EPTOn July 01 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote:
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote:
Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote:
Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote:
EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped.
On July 01 2012 10:22 Keirathi wrote:
While I agree that we have to find some credible evidence to decide on who to lynch eventually, it's pretty counter-productive to discuss it today if we do decide to no-lynch. If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. No-lynching gives us one less person to have to try to build a case against.
Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day.
While I agree that we have to find some credible evidence to decide on who to lynch eventually, it's pretty counter-productive to discuss it today if we do decide to no-lynch. If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. No-lynching gives us one less person to have to try to build a case against.
Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day.
This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered.
I also feel we are wasting our nights because we are too afraid of posting some revolutionary new idea or case that will get us shot. If it is posted and gains enough momentum during the night with enough people agreeing, I don't see why mafia would choose to shoot that person over any other player who agreed. This no lynch is something that we could definitely have discussed in the night. Keirathi, you could've posted your no lynch idea earlier in the night for others to discuss. Had we reached a consensus before the day started, I see no reason for mafia to target you over any other player. Even if we did not reach a consensus during the night, your idea and posts during the night would still have been there for us to reflect on while discussing a no lynch.
Anyway, I am opposed to a no lynch for the above mentioned reasons for now, and am very likely to vote for Esspen.
