Ugh no you're so wrong ok let me explain for you:

1) today we swap someone
2) tomorrow we lynch someone, and that person necessarily CANNOT BE THE GUY WE SWAPPED

So, if we swap a player we cannot lynch him, therefore we swap townies, not scum.

Clarity_nl

Netherlands6826 Posts

December 12 2012 00:56 GMT

#23

On December 12 2012 09:51 Blazinghand wrote:
Oh yeah clarity i have no idea why you think we should swap scum

We swap scum so they can get lynched ASAP. Then we lynch whoever the other world sends over.
I don't understand how that's hard to understand. If we send town and they send town then it'll be harder to find scum in both worlds, no? These are just preliminary thoughts anyway.

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 00:59 GMT

#24

If we swap scum scum literally CAN'T be lynched ASAP though cause they'll be in another swap vote rather than a kill vote. If you really are this wrong you are really, really bad at thinking. You should allow others to do it for you.

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 01:00 GMT

#25

"These are just preliminary thoughts anyways" no nothing you've done qualifies as a "thought"

Clarity_nl

Netherlands6826 Posts

December 12 2012 01:01 GMT

#26

Yes you're right I had things mixed up. For some reason I thought next cycle the other world is in a lynch but I'm clearly wrong, TT.

austinmcc

United States6737 Posts

December 12 2012 02:22 GMT

#27

Howdy all.

I'm down with no swapping THE scummiest person, whoever we want to lynch, but I don't think we have to send THE towniest. We just don't swap the guy we want to lynch.

This may potentially apply later on only, but it may be that we want to observe certain interactions or we want a specific person out of our world, and we just swap that guy. There's no need to only swap the guy we want to lynch the least, any person we don't want to lynch is fine.

imo, we swap someone who (1) we have a town read on; and (2) has TIME to commit to this game. A swap probably means keeping up with both threads, and participating actively in whatever thread you're in, and I think it's worth swapping a lesser town read who can actually tote that load, compared to someone who is townie but may not want to get swapped.

I guess...swapping seems like it should be a voluntary thing. We could treat it like a mayoral election (although that seems like a little much), and ask people who want to commit to swapping to volunteer for le swap.

yamato77

11589 Posts

December 12 2012 02:23 GMT

#28

Optimal town strategy is to scum hunt swap days, swap the towniest player, then lynch the scummers lynch day with lower risk of factional KP taking out our top scumhunters. With an organised town from both sides of the swap (difficult but possible) scum is put in a difficult situation with this.

austinmcc

United States6737 Posts

December 12 2012 02:27 GMT

#29

Also, the swaps need to be somewhat coordinated between both realms.

We don't want to be swapping our towniest players and getting their not-towniest in return. We're the first swappers, so we kind of have to set the tone, and make sure that they follow our lead for swaps. I guess it's worth considering whether we want a super-town realm and a scummier realm, but it seems preferable to keep them relatively even?

yamato77

11589 Posts

December 12 2012 02:27 GMT

#30

Austin's plan leaves our towniest players at the most risk for NK and is inherently more risky in that scum could definitely act towny enough to get swapped and never actually lynch anyone, then get swapped and give scum a numbers advantage on one side while making it harder to pick them out on the other

austinmcc

United States6737 Posts

December 12 2012 02:53 GMT

#31

On December 12 2012 11:27 yamato77 wrote:
Austin's plan leaves our towniest players at the most risk for NK and is inherently more risky in that scum could definitely act towny enough to get swapped and never actually lynch anyone, then get swapped and give scum a numbers advantage on one side while making it harder to pick them out on the other

Scum gets 1 NK across both realms. How does ANY kind of swapping leave someone "at the most risk for NK"?

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 02:54 GMT

#32

Why would a swapped player be more at risk for an NK? And if scum acts townie enough to always get perpetually swapped then he wouldn't get lynched anyways. We should just swap people we don't want to lynch, it seems simple enough to me.

yamato77

11589 Posts

December 12 2012 03:13 GMT

#33

On December 12 2012 11:53 austinmcc wrote:

Show nested quote +

Scum gets 1 NK across both realms. How does ANY kind of swapping leave someone "at the most risk for NK"?

I thought the mechanic worked differently. my mistake

sandroba

Canada4998 Posts

December 12 2012 03:25 GMT

#34

Yo. I'm gonna lurk my ass off this game. Sup.

sandroba

Canada4998 Posts

December 12 2012 03:37 GMT

#35

So I have an awesome plan as always. We need to coordinate with the other world so we can confirm fuckers as fast as possible. For that to be done we send to the other world the scummiest fucker and they lynch them there in the next cycle. We try to lynch mafia next cycle too, but the plan starts 2 cycles from now. Basically next cycle they send us their towniest player and we send them our scummiest player to be lynched. If we keep lynching people from our world we will confirm the remaining players here as quickly as possible and I believe that is optimal. After that we have a smaller problem to deal with. For this to work we have to comunicate with players from the other world and make sure they are on the same page. I believe this is within the rules.
Can I comunicate with people in the other world if I don't quote their posts? I.E. can I post here and read what they are posting there and cumunicate that way?

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

December 12 2012 03:40 GMT

#36

Yes you may do that.

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 03:45 GMT

#37

So your plan is to send them our scummiest player at the end of today, and tomorrow lynch someone other than that player, who also will not be lynched over there since tomorrow they will be voting to swap, not to lynch? Your plan is bad and you should feel bad. Even starting it 2 cycles from now some like "herding" of scummy players all into one half of the game will just cut our ability to lynch scum in half because half the time we'd be lynching into townie players. If your goal is to get as many effective lynches into this pool of players as possible (since we know there are exactly 2 scum) that's reasonable, but I don't see how this does that. They'd have to lynch the guy we sent them and he flips scum, AND we'd have to lynch scum the day after for this to confirm people faster than just lynching like normal, since we still lynch every other day.

You're overthinking this. It's really quite simple: today, get rid of someone who we don't want to lynch by sending him to the other camp. Tomorrow, lynch scum.

sandroba

Canada4998 Posts

December 12 2012 03:45 GMT

#38

@People from the other world what do you think about this?

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 03:46 GMT

#39

Yeah I guess this is all moot if everyone in the other world is like "yeah sandro's plan is bad" since you'd need their co-operation anyways

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 03:48 GMT

#40

Man what is it with people and trying to do something other than the straightforward method. It's not complex, guys: swap people you don't want to lynch, lynch scum.