|
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo.
|
Please PM me if you requested /obs and did not receive a QT link.
|
On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo.
For clarification, Day 1 is instant majority. There is just a 48 hour time-limit on the day. So you could lynch someone before that time-limit.
|
Pretty sure D1 is instant majority too, but we only have 48hrs to decide on a lynch as opposed to the open-ended limit of subsequent days.
Lazer can I clarify a couple of things about your policy post?
1) 24 hours from when? Someone giving intent to hammer? I'm not sure what this limit is designed to accomplish, given your second point.
2) This is basically stating the obvious. Are you going to find anyone who hammers instantly scummy?
|
1. Basically 24 hours from the point where a majority of all people feel like lynching someone.
2. Yes, if we are going to kill someone, we might as well wait for them to out their reads and what not. If said person doesn't have the option to do so(for example if we kill someone while they are sleeping) then the person hammering are actually indirectly preventing potential information from us because even if we wouldn't be swayed by said persons potential defense, or areå really, really convinced he is scum, the possibility of us being wrong still exist and his reads will at least give something to work with.
|
Hi guys. I'm town, just like VE and risk.nuke.
On April 02 2013 07:16 VisceraEyes wrote:
Pretty sure D1 is instant majority too, but we only have 48hrs to decide on a lynch as opposed to the open-ended limit of subsequent days.
Lazer can I clarify a couple of things about your policy post?
1) 24 hours from when? Someone giving intent to hammer? I'm not sure what this limit is designed to accomplish, given your second point.
2) This is basically stating the obvious. Are you going to find anyone who hammers instantly scummy?
@2-> Instant hammering, will result in the hammerer being hammered (with a hammer). + Show Spoiler +
In English this time: Don't instant-hammer, or I'll move to lynch you as punishment. Town needs the discussion and attempting to stop that is scummy. If you are that confident in a lynch target, then you should be able to contain your excitement for a couple hours.
**The hammer itself is not scummy, its the way you choose to do it.**
|
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy.
|
On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that.
|
Blah blah blah policy blah blah
On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that.
Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town.
Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now.
|
On April 02 2013 07:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Blah blah blah policy blah blah Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town. Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now. Define retard mode. Isthat hammering someone too fast? Or something else? Do you agree with my points or not?
|
On April 02 2013 07:46 Lazermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Blah blah blah policy blah blah On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town. Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now. Define retard mode. Isthat hammering someone too fast? Or something else? Do you agree with my points or not?
Be sensible about your hammer vote and explain it yada yada yada. You're policy lynch proposal is bullshit, because half the thread wouldn't follow through with it. How someone goes about voting and hammering is what should be looked at, not just "lol he emotionally hammered the townzorz must be scum"
Listen to the Mafia scumcast (Hapa had a bunch of stuff to say about British II in it pertaining to instant majority). Has a bunch of goodies in it.
|
Hello everyone, I hoped this would start over the Easter weekend but looks like I have to cut some Monster Hunter time for this instead :{
On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo.
With regards to point 2, I thought that Instant Majority lynch is supposed to shy away from throwing votes around carelessly? Well, that depends on what you mean about throwing votes around..
|
On April 02 2013 08:04 Sylencia wrote:Hello everyone, I hoped this would start over the Easter weekend but looks like I have to cut some Monster Hunter time for this instead :{ Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo. With regards to point 2, I thought that Instant Majority lynch is supposed to shy away from throwing votes around carelessly? Well, that depends on what you mean about throwing votes around.. Your vote means literally nothing untill we hit majority or deadline. I don't see how instant majority would shy away from that.
With that being said, I do think it is a good idea to be voting, even though the person isn't getting lynched in the near future. Doing that makes it easier to follow who you suspect at what time and will help especially later on when players start to get looong filters and what : /.
|
On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that.
I still don't support your policy. For my part I don't intend to defend anyone who hammers using that logic. Hammering without explanation is a scummy move no matter who does it, especially considering the silencing effect it has on the town - but I will not agree with making it policy to lynch someone for hammering someone else. That just smacks of trying to make town afraid to be decisive, and I'll have no part of it.
|
On April 02 2013 07:58 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:46 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Blah blah blah policy blah blah On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town. Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now. Define retard mode. Isthat hammering someone too fast? Or something else? Do you agree with my points or not? Be sensible about your hammer vote and explain it yada yada yada. You're policy lynch proposal is bullshit, because half the thread wouldn't follow through with it. How someone goes about voting and hammering is what should be looked at, not just "lol he emotionally hammered the townzorz must be scum" Listen to the Mafia scumcast (Hapa had a bunch of stuff to say about British II in it pertaining to instant majority). Has a bunch of goodies in it. I never claimed that ignoring normal scum tells is the way to go but w/e.
So you are saying that my policy is bullshit because noone would follow it but I think that is a very bad reasoning. Either you think my policy is bullshit because the reasoning is bullshit or you think the policy is good but that it will be hard for everyone to follow it and therefore quite useless policy ( or you simply agree with it but that doesn't seem to be the case ^^).
I do think it is a useless policy if half of the players in the game simply disagrees with it. But in theory, if we could guarantee that everyone would follow the policy, would you agree with the points I made?
|
On April 02 2013 08:29 Lazermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:58 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 07:46 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Blah blah blah policy blah blah On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town. Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now. Define retard mode. Isthat hammering someone too fast? Or something else? Do you agree with my points or not? Be sensible about your hammer vote and explain it yada yada yada. You're policy lynch proposal is bullshit, because half the thread wouldn't follow through with it. How someone goes about voting and hammering is what should be looked at, not just "lol he emotionally hammered the townzorz must be scum" Listen to the Mafia scumcast (Hapa had a bunch of stuff to say about British II in it pertaining to instant majority). Has a bunch of goodies in it. I never claimed that ignoring normal scum tells is the way to go but w/e. So you are saying that my policy is bullshit because noone would follow it but I think that is a very bad reasoning. Either you think my policy is bullshit because the reasoning is bullshit or you think the policy is good but that it will be hard for everyone to follow it and therefore quite useless policy ( or you simply agree with it but that doesn't seem to be the case ^^). I do think it is a useless policy if half of the players in the game simply disagrees with it. But in theory, if we could guarantee that everyone would follow the policy, would you agree with the points I made?
No. I generally think policy lynches suck. And i dont think ive ever seen one work out for the best.
Meanwhile ##vote: risk.nuke because said hi but doesnt wanna be nice and talk with us.
|
|
|
I would much rather not make it a policy and let scum try and hammer "like a retard" or whatever. It's going to be horrifically suspicious if anyone does it regardless of whether you make it a "policy" to lynch them or not.
|
On April 02 2013 08:37 risk.nuke wrote:
Worst vote ever.
On the contrary, best vote ever.
|
On April 02 2013 08:39 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On the contrary, best vote ever.
I would argue that putting your vote on a townie is greatly suboptimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.ssbwiki.com/images/thumb/f/fa/Hammer.jpg/250px-Hammer.jpg)
