|
On July 23 2011 13:07 hiro protagonist wrote:
/out
sorry
/in
still possible? ^_^
|
On July 25 2011 15:44 Curu wrote:
Actually now that I think more about it, it doesn't make sense for Jackal to be a hostile 3rd either since that would still make the ON win condition redundant as well.
Anyways let's just discontinue this train of thought because it hinges on ON having a separate win condition (we have no way to know) and that there would be no redundancy in win conditions (we have no way to know).
I understand what you're saying now Tackster but the reason I think Jackal's is a lie is because having an indication of alignment in a role PM is really nonsensical. Flavour is supposed to be flavour, having a straight up thing about someone else's alignment in your role PM actually affects the game. Again we have no way to verify whether ON's thing was flavour or an actual win condition because his death didn't reveal that.
wow, curu, you did what I expected you to do and flooded the whole thread... :D
|
On July 26 2011 00:40 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 00:32 Jackal58 wrote:On July 26 2011 00:29 Tackster wrote:On July 26 2011 00:28 Palmar wrote:On July 26 2011 00:27 Amber[LighT] wrote:On July 26 2011 00:17 Palmar wrote:
Why not shoot jackal... You want to risk a night vigi when there could be a chance of a mafia medic? I was talking about just now, I specifically asked he be day-vigged, so I have no idea why someone thought shooting ym was a better idea. *ominous thunder* What if the shot was.... PENALISED!!!!!! Well hell somebody was serious about their penalties. I think Decon said mod killing wouldn't be a valid penalty. Well scratch that. I thought he said something along those lines but he hasn't said anything that I see about mod killing as a penalty.
yes, well i am a little bit puzzled but here we go...
|
btw, i am Tim but i didn't shoot YM.
|
On July 26 2011 01:22 syllogism wrote:
Did you shoot someone?
no. but I think we could end this game right now... If I am confirmed, I want everybody now to quote me, and so on so I know all your roles.
= epicwin for town.
everyone who doesn't do it gets lynched. Am I right?
|
On July 26 2011 01:28 sandroba wrote:
Wait, so you can rolecheck or aligment check? Can you do it more than once a day?
ah f*** i can only use that once a day...
"You are Tim Roth, Policeman extraordinaire. You know that people show signs of lying when they are flustered, so you antagonise them. It is your job to get in heated discussions with people. If you get into a one-on-one thread argument with another player where you quote each other 3 times, you can tell if they are lying and can alignment check them. You can use your ability night or day, but you can only use it once per day/night cycle.
You were however unfortunately shot by an old lady and are bleeding heavily. Once during the game, if someone is killed you can choose to execute whoever shot them. This action will blow your cover and this will cause your alignment and role abilities to be revealed to the mafia."
|
|
|
On July 26 2011 01:35 Nisani201 wrote:You're going to kill YM's killer?
exactly ;-)
|
okay now I get what happened.
YM killed someone, Tracker killed YM using my ability or whatever after that I used my ability and killed Tracker.
now that difference: I didn't lie about that, why should I... In fact Dropbears version would be much better for me. I'd be confirmed 100%. Now I am not.
On the other hand, if you look at the facts, you will see that I am probably not scummy.
If I were scum, this whole thing what happened with Tracker etc. could have been easily avoided, if i just hadn't claimed that I didn't shot YM.
Anyway. I am willing to Check anyone we choose together.
If I understood my role correctly, I only can see whether anyone is town or scum, so there is no danger for our blues etc., so noone will be able to refuse my 3/3 quote check procedure.
G_G
|
On July 26 2011 06:05 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:03 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 04:58 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 04:52 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
So you're saying not to use a day DT check on a potential lynch target, on the off-chance that he might be an SK and get town-cred? Also, how exactly do we confirm him besides killing him? Sounds like rather bad reasoning, to me. use a dt check on SS first. Don't trust someone whos suspect to give real feedback. Make him earn his damn check. You do not reward roleclaimers ffs. How contradictory. You think that having SS use his rolecheck is rewarding him (not town, just him) for roleclaiming, but then say we should wait for another DT to check supersoft to confirm him as town or not. Here's how that fails: -Framers -Fake DT claim to take out Day DT -Continual Role block after today on SS -Having to have an actual DT claim to confirm him So, you don't want to reward roleclaimers, but then want another DT to claim to confirm a known DT, who's alignment is unknown? That makes no sense at all. The best thing to do, is to use his check, and have him announce his result to town. The catch is we don't act just based on his check. We can check a lynch candidate if we want, but that gets dangerous if he's scum, though another 1-1 trade wouldn't be that bad. The other thing we do is check someone suspicious, who isn't necessarily getting lynched today and having him announce his check, and just leave it until we can confirm him. Then if he gets popped, we know all his checks and results, and if we can act on them, and if he gets confirmed another way, well we know all his results too. I'd actually suggest checking you or DB, and then leaving it for now. As well, why would we check people asking to be checked, and why would anyone be dumb enough to ask for a DT check on them without already being suspicious anyways? If they're asking to be checked, they're town or a covered role. Town wouldn't want to waste a DT check on themselves, as compared to suspicious people. Use the tool to hunt mafia, not to confirm town. An innocent check doesn't prove innocence, but the only way we're getting a red check back at this point is millers or a day-framer. Day 1 has the least chance of anything interfering with the check, and is the best time to use it. I'd rather have 1 check in, than have none and SS gets shot tonight. Check the bolded part. In almost every case of someone asking or begging for a dt check they are town or covered role. Most people do this to confirm themselves and thus starting a blue circle that can rofl stomp mafia. It is very common practice for people to want to be cleared as to move through a game with 0 harassment from anyone. No mafia would willingly throw himself up for a dt check as it would screw him in the end. You say no townie would want it used on them, but that would again, leave you a pool of 0 people to check. you are then down to the idea of "we want you checked you let yourself get checked or lynched" which is a horrible way to play. Seriously, you all are talking about role use being the huge factor in catching people. I now say, everyone go back read pick your power 3 and realize playing lets analyze roles, or someones role means they are legit, etc.... and realize roles do not say shit about the players alignment. Who cares if SS's check is an alignment check if you don't know his alignment. Have a watcher/tracker check him. If he visits anyone at night at this point in time he is mafia. have a dt check him. Dt's could breadcrumb results, or the like. Seriously, before a plan is proposed you sort it out, you make it ideal, you account for multiple situations. So far the only situation proposed by you lot is SS is likely town for shooting a red. Likely town does not mean town. What? So, instead of using a check, and just leaving it, until we have a second DT out themselves or breadcrumb and die, you're saying never use the check? Did I understand that correctly? Please tell me how what you're trying to say is optimal play. How is not having a check better than having one? The only situation proposed by you, is that we don't use the check at all. That's asking a claimed and outed DT to not check people or reveal his checks, until another DT checks him. In what world does that make sense? Ask yourself how you would play this out in a normal game. If a DT claimed, would you ask him to not check anyone until another DT checked him and claimed it? That sounds really dumb to me. In a normal game, on day 1, if someone claimed dt and said x was red, I would kill the dt first. Every time. In a setup where mafia, third parties, or town can be a dt, I will never trust the claimant ever on day 1. Nor should anyone else. Ok, so where's the part where we're trusting him by having him use a check on an agreed upon target? That's what I'm wondering about. You're saying that by letting him check, we're implicitly trusting him to be town, but that is not the case. We can let him sit in unconfirmed limbo for now, but why not use his check? It doesn't hurt us to use his check, the same way that killing the DT actually tells us whether the check is true or not. By giving him a check we give legitmacy over time to his supposed alignment. Say he is mafia, he checks kita, kita flips town, he gives us a town. That makes him look better as he complied to the check. Say both kita and SS are red, he says kita is town it still gives both a look of legitmacy. One for complying for the check. Its subtle and its insidious. Someone who is not confirmed you do not let slowly insinuate they are. Had you guys outlined you planned on trusting his check with a grain of salt I would be less worried than i am now. Of course we'd take it with a grain of salt, I'm taking everything in this game with a grain of salt, because if I trusted everything I read, I'd be pretty silly. That's also why I'm saying we can also check people who aren't major lynch targets yet, and then just ignore the results until someone else confirms SS, he gets shot by mafia, or we even flip him ourselves with a vig. Now I am seeing the first person with some sense -_-. Wiggles, go back and originally read the use of his role and you will see NO ONE advocated what you did just now. You will see it otherwise and should realize my discontent. What you just proposed is more cautious than everything else in relation to using his role to this point.
hey bc, wanna check?
|
On July 26 2011 09:55 kitaman27 wrote:
Sigh, of course the thread dies when I'm around. We honestly don't have much time to discuss an alternate due to the dirty European host end the cycles at 4pm (*shakes fist) so I'll take
the alignment test tonight unless something drastic happens in the next few hours. At this point, I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing a scum to take the test in my place. Nevertheless, here are my preferred targets after reading through the thread a couple times. Its nothing solid and I clearly don't have 100% confidence, but here is a list:
Nisani201 - Ugg and you guys think I'm useless? I can't really say anything other than to ask you guys to look through his posts.
Drazerk - Starts the game with troll posts and really hasn't said anything since. He pushes some doubt onto ON for his Voldermort role and hasn't really showed that he is trying to make an attempt to help town.
Varpulis - Has one post in the thread, which he ironically uses to call me out for lurking.
ketomai - More of a lynch candidate than a alignment check. Zero posts in the thread and a likely modkill. In a normal game, I wouldn't advocate wasting a lynch like this, but in a game with tons of blues, if we don't have a solid lynch candidate on day one then extending the game would be a decent option.
You are getting checked. I agree with mig on that. answer me 2 times pls or you will probably hang tomorrow.
|
On July 26 2011 10:23 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:22 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 09:55 kitaman27 wrote:
Sigh, of course the thread dies when I'm around. We honestly don't have much time to discuss an alternate due to the dirty European host end the cycles at 4pm (*shakes fist) so I'll take
the alignment test tonight unless something drastic happens in the next few hours. At this point, I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing a scum to take the test in my place. Nevertheless, here are my preferred targets after reading through the thread a couple times. Its nothing solid and I clearly don't have 100% confidence, but here is a list:
Nisani201 - Ugg and you guys think I'm useless? I can't really say anything other than to ask you guys to look through his posts.
Drazerk - Starts the game with troll posts and really hasn't said anything since. He pushes some doubt onto ON for his Voldermort role and hasn't really showed that he is trying to make an attempt to help town.
Varpulis - Has one post in the thread, which he ironically uses to call me out for lurking.
ketomai - More of a lynch candidate than a alignment check. Zero posts in the thread and a likely modkill. In a normal game, I wouldn't advocate wasting a lynch like this, but in a game with tons of blues, if we don't have a solid lynch candidate on day one then extending the game would be a decent option.
You are getting checked. I agree with mig on that. answer me 2 times pls or you will probably hang tomorrow. Yawn.
sup
|
On July 26 2011 10:26 redFF wrote:
Kita is allowing himself to be checked, BC ignored SS's request to check him. SS dont check kita.
no, BC gets instant lynched.
##vote BC
|
grrr. keep on quoting me, kita.
|
On July 26 2011 10:33 kitaman27 wrote:As you wish, sire.
...
|
On July 26 2011 10:36 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:34 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:33 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:31 supersoft wrote:
grrr. keep on quoting me, kita. As you wish, sire. ... Can I go back to being useless once this is over with?
we will see.
|
On July 26 2011 10:38 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:36 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:36 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:34 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:33 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:31 supersoft wrote:
grrr. keep on quoting me, kita. As you wish, sire. ... Can I go back to being useless once this is over with? we will see. I'm rather looking forward to the "lol Kita must be godfather" spiels.
i think that's enough...
now I can choose to check you... But I am going to sleep over that decision... and see what the other guys in the thread think about the check.
|
On July 26 2011 10:41 redFF wrote:
So SS, If i have your role correctly, you can check one person a day, and can choose from any of the people that went on a 3 quote ride with you?
yoep, volunteer to be another potential target of my check? go ahead and quote me 2 times
|
On July 26 2011 10:42 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:40 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:38 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:36 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:36 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:34 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:33 kitaman27 wrote:On July 26 2011 10:31 supersoft wrote:
grrr. keep on quoting me, kita. As you wish, sire. ... Can I go back to being useless once this is over with? we will see. I'm rather looking forward to the "lol Kita must be godfather" spiels. i think that's enough... now I can choose to check you... But I am going to sleep over that decision... and see what the other guys in the thread think about the check. Oh, you can choose who you check? If that is the case, I don't suppose you want to check someone else after I proved that I was willing? -_-
yes well, I can choose who to check. Now don't be too happy - you will most likely be the winner.
|
On July 26 2011 10:44 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:43 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:41 redFF wrote:
So SS, If i have your role correctly, you can check one person a day, and can choose from any of the people that went on a 3 quote ride with you? yoep, volunteer to be another potential target of my check? go ahead and quote me 2 times OH WHY HELLO THERE
cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
