|
On October 17 2012 09:15 Alan Schaefer wrote:
We don't want to rely too much on the "comparing posting styles" though. It's definitely possible to manipulate that kind of thing. I think we have to watch out for the "themed game pitfall," focusing on the "new and interesting" information to the exclusion of traditional analyses. It's just one more piece of information; but part of me thinks that scum will be pretty focused on it day2 so it may be less reliable than we think.
I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow.
However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
|
On October 17 2012 09:23 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:15 Alan Schaefer wrote:
We don't want to rely too much on the "comparing posting styles" though. It's definitely possible to manipulate that kind of thing. I think we have to watch out for the "themed game pitfall," focusing on the "new and interesting" information to the exclusion of traditional analyses. It's just one more piece of information; but part of me thinks that scum will be pretty focused on it day2 so it may be less reliable than we think. I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow.However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
First bolded thing - change of stance and change of "posting style" are different things imo. Not really important until tomorrow though.
Mislynches: on the one hand, you make sense, but we only have one mislynch until LYLO. I would really hope that no one in this game would lurk, it would hurt the game very much. Yeah, if it looks like someone is holding back and trying not to expose themselves, that is definitely something we should see as promoting a scum agenda.
|
On October 17 2012 09:15 Alan Schaefer wrote:
We don't want to rely too much on the "comparing posting styles" though. It's definitely possible to manipulate that kind of thing. I think we have to watch out for the "themed game pitfall," focusing on the "new and interesting" information to the exclusion of traditional analyses. It's just one more piece of information; but part of me thinks that scum will be pretty focused on it day2 so it may be less reliable than we think.
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
On October 17 2012 09:23 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:15 Alan Schaefer wrote:
We don't want to rely too much on the "comparing posting styles" though. It's definitely possible to manipulate that kind of thing. I think we have to watch out for the "themed game pitfall," focusing on the "new and interesting" information to the exclusion of traditional analyses. It's just one more piece of information; but part of me thinks that scum will be pretty focused on it day2 so it may be less reliable than we think. I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow. However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
A policy against lurkers is going to be supported by everyone but everyone also knows that we have to take things as they come and evaluate the situation we find ourselves in. That said, we only have one single mislynch and I don't think we should take any chances with it. Lurkers are devastating because we don't have any of the usual tools for dealing with them (cop, vigilante) at our disposal.
|
I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active.
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
|
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote:
I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
#1) How do you know how active scum is going to be? It makes no sense for scum to be magically active in this specific setup when the general trend of scum-play is far more lurky. What makes this game any different? An anonymity mechanic won't encourage people to be active - arguably, it'll encourage people to be more lurky, as normally active townies (assuming a veteran presence in this game) don't have to worry about their meta.
#2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am.
#3) Scum are more than welcome to be active. The problem is that it bites them in the ass the second they make an NK and we have the filter of a confirmed scumteam member.
Oh, and on the subject of an instalynch mechanic, I really don't think people should be afraid of throwing around their votes. I encourage people to throw around their votes as it provides a lot of pressure in an insta-lynch game, and I suggest that when people vote, they try and post the vote-count so that we can keep track of votes throughout the day. HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone.
|
1. I don't, I do realize that it wont be hard to appear active in this game and that with only 2 scum its not hard to have them both being active. That is why this is different because of the extremely small nature of this game.
2. I would hope that any competent townie would realize how reckless any policy lynch is in such a small game. I don't feel a sense of fear of a mislynch in your posting.
3. This is why in scum in thread relationships will be more forged than ever.
HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone.
Scum can hammer all they want and just have that person do their killing.
|
On October 17 2012 13:18 Jack Slater wrote:
1. I don't, I do realize that it wont be hard to appear active in this game and that with only 2 scum its not hard to have them both being active. That is why this is different because of the extremely small nature of this game.
I still really disagree - you're assuming that scum will play well or optimal, which is just silly. Especially since we don't know who's in the game.
2. I would hope that any competent townie would realize how reckless any policy lynch is in such a small game. I don't feel a sense of fear of a mislynch in your posting.
Why the hell would I be scared of a mislynch a few hours into the game? And i really don't think my policy lynch is as reckless as you suggest.
3. This is why in scum in thread relationships will be more forged than ever.
Sooooo we agree here?
Show nested quote +HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone. Scum can hammer all they want and just have that person do their killing.
Oh I suppose that's true in this specific setup. Scum can hammer and then shed their skin to replace another person. I'll have to think about this one a bit more.
|
And to continue on lurker lynching - ideally we don't use it at all. But it's each of your individual duties as town to be active and create a situation where if we have to lynch a lurker, it will be scum guaranteed.
|
EBWOP:
"ideally we don't use it at all" = if there are no lurkers and everyone's active and everything's sunshine and rainbows.
|
On October 17 2012 12:53 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote:
I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all. #2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am.
Hmmm... this is a pretty interesting reaction. "you should know because you have experience" is not at all how I would have interpreted that. It shouldn't take experience to know that if we only have one mislynch before lylo, using it on a policy lynch is dangerous. Why did you interpret it in this way and why did you react so strongly (evidenced by the bold)?
|
Day 1, MAGNIFIED
Lurkers - All players should be judged by the content of their posts and the ramifications of their actions in-thread. That being said, the only successful towns are active towns. Let's be a successful town, yes? Penchant to lurk is certainly going to factor in to lynchable offenses whether we make a policy of it or not. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it in assent...we should judge each case individually, and decide if the lurking is scummy vs. just blindly lynching for activity. How easy is it going to be for scum if even 1 person goes inactive for half a day and everyone has agreed to a policy of lynching lurkers?
WIFOM - Due to the nature of this setup, there is likely to be quite a bit of WIFOM regarding the hammers and the NKs. For my part, I'd like to keep the WIFOM to a dull roar. First of all, scum get to read everything in this thread - let's not make their lives easier by inventing motivations for others or tunneling each other unto insanity. Try and use only facts in your theories.
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Scum-Hunting
Method - This game is going to be interesting for me for a number of reasons, but mostly because I've been interested in "metaless" games recently. However I don't think this game is going to be that. It's going to be "personality-less", but the metagame is going to be EXTREMELY potent in this game. As the scum replace their night-kill, I expect we'll be in a phear-phrenzy by D2 and will be trying to come up with ALL SORTS of external ways to incriminate people...from the times that people are active to the number of ellipses in their posts. THIS IS ALL HORRIBLE! THIS IS ALL EASILY FAKED BY SKILLED SCUM.
Instead I urge town to focus on things that matter - people keeping their stories straight in regard to A) their motivations for posting, and B) their suspicions and the reasoning for them.
The Catch - We get to start over every new day. Joy.
And so, let us go forth and hunt the scums together.
|
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
What makes the thread more readable is concision, thoughtfulness, and clear explanations. Please to strive for those. The post you just posted does not have those.
|
Thanks for boiling down my post unfairly to that one point. o.o
What I meant by "longer" was basically just not popping in with one-liner responses to everything going on in the thread. There's nothing more infuriating than 2 people quoting back and forth for pages and pages. This isn't IRC, this is a forum. Say everything you mean to say all at once...then let EVERYONE get a chance to respond.
Thanks though, that did need clarification.
|
Hi all! Had some smurf issues, but let's get rockin ^^
On October 17 2012 15:41 Ben Richards wrote:
Day 1, MAGNIFIED
Lurkers - All players should be judged by the content of their posts and the ramifications of their actions in-thread. That being said, the only successful towns are active towns. Let's be a successful town, yes? Penchant to lurk is certainly going to factor in to lynchable offenses whether we make a policy of it or not. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it in assent...we should judge each case individually, and decide if the lurking is scummy vs. just blindly lynching for activity. How easy is it going to be for scum if even 1 person goes inactive for half a day and everyone has agreed to a policy of lynching lurkers?
WIFOM - Due to the nature of this setup, there is likely to be quite a bit of WIFOM regarding the hammers and the NKs. For my part, I'd like to keep the WIFOM to a dull roar. First of all, scum get to read everything in this thread - let's not make their lives easier by inventing motivations for others or tunneling each other unto insanity. Try and use only facts in your theories.
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Scum-Hunting
Method - This game is going to be interesting for me for a number of reasons, but mostly because I've been interested in "metaless" games recently. However I don't think this game is going to be that. It's going to be "personality-less", but the metagame is going to be EXTREMELY potent in this game. As the scum replace their night-kill, I expect we'll be in a phear-phrenzy by D2 and will be trying to come up with ALL SORTS of external ways to incriminate people...from the times that people are active to the number of ellipses in their posts. THIS IS ALL HORRIBLE! THIS IS ALL EASILY FAKED BY SKILLED SCUM.
Instead I urge town to focus on things that matter - people keeping their stories straight in regard to A) their motivations for posting, and B) their suspicions and the reasoning for them.
The Catch - We get to start over every new day. Joy.
And so, let us go forth and hunt the scums together.
Most of this post is pretty bad. One of the main, obvious (it's been pointed out) facts about this setup is that we only have ONE mislynch. Further, the NK mechanic on top of this leads to what should be an undeniable conclusion:
Lurking in this setup is much, much worse for town than in pretty much any other setup ever.
You say "and decide if the lurking is scummy" - in this setup lurking is simply downright scummy in itself, rather than just bad / fucking infuriating. Anyone who lurks IS absolutely playing with scum objective, and in this game where I hope everyone is experienced, we should be punishing lurking really, really heavily.
Your WIFOM point. Thank you for saying pointless nothings about WIFOM, super helpful. "Using only facts"?? what does this even mean?
Thread Consolidation, again why are you telling experienced players how to post?
Your 'Method' of scumhunting - again, the nature of this setup is that we have ONE mislynch, and therefore the analysis of NK/replacement is going to be absolutely vital to us. Downplaying this is ridiculous. Of course skilled scum will do well to imitate who they replace, this goes without saying. We have to be better than that and look beyond the obvious and make reads. It's a vital tool.
The whole post is pretty scummy for talking crap / stating the obvious / downplaying important aspects such as lurking / NK analysis.
Someone else brought up that several players in this game could well be easily recognisable. As town, this can only be a good thing. Thinking about it before the game started, I'd say it is in the absolute best interests of townies to be as 'stylistic' and non-neutral as possible in their posting. To make NKs that much harder. I want Harry Tasker to be really motherfucking Harry Tasker and you guys should want that for yourselves too, I think.
|
On October 17 2012 15:41 Ben Richards wrote:
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Sorry to double post, but this part irked me even more having pressed Submit on my last post.
Personally I find it quite easy as scum to make larger, "well thought out" posts. Why? Because you get to think about them and construct them. I get plenty of town/scum reads by how people simply interact in the thread, whether they're asking apposite questions, whether they're invested in town, how they relate to other people. In addition, in a 7 player setup, it's not very likely in the slightest, even if we're all posting demons, that the thread is going to get wildly out of control.
Fake-contributing = ez pz. Interactions and relations with other players (i.e. often by shorter posts) - not so easy to maintain.
Top suspect is this dudette.
|
On October 17 2012 15:33 Alan Schaefer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 12:53 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote:
I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all. #2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am. Hmmm... this is a pretty interesting reaction. "you should know because you have experience" is not at all how I would have interpreted that. It shouldn't take experience to know that if we only have one mislynch before lylo, using it on a policy lynch is dangerous. Why did you interpret it in this way and why did you react so strongly (evidenced by the bold)?
I really don't care how you interpreted it - what's important to scumhunting is how I interpreted it. And I don't see my interpretation as necessarily wrong here. What does "one mislynch before lylo" have to do with anything? There's no reason why I should be scared of a mislynch hours into the game. It's not a concern yet, and won't be a concern until we really start generating content in order to effectively scumhunt.
|
@ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
|
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
@ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
|
|
|
On October 17 2012 23:00 Harry Tasker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
@ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood. it's the fact it's try-hard... it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
Also, his post is content-less, but it's NOT completely "wrong" as you suggest. Hell you yourself accuse him of "stating the obvious" (hellooooo contradiction). I'm more interested in reading into sincerity when reading that post, and he seems rather eager to start things off. Townie to me for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
