|
On February 27 2013 05:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 04:05 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:19 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:11 thrawn2112 wrote:
i might switch to double lynch if some of the adam voters will too Err, it's instant majority, so unless you won't be around to hammer Keir if he approaches the 8 votes needed to lynch, you can safely make that statement by unvoting. Mind explaining how unconcerned you seemed about the duel? You were around at the time, so give us your story. Did the duel come out of the blue? It did for me as I was reading it. You seem pretty calm: On February 26 2013 16:45 thrawn2112 wrote:
##Vote: Keirathi
adam mind explaining why you had to call for the duel right now? Mind explaining your thought process at the time? This tunneling on the idea of the double lynch is incredibly scummy. Let it go, there's no way we're double lynching today, stop dissuading people from placing votes... I like the idea of a scumhunt challenge, just wish it was actually happening. Interesting. Why is it scummy to want to double lynch? Got off on a rant the first time I answered this question and accidentally closed the tab. Do you really need to explain to you why lynching twice on the first day is less effective than lynching once? No. You need to explain why it's scummy to want it.
It sets the town back a lynch. Period. To advocate setting the town back a night is scummy. I feel like I'm getting trolled, it seems so obvious that a double lynch is a bad idea right now.
You are the ONLY one who believes that they BOTH are extremely scummy. If I'm having a hard time trying to pick one to vote for, we're not killing them both.
|
On February 27 2013 05:27 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 05:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 04:05 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:19 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:11 thrawn2112 wrote:
i might switch to double lynch if some of the adam voters will too Err, it's instant majority, so unless you won't be around to hammer Keir if he approaches the 8 votes needed to lynch, you can safely make that statement by unvoting. Mind explaining how unconcerned you seemed about the duel? You were around at the time, so give us your story. Did the duel come out of the blue? It did for me as I was reading it. You seem pretty calm: On February 26 2013 16:45 thrawn2112 wrote:
##Vote: Keirathi
adam mind explaining why you had to call for the duel right now? Mind explaining your thought process at the time? This tunneling on the idea of the double lynch is incredibly scummy. Let it go, there's no way we're double lynching today, stop dissuading people from placing votes... I like the idea of a scumhunt challenge, just wish it was actually happening. Interesting. Why is it scummy to want to double lynch? Got off on a rant the first time I answered this question and accidentally closed the tab. Do you really need to explain to you why lynching twice on the first day is less effective than lynching once? No. You need to explain why it's scummy to want it. It sets the town back a lynch. Period. To advocate setting the town back a night is scummy. I feel like I'm getting trolled, it seems so obvious that a double lynch is a bad idea right now. You are the ONLY one who believes that they BOTH are extremely scummy. If I'm having a hard time trying to pick one to vote for, we're not killing them both.
Yeah, you keep repeating your arguments that it's not a good idea. But you said it was scummy of me to want it. I have not heard a SINGLE argument that makes it scum-motivated, rather than something you don't agree with.
|
I have to be getting trolled..... like.... you have to be fucking me....
Lets do this slow.
It is scummy because it advocates these ends:
- less time for discussion
- increased deaths at the time of least information
- dilutes voting and makes patterns more difficult to spot
- decreases motivation for duelers to present cases
Those are all facts. Double lynching does all of the things above. This has to do with what's in the towns best interest, and none of those things are in the towns best interest, thus I don't think it is a good idea.
I'm done with this. We won't be double killing tonight.
|
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
|
EBWOP, in paragraph 2 no-lynch should obviously be double-lynch.
|
Where did Sylencia disappear to... again?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now.
+ Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss.
I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable.
|
Tic toc tic toc.
Adam, Keirath, I need a write up on scum so I can make a decision. Just need some analysis, your best analysis, to keep you alive in the game.
|
More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him?
|
On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him?
Let's get a little different convo going.
If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts?
|
On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts?
Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it?
Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second).
|
On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second).
I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded.
Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel?
|
Duel 1 Vote Count
Adam4167 (3): yamato77, Sylencia, cDgCorazon
Keirathi (2): thrawn2112 , Hapahauli
7 votes needed to lynch. If a majority is not reached by 07:40 GMT (+00:00), both duelists will die.
|
On February 27 2013 06:32 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second). I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded. Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel?
No. If he's scum, then both Marv and I were gunning for him correctly. Scum has to be very careful of defending that.
|
On February 27 2013 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:32 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second). I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded. Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel? No. If he's scum, then both Marv and I were gunning for him correctly. Scum has to be very careful of defending that.
That's enough buddying Marv for one day, big dog.
|
On February 27 2013 07:13 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:32 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second). I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded. Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel? No. If he's scum, then both Marv and I were gunning for him correctly. Scum has to be very careful of defending that. That's enough buddying Marv for one day, big dog.
Huh?
|
Alderan, do you think I'm scum?
|
so we have two people up for lynch. we have to lynch at least one of them.
1) both scum. this is dumb but if it's true then it's not a possibility worth worrying about. win-win
2) both town. if this is the case then we are fucked either way. lose-lose
3) one town, the other scum. win-lose
Option 3 is the only option worth worrying about. If 1 is true, it's a win-win and if 2 is true we're in a lose-lose. So there's not much use in considering either option as a real possibility. 1/2 might be true but in either case there's nothing we can do about it.
So now we are in a position where it makes sense that for the rest of the cycle, we might as well at least assume that only one of them is likely to be scum. Don't place your votes based on which option you think is the lesser of two evil, I want reasons for why the person you're voting for has a higher chance to flip scum than the other.
Which explanation makes more sense:
A townie haves an emotional omgus reaction and duels his accuser or a mafia player making a similar omgus styled play?
Then you have to look at each of their filters.
Even if you like keir's point about adam's possible self-promotion, you cannot ignore that it's all keir has talked about. He's said a few things about how I wasn't playing up to my town meta, and lately he's said that I've been hopping around on thread sentiment. These points are lazy and anyone could make them. And those 2 'reads' are keir's entire contribution to the game thus far. I am having a hard time believing that out of all the things that have happened in the thread, an early meta read on me and the tunneling of a single point about adam is all he would be able to come up and be suspicious of if he were town.
|
On February 27 2013 07:27 Acrofales wrote:
Alderan, do you think I'm scum?
I had suspicions on you early, but I those have kind of subsided. I'm certainly not putting you in the confirmed list, more null, but you're asking question I want answered so no reason to push you right now. You were just the only one talking in the thread, and like I said, I'm not completely sold.
|
On February 27 2013 07:45 Alderan wrote:I had suspicions on you early, but I those have kind of subsided. I'm certainly not putting you in the confirmed list, more null, but you're asking question I want answered so no reason to push you right now. You were just the only one talking in the thread, and like I said, I'm not completely sold.
Then wat was this about? What is the purpose of this post:
On February 27 2013 07:13 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:32 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second). I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded. Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel? No. If he's scum, then both Marv and I were gunning for him correctly. Scum has to be very careful of defending that. That's enough buddying Marv for one day, big dog.
In other news, what do you think of that post by Thrawn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
