|
On July 17 2013 03:59 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:57 Umasi wrote:my thoughts~ The point of the tribunal was two things: A, to ensure a lynch went down, but B (and this is the big one  To hold people accountable for swapping off. I think that's what it was about, it held EVERYONE accountable by putting three people in the spotlight. Pretend Kirby was scum, and the three of us were like "Kirby is the one" so we put seven votes on him then last second, player X swaps off. Immediately he is who I focus for the second day. We made a big deal about ourselves hammering in the vote, but it also in turn locked the wagons in place. I disagree. Scum would never do that as you would get a no-lynch day 1 and then back to back scum lynches on days 2 and 3. Terrible move for scum.
I don't even know what you were referring to.
Of course scum wouldn't move off to give a no lynch, because we're holding them accountable for it, and they'd immediately be placed under suspicion.
|
On July 17 2013 03:59 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:57 Umasi wrote:my thoughts~ The point of the tribunal was two things: A, to ensure a lynch went down, but B (and this is the big one To hold people accountable for swapping off. I think that's what it was about, it held EVERYONE accountable by putting three people in the spotlight. Pretend Kirby was scum, and the three of us were like "Kirby is the one" so we put seven votes on him then last second, player X swaps off. Immediately he is who I focus for the second day. We made a big deal about ourselves hammering in the vote, but it also in turn locked the wagons in place. I disagree. Scum would never do that as you would get a no-lynch day 1 and then back to back scum lynches on days 2 and 3. Terrible move for scum.
Exactly, why didnt you bring this up day 1?
|
On July 17 2013 03:59 Onegu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:56 Hurricane Sponge wrote:On July 17 2013 03:55 Onegu wrote:On July 17 2013 03:51 Hurricane Sponge wrote:
Day 1 in a newbie game, I can certainly see someone moving their vote in confusion (or due to maliciousness) or making some other bad play regarding votes and it costing us a Day 1 lynch. Is it scummy? Maybe. Could a newbie make such a mistake? Absolutely.
The tribunal ensured SOMEBODY got bodied. It did its job. I doubt it will be needed as the days progress (less excuses to give re: confusion on voting rules), but it may. I won't rule it out. I probably wouldn't be the one leading it, though. No because that is all you talked about for the first half of the day and on and off the whole day is there cant be a mislynch. You have too much faith in newbies. And I think you mean 'No Lynch' when you say mislynch. Don't do that. I have faith that if it came down to the last 10 minutes and there was one vote short on someone that one of the players who understands would ensure the lynch, and no I dont see newbie town last second vote switching to cause a no lynch.
Then you have more faith in newbies than me. We had newbies who didn't know you could talk during night time. The intricacies and implications of the majority lynch rules is a much more complex concept than that.
|
On July 17 2013 04:01 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:59 hzflank wrote:On July 17 2013 03:57 Umasi wrote:my thoughts~ The point of the tribunal was two things: A, to ensure a lynch went down, but B (and this is the big one To hold people accountable for swapping off. I think that's what it was about, it held EVERYONE accountable by putting three people in the spotlight. Pretend Kirby was scum, and the three of us were like "Kirby is the one" so we put seven votes on him then last second, player X swaps off. Immediately he is who I focus for the second day. We made a big deal about ourselves hammering in the vote, but it also in turn locked the wagons in place. I disagree. Scum would never do that as you would get a no-lynch day 1 and then back to back scum lynches on days 2 and 3. Terrible move for scum. I don't even know what you were referring to. Of course scum wouldn't move off to give a no lynch, because we're holding them accountable for it, and they'd immediately be placed under suspicion.
But you dont have to have a tribunal for that, if the votes go on naturally they still cant vote switch, and we get mote info on how people voted, because there was a tribunal controling the lynch it is harder to analyse the votes.
|
On July 17 2013 04:01 Onegu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:59 hzflank wrote:On July 17 2013 03:57 Umasi wrote:my thoughts~ The point of the tribunal was two things: A, to ensure a lynch went down, but B (and this is the big one To hold people accountable for swapping off. I think that's what it was about, it held EVERYONE accountable by putting three people in the spotlight. Pretend Kirby was scum, and the three of us were like "Kirby is the one" so we put seven votes on him then last second, player X swaps off. Immediately he is who I focus for the second day. We made a big deal about ourselves hammering in the vote, but it also in turn locked the wagons in place. I disagree. Scum would never do that as you would get a no-lynch day 1 and then back to back scum lynches on days 2 and 3. Terrible move for scum. Exactly, why didnt you bring this up day 1?
I did not realize that people were even considering that scum would make such a move.
|
On July 17 2013 04:00 Chromatically wrote:
For the record, I will personally strangle anyone who sets up any sort of "tribunal" today.
Shouldn't be necessary if we all agree to hz's proposal that votes lock in an hour before deadline, and any movement thereafter is punishable by death.
|
On July 16 2013 05:09 Chromatically wrote:Gotard has already been talked about a lot. His problem is that he gives out WAY to many townreads and, more importantly, defends too many people. For example, the Stim thing. He first posts this about Stim: But then when I talk to him about it, here's what he says: Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:51 Gotard wrote:
Because it's obvious that he's mad that you think that he's mafia. I don't see any reasoning behind his posts except for being mad. Why would he write posts like that if he's mafia? Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:35 Gotard wrote:
But there was no reason for him to get mad if he's mafia. Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 22:41 Gotard wrote:
Yeah he looks bad or i should say useless for town. But you need to ask yourself "What would he gain with posts like that as mafia?". Bad town not mafia. Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 22:52 Gotard wrote:
So what he need to do to prove himself innocence? You are tunneling him too hard. You need to see the difference between someone being bad and scummy. I don't see any reason to rage like that if you are mafia. Why didn't he mention any of this in his original post? Why is he so confident that Stim is town if his reason is that "It would be too easy if he's mafia"? This whole time, I was explaining why it would be beneficial for Stim to ragequit, be he was ADAMANT that Stim was town. He was extremely, unusually confident in this townread for no reason. He also defended me and Umasi from Koshi a little for no reason. He then sheeped onto Kirby with a little justification, and then sailed through the lynch. Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 02:44 Gotard wrote:On July 15 2013 07:46 Koshi wrote:On July 15 2013 07:43 Chromatically wrote:
I would consolidate if it is literally the only way to avoid a no lynch. THIS IS BULLSHIT TOWN WE ARE GOING TO GET SO MUCH INFO WHEN WE LYNCH THERE ARE ONLY 3 FUCKING SCUMS. A MISSLYNCH IS NOT BAD. ARE YOU PEOPLE KIDDING ME? WE ALL AGREED THAT LYNCHING WAS GOOD. AND NOW CHROM WANTS TO PROTECT SUPER SO MADLY THAT A NO LYNHC IS OK? WE AGREE THAT THEY BOTH LOOK SCUM. FUCK THIS Getting mad after misreading. Emotional plays like that indicates bad town to me. Unless he wants to fake being mad after I defended Stim. His case on Koshi called him "bad town" (...) instead of mafia, so why post it at all? Town is looking to find mafia. If he's going to case Koshi without actually thinking he's mafia, then he's just posting for the sake of posting - aka scum.
What does everyone else think about lynching Gotard today?
I'm also fine lynching Super, Gotard is preferable.
##Vote: Gotard
|
On July 17 2013 04:05 Hurricane Sponge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:00 Chromatically wrote:
For the record, I will personally strangle anyone who sets up any sort of "tribunal" today.
Shouldn't be necessary if we all agree to hz's proposal that votes lock in an hour before deadline, and any movement thereafter is punishable by death.
Not really needed either all that needs to be done is makemsure everyone understands the rules, I want the full amount of time to comfirm my reads if need be.
|
EVERYONE LISTEN! YOU WILL TYPE IN THE THREAD
I UNDERSTAND MAJORITY LYNCH
IF YOU DO NOT I WILL POST @ MESSAGES UNTIL YOU DO SO.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ASK! FIND OUT THERE ARE NO MORE EXCUSES YOU WILL BE LYNCHED IF YOU CAUSE A NO LYNCH
|
I understand majority lynch
|
If neither of them post, I'll happily lynch Gotard or Superfluous, (Super slightly more)
If one of them posts, well it obviously depends. I didn't want to switch that late into the day because it felt not as sure as Jrkirby and Superfluous, and because that would be equal to a last minute vote swap (which we probably would not be able to achieve just by sheer number of people around willing to switch) and could have resulted in a no lynch, therefore I was skeptical.
|
I understand majority lynch
And the dire consequences of shenanigans at the deadline.
|
I DON'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND MAJORITY LYNCH, REALLY, WHY DON'T WE USE PLURALITY OR WHATEVER THE FUCK IT'S CALLED GOD DAMMIT
*raises fist at the sky*
BUT OKAY I CAN HANDLE THIS.
|
I think I prefer plurality too, but meh. I also hate 'voting threads'. Pet peeve.
|
Yes i didnt know that you could post at night but
I understand majority lynch
|
Why is this necessary? This is literally just spamming up the thread.
Everyone has said that they don't want to no lynch, if someone pulls a last-minute no lynch then they're pretty much confirmed scum.
|
I didn't understand Chrom's roleblock claim. Did any analysis come of that? Were we able to deduce anything?
|
Dude, Chrom, you're playing mafia, which means you have to take part in all of the stupid rituals involved.
NOW TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND
|
Ok its 2:23 am here im sleeping see you in the morning.
|
On July 17 2013 04:19 Hurricane Sponge wrote:
I didn't understand Chrom's roleblock claim. Did any analysis come of that? Were we able to deduce anything?
You always claim roleblocks, it helps on later nights.
Who do you want to lynch?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
