Pre-game johns for Eden and myself: currently we're playing a mafia game on another forum. While I'm still going to be trying my hardest here I'm going to be seeing that game through until I die or the game ends. Eden will probably be doing the same.

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 25 2014 23:06 GMT

#132

Aha. Sqrt with the real dirt and LT lying. Lynch all liars!
Therefore,

##VOTE Lord Tolkien

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 25 2014 23:40 GMT

#137

Ok, let's talk policy.
Let's policy lynch lurkers. This is not to say that I think all lurkers are mafia or all mafia lurkers, but instead that lurking is pushing a mafia agenda and not only will you more likely find mafia in a list of players pushing a mafia agenda but also forcing everyone to talk drives the mafia into the open.

What do you guys think?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 00:40 GMT

#142

Yes all other things being equal it should be the lurker that's lynched. A mafia member who's forced to talk regularly (not lurking) will at least more likely be forced into a corner and if we're lucky may even slip up.

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 03:52 GMT

#159

On March 26 2014 12:15 IAmRobik wrote:

Show nested quote +

wtf is this shit?

What does it look like? Let's go through the logical construction.

Suppose we preferentially policy lynch lurkers (thanks for clearing that up Valenius). Then players who lurk and are as or more suspicious as others will be lynched. Therefore, to avoid being lynched (which is unsurprisingly in the best interest of both town and mafia) players cannot lurk. They must talk. If you talk nonsense or push a scum agenda, you get lynched. If you talk productively and push good discussion then you don't unless you start looking scummy for some reason or other.
Therefore, two things happen:
1) mafia are unable to lurk effectively, so they're easier to catch, which is good for town.
2) good discussion is promoted and a good town atmosphere is set, which is good for town.

As I said, I'm not saying all lurkers are mafia or all mafia or lurkers. I'm saying that the mafia would like to lurk because lurking pushes an anti-town agenda, so therefore by not letting people lurk we benefit.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:03 GMT

#164

Cavalinho, what do you think of the fact that Robik seems to have an awful lot of reads so quickly?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:08 GMT

#166

I talked about policy to bring us out of RVS. Your turn. What do you think of the fact that Robik seems to have so many reads so quickly?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:12 GMT

#170

Oh and here's another fun question for you Cav:
Why do you need me to answer your question in order to answer mine? Are we playing truth or dare (without dare)? Are you trying to get out of answering questions until later?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:22 GMT

#173

If that's the case, why did you insist that I answer first? You could have answered my question and then asked your question again, as I did. Robik gave three very quick reads off of only a few posts. Let's break it down:

sqrt - jokes and one liners during RVS. Lots of 'em. Made no posts afterwards, yet. Mysteriously Robik's got a town read off of that.
Valenius - qualification of what I mean when I talk about policy. Robik town reads it, slightly.
me - brings game out of RVS and now we're actually talking about things. Robik thinks I'm scummy.

##VOTE: IAmRobik
Want to explain this, Robik? You seem to think you know an awful lot.

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:36 GMT

#179

Pixalated, you seem to like my points an awful lot. But that's the only thing you seem to be commenting on. What do you make of Robik's interactions with everyone else?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:51 GMT

#185

On March 26 2014 13:47 Pixalated wrote:
I don't like how he cleared both sqrt and val. Already explained why I don't feel that Val's questions make him town, and sqrt posting random stuff doesn't mean much.

What this means about his alignment I'm not sure. Could be mafia trying to get cred by claiming that people are townie and having 'right' reads when they flip.

... so he has two things you don't like and you draw no inference about his alignment?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 04:51 GMT

#186

EBWOP: should say "so both of the things he says you don't like"

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 05:12 GMT

#189

Valenius, Cavalinho, LT, RJ, sqrt: Hi! I'm going to assume you've read the posts up to this. I need to know what your thoughts are on the interactions between the vocal players (myself, Robik, Eden and Pixalated) thus far.

Pixalated - What are your thoughts thus far on Eden?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 15:33 GMT

#253

##UNVOTE

About Cavalinho:
I agree that he's suspicious in that he hasn't contributed a lot of original content. However, I disagree with Eden's statement that "blatantly riffing off of Robik" makes him scum. As seen here:

On March 26 2014 12:16 Cavalinho wrote:
I am also curious about aforementioned shit

This is just an "me too" post which... doesn't really say a lot about his alignment. I'm most bothered by this:

On March 26 2014 15:26 Cavalinho wrote:
No, I am not dealing with this shit a second time.

##Vote Eden1892

One of us is going to be dead by the end of today and it isn't going to be me just because I agreed with someone.

This is an overreaction and he's trying too hard to look like an indignant townie. He did the same thing in a previous game but the context is not the same -- last time he did this by attacking Amiko once Amiko said that he was just agreeing with something other players said before but before this he voices no suspicion of Eden, and in fact this post doesn't really voice suspicion of Eden either! Instead Cavalinho just places down a vote which gets no justification when we're well past so-called RVS.
##VOTE: Cavalinho.

About LT:
Gonna have to disagree with you guys, LT made an honest mistake and got impatient in pulling the trigger.

sqrtofneg1 - What do you think of the interactions between IAmRobik, Eden, Cavalinho and Lord Tolkien?
Cavalinho - Are you saying that if we lynch you today and you flip town we should lynch Eden? And more pressingly, why shouldn't we lynch you? (don't just say "I'm town")
LT - Yes, actually I am getting flashbacks to Cav's mislynch on Day 1 of our last newbie game. But it's been a while and he's aware of his own playstyle. However, here's something interesting. He's brought it down to "me or you". What do you think of this?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 16:14 GMT

#261

So Cav, who do you think is scum then?
I don't understand your logic for why my post on policy was strange -- people were joking around and posting stupid stuff and then I made it so that people would no longer post stupid stuff. Did you want the amount of stupid stuff to continue to pile up? How else are we supposed to get into discussion mode?
As I observed, this isn't the same exact reason why you died: the context is a bit different. You were already suspicious of Amiko that game, you were never suspicious of Eden this game and suddenly you place a kneejerk vote on him. wtf?

OnceKing

United States939 Posts

March 26 2014 16:36 GMT

#267

So when you get back could you tell me why you just... found reasons to stick with your vote instead of building your case up to the point of a vote? It's very inconsistent -- you build cases by making points and arriving at a conclusion, not making a conclusion and then trying to find details that support it. You also have yet to address my point that the context is actually different due to the fact that you didn't voice suspicion of Eden until after you had voted for him.