|
On October 31 2013 12:24 Bereft wrote:grack, if you really wanted to throw weight behind that vote, why not at least RNG it? instead of picking your favorite singaporean, that is. which has tons of favoritism bias. since we have extra mafia this game, RNG gives us a 31% chance of hitting scum, instead of the typical ~25%. we're all reasonable and rational people here, logic appeals to us [i'd hope]. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 12:13 Grackaroni wrote:On October 31 2013 12:10 Asinine wrote:On October 31 2013 12:07 Pandain wrote:On October 31 2013 11:53 Asinine wrote:
Hello comrades. I will be doing an ASA (Ask Smurf Anything) today. It starts now. I cannot guarantee that I will answer any questions that seem to be fishing for my real TL account. What is Qatar like? Another thought elicits it's familiars Crowding their weight into the chamber Of my weary, doleful mind What right does he possess To exhaust my idle time By way of his enslaving image. I have come to the conclusion that this man is Palmar. There will be no further questions! no, i want to ask a question -- why does pandain only get to ask one. asinine, what's your reason for smurfing? i can think of only 2 reasons. which one is yours: [a] you have a reputation known throughout the land of being an excellent scum hunter, and you don't want to die night 1. [b] you believe your meta is so obvious people would be able to read your play day 1. [c] other (please expand)
Those are some pretty good odds. I'm not against RNG if people are up for it.
|
On October 31 2013 13:51 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote:On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote:
Why label Stutters as town
As a conversation starter. Up until that point only little blue men were being discussed and I am unable to partake in that discussion to to my unfamiliarity with big green or red men. Obviously I did not think that Stutters' post gave a clue to his alignment, but I may not of conveyed the tone correctly. On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote:
and leave the thread?
Due to Stutters reply. As you begin to read his post he appears to care about what I said, then when you get to the end I realised that he does not care. There was no reason to continue that line of conversation with him and I had nothing that I wanted to post, so I decided to spare the poor tl.net servers the effort of adding another one of my posts for a short while. On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote:
Your post serves no greater purpose other than to gain Stutters' support.
But my post gave you something to post about and in turn gave me something to post about. Now I can wonder why you commented on my post twice even though that you thought my post had no purpose. You might be mafia looking for something to post about, but obviously this early in the game there is no real need for that. You may be town attempting to move a conversation forward. Or perhaps you genuinely thought I had a clue as to Stutter's alignment two hours into the game when only five people had posted, and felt the need to call me out on that. Either of those possibilities fit in with your second post. On October 31 2013 12:07 Asinine wrote:
Looks like he didn't even gain Stutters support... Regardless, hzflank does not look good right now. The (rhetorical) question is: did you post that for the sake of posting something? Or did you post that hoping that I would reply directly to you? Or did you post that because when you were reading the thread for the first time you were already looking for scum, and my post was the only thing so far that looked like it might be scum? I have no flipping idea, but less than five hours into the game and when I am tired, that's the best that I can do at the moment. On October 31 2013 10:17 Stutters695 wrote:
Why so srs? Oh, you wanted me to be less serious? Oops  I really want to lynch you when I wake up... This is the most over-explanatory and unnecessary defense I've ever seen. Feeling defensive cause you're scum?
I liked it.
|
I just didn't at all get the impression that he cared too much about his image from that post.
|
On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote:Hey all. First off I'll add my name to the very much against random lynching list for the exact reasons Oats posted. Also, I'm suspicious of the people pushing for it. Most notably hzflank because he only said he was for it after people brought it up. Like, even though it's only a 30% chance, if I'm scum and someone talks about random lynching my first thought is probably something like "Oh god, what if one of us gets chosen? There'd be nothing we could do." So he makes his post saying he'd be for a RNG lynch to show everyone that he's not afraid of it. Even going as far as saying Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote:
I would think my chances of actually identifying scum on day one are less than 31%, therefore RNG would yield better results for me. Ofcourse, We would need to decide on who rolls the dice. How should we do that? I suggest we vote on it. How in the world could his odds actually be worse than random? Even if he had no scumhunting skill whatsoever, it would be @ worst equal to random.
I don't understand. You believe that scum are afraid of being picked by random lynches, yet you say that people are scummy for pushing something scum are afraid of?
|
On October 31 2013 22:25 Oatsmaster wrote:
JJD is saying he is acting like what town would do. Acting.
I see that. But everyone pushing random lynch is scummier because we are all acting?
|
this game is way too slow.
##Unvote: Oatsmaster
##Vote: Pandain
|
|
|
On October 31 2013 23:01 JarJarDrinks wrote:
##vote hzflank
Might as well untill I see a better choice. Seemed like there's a decent amount of support for a hzflank lynch
You do realize you can't just lynch people because others support it right?
The only reasoning you have given is that hzflank was the 3rd person to say yes to random lynch, thus he was pretending to agree with it to show that he is not afraid.
|
On October 31 2013 23:23 JarJarDrinks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:09 Grackaroni wrote:
You do realize you can't just lynch people because others support it right? OK. You also cant lynch people without other people supporting it. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:09 Grackaroni wrote:
The only reasoning you have given is that hzflank was the 3rd person to say yes to random lynch, thus he was pretending to agree with it to show that he is not afraid. I'm sorry. Do you have a better reason for the people you've voted for?
You can make others support it.
Not particularly no. I am worried though that this may be your vote for the cycle.
|
On October 31 2013 23:19 Laughing Jack wrote:
I think we should be one Jarjar less at the end of this day.
##Vote: JarjarDrinks
care to elaborate?
|
This whole game is lurkers lol
|
On November 01 2013 00:55 JarJarDrinks wrote:still didn't answer his question. Why would an RNG lynch be better than a lurker lynch?
Because it can't be influenced by scum giving us good odds. That is the reason why statistically day 1 RNG lynches come out more successful than analysis.
|
Though TL probably should policy lynch more often.
|
On November 01 2013 01:44 JarJarDrinks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:13 Grackaroni wrote:
That is the reason why statistically day 1 RNG lynches come out more successful than analysis. Is this a fact?
It says so in the TL Mafia Database.
|
On November 01 2013 02:03 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:13 Grackaroni wrote:On November 01 2013 00:55 JarJarDrinks wrote:On November 01 2013 00:53 Grackaroni wrote:
This whole game is lurkers lol still didn't answer his question. Why would an RNG lynch be better than a lurker lynch? Because it can't be influenced by scum giving us good odds. That is the reason why statistically day 1 RNG lynches come out more successful than analysis. This is terrible reasoning. The odds of lynching a scum from the hardcore(1-5 posts max, with a vote to stay alive and no contribution has the exact same odds as picking someone at random but provides an added benefit in the form of reducing the room scum has to hide in the inactives.
I don't really wish to argue over the benefits of RNG but you are wrong. Scum can push town lurkers and we would be none the wiser. RNG is completely objective.
|
On November 01 2013 02:37 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 02:34 JarJarDrinks wrote:On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote:On October 31 2013 12:37 Grackaroni wrote:On October 31 2013 12:24 Bereft wrote:grack, if you really wanted to throw weight behind that vote, why not at least RNG it? instead of picking your favorite singaporean, that is. which has tons of favoritism bias. since we have extra mafia this game, RNG gives us a 31% chance of hitting scum, instead of the typical ~25%. we're all reasonable and rational people here, logic appeals to us [i'd hope]. On October 31 2013 12:13 Grackaroni wrote:On October 31 2013 12:10 Asinine wrote:On October 31 2013 12:07 Pandain wrote:On October 31 2013 11:53 Asinine wrote:
Hello comrades. I will be doing an ASA (Ask Smurf Anything) today. It starts now. I cannot guarantee that I will answer any questions that seem to be fishing for my real TL account. What is Qatar like? Another thought elicits it's familiars Crowding their weight into the chamber Of my weary, doleful mind What right does he possess To exhaust my idle time By way of his enslaving image. I have come to the conclusion that this man is Palmar. There will be no further questions! no, i want to ask a question -- why does pandain only get to ask one. asinine, what's your reason for smurfing? i can think of only 2 reasons. which one is yours: [a] you have a reputation known throughout the land of being an excellent scum hunter, and you don't want to die night 1. [b] you believe your meta is so obvious people would be able to read your play day 1. [c] other (please expand) Those are some pretty good odds. I'm not against RNG if people are up for it. I would think my chances of actually identifying scum on day one are less than 31%, therefore RNG would yield better results for me. Ofcourse, We would need to decide on who rolls the dice. How should we do that? I suggest we vote on it. How could anyone read this post and not think you were for random lynching? Because the whole point of that was that I did not like the idea of random lynching because I was worried that scum might control the random.
I also was under the impression that you were in support of random lynch if it was actually random, but I can see the sarcasm now.
|
|
|
I'm actually also considering an Oats lynch right now.
|
Not for those reasons. I didn't like the push on JJD.
|
On November 01 2013 01:33 Oatsmaster wrote:I really dont like that vote from JJD. He seems to want to vote Hzflank because other people also think he is scummy, caring more about the appearance of the vote more than voting for scum, as well as incidental totally useless stuff like Show nested quote +And like, the way I see it, when there's something that people need to take a stance on, very rarely will all the scummies end up on the same side of the issue. So I think there's a real good chance that one of the pro-RNGers is scum.
On November 01 2013 01:58 mkfuba07 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:33 Oatsmaster wrote:I really dont like that vote from JJD. He seems to want to vote Hzflank because other people also think he is scummy, caring more about the appearance of the vote more than voting for scum, as well as incidental totally useless stuff like And like, the way I see it, when there's something that people need to take a stance on, very rarely will all the scummies end up on the same side of the issue. So I think there's a real good chance that one of the pro-RNGers is scum. Would scum, knowingly voting for someone to look good, openly state that they're placing the vote because many others appear willing to do so?
Oats should know better. JJD's posting doesn't look like scum. he comes off as a bit anti-town but he hasn't been very careful at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
