|
On October 14 2013 17:35 playerboy345 wrote:
No the discussion isn't pointless - it forces people to talk which is a good thing.
And going ballsdeep on SagaZ AND istandwith mitt....
Dude I can't even be bothered to mention the last paragraph: ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
Yes it is good that people talk, however there might be other more rewarding ways to do that. I think that meta discussions about this topic are pointless too, so I wont argue about that more.
Could you explain your rage about the last paragraph? From your post I dont understand the problem with it and I said everything very calmly and careful.
|
I'm against lynching afkers. Lurkers are kind of a different story though, we have to force those to post.
Honestly your suggesting isn't lynching someone randomly, it's lynching whoever is the scummiest (something I agree with). Lynching afkers should never happen in my opinion as it's more likely to set us back then anything else.
I HATE E00e!!!! SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
|
@Odin I agree that the cop should not come out now. Im just interested in helping the cop to figure out when they should come out.
|
On October 14 2013 17:50 OdinOfPergo wrote:
I am a bit confused by this post.
From what I can get..
"Would I support a RNG if it pointed vs myself?"
Simple answer is no.
This method only for sure works if you roll town.
It works more efficiently the more players you can for sure eliminate from scum.
The point I wanted to make was that your suggestion isn't to RANDOMly lynch someone - it's to lynch the scummiest person and hope he is indeed scum.
|
@playerboy345
I honestly cant tell if you are being sarcastic or are just flaming me for something that is implied to be very bad about my posts but which I dont know about.
|
How the hell can you not see what is bad about your post?
|
Right now it looks like you are not interested in a real discussion because you continue to make cryptic claims.
If there is something obviously bad just say it so I can improve.
If there is something bad that you for whatever reason dont want to point out right now then just say it.
|
On October 14 2013 17:40 OdinOfPergo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:52 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Well, I read through my last post,
And then decide how bad that thought is.
Judging by what you just said July,
a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than
a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours.
My only question is;
Are you being serious right now?
Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me.
I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early. I'm already staying up late for this. My pre-arguement on why we should do this instead of "Silence" or "afk" lynch. Show nested quote +
ou're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
July's response to me. This is stupid, because you are trading chance to lynch (All-be-it 4 to 6), For a 100% guess. Show nested quote +
Setting up an RNG to lynch someone is really stupid, especially with those odds plus it also takes away the fun/skill of the game. Also seems silly to be talking about an afk lynch when the game literally just started, would rather vote for someone suspicious looking like SagaZ who was so quick to start talking about lynching people minutes after the game started.
Vonthin supports this view point. Which makes me wonder about him too. Why would people freak about about of 4-6 chance when they are willing to jump on a 1-10? Nothing adds up right now. So now you join in. Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:24 playerboy345 wrote:On October 14 2013 13:17 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Oh, to clarify - If lynching an in-active is our only option, I'm not entirely against it.
I merely don't want to waste our votes on someone we can't possibly know anything about (Because they don't post.)
This option only makes any sort of sense closer to the end of day 1.
Right now, as it stands, we have the next 45-46ish hours to gather/draw conclusions from any information presented.
Agree with this post 100%. We have to keep people talking and find oddities, it's our best chance at catching scum (and something they say might bite them in their ass later). You jump in supporting my suggestion. Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 14:38 istandwithmitt wrote:
##vote: SagaZ
Lynching lurkers gives us no information for future days & keeps scum from having to lay down a real vote. The way he's trying to guide the town is really scummy too & makes him look town without contributing anything.
Well, see ya That is a ballsy move, what makes you think it's a good idea to go ballsdeep on him because of his ONE post?
Again we agree.
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky?
I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy.
[/QUOTE]
This is where you lose me.
They are trying to call me out for my RNG.
But what better plan are they suggesting?
Because alls I've heard to this point is "lynch afk".
Which, most likely, means we waste our votes on someone who is going to get mod-killed/replaced the following morning.
Describe in detail if I have not followed peoples logic soundly.[/QUOTE]
July stated that all he was was disagreeing with your RANDOM choice of lynching someone, wasn't implying on any other lynching method and literally nothing about choosing inactive person and guessing, you are just making up shit to make him look bad. Once again I was saying I am disagreeing with your RNG and no where stating I am making a 1-10 guess on someone.You are jumping 2 conclusions once again and trying to make people look worse. Just cause no one stated a plan besides lynching an inactive or your RNG plan doesn't mean we all agree with the lynching inactives. I am not comfortable with lynching anyone yet as it is still pretty early in day 1 and not everyone has posted yet as also stated by July in an earlier post, my plan is to wait as long as possible to vote after reading everyone's posts to see who is the most suspicious.
|
Guys let's just take it down a notch and just wait for more people to post, we've still got time .
|
the way i see it:
1. this mafia game is a bronze/wood level game equivalent in LoL so most if not everyone should be a baddie
2. mafia tends to have the upper hand when townies are disorganized / randomly spouting shit
3. townies don't stand a chance without some kind of organization
for those reasons, i'm going with whatever Odin suggests since the alternative is to be disorganized and lose anyway.
|
Sorry about the edit above, did not actually change the meaning or context and was edited within a second of posting
|
Of course I meant lurker lynch, afkers will get modkilled after all. If one guy is not saying anything in the thread or very little, but still turn out to vote for people without giving reasoning... that would be very scum telling to me. I guess it is fairly obvious to everyone, but pointing it out will make them talk whether they want it or not, and that gives information.
I took the opportunity of the first post to basically say "game started, don't hide behind your inexperience and post".
For town to win we need 2 thing:
- Get everyone active
- Organize around our confirmed towny Seuss
@nyxnyxnyx: Care to explain why you trust Odin? Him being so hyper posty makes me nervous but he actually present points for us to discuss on, which creates discussion and is therefore good for town. It is weird to me at least that you come in, decide to side with odin even thought we have a confirmed townie.
|
Knowing that Seuss is a confirmed townie doesn't help the rest of the townies come up with any voting decision other than not voting for him.
Why Odin? Because no one else has come up with any sort of plan for townies organize around. I'm just going in blind and hoping Odin isn't scum.
|
On October 14 2013 19:34 nyxnyxnyx wrote:
Sorry about the edit above, did not actually change the meaning or context and was edited within a second of posting
Just don't do it again. Goes for everyone. Editing is absolutely forbidden while the game is ongoing.
|
First vote (slave) count:
SagaZ (1): istandwithmitt
Not voting (12): GGTeMpLaR, playerboy345, Balla24, Vonthin, OdinOfPergo, Seuss, SagaZ, onlywonderboy, July617, nyxnyxnyx, E00e, Bereft
Currently, SagaZ is set to be lynched.
to deadline. Remember, voting is mandatory!
If there are errors, please let us know.
I accepted istandwithmitt's vote since it clearly was intended as a vote and mostly conformed to the format even though it was missing the bold.
Please be careful and stick to the correct format to avoid us missing votes, thanks.
|
Alright.
Sorry guys,
I had to get a TEENY bit of sleep before I had to go to work.
I'll be off at 12:30 (I'm on break now. This out time is a hour away.)
I drafted up a part of my current reads during my lunch.
Alas, 30 minutes was not enough time to explain everything.
So I only have part of you down.
Depending on if I try to take a nap after I get off work,
I will post up my current reads within the next couple of hours.
|
At this time I recommend the following: - Endorse plan RNG.
- Find scum.
We've spent a lot of time discussing what amounts to a backup plan. The whole "vote inactive vs vote RNG" debate only matters in the odd and unlikely case that we don't have any likely suspects by the end of the day. A quarter of our time is gone, spent discussing something that likely won't be important when we only have a quarter of our time left. We can reopen that debate later when it matters, for now we should be finding scum.
To that end, I'd like istandwithmitt to join the discussion. He's posted only once, saying:
On October 14 2013 14:38 istandwithmitt wrote:
##vote: SagaZ
Lynching lurkers gives us no information for future days & keeps scum from having to lay down a real vote. The way he's trying to guide the town is really scummy too & makes him look town without contributing anything.
Well, see ya
His points are fairly sound. Lynching lurkers doesn't accomplish much, and the suggestion to rally around me is an easy one to make (and not without its issues). However, those points are buried in a confrontational, finger-pointing post that also implies istandwithmitt won't be participating much ("Well, see ya").
This currently makes istandwithmitt a prime suspect, as there's little more unhelpful than a single, disruptive post. If he's a townie he's either already lost interest in the game or is more of a liability than an asset. If he's a mafia then he's an obvious target and we should pick the low-hanging fruit.
|
United States23745 Posts
On October 14 2013 20:41 nyxnyxnyx wrote:
Knowing that Seuss is a confirmed townie doesn't help the rest of the townies come up with any voting decision other than not voting for him.
Why Odin? Because no one else has come up with any sort of plan for townies organize around. I'm just going in blind and hoping Odin isn't scum.
Being organized is fine, but blind faith can be just as destructive.
On another note, we had this same debate about lynching lurkers in the last newbie game. Of course we want to avoid voting for people that are going to be mod killed, but if they at least talk once they are safe for the voting period. While I won't say we should 100% lynch a lurker, it's at least worth looking at people with low post contribution to see if anything suspicious stands out.
|
Vonthin -- SCUM
+ Show Spoiler +
Setting up an RNG to lynch someone is really stupid,
especially with those odds plus it also takes away the fun/skill of the game.
Also seems silly to be talking about an afk lynch when the game literally just started,
would rather vote for someone suspicious looking like SagaZ
who was so quick to start talking about lynching people minutes after the game started.
How is July's thought a bad idea,
it is unsafe,
while you have a 40% chance to land a scum
you have a 60% chance to blame an innocent townie like myself.
Police detectives just don't take a group of people then choose one of them at random and arrest them.
Don't even understand how you think he is throwing off the town when you are a danger wanting to pick random people to lynch,
that is what seems scummy to me.
I have a obvious goal in mind. Everyone should be able to see it by now. I've explained my reasoning behind this point already. If you didn't read it, It doesn't help your position to point attention to it. Anybody that graduated grade school can do the simple math. That will tell them a almost 40% chance is better than a blind shot in the dark. Which was like a 20 something iirc. From what I've seen to this point, you are just trying to side-track me.
Also Vonthin,
How does that work into what I said at all?
July didn't even post a counter argument.
He just disagreed with what I suggested.
He was just saying he disagreed with your methods,
he didn't say anywhere(unless I missed something which i don't think i did)
that we waste our votes lynching inactive members which you said he did in one of your earlier posts.
Both lynching RNG/getting the inactive person is both sorta stupid
Ok, so he tried to derail my train of thought without trying to giving me a new one? Sounds like your trying to stall for something.Again.On October 14 2013 16:20 OdinOfPergo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:09 Vonthin wrote:
QUOTE]On October 14 2013 15:52 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Well, I read through my last post,
And then decide how bad that thought is.
Judging by what you just said July,
a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than
a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours.
My only question is;
Are you being serious right now?
Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me.
I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early.
I'm already staying up late for this.
Yes. The difference between his and my idea, Is mainly, I have a strong chance to land scum. He has a penny in a hay bail. More over, my idea leaves me the entire rest of D1 to ALTER my vote.While he is claiming, regardless of what happens in the next FORTY hours, that we should waste our votes on "in-active" members that may or may not be mod-killed and replaced anyway. Also Vonthin, please note; I have not even cast a vote yet. You should really contribute to these arguments at this point. Because from I can tell you are just side-tracking them without an alternative.
Player Boi -- Leaning towards town
+ Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +
On October 14 2013 14:38 istandwithmitt wrote:
##vote: SagaZ
Lynching lurkers gives us no information for future days & keeps scum from having to lay down a real vote.
The way he's trying to guide the town is really scummy too & makes him look town without contributing anything.
Well, see ya
That is a ballsy move, what makes you think it's a good idea to go ballsdeep on him because of his ONE post? I enjoy the fact that at least you question things.
You are contradicting yourself.
First you say you don't want to waste your vote on someone who doesn't post
and then you proceed to push for a RANDOM lynch.
My responce.
Well, that was sort of my point.
We can force early conversation with a RNG.
Best case scenario;
We rid ourselves of a scum role.
Worst case scenario;
We have to change our votes because a townie defends himself.
This is the entire reason I found the previous post twards this questionable.
Player did not understand my previous post. I explained it out again through pages 8&9 (Too lazy to copy this since people do NO FORMATTING PLS. USE YOUR SPACE/ENTER KEY PLS.) But anyway, the result came to this:
Alright, allow me to clarify in lamest terms for you.
If town lynches a lurker/afk that has not posted at the end of day one.
Odds are, is that SAME person will proceed to afk and NOT VOTE (Which is mandatory I might add.)
Resulting in a mod-kill.
This outcome leads to the ENTIRE TOWN wasting their votes on a lynch that meant LITERALLY NOTHING
Why take these odds when you have much better odds with a rng?
We can alter rng votes according to what players argue.
We can apply pressure to try to flesh of scum on day 1 with these votes.
We can move the town in the right direction with these votes.
Now please answer me;
What the heck do you find scummy about my suggestion?
TO which PB answered quickly; ( I GOT FREAKING LAZY. I WILL CONTINUE IF PEOPLE ARE TO LAZY TO GO READ TWO PAGES. Actually screw this. I've been trying to peice this post together for almost and hour and a half now.
I just got off work and it's still not done.
Our conclusion comes out to:
PB calls me out to explain my claims-
I explain them-
PB explains his point of view.
I explain mine.
We tend to agree after a while on most subjects.
EVERYTHING to do with this takes place on pages 8-10Go read up on it. I'm tired. Also, you guys, for the most part, don't format shit. It's hard to type things out on notepad (Haha, It denies me [for the most part] the ability to format anything.) Ok, well at least you have come to a point on this. There is literally no point in lynching someone who's afk. Our current big lurkers, SagaZ and istandwithmitt, Haven't given us much to bais on. I'm more agains't Istand because it seems he's trying to bandwagon an early vote. While that's not suprising in these games, He doesn't follow up with anything (Be it because SagaZ didn't post anything after or not.) At this point I'll agree with you in saying this action is slightly disturbing. You can pressure vote on SagaZ though Istand. I will not vote for you yet because of this. If SagaZ comes back into this discussing I might even apluad you for it (Thought, it's been several hours, I have my doubts this will happen gracefully.) LATER ON
I'm against lynching afkers.
Lurkers are kind of a different story though,
we have to force those to post.
Honestly your suggesting isn't lynching someone randomly,
it's lynching whoever is the scummiest (something I agree with).
Lynching afkers should never happen in my opinion
as it's more likely to set us back then anything else.
I HATE E00e!!!! SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
July -- Questionable/SCUM
+ Show Spoiler +
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
My responce.
I don't agree with this at all.
How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better?
I just don't get it.
his "responce"? I mean this seriously isn't even coherent. How am I suppose to answer this per my previous question?
At least you realize how bad that sort of thinking is , I don't feel comfortable lynching anyone just yet .
I never said we lynch anyone .
let's just let people talk for a bit.
We ARE talking. Why are you saying that this discussion is bad?
I dont think anyone is sidetracked,
I just think we need to talk more so we can get idea's of the active players
and a direction in which to go towards .
Preferably a sane one.
I don't understand how you expect us to move foward. You are obviously agains't my idea. You are "undecided" (I lack a solid statement) saying that you are for/agains't a policy "afk/lurker" vote. If I missed something here, point it out. Because alls I can gather from your current filter is that you obviously have no set objective. That makes me think you're scum
GGTemplar -- Have to wait. NULL
+ Show Spoiler +
I think between SagaZ and istandwithmitt,
at most one of them is mafia. SagaZ's first post is somewhat suspicious
but istandwithmitt instantly going so hard on him is just as suspicious because it seems like such an easy target at that point.
There's no way they're both mafia together.
It's possible both are town, but if we gain information that one of them is mafia,
it would clear the other as town I'd say.
He did at least "sort of" defend his post.
I don't think if istandwithmitt was mafia,
he would throw his buddy so hard under the bus that hard and that quickly.
E00e -- NULL (RESEARCH PREV.)
At the end of the road here,
I've come into a few conclusions.
Which is good.
It was the whole reason I posted the RNG in the first place.
I would have used it if nothing else came up.
Lucky for me, there is plenty of things that have drawn my attention since this topic started.
@Suess --
I don't intend to follow through with a RNG now.
I have reads/tells that I have posted above that resulted from this days current discussions.
I will adjust my views depending on what happens after this.
|
wowow, this is the first time I've checked back on a newbie game after 12+ hours and there have been more than 30 posts to read. nice. I'll try to catch up as best I can while at work, but if not I'll be posting tonight when I get home (in ~9 hours) for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
