|
/in
Only got 1 game so far, and although that was in Werewolves, I guess I still count as noob.
|
While I generally like the idea of an artificial vote deadline, I think 20 hours is over the top. The idea of a 48 hour day cycle is to assure that people of different time zones have the possibility to argue and come to an agreement. Setting the deadline to 20 hours before night pretty much contradicts the idea of the 48 hour day. I would agree to a deadline 8 hour before night falls, though.
Policy lynching lurkers is stupid. You have to differentiate between people who avoid the thread on purpose (rather scummy) and people who are denied thread activity by real life. The first one is anti-town behavior, the second one isn't. Lynching the second kind of lurker is often weakening town, and should be avoided.
In that context, only because someone is not playing pro-town does not make them anti-town. (Only because something is not black, it is no necessarily white).
On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote:
@alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town.
The town should only be lynching scum. Lynching town lurkers hurts us more than it helps. You of all people in this game should know this after the werewolves game (remember mderg and rgTheSchworz?). But then again, perhaps you're scum in this game as well?
|
On February 27 2012 07:23 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 07:13 phagga wrote:While I generally like the idea of an artificial vote deadline, I think 20 hours is over the top. The idea of a 48 hour day cycle is to assure that people of different time zones have the possibility to argue and come to an agreement. Setting the deadline to 20 hours before night pretty much contradicts the idea of the 48 hour day. I would agree to a deadline 8 hour before night falls, though. Policy lynching lurkers is stupid. You have to differentiate between people who avoid the thread on purpose (rather scummy) and people who are denied thread activity by real life. The first one is anti-town behavior, the second one isn't. Lynching the second kind of lurker is often weakening town, and should be avoided. In that context, only because someone is not playing pro-town does not make them anti-town. (Only because something is not black, it is no necessarily white). On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote:
@alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town.
The town should only be lynching scum. Lynching town lurkers hurts us more than it helps. You of all people in this game should know this after the werewolves game (remember mderg and rgTheSchworz?). But then again, perhaps you're scum in this game as well? Phagga we are going to lynch day one, because the lynch is towns greatest tool for finding answers, we already have a lurker and a suspicious townie. Why would we not lynch?
Where Did I say that we should not lynch? All I said is that we should try to lynch scum everyday. Don't lynch lurkers only because they lurk. If we have evidence that they actively avoid the thread (e.g. are in the TL Mafia IRC channel the whole day but don't post here), then yes, lynch them. Else, we need more reason to lynch them.
I do not like a "no lynch on Day 1"-Policy. We should be lynching every day. It's like a tradition 
@ghost_403: town lost because they sheeped Palmar. But that's another story. Nevertheless, we lost 2 townies because a majority agreed that lynching lurkers was a good idea, when it clearly wasn't.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 07:42 FourFace wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 06:36 DoYouHas wrote:Alright, I have seen a few things already that I don't like and I'm ready to throw some suspicion around. FourFaceI don't like that his first post places unwarranted suspicion on the hydras. He could argue that he was just putting pressure on them, but this post Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 20:58 FourFace wrote:Either way i + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=315559#2 ... to apply some pressure. But it's rather harmless shows he doesn't quite understand how to put pressure on someone properly yet. I also don't like his lack of opinion on the soft deadline (thanks for the phrase slOosh). He says he is waiting for a thorough pro/con discussion. But a few of us had already provided pros, so in order to be ambivalent to the idea he must have had some cons in mind, but chooses not to post them. Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 18:13 FourFace wrote:
1. I'm a total scrub at this game btw, playing my debut game with you hansom TL-ers. I like the theme, reminds me of Dexter's Lab when the bacteria took over his family and he had to get into the dodgeball suit and kick their asses.
2. I support the idea of lynching lurkers over lynching suspicious individuals although if someone starts spamming protocol and tips about how you should play, with the excuse of this being a newbie game, it kinda bothers me and I might vote against such a person. I recommend keeping things concise (with the exception of day 1, because we have to get to know each other, so posting stuff about voyager and whatnot is welcome since it's an indication of ones personality and a hint to what you can expect to hear from that person in the future.. even though gumshoe makes the impression of being a couple arrows short of a quiver I think he sets the right tone to be followed but for this first day only)
Generally I'd like people to post pros and cons when they want to implement a policy, for others to get an idea about weather the motives behind it are benevolent, malicious or incompetent in nature.
3. No no lynch policy pro/con (that i can think of): We got 10 for town and 4 scum, starting probabilities for lynching are 10 to 4 for an innocent townie and 4 to 10 for scum. After each day 1 townie gets shot by mafia so if another townie gets lynched it's 8 to 4 chances to lynch a townie after second day's vote and 4 to 8 chances of lynching scum and so forth. If someone could make a tree diagram real quickly listing probabilities for lynching either town or scum up until day 6 or so and multiply the probabilities that would be appreciated (without doctor or vigilante interference first to get a general idea).
Worst case scenario is lynching town every time for 2 consecutive days which means game over after day[3]. Best case would be lynching scum every time in which case town wins at the dawn of the fifth day with 6 town alive and 0 scum. So is it advisable to lynch the first day without any concrete evidence, i have no idea. Some math boy-genius figure it out, but all in all (considering detective, medics and player behavior) my gut tells me that the success-rate of a lynch is a curve which drops the first couple of days and reaches it's max at the LYLO point. We can either plan our build for that lategame where success-rate is high or we can gamble and lynch right away. Either way we need to know the math to get an idea of the setup and we don't have much time to figure out what is more important.. gathering information or action.
If we don't lynch then tomorrow will likely be 9 town to 4 at which point the worst scenario would be game over after day[4] with 5 town to 4 scum at the LYLO point on day[3], which sounds way better for me (gaining a day), but again this is without vigilante/medic/strategy which I think would inflate towns chances even more. 1. Lowering our expectations of him. Not a big deal, it is a newbie game. 2. Wants to lynch lurkers over suspicious people... unless they are posting advice and protocol. That is what would make a person suspicious enough to FourFace that they need to be voted over a lurker. Seems a bit off to me. At best this statement is wishy-washy and means nothing. At worse it reveals FourFace to have a skewed point of view. 3. This whole section says 1 thing of value. In a worst case scenario, a no-lynch on day1 gives us 1 more day of play before game over. The rest is pointing out the obvious, needless speculation, and trying to get others to jump on board with discussion about the setup. I think that the majority of this first post, while big, says almost nothing. Very suspicious. (I'm taking the spoilers out of this next one) Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 20:58 FourFace wrote:Pro no lynch on first day: If we get to Day[2] with 2 townies missing .. how much info do you get from that? We need successful lynches for info to spring, Janaan. We are scientists, remember? We need a statistic edge and we'll build on it with what info comes along. Vote for who you think benefits the town the least but refrain from lynching on the first day. You can gather info from who gets shot and whether you get saved or not. Plus on Day[2] the DT made check, or possibly even gets roleblocked, or saved, or shot by friendly fire.
And also if we lynch today we have no DT support because he hasn't made his check yet. I wouldn't know what to make out of the lynch info even if against all odds it turns out to be scum, as it could be one of their plans to sacrifice one of them by bandwagoning on his lynch and playing the "i would have tried to stop the lynch if i was scum" card all game long. Sort of like a 5 pool, sacrifice drones for early aggression. Con no lynch on first day: One of the methods mafia use to win is stall so we need decimate their numbers quickly, 40 percent chance is acceptable, and we get to sack those who aren't active enough for town to collaborate successfully. I doubt that someone who posts conclusively will be a candidate so it's either lurker or BS spammer, either way no big asset to town so why not start right away.Either way i http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=315559#2
... to apply some pressure. But it's rather harmless Pro - Not vote for who you think is scum, vote for who you think benefits the town the least. Pro - FF seems to want to rely on blues to provide us with information. And speculation on who gets shot by scum tends to be WIFOM and useless. FF downplays the value of information gained by a lynch, up-plays the value of information gotten by a mafia hit. And goes back to blues for actually figuring the game out. This is a very wrong way of looking at the game. Con - First off, it isn't a 40% chance, it is closer to a 29% chance. 4/14, not 4/10. Secondly, FF has wandered into random lynch territory instead of staying on pro/con for nolynch. I don't like it one bit. Con - Just like in his pro-nolynch argument he is espousing voting for those who are least valuable to town, not scum. I italicized the statement in this section that I just hate and think betrays FF's attitude. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 05:32 FourFace wrote:
I knew this was going to be fun. Had a LOL moment already; gumshoe says "Glad to have you on our side Alderaan ( : as for absolutes do you mind making decisions like that on a day to day basis?"
and Alderan is like: "What do you mean?"
Seriously wtf did you mean bro?
Anyway I am disapoint about Steveling not reading this thread from start to finish. If he would have realized what a hydra is (i didn't know either until i did read .. THE WHOLE .. thread from START 2 FINISH and my eyes are still functioning properly) (DO THIS NOW if you haven't already GOOGG we'll be waiting THANK YOU!)
Also certain circumstances made it so that I already have an idea of a case bait set up. The trap is up and running as we speak. At this point I can only say that there's an elephant in the room and whether people see it or not, mention it or not will give a mass check on all
@Janaan why JekyllAndHyde and not some other lurker? I don't know, lynch me
I asked you all to have a purpose in mind when you posted things. So what is the purpose of this post? From what I can see the purpose of this post is to foment conflict between gumshoe and Alderan, to undercut/place suspicion on Steveling, and to hint at a secret strategy. Also, wtf is with this statement, "I don't know, lynch me". As to that secret strategy, I sure hope an integral part of it is letting us know that a trap is out there. Because if it isn't then all you have done is made people more afraid to post for fear of stepping into your trap. So if your trap doesn't depend on letting us know that it exists, you are acting very scummy. ##FOS: FourFace OMG, There's a case against me.. read quickly ..think of something .. What the hell is FOS and why is the maficascum.net abbreviation thingy having poblems loading AARHHH! Well looks like I'm going to have to come clean .. I'm crazy. Yes you heard me. I'm a total loon, a nutcase. Where others follow a coherent thought process I jump like a cangoroo in between dimensions. I don't have a split personality, I have 4. They all speak different languages but since this is in english we have to rely on the english guy translating everything we say into english and he often times fucks it up. You want to lynch me .. fine. Put an end to my misery. I'm not even going to begin to take your arguments apart because quite frankly I read the the guidelines and told to myselves it would be fun to do exactly the opposite of what it says here. Did you ever think of the possibility that once a bunch of guides are released that try to lecture you about how to spot suspicious behavior in a game you have to calculate for the fact that people are going to behave differently because of those guides. What's next, writing a guide about how to play in games where players have read the guides? I'm going to go ahead and tell you this because I believe it's true: There is no mafia specific behavior on Day[1]. It's impossible to figure out what's going on. You have people like me who are crazy and get a fix out of the attention that cooky play brings, who knows what the others are here for. As for my clandestine trap.. yeah let's just put it out there so everyone can avoid it .. ok let's go: I was going to watch who votes for poor JekyllAndHyde hydra. After I randomly selected him out of the 3 or 4 inactives I started reading the whole thread and even did some background check on Cephiro but that's not essential at this point. The elephant is the fact that Cephiro says in his first post when he signed up: Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 15:40 Cephiro wrote:
/in (Hoping this will not start until the 29th) The reason for him not posting anything has been hinted upon before the game started. Why would anyone who read the whole thread and realize there are 2 votes against him not mention this? Anyway my trap is still up because you can't possibly know what I'm talking about aless we're on the same frequency of insanity which is highly unlikely. Yeah I messed up the percentage.. I was thinking in terms of scum to town ratio not scum to total amount of players. No I don't really care about that "soft deadline" whatever policy because I'm utterly incapable of understanding it, which to me means that it's insignificant. So DOC, what's my diagnosic. Is it contagious, do I need to be quarantined? Pills, yes ook, ahmm no problem, I'll take em`, wouldn't be the first time I get these i figure I'll sleep for at least 16 hours and wake up with a limp tongue. So yeah .. have a nice day.
In short, you wanted to make a trap in which people who have not read the thread completely (including the /in messages which are not part of the actual game) might vote for a guy who may or may not be online in the next four days for unknown reasons. The rest of your post is fluff and distracting.
You imply that:
- Everyone still has all the messages before the game started in mind
- Everyone who does not have those messages in mind must clearly be scum
If this would not be a newbie game, I would have voted for you already. But in this case, I'll sleep over it first.
|
On February 27 2012 09:37 Chocolate wrote:
@ghost you thought I was scummy because I voted on a lurker? I don't see anything wrong with that at all, please explain why you dislike it.
You did not vote on a lurker. You voted on someone who did not post in the first 18 hours of a 48 hour cycle. That is not a lurker, and you are looking quite desperate to find an easy target to lynch, which is what scum normally does.
The reason why I dislike it is that there are always townies that are easy lynch targets. But as they are townies, they should not get lynched. So before we blindly put votes on people who for some reason missed the first third of the day, we should try to get more information. It's not like you cast your votes 2 hours before deadline, there was at that point still plenty of time for everyone to participate in the thread.
We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo.
What is that supposed to do? Remember, votes are here first and foremost to lynch people. A single vote on anyone does not apply any pressure at all.
On February 27 2012 09:37 Chocolate wrote:
I'm going to vote for you for the time being because that was really weird. If you sufficiently explain yourself and start to make sense I will unvote you.
"really weird" is not enough of a reason to vote someone.
Generally, I don't like how quick you are with casting votes for cheap reasons. At the moment, I have the feeling you just try to get an easy lynch for a fake pro-town alignement, and I find you very suspicious.
|
I'll be offline for the next few hours until after the soft deadline (8 hours before night), so here a short update after reading through several filters:
- FourFace: Still to much fluff in his posts, but I don't get a scum vibe from him. I don't want to lynch him (yet?).
- Jaanan: I don't see what's suspicious about him, I get a null read.
- Ghost_403: Wants to lynch at all cost, even if it is only unhelpfull townies or lurkers. I don't like that stance, and I don't like how hard he tries to push it. Suspicious.
- igabod: Hardcore lurking. I don't like that. I won't lynch him for that yet, but it's suspicious.
- Chocolate: Seems to go for easy targets, jumps on the fourface bandwagon, never showed an own opinion. Once criticized, he almost vanished completely. The guy I want to lynch most at the moment.
##Vote Chocolate
|
It's less than 6 more hours until Night. Currently we have 4 candidates with 2 votes each. Don't forget, we need a majority vote. So if everyone votes, this means that at least 8 people have to vote for one person for a successful lynch.
FourFace: Please do not vote for this guy. He is on the verge of getting modkilled/replaced, and even if he stays, it's quite unclear if he is scum or not. He may not be helpful at the moment, but that does not make him scum, and IMO he is a bad lynch target.
Igabod: The Lurker. Unfortunately not active until now, I can understand that some people want him lynched. As I said earlier, I dislike a policy lynch on lurkers, and although he wrote he should be available on Sunday, he is not running anywhere. I hesitate to vote him.
ghost_403: I don't think I want him lynched atm. He is active and trying to show his points of view. At the same time his agressive stance on lynching anyone that is not clearly pro-town is toxic, but it's not enough reason to lynch him.
Chocolate: He has disappeared after people started questioning him. His vote-switching seems like he wants to please a majority, his reasoning is bad, if not non-existent.
My Vote stays on Chocolate.
|
On February 28 2012 06:29 dreamflower wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:18 phagga wrote:
It's less than 6 more hours until Night. Currently we have 4 candidates with 2 votes each. Don't forget, we need a majority vote. So if everyone votes, this means that at least 8 people have to vote for one person for a successful lynch. I just wanted to clarify that this is not true, actually. As discussed in the long OP, under voting rules: "This game follows Extended Majority Lynch Rules. Majority = number of total voters/2 (rounded down) + 1. Unlike in traditional majority lynch, the lynch is NOT decided the moment that majority is reached. Instead, only the final vote count matters. If there is no majority at the deadline, the day ends with a no-lynch. Non-voters will be modkilled for failure to vote."
Thus, the lynch will be decided by a majority of the total number of voters, not the total number of players. This is intended to prevent a no-lynch from occurring simply because too many inactive players failed to vote. This way, active players are not unfairly penalized for other peoples' inactivity. With the current numbers of voters (10 at the moment), the first person who reaches a majority (6/10) will be lynched.
*facepalms* yeah right, there are 18 people in this game, not 14. And thanks for the clarification concerning the voting system, I see now that I was unclear about it in my post.
|
So, folks, I will be offline for the night in about 20 minutes. So far my vote stays on Chocolate. I have read a few interesting things about others (specially steveling), but so far nothing could convince me to switch my vote to another person. I still think Chocolate is our best lynch.
|
On February 28 2012 08:34 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote:
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct? Yeah, he has to vote. I don't want him to vote at the last second and get away with it though.
If he is going to do that, we will just lynch him Day 2. I will vote for him then (unless there is a more dangerous scum identified). But for now, don't waste your vote on someone who might get modkilled.
|
On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing.
This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him.
|
I'm off to bed now. My vote stays on chocolate.
|
Hi Zelblade, Hi nttea,
Hi Testsubject893
(ha! that rhymed!)
Catching up on the thread. Will write more later when work will allow it.
|
On February 28 2012 11:20 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:13 ghost_403 wrote:On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me. I completely disagree with you there. The entirety of the game has built up to this moment. Lynching either of us will give the town a plethora of information. You can look back and see who pushed for what lynch, who supported them, who jumped on board, who jumped off... quite frankly, lynching someone other than the two of us is wasteful. Lynching a non-posting lurker at this point tells you about them. Lynching either me or Chocolate tells you about everyone in the town. Just wanna say I really appreciate you saying this, I will take my vote off you. Unvote: Ghost(will do it in the thread)
You did not unvote him, you only faked it. In the voting thread, your vote stayed on ghost_403. Why?
On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility.
Why do you want to take responsibility for it?
|
On February 28 2012 22:10 k2hd wrote:
Phagga, I think ghost says he'll take responsibility because he was the first to FOS ghost I believe.
It's about chocolate, not ghost.
|
what about my second question, gumshoe?
On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it?
|
On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? That last point was me bieng transparent, now im going to be anylytical. If chocolate flips red ive killed my own teamamte, if chocolate flips green i fall under suspiciun, as scum its an all around bad move, as town its a calclated risk. Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions?
It just came out of nothing. You mentioned Chocolate a few times, but failed to vote on him. You barely pushed him. I tried to push Chocolate the whole day, so why not make me responsible if he would flip green? Or what about Alderaan, who made the first case on Chocolate?
Also, if a majority of people is voting Chocolate, everyone has some responsibility in it. Why would town want to single out a person only because of that one vote and make him/her responsible for a mislynch? That does not make any sense, sometimes townies get lynched because wrong decisions are made. But then you don't go and point finger at single person, instead you start analyzing who voted for that townie when and for what reason. Claiming responsibility before the lynch has even happened and before it is clear if it is a myslynch or not is utterly pointless.
Unless you want to put focus on how you are helpful and care about town. But a townie normally does not have to do that.
On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote:
the m word(i dare you to say it)
uh, Marry me?
(I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.)
|
On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me.
Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:31 ghost_403 wrote:As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers... --UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets. On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote:
Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you. Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon. Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's FilterAnd now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed. Scummy lurker >> regular lurker. ##vote chocolateJust as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1? I want igabod to post more, is that so bad? Votes are not set in stone. As I said I'd be up for all the people I previously outlined, but igabod is the most scummy to me because of his lack of posts. My "lurker policy" hasn't been the greatest, and hasn't produced good results. Do you honestly think I would keep my vote on those people though? 1 I don't even remember when I was against lynching lurkers, but if you're referring to my 2nd post during the game I didn't say I was for or against lynching them , only that they were the most likely lynch candidates. I don't see anything wrong with my most recent post. I'm not going to wildly say SLOOSH IS MAFIA, and find things to justify my point. I will find things and base my point off them, and those are the people who have garnered my suspicion. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate Panicking can produce results. If someone panics it makes me think of them as mafia, because it shows that they may not be able to think up a good defense, whereas town should be able to make good decisions based on the current information (remember, scum has to be careful not to reveal their private information). It targets newbies but mafia are more likely to panic to me. I voted for 4face to get him to post more. 2 If I hadn't voted for him there wouldn't have been sufficient pressure on him to get him to post. The vote causes that. If it were the end of the day I wouldn't have voted for him, simply because there wasn't too much to go off. Read more of that mafia game. SS was town and I was mafia, but from an objective view I think late into the game he was very scummy. I wanted people to panic because i thought mafia would be more likely to panic. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:37 Alderan wrote:
Do you find no one else suspicious besides lurkers and 4F?
We're trying to build as many cases as possible and put pressure on every one we find suspicious.
The hypothetical Jeckyll vote thing was just something that popped into my head when making my case on you and I used it to push you both and see how you respond.
Sorry if you think I tried to make you look dumb, that was not my intention. It's fine. I did say I found you suspicious, and you aren't really lurking. I'm inclined to think all the people voting for me are suspicious too, but I don't know. 3 I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7.
1 Why should I take your vote seriously then? If you are flipflopping with your vote, you are not pressing anyone.
2 So you voted him to make him post even more? I mean, you said yourself that he was already posting (see bolded part here+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it.
3 Do you think they are suspicious or not? If they are suspicious, why? Give us some arguments to work with, not that maybe-crap.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote:
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers.4 Why won't you list the ones you think are town?
4 Same as number 3. Wild accusations, but no arguments or facts.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 11:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote:
You see, this is how I see it.
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that.
Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. I don't think we are necessarily on different teams. In fact, I'm reasonably sure we are both town since if I get lynched, I will flip green. If you were mafia you wouldn't say this, knowing I'm town, because you are setting up your own lynch. So if I do get lynched and am green I wouldn't say you are mafia. 5Have to go to bed in 10min, should I go igabod, steve, or other?
5 This is only going WIFOM, bad try to make you look green.
In all your posts you have not presented a single reason beyond "he's lurking!" why someone should be lynched. You are blindly casting votes on people that are being suspected by others already. You deliver no arguments why people are suspicious, but already hinted 3 times that you have a list of people that you think are suspicious. You have not tried to make a case against anyone, you are hiding behind arguments of others.
As soon as the new day starts, I will vote for you again.
|
On February 29 2012 07:40 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 06:55 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me. Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it. -_-, You seem to want me to justify lynching lurkers to you. 1 That is a waste of typing and I'm not going to bother. I thought I made my position pretty clear last night. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:21 DoYouHas wrote:
Moving on then,
Gumshoe, I think we might be in extraordinary enough circumstances to go for a no-lynch today. With at least 2 people being replaced/modkilled and possibly 3(FourFace). We are in a pretty bad place to be deciding our lynch, especially when 2/4 of the people we are considering lynching are among the ones being replaced/killed. I just don't think we should take the chance of a mislynch, a modkill, and a night hit leaving us 3 townies down at the start of day2.
My opinion, igabod or no-lynch. I didn't trust Alderan so I wasn't going to vote Steveling. (Although objectively, Alderan is correct. Steveling was the better lynch.) And I was not going to vote Chocolate. So, igabod or no-lynch. Lynch lurker or no-lynch. Of the two I was advocating the no-lynch harder. Phagga, if you find my play suspicious, present a case. Stop throwing the fact that you don't like lurker lynching in my face. I don't like it either, but that is just where yesterday landed us. 2
1 No, I want to make clear to you that I think your way is bad for town. I hope to convince you to avoid another situation like this which was clearly suboptimal in my eyes.
2 I don't find your play suspicious. I'm just trying to show my point of view. I am very unhappy how the day ended yesterday, and I want to avoid that this happens again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
