|
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?
|
On February 27 2013 03:19 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On February 27 2013 03:25 thrawn2112 wrote:
acro what are you talking about? idk what you're asking
I'm asking you to explain what you thought when Adam decided to duel. What was your opinion of Adam at the time, when he made the duel post?
|
@Keir: same question as for thrawn. At the time you seemed slightly upset about being dueled by Adam. Did you think it was more likely for Adam or Thrawn to be scum? They seemed to be your only reads at the time.
On February 26 2013 16:46 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 16:25 Adam4167 wrote:On February 26 2013 15:45 Keirathi wrote:On February 26 2013 15:16 thrawn2112 wrote:On February 26 2013 15:12 Keirathi wrote:
EBWOP: That's why it came across as fake to me. Town doesn't benefit from your stance at all (unless you want to argue that you are more likely town than yamato), only you do. keir I feel like this point isn't going to go anywhere... what else makes you think adam is scum? Nothing else. I'm not entirely convinced Adam is scum, but I wanted some comments on it. On February 26 2013 15:20 Adam4167 wrote:
This point isnt going anywhere because there is no point to begin with.
Even if I were stepping forward to 'duel on towns behalf after yamato died or otherwise', how does that show only scum motivation? It could just as easily be coming from a townie wanting to fight.
Bad case. You're brushing away my point with trivialities. I don't really give a shit what your actual stance on who should duel is, if you can provide good reasoning and show why its good for town. What does concern me is that I can't see any actual point to your stance. How is it beneficial to town? You see, the problem is, you may never even have to back your stance up in this game. What if every day we have a town collective agreement on who should duel? Or someone goes balls deep and duels on their own? Or someone refuses to duel, and we have a Likely Townie step in the duel the person who refuses? Etc, etc. When it gets to day 6 or something, and you've never had to actually back up your opinion on how you would handle the dueling, you can still say "But look guys, I'm town because I had a unique idea day 1 even though it didn't actually mean anything and I never had to put it into practice!" Do you not see how that could be beneficial for scum? I don't even know what the hell you're arguing anymore. Whatever it is, it isn't making me scum. Mess with the bull, you get the horns. ##Duel: Keirathi Congrats on your e-peen wagging contest. I was trying to explain my original paranoia and figure you out, but you jump the gun instead of giving people time to discuss it. Anyways I'm going to bed for reals now. G'nite.
This post is rather vague. Did you feel he was scummy for dueling you? Or did you feel it was a douche town move?
|
@Hapa:
On February 27 2013 02:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 02:42 Hapahauli wrote:Oh damnit sniped by Oats. On February 27 2013 02:37 Oatsmaster wrote:On February 27 2013 02:18 Hapahauli wrote:
Thing is, Kei has done nothing to show me that he's town, and having played a couple of games with Adam, I find it really doubtful that he'd pull something like this as scum. Wait what? How many games have you played with Kei? You are calling Keirathi scummy for not playing to his town meta or his scum meta, but Adam is not scum because he isnt playing to his scum meta, or his town meta as Acro showed. How did you get this reasoning? I've played a couple of games with Kei, and heavily obs'd some more games that he was in. And you're completely twisting my argument. Yes Kei is playing differently than I've seen him play as both alignments in the past. However, I'm voting Kei right now because Adam's actions make very little sense from a scum-Adam perspective (given meta, demeanor, bravery, etc), and Kei has given me no reason to think he's town. If you take Adam's meta, demeanor and bravery into account, how can you ignore his town meta? He has never done anything remotely like pulling a stunt like this. Not in CT, not in WLIIA and not in LIX. The other games I recall from him are Hero where he was scum and a couple of games where he was modkilled for inactivity. Please explain how meticulous Adam, who writes cautious cases deliberating different angles, suddenly throws caution to the wind and says "FUCK YOU, I'M PALMAR BITCHES". What part of Adam's town meta am I missing?
|
@Hapa: never mind, I missed your answer.
|
EBWOP. Lol, no I didn't, you only answered it just now 
|
On February 27 2013 03:43 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 02:51 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 02:42 Hapahauli wrote:Oh damnit sniped by Oats. On February 27 2013 02:37 Oatsmaster wrote:On February 27 2013 02:18 Hapahauli wrote:
Thing is, Kei has done nothing to show me that he's town, and having played a couple of games with Adam, I find it really doubtful that he'd pull something like this as scum. Wait what? How many games have you played with Kei? You are calling Keirathi scummy for not playing to his town meta or his scum meta, but Adam is not scum because he isnt playing to his scum meta, or his town meta as Acro showed. How did you get this reasoning? I've played a couple of games with Kei, and heavily obs'd some more games that he was in. And you're completely twisting my argument. Yes Kei is playing differently than I've seen him play as both alignments in the past. However, I'm voting Kei right now because Adam's actions make very little sense from a scum-Adam perspective (given meta, demeanor, bravery, etc), and Kei has given me no reason to think he's town. If you take Adam's meta, demeanor and bravery into account, how can you ignore his town meta? He has never done anything remotely like pulling a stunt like this. Not in CT, not in WLIIA and not in LIX. The other games I recall from him are Hero where he was scum and a couple of games where he was modkilled for inactivity. Please explain how meticulous Adam, who writes cautious cases deliberating different angles, suddenly throws caution to the wind and says "FUCK YOU, I'M PALMAR BITCHES". What part of Adam's town meta am I missing? But that's the thing - have you ever seen ANYTHING like this from scum Adam? No. It's at odds with his town mentality yes. However, it's even MORE at odds with his scum mentality.
Why is Keir being a lurker, something Keir clearly knows is a stupid scumtell, still a scumtell?
It is clearly at odds with both of his metas and you seem to think scum is more careful to not stand out like a sore thumb.
|
On February 27 2013 03:50 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 03:47 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:43 Hapahauli wrote:On February 27 2013 02:51 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 02:42 Hapahauli wrote:Oh damnit sniped by Oats. On February 27 2013 02:37 Oatsmaster wrote:On February 27 2013 02:18 Hapahauli wrote:
Thing is, Kei has done nothing to show me that he's town, and having played a couple of games with Adam, I find it really doubtful that he'd pull something like this as scum. Wait what? How many games have you played with Kei? You are calling Keirathi scummy for not playing to his town meta or his scum meta, but Adam is not scum because he isnt playing to his scum meta, or his town meta as Acro showed. How did you get this reasoning? I've played a couple of games with Kei, and heavily obs'd some more games that he was in. And you're completely twisting my argument. Yes Kei is playing differently than I've seen him play as both alignments in the past. However, I'm voting Kei right now because Adam's actions make very little sense from a scum-Adam perspective (given meta, demeanor, bravery, etc), and Kei has given me no reason to think he's town. If you take Adam's meta, demeanor and bravery into account, how can you ignore his town meta? He has never done anything remotely like pulling a stunt like this. Not in CT, not in WLIIA and not in LIX. The other games I recall from him are Hero where he was scum and a couple of games where he was modkilled for inactivity. Please explain how meticulous Adam, who writes cautious cases deliberating different angles, suddenly throws caution to the wind and says "FUCK YOU, I'M PALMAR BITCHES". What part of Adam's town meta am I missing? But that's the thing - have you ever seen ANYTHING like this from scum Adam? No. It's at odds with his town mentality yes. However, it's even MORE at odds with his scum mentality. Why is Keir being a lurker, something Keir clearly knows is a stupid scumtell, still a scumtell? It is clearly at odds with both of his metas and you seem to think scum is more careful to not stand out like a sore thumb. Thing is, I don't think Kei is intentionally lurking or anything. A lot of his posts have suggested he's busy with work/whatever. His lurking doesn't seem intentional, thus the situation is very different from Adam's intentional DERP duel.
So if Keir isn't intentionally lurking what do you find suspicious about his behaviour?
|
Let me get this straight, Hapa: you think it's entirely possible Keir is town, but think killing him is the lesser of two evils? If you were a pardoner, would you consider stopping this lynch?
|
On February 27 2013 04:16 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 04:10 yamato77 wrote:
The first lynch is the least informed lynch, and you want to make two of them. This. Oh and night actions could be valuable tonight. Oh and having a vote count gives more information. Oh and lynching both doesn't force either of them to make good arguments that could be helpful. Terrible play. Worse than Adam's duel imo.
Nights are valuable for scum. Expecting to rely on night actions is TERRIBLE play from town. Actually I'd argue threatening to lynch both of them makes for a FAR more effective hammer to force them both to start showing they're town.
If you say you're lynching Keirathi, you let Adam off the hook, and vice versa. I'm happy to say I'm lynching both of them unless they give me a reason to think they're town.
As for information from votecounts, voting for a double lynch gives you that same info. It's simply an extra option on the page. It's why I made my vote explicit, to set it apart from those who simply have no opinion.
It IS the least informed lynch, I agree on that with you, which is why we want to gather as much information as possible about it, but as long as both Adam and Keir look terrible, why not kill both of them?
|
On February 27 2013 04:05 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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 06:16 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 06:32 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 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
