated, if we lynch a vig, he will flip GF, and we won't know if he's vig or GF, but scum will.
Also, you missed this post of mine: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=10#187
This plan isn't about "giving scum information", it's about:
-Coordinating vig shots at night (if there are in this game)
-Avoiding the chaos regarding the "Flips GF" Miller mechanic from vigs
-Force scum to take action and claim or not.
-Based on the logical statements concluded from actions and claims, use it to aid scumhunting and determining the alignment of players and their actions.
1) There are no roleblockers, therefore a claimed blue will be able to use his ability at night no matter what
This is untrue. A claimed blue will PROBABLY get to use his ability at night, but he'll fail if a JK jails him.
JKs won't jail claimed vigs, nor they will jail their targets.
Why? Because they know that :
-If he jails the real vig, the vig will be sure that his target is GF, even if his target wasn't. If his target was a townie, the JK just created 2 mislynches
-If he jails his target, then again the vig will be sure his target is GF, even if he wasn't. Same situation as above.
If the JK is sure the vig claiming the shot is scum, then he has to either convince people he's scum and get him lynched, or Jail him and claim he jailed him right before the deadline. Any other scenario can backfire tremendously.
2) If said vig ever gets lynched, he will flip GF. If he doesn't claim at all, or claims vig right before getting lynched, then it will instill confusion about whether he was actually GF or not.
That confusion isn't alleviated by all vigs claiming. He's still going to flip GF whether he's a vig or a fake-claiming GF and him claiming isn't going to make that any easier to unravel (especially if either of the GFs claim vig too.)
Yes it is.
If he claims vig, we will know that he will flip GF once he dies (or hopefully Goon, but that's actually good so I won't take it into account). So we are prepared to see the flip, and we are prepared to act accordingly.
If the vig doesn't claim, we will just have a GF flip, and we won't know what to do about it. Scum will know whether that was the GF or the vig, but we won't. Since we weren't prepared, we won't be able to analyse the previous voting successfully, considering scum already know the alignment of the flipped player but we don't.
Most importantly, it means that all the work, analysis, speculation that we've done before his flip would be mostly useless.
If we prepare, we won't take this into account and will focus on other things.
3) If all vigs claim beforehand, we will KNOW that they will flip GF, so the confusion about their flip is removed.
This doesn't say anything and is patently untrue - we're still not going to know if they're a fake-claiming GF or a vig. Claiming doesn't change this at all. Period.
Please tell me how NOT claiming would be better then.
So KNOWING beforehand what a player will flip, is worse than not knowing at all?
4) It will force the GFs to claim vig as well. Why? Because if all vigs claim, but then a vig claims that he shot someone, but that someone doesn't die, if the first player is confirmed vig, then the second player is CONFIRMED GODFATHER. If GFs want to avoid that situation, they will have to claim vig.
This is also not true. If a vig claims a shot and the person doesn't die, then that person MIGHT be a Godfather, or that person MIGHT have been protected via jailing, or the VIG HIMSELF might have been roleblocked by jailing. You're making assumptions and labeling them as facts and they're all bad Gonzaw.
We just ruled out that said person would be protected by a JK, so he WILL be the Godfather.
5) If all vigs claim, since there isn't any roleblocker, they will be free to shoot anybody they want. If there is town consensus on who to shoot, said vigs could take that into account to shoot lurkers/scummy people of their choice at night. Even if vigs want to shoot anybody in particular, they don't need to hide that info since scum can't RB him, so they can just discuss with town about said player and he can say he will shoot him in advance.
Vigs are free to shoot anybody they want anyway and them all claiming has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. This isn't a point in favor of claiming, it's repeating information redundantly and padding your post. I'm almost done, I hope...
If vigs claim, they will say who they will shoot WAY before the night ends. This means that things like N1 from LI won't happen (ET randomly shooting michael out of nowhere, not knowing which vig shoot who, etc).
It means that town can use the vig shot as a "double-lynch" of sorts. It means that the vig will have to discuss with town why he will shoot his target and not another one.
The vig has the power to do whatever he wants in the end, but town will know about it and can analyse what to do as well depending on how the vig cooperates (it would be ideally if the real vigs would not be stubborn and take Town's opinion into account).
**********************************************************************************
6) This previous arrangement with Town-Vigs will make is to that Jailkeepers DON'T jail those players that vigs said they would shoot. That way the JK's power isn't wasted (and could cause confusion if he succesfully saves a vig shot, but doesn't claim (i.e people will think the target is GF)). Also, since scum is less likely to shoot vig targets, it means that the JK has a smaller pool of players to choose from, and has a higher chance of saving a scum KP at night
This is like, the only thing I can even make any sense of. If town agrees to a mass-vig-claim, then I'd have to agree that JK's keep their grubby hands off chosen vig targets. The only thing I don't agree with here is the bolded statement. It assumes that claimed vigs are all town (because if the claimed Vig is scum, scum will HAVE to shoot that vig target, no?) and only limits the pool of players to choose from if JKs agree with the notion of keeping their hands off vig targets (which I don't want to assume...too many assumptions.)
What?
Okay, first of all You mention this:
If town agrees to a mass-vig-claim, then I'd have to agree that JK's keep their grubby hands off chosen vig targets
But you also say this:
This is untrue. A claimed blue will PROBABLY get to use his ability at night, but he'll fail if a JK jails him.
Again, you're discounting the possibility of a JK interfering. This is an untrue statement about the information we'd get from the flip (or lack of flip) skewed in favor of vigs claiming.
AGAIN WITH THE DISCOUNTING OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A JK
What? You agree that JKs should cooperate (you specifically say that they shouldn't jail the vig targets, but you imply that JKs should cooperate, meaning you imply that if JKs not jailing the claimed vigs is the best option, they should cooperate too), but then you discredit my plan because I "assume" that the JKs will cooperate?
Really? Contradiction much?
**********************************************************************************
9) If GF claims vig, then they can't shoot on their own. They either need to "No-Kill" 1 KP and claim it's theirs, while claiming that the scum KP got saved by a JK, or claim their target is GF. Both are bad for scum (they have to give info they wouldn't have wanted to give otherwise) and good for us if we use the information wisely.
I'm honestly not even sure what this point is trying to say. It's true that GFs can't kill to corroborate their story - but there's nothing preventing a GOON from fake-claiming vig, especially since they wouldn't have to worry about trackers. Also, scum aren't "giving us info" by lying about what happened - they're introducing WIFOM.
Way to miss my other posts:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=9#179
Yes they are giving us info. They are introducing logical statements into the game (as in "One of Player A and Player B is scum", or "If Player A is townie-vig, then the JK saved his target" or even their equivalent ones like "If no JK saved his target, then Player A is scum").
We take all those logical statements and use them, along normal analysis of players, to determine who is scum or not.
10) If scum are complacent (they don't fake-claim, or do so but don't make other plans, etc) then we'll have a small circle (or even 1) of town-vigs to our disposal and we can do whatever we want, and most likely obliterate scum (based on the previous points too)
Having a claimed 1-shot vig doesn't do anything to help us "obliterate scum". Even if only 1 town vig claims, how does that narrow anything down? Are we just automatically assuming the claim is good? Are we giving dude a pass? Why wouldn't scum fake-claim when you put it that way?
Yes it does.
At that moment in time we won't know if he's scum or the real vig, but since he is in fact the real vig he will help town. We will use his shot as a "double-lynch" of sorts, hopefully hitting a Goon.
It will also mean that all the points addressed before (there will be no chaos regarding a GF flip, etc) will apply, hindering scum even more.
To johhny:
On April 21 2012 11:43 johnnywup wrote:
I agree with VE. We shouldn't reveal who's vig.
1) There's possible fakeclaims that really fuck us
2) There's realclaims we can't verify
3 and most importantly) Scum wouldn't want to kill the real vigs as it creates a lot of chaos, so if scum and vigs claim, they start killing people who are more likely a more useful power role (jk and tracker).
Overall, it puts us in a bad position. Sure we MAY be able to verify on their death, but that doesn't even help us much.
1)No, I already addressed that. If scum fake-claims, we will use our heads and logic to determine the alignment of the claimers.
2)Yes we can, that's why the JK/Tracker/GF mechanics are there. Even if we can't verify them, we will have logical connections made that will help us determine who is scum by plain old behavioral analysis
3)Scum may want to kill vigs or may not depending on their plans and state in the game. If they didn't fakeclaim, it's likely they will start shooting the vigs because the vigs will start to get confirmed soon, or there will be 1v1 situations with their GFs and such. If they do fakeclaim, then they can shoot them, but would most likely shoot someone else, in which case yes, it's likely they can shoot a TK/JK (if there are ones). However, we don't know if there are TKs/JKs, and because of points (1) and (2) we can find the fake-claimers more easily than if they hadn't claimed at all.
About your other post:
I think I've already explained about the chaos of not having vigs claim and such. Midnight makes other good points as well.
To Midnight:
On April 21 2012 11:59 MidnightGladius wrote:
I realized that I needed to revise my earlier analysis:
If a GF claims vig and then has a Goon shoot his claimed target, we lose the ability to deduce the results of night actions, unless a tracker is lucky enough to track a GF doing nothing while his claimed target dies, or a JK goes against the plan, jails one of the vig claims, and that player's target dies.
Yeah I already stated this (if you agree with my plan it would be better to actually read it )
It just adds another logical statement to take into account when analysing players and directing the vigs (or analysing their play).
2) If a vig claims a target and that player doesn't die, then we lynch them both: either it was a GF shooting without having a Goon fake the shot, or an actual vig hit a GF. Either way, we hit scum.
I disagree with this.
Yes, it's most likely that if that would happen, we would end up lynching at least one of them.
But that's not an automatic thing to do, it depends on the context.
Like I said, each claim, report, night action, night result, etc adds a logical statement we need to take into account. If a 1v1 event happens, it's just another logical statement; and we may even logically conclude who is scum between those 2 without the need to lynch them both. Or we can conclude who is scum out of those two by analysing their behaviour like we would normally do.
Etc, etc
About VE (again):
On April 21 2012 11:08 VisceraEyes wrote:WHOOPS!!! ##Vote: gonzaw (for real this time )
What the...?
You think I'm scum because of a "scumslip"? Really? You push me right now and disregard everything else (I think like 40% of your posts have been "People vote gonzaw, okay bye") and this is your reasoning?
You think my plan is "shitty", but you still haven't said how I would benefit from it if I was scum.
You say it's shitty because "we don't know if JKs would cooperate or not" (although you did too, check that contradiction before), but what does that have to do with me pushing a scum agenda with this plan?
Do you think that if I'm scum I'll magically know that JKs will not cooperate or something?
Also, remember this VE?:
On April 11 2012 16:26 Artanis[Xp] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 15:11 gonzaw wrote:
What is an unwinnable situation? One where no matter how much scum we lynch, we still lose.
E.g: If we start at Day with 10v6, it's unwinable, because of this:
D-10v6
N-10v5
D-7v5
N-7v4
D-5v4
N-5v3
D-3v3 GG
Meaning if at any day we are 10v6 we win even if we lynch 3 scum in succession, because scum KP will always be 3, and then 2 (scum kill more townies than we lynch scum). Woke up, read through the thread and notice this little gem. He makes a post regarding how mafia would win a 10v6 and accidentally puts in we win, we being scum. Gonzaw, do you have a confession to make? Are you scum?
Your team is Adam4167, Artanis[Xp], Toadesstern, Zealos, VisceraEyes and zelblade
Do you know what that entails?
Hint: It entails you are scum. It entails you are scum trying to discredit a good plan that can fuck up scum. It entails that you are trying to discredit the plan by pointing out asinine points like "We can't assume anything about the JKs".
It entails that you "found" a scumslip from me and you are trying to milk it as much as you can.
This means that you are:
-Discrediting my case (by implying I'm scum)
-Disrupting town by focusing, and making others focus on that stupid "scumslip", while avoiding other discussion
-Because of said disruption, you shift the attention away from my plan, so even if you are not directly discrediting, you are "burying it" so people won't take notice of it or the discussion that stems from it
-Faking to scumhunt.
Of course, you use the "We can't assume anything about the JK's cooperation, you assume something about the JK's cooperation therefore your plan is shit" card (which is not valid itself), but you also say that you actually think JKs should cooperate in this scenario?
You contradicted yourself there, but it's not a small thing because you kept going about it.
It's not a small contradiction about some thing barely noticed, it's something you use as the heart of your rebuttal of my plan. It would be impossible for you not to notice that contradiction of yours, unless of course you are scum and you don't care.
##Vote: VisceraEyes
|
Yep, and i confronted him about his contradiction and he did not respond at all.
|
Honestly, if a GF flips then don't much think about it. We won't be able to analyze it. The method gonzaw wants gives the ability for scum to kill the power roles we do need (tk, jk), so i don't like it. We have to focus on killing goons as they control the KP without thinking too much about the vig. After that it shouldn't be that hard.
|
/confirm
Usually millers have to claim as soon as they realize they are millers; However in this case the millers are also vigilantes, and we can't really protect them without RBing them.
I also will see a problem when, for example, one person claims vigilante; as in, the GFs didn't claim. Suddenly all the info we got from these "claims" is that our only vigilante is outed and mafia got a target on his head.
gonzaw didn't seem to care about this one possibility; I don't like that. I didn't read much past page 10 tho, and gotta go to sleep and go into my inactive mode(as I said before the game).
That's all.
~cya
|
Yo anyone else reading paqman's posts... cause you guys should... scummy as fuck
|
On April 21 2012 12:50 johnnywup wrote:
Honestly, if a GF flips then don't much think about it. We won't be able to analyze it. The method gonzaw wants gives the ability for scum to kill the power roles we do need (tk, jk), so i don't like it. We have to focus on killing goons as they control the KP without thinking too much about the vig. After that it shouldn't be that hard.
If a GF flips, it means that everything you've done until then was pointless.
Imagine there's a player that's scummy, and you vote him. Then other scummy people start voting him. You say "Oh well, they must be bussing him". Then that guy flips GF. If those were scum, were they bussing him or were they tunneling a vig?
You played the whole previous day assuming they were bussing him or something, and that you would find out after he flips, but after that all your analysis was rendered moot.
If that player had claimed vig beforehand, you wouldn't have made that "Oh they must be bussing him, I'll check that after he flips" analysis, and you, with the rest of town, would focus on other things, and focus on how other players react to said player knowing he will either flip GF or Goon, etc.
If vigs claimed, you would have the foresight of knowing his flip; and scum will know that players alignment once he flips anyways, so they will have the same info, but they may actually play with town before getting him lynched if he hadn't claimed.
Anyways johnny, what do you think of VE then?
|
To elaborate
On April 21 2012 10:49 PaqMan wrote:
I like Gonzaw's idea of the vig's claiming. Only problem with that is that Scum will have a list of vig's and won't have to do any sniping..
So now that I think about it, I don't really like that idea at all lol.
Town can't keep assuming things this game. It'll make an ass out of u and me. We don't know how many of what roles there are and continuous speculation isn't going to help at all.
This reads to me as "i don't want to take a side, i want to look like i like both sides to the argument" also, lets change subject (but wait, read on)
On April 21 2012 11:43 PaqMan wrote:
Woops, I'm sorry! Scarface is on tv and I'm trying to multitask. It isn't working out obviously, so I'll be back in about three hours.
apology post and leave to get away from being wrong.
On April 21 2012 11:49 PaqMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 11:34 VisceraEyes wrote:Paq he's talking about if there are more than 3 CLAIMS. If there are more than three CLAIMS then there's guaranteed to be a liar in the bunch, which is what he's saying. Now go be a good lad and vote for gonzaw.  I'm not convinced that he made a scum slip. When he said "our" he could have been referring to whoever agreed with his points. I want to see what Gonzaw has to say about your accusation.
Interestingly filmsy opinion again, to me this just feels like he has more information than I do
On April 21 2012 12:01 PaqMan wrote:
But I do agree with you VE. Giving scum any more info puts them in an even greater advantage over us. A mass vig claim would be the same as handing them a hit list.
some of gonzaw's points however are pretty valid (no late-game chaos with vig claiming before lynch, etc etc).
Either way, I can't see a vig following either one of y'alls policies.
He claims, town lynches him and nothing is gained.
He claims, chance of mafia taking him out or keeps him alive, either way there's chaos.
I suggest that our vigilante (if we have one) doesn't claim at all. If he's about to be lynched then he needs to defend himself as a normal townie because claiming vig is going to create a shitstorm for us, which gives scum the upper hand.
If he's going to use his kp one someone, he doesn't need to claim before or after the kill. It's going to create too much confusion and WIFOM and finger-pointing and shit.
So I think that vigilantes should not make any claims this game.
I know how much we love the 3rd and 4th person to jump on an opinion and now that he knows people will agree with him, he can be firm in his assertion
|
@gonzaw
but what stops actual gfs from doing the same thing? its stupid, because we still can't know.
I think you and VE are going at each other based on nothing.
Although:
I don't like you using someone elses meta to explain his behavior though. That's retarded.
I don't like his avoiding people asking him why JKs wouldnt co-operate. That's also retarded.
Although it may just be that VE just doesn't think JKs would co-operate even though they should. Lack of trust maybe.
Either way both of you are just attacking each other without that much actual substance. He's pressuring you, gonzaw, and you're over-reacting.
|
hey johnny whatchu think of the post above yours
|
i agree, i thought he was scummy even before you mentioned it but i didn't say anything because i wanted him to continue posting until he had more scummy posts so i could make a better argument on him.
Can we have filters added to op?
|
On April 21 2012 13:17 johnnywup wrote:
i agree, i thought he was scummy even before you mentioned it but i didn't say anything because i wanted him to continue posting until he had more scummy posts so i could make a better argument on him.
Can we have filters added to op?
Im not the one who posted the OP so I can't edit :/, iGrok will do it I guess once he goes online again.
|
you can make it for him
and johnny care to elaborate on what you agree or disagree with about paq, and maybe shed some new light to me.
bedtime... i'll be up in like 9 hours back at it again so you euros can play with me too
|
On April 21 2012 13:10 Mattchew wrote:To elaborate Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 10:49 PaqMan wrote:
I like Gonzaw's idea of the vig's claiming. Only problem with that is that Scum will have a list of vig's and won't have to do any sniping..
So now that I think about it, I don't really like that idea at all lol.
Town can't keep assuming things this game. It'll make an ass out of u and me. We don't know how many of what roles there are and continuous speculation isn't going to help at all. This reads to me as "i don't want to take a side, i want to look like i like both sides to the argument" also, lets change subject (but wait, read on) Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 11:43 PaqMan wrote:
Woops, I'm sorry! Scarface is on tv and I'm trying to multitask. It isn't working out obviously, so I'll be back in about three hours. apology post and leave to get away from being wrong. Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 11:49 PaqMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:34 VisceraEyes wrote:Paq he's talking about if there are more than 3 CLAIMS. If there are more than three CLAIMS then there's guaranteed to be a liar in the bunch, which is what he's saying. Now go be a good lad and vote for gonzaw. I'm not convinced that he made a scum slip. When he said "our" he could have been referring to whoever agreed with his points. I want to see what Gonzaw has to say about your accusation. Interestingly filmsy opinion again, to me this just feels like he has more information than I do Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 12:01 PaqMan wrote:
But I do agree with you VE. Giving scum any more info puts them in an even greater advantage over us. A mass vig claim would be the same as handing them a hit list.
some of gonzaw's points however are pretty valid (no late-game chaos with vig claiming before lynch, etc etc).
Either way, I can't see a vig following either one of y'alls policies.
He claims, town lynches him and nothing is gained.
He claims, chance of mafia taking him out or keeps him alive, either way there's chaos.
I suggest that our vigilante (if we have one) doesn't claim at all. If he's about to be lynched then he needs to defend himself as a normal townie because claiming vig is going to create a shitstorm for us, which gives scum the upper hand.
If he's going to use his kp one someone, he doesn't need to claim before or after the kill. It's going to create too much confusion and WIFOM and finger-pointing and shit.
So I think that vigilantes should not make any claims this game.
I know how much we love the 3rd and 4th person to jump on an opinion and now that he knows people will agree with him, he can be firm in his assertion
lolwut?
You can disregard my first post because I do end up choosing a side. I don't like either one of their policies. Killing our only KP roles sounds blatantly stupid, but so does forcing them to claim. Trying to control them and tell them where to aim is going to be chaos. What if it's a GF that claims vigi? We wont know if he's lying or not because his target could coincidentally be jailed. Or what if the whole mafia team claims along with the vigis? It'll be a shitstorm. Yes killing our KP would stop that scenario from happening but then we'd have to rely on lynches and our trackers (if we have any). And what if the trackers suck at persuading people?
It's a bunch of what-if's and WIFOM that is getting us NO WHERE. So I'm pleading to all our vigi's, if they want to be pro-town then DONT CLAIM.
Your first three quotes are empty one-liners, they don't prove anything and I don't see at all how they make you FoS me.
I know how much we love the 3rd and 4th person to jump on an opinion and now that he knows people will agree with him, he can be firm in his assertion
Nobody has agreed with me on MY opinion, so where is that conclusion coming from??
|
Mattchew you fail to point out anything scummy about me and now your asking your buddy to do it for you?
|
To Zephird:
On April 21 2012 12:58 Zephirdd wrote:
/confirm
Usually millers have to claim as soon as they realize they are millers; However in this case the millers are also vigilantes, and we can't really protect them without RBing them.
I also will see a problem when, for example, one person claims vigilante; as in, the GFs didn't claim. Suddenly all the info we got from these "claims" is that our only vigilante is outed and mafia got a target on his head.
gonzaw didn't seem to care about this one possibility; I don't like that. I didn't read much past page 10 tho, and gotta go to sleep and go into my inactive mode(as I said before the game).
That's all.
~cya
Right, so yes, in that case our vig is outed, and mafia got a target on his head..
...so? Let scum kill our vigilante so they don't kill our TK/JK and so it gets rid of our "WIFOM element" then, or let him live but have his night actions, plus maybe the actions of a tracker/JK confirm him as town.
He's a miller that flips GF and has the possibility of shooting townies; the sooner he's dead then the better.
Of course if he's alive we can use his shot to coordinate a night kill, but if scum kill him they are doing us a favour.
Also, if only 1 vig claims, then ANY other GF flip is FROM CONFIRMED SCUM (since all vigs would have claimed before).
So now, I did "care about this one possibility".
I still don't like how people just disregard everything I say and plans I make, seems like UG all over again 
To Mattchew:
What do you think about VE then? And what do you think about this plan thing and me "scumslipping" or some shit?
Paqman does flipflop around too much, but other than that I don't find him suspicious. I'd like your thoughts on other matters first Matt, and of course other people's thoughts on Paq and VE.
However I dunno why it seems to me you are actively avoiding the VE thing or trying to draw attention somewhere else than on VE. So please don't avoid it.
To Johnny:
On April 21 2012 13:13 johnnywup wrote:
@gonzaw
but what stops actual gfs from doing the same thing? its stupid, because we still can't know.
Doing what?
Even if it were "pointless" (trust me it's not), having vigs NOT claim doesn't make anything better.
The pros of having vigs claim are better than them not claiming, and the cons may be the same regarding the GF flip (even though I think they are not).
So the cons are the same (again, I don't think they are, but let's assume them for the sake of the argument) but vigs claiming has more pros, so it's the better choice anyways.
I don't like you using someone elses meta to explain his behavior though. That's retarded.
lol is that the only thing you've noticed from my post?
And it's not meta, it's scum behaviour.
Artanis' scum meta is barely posting until people accuse him. Him pointing out my "scumslip" has nothing to do with his meta, but with his behaviour.
Please read my accusation on him and post what you think about it.
You know, the one where he discredits my plan because of a retarded JK matter, where he FoSes me based on a stupid "scumslip" (which he should have known is stupid and doesn't matter at all) and therefore keeps discrediting my plan as well, and where he avoids discussing things people ask him, or where he tries to disrupt town (just pick anything from that post I made).
He's pressuring you, gonzaw, and you're over-reacting.
He's FoSing, voting me and making 90% of his posts a reminder to other people to vote me, because of a "scumslip".
That's not pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
