|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 14:33:56 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 20, 2007 14:33:56 GMT -5
So, you're advocating lynching people who may not be able to defend themselves at this time? When there is a 25% chance (and upon revision, a 33% chance) of lynching scum? Ummm...hell yeah, I advocate it. I'd find it pretty telling not to. When we're as outnumbered as we are, those are some pretty fricking good odds.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 14:37:55 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 20, 2007 14:37:55 GMT -5
So, you're advocating lynching people who may not be able to defend themselves at this time? And, as an afterthought, let me ask you something -- how telling would it be if a lurker were getting close to the hammer, when they suddenly popped in after being MIA for days? 'Cause that would sure look to me like those on the scum board told him to get back in here and defend themselves.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 14:40:47 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Sept 20, 2007 14:40:47 GMT -5
And, as an afterthought, let me ask you something -- how telling would it be if a lurker were getting close to the hammer, when they suddenly popped in after being MIA for days? 'Cause that would sure look to me like those on the scum board told him to get back in here and defend themselves. *blinks* Are the scum allowed to strategize during the Day? Didn't we already have this conversation before?
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 14:42:48 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Sept 20, 2007 14:42:48 GMT -5
(snipped) Well, no. If the scum kill someone, we will be "the wiser." Their identity will be revealed. Their alignment will (probably) be revealed. And there is no guarantee that the person or persons killed will be pro-town, by the way (if they're are multiple scum factions, they can kill one another from time to time, too). If they choose not to kill anyone, then they're stupid. ToMorrow starts same as toDay, but we have one more Night worth of investigations under our belt. Well, sort of, yes, I am. I'm saying that we should be more circumspect collectively in this game than we would be in an open game - we have a tremendous advantage in this closed setup that we would not have in an open one, and we don't want to piss it away for no reason other than to satisfy an arbitrary "we must lynch every day" principle. (snip) Why? If we lynch dotchan and she is town, or she is scum, what "context" does that give us? Everyone voting for her at this point will be doing so mostly for the sake of getting a lynch in at any cost. Those votes will be easily disavowed going forward. It is better to analyze people's reasons for their actions, rather than the actions themselves - but we have created an artificial "reason" that can be used as crutch to explain anything ("well, we didn't want a no-lynch, right?"), which eliminates our ability to examine reasons. Again: I disagree. I agree that the scum would be extremely stupid to not NightKill. And there will (probably) other NightKillers, anyhow (that much seemed implied in the setup). But the thing is, Day lynchings do yield information for the town. Who voted? When did they vote? Who was in danger at the time? The psychopath game showed that very strongly: wasn't the Chia Bingo Manager very informative as to pygmy's alignment, for instance? And the Night Killings... well, who got information out of Mad the Swine's death in that same game? Nobody but the crazies. The reason I believe a lynch during the first couple of Days is extremely important is because during those Days we still have a strong numerical advantage. And the information which slowly but surely is revealed during subsequent Days has been critical in unlocking the last few remaining players' identities. (Just ask Cookies about her last game)
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 14:50:07 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 20, 2007 14:50:07 GMT -5
So, you're advocating lynching people who may not be able to defend themselves at this time? And, as an afterthought, let me ask you something -- how telling would it be if a lurker were getting close to the hammer, when they suddenly popped in after being MIA for days? 'Cause that would sure look to me like those on the scum board told him to get back in here and defend themselves. Even minus the scum board part, you're right, that would look pretty telling. But, the thing is, we don't know (or at least, I don't) that one of those three (or four) are scum. You seem to be pretty sure about it. Like I said in my previous post, assuming you're right, we still have a 66% chance of lynching a townie, who may have a power role, without having any chance of even mentioning it. I don't like the idea one bit, especially with the mass hysteria it would have produced so close to the deadline, with our without a role claim.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:06:17 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 20, 2007 15:06:17 GMT -5
I just took a look at the player list, and had four names jump out at me: CaerieD, tragic, whatthefrak and Yattara. 'twixt the four of them, I can't remember a single post. I'm sure they each put out at least a couple, but gorram if I can remember a word of them. Now, in following with the theory of non-random scum posting patterns, it seems to me that there is an excellent chance of one of those four being scum. So, we have dotchan on the block, who, it seems to me, if primarily getting votes for informational purposes. If we can quickly come to an agreement on one of those four, perhaps it might be possible to have a 25% chance of a scum lynch today. Erm, So you are suggesting that one in seven of the players are scum? Where did you come up with that from? I would be shocked if there were more than six. The other thing I noticed is that the scum at least try and post something just not to be noticed as a lurker, so I think the chances that any of these are scum are much lower than you think. Given that they had a chance to strategise last night, I think they would have been foolish not have discussed that kind of point amongst themselves.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:07:19 GMT -5
Post by Tragic on Sept 20, 2007 15:07:19 GMT -5
Well.. that was a lot to read through.. and I skimmed most of it to be honest. But in the end I just don't feel comfortable lynching dotchan. That could come back and bite me in the ass but I'm not convinced and I certainly don't want to lynch a crew member.
I abstain from this vote. Hopefully we'll have more insight and discussion on the next day that I can draw from more firmly.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:09:53 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 20, 2007 15:09:53 GMT -5
Hopefully we'll have more insight and discussion on the next day that I can draw from more firmly. If we have more discussion toMorrow, I will throw myself out the airlock.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:14:09 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Sept 20, 2007 15:14:09 GMT -5
I just took a look at the player list, and had four names jump out at me: CaerieD, tragic, whatthefrak and Yattara. 'twixt the four of them, I can't remember a single post. I'm sure they each put out at least a couple, but gorram if I can remember a word of them. Now, in following with the theory of non-random scum posting patterns, it seems to me that there is an excellent chance of one of those four being scum. So, we have dotchan on the block, who, it seems to me, if primarily getting votes for informational purposes. If we can quickly come to an agreement on one of those four, perhaps it might be possible to have a 25% chance of a scum lynch today. Erm, So you are suggesting that one in seven of the players are scum? Where did you come up with that from? I would be shocked if there were more than six. I would agree, if I was sure that there was one and only one Alliance-aligned group. If there are multiple competing Alliance groups, the chances are that the total number of scum is higher than six - perhaps even in double figures. If they have to eliminate each other to win, then there can be more of them. The other idea that crossed my mind was multiple two-player groups each of which can breed by blackmail or growth...
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:15:55 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 20, 2007 15:15:55 GMT -5
And, while we are at it: vote count please (time 'til deadline would be appreciated, as well)Sure 11- zuma/Dotchan (Roosh, CatInASuit, sinjin, Cookies, drainbead, diggitcamera, Hal Briston, zeriel, Mad The Swine, FCoD, Diomedes) 6- CatinaSuit (Yattara, Pygmy Rugger, IdleThoughts, Spaceman Spiff (BlaM), Captain Klutz, panamajack) 1-atarus (hockeymonkey) 1- Diomedes (mtgman) 2 hours 15 minutes left before the deadline
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:17:12 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 20, 2007 15:17:12 GMT -5
Even minus the scum board part, you're right, that would look pretty telling. But, the thing is, we don't know (or at least, I don't) that one of those three (or four) are scum. You seem to be pretty sure about it. Well, given the history of how this game has been played, it would stand to reason. There has usually been one scum player who has hung back and posted very little, so as not to draw attention to themselves. Unless the scum have decided to take a different tact this time around (which, admittedly, is very much a possibility), there is a very good chance that is scum in that bunch. We're now much too far along into the day for it to be of use toDay, but it's a situation worth keeping an eye on.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:22:45 GMT -5
Post by mtgman on Sept 20, 2007 15:22:45 GMT -5
Storyteller, I disagree, I think the scum want not only the information generated by today, but also for us not to do anything with it. By not going through with a lynch we allow the scum to be the arbiters of who will die. They will pick tonight the most opportune person and knock them off. If they decide to do that at all and not carry out other actions instead. This could leave us tomorrow none the wiser apart from the town power roles and the scum having the advantage. You are asking that the majority of the new information be kept to the power roles (town and scum) and away from the majority of the players ie. the vanilla townies. You seem to be also assuming that no scum will be placed on a bandwagon as well and that the general vanilla town should only reach a lynch if they are really sure of the guilt of a player. This will only occur as and when the town power roles come forth and confirm scum. This could be a problem with claim and counter claim going on. I agree that tomorrow we should be more circumspect in our actions, but by not lynching today you remove a lot of context of todays actions. I agree with pretty much all of this. It has historically been a bad strategy to let your advasaries call the shots or rely on silver bullets. No Lynch puts us in a reactive strategy where all our questions remain unanswered and we have no information. It hides who is responsible for the little trickles of info we do get(from Night kills) and why those victims were targeted. It creates an oligarchy instead of a democracy, and the oligarchs are the only ones privileged with information. In fact, it creates a fractured Oligarchy made up of Scum and Power Roles, both working at cross purposes. I'm not comfortable with that. What if our power roles get killed over Night? Say a vigilante type takes one out and the scum get another(presuming vigs/sks and multiple power roles, none of which we KNOW). We've seen the effects of not KNOWING anything. It's time we put some cold hard facts on the ground, and publically. We need info, and we need to obtain it through a process which we can control and which is visible to us. Unvote: DiomedesVote: DotchanEnjoy, Steven
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:26:31 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Sept 20, 2007 15:26:31 GMT -5
But the thing is, Day lynchings do yield information for the town. Who voted? When did they vote? Who was in danger at the time? The psychopath game showed that very strongly: wasn't the Chia Bingo Manager very informative as to pygmy's alignment, for instance? (Pedant) The Chia Bingo Master Fiasco, as it was dubbed, happened in Twilight after the runoff between JSexton (Crazy Townie, i.e. a one-shot vigilante who could kill anyone he wanted to upon death) and Malacandra (Psycopath, i.e. scumbag); JSexton was in the hospital during the time of voting, so by he outed himself as the Crazy Townie he was already technically lynched, but he wanted opinons on who he should kill. Mhaye then claims Chia Bingo Master, saying that Blaster Master's death would have completed a line that could have allowed Mhaye to either have permanent Night-kill immunity or resurrect one player of choice (the obvious choice being Hockeymonkey the Psychiatrist-ne-Cop that was killed on Night 1). Most of us were either or at the claim, things went back and forth for a while. (/Pedant) But yes, vote patterns are very important for information - but we have three people other than the mod logging votes: Hal, via his spreadsheet; Hockeymonkey, who has a list of which candidates got votes from whom; and me, who's logging the votes/unvotes as well as the FoS/unFoSes as they're happening. Day 1 by itself has already generated a mountain of data through which we can slog through at our leisure.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:26:59 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 20, 2007 15:26:59 GMT -5
I've just realised from the ticker that the time limit is 10:30 pm GMT.
Of course, now I have just realised that we are running on BST, so its 11:30pm London time insetad. Another hour of torment waiting for a result.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:39:51 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 20, 2007 15:39:51 GMT -5
But yes, vote patterns are very important for information - but we have three people other than the mod logging votes: Hal, via his spreadsheet;... Which, I'd like to note, I will pick up again toMorrow. I'm going to have to rethink the whole "putting vote totals in each cell" thing, though. It's very useful, but it's also a pain to try and keep track of (and a massive pain to try and fix when I realize I missed an unvote or something along the way).
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:40:41 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 20, 2007 15:40:41 GMT -5
I have a problem now.
I remain convinced that toDay, at least, we would be better off with no lynch than lynching dotchan. I recognize that mine is a minority opinion. However, because several members of that minority are online right now, and several of those who might switch their votes to avoid a no-lynch are not, this minority has a disproportionate ability to affect the outcome of the Day.
Given that I consider a no-lynch a better option personally, should I vote for dotchan anyway to allow the wishes of the majority (ie, that there NOT be a no-lynch) to prevail?
I am asking this question genuinely. I don't know what to do.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:45:31 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 20, 2007 15:45:31 GMT -5
<snip> Given that I consider a no-lynch a better option personally, should I vote for dotchan anyway to allow the wishes of the majority (ie, that there NOT be a no-lynch) to prevail? <snip> I hate to argue semantics again, but if a majority of people think there should NOT be a no-lynch, then they'll vote for dotchan, and there won't be a no-lynch.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:48:37 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 20, 2007 15:48:37 GMT -5
I have a problem now. I remain convinced that toDay, at least, we would be better off with no lynch than lynching dotchan. I recognize that mine is a minority opinion. However, because several members of that minority are online right now, and several of those who might switch their votes to avoid a no-lynch are not, this minority has a disproportionate ability to affect the outcome of the Day. Given that I consider a no-lynch a better option personally, should I vote for dotchan anyway to allow the wishes of the majority (ie, that there NOT be a no-lynch) to prevail? I am asking this question genuinely. I don't know what to do. Storyteller, seriously, you could get arguments from both sides saying that you should lynch or not as the case may be. In the end it is your vote and you have to do what you think is right. The responsiblity is yours and yours alone for your vote. The whole point of your vote is that the town knows what you are doing. People's votes and actions are all the info the vanilla town has to go on. Asking and then following the town's opinion is a great way of getting out of the responsibility of your vote and that way scumness lies.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:49:14 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 20, 2007 15:49:14 GMT -5
<snip> Given that I consider a no-lynch a better option personally, should I vote for dotchan anyway to allow the wishes of the majority (ie, that there NOT be a no-lynch) to prevail? <snip> I hate to argue semantics again, but if a majority of people think there should NOT be a no-lynch, then they'll vote for dotchan, and there won't be a no-lynch. This would only be the case if I were satisfied that everyone in the game had the chance to consider the question in this way. As it stands now, though, there are a number of players who haven't check in on the dotchan versus no one issue. Thus the wishes of the majority might be defeated by the timing of the minority; as part of the minority, I'm not sure that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:51:24 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 20, 2007 15:51:24 GMT -5
I have a problem now. I remain convinced that toDay, at least, we would be better off with no lynch than lynching dotchan. I recognize that mine is a minority opinion. However, because several members of that minority are online right now, and several of those who might switch their votes to avoid a no-lynch are not, this minority has a disproportionate ability to affect the outcome of the Day. Given that I consider a no-lynch a better option personally, should I vote for dotchan anyway to allow the wishes of the majority (ie, that there NOT be a no-lynch) to prevail? I am asking this question genuinely. I don't know what to do. Storyteller, seriously, you could get arguments from both sides saying that you should lynch or not as the case may be. In the end it is your vote and you have to do what you think is right. The responsiblity is yours and yours alone for your vote. The whole point of your vote is that the town knows what you are doing. People's votes and actions are all the info the vanilla town has to go on. Asking and then following the town's opinion is a great way of getting out of the responsibility of your vote and that way scumness lies. Fair enough. No vote from me toDay. I'm leaving work now, so I'll next post when all this is resolved one way or another. Godspeed, and I am so freaking glad this Day is over.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 15:52:22 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 20, 2007 15:52:22 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall him saying there was only one other one in his faction, his brother. You seem to be messing up a lot. Post 1096 and Post 979... Mad states he never said there were only 2 brothers, and Cookies says there were an unquanitifed number, or three. I didn't mess up. Stop fishing for some sort of scumtell on me. I wasn't. I remember Mad saying he had a brother and therefore that was how people could have guessed how many there were. He even made a post to his brother a bit back. He only addressed one person in it. The really tough part of this is, Roosh, is that we're now setting ourselves up to allow vanilla roleclaims to get scum off the hook. Then why are you helping? You unvoted in this same post and voted no-lynch. If you think we're allowing possible liars to give vanilla role claims, why not vote to get information if one IS lying or not? That surmise is one that I did not make. Why? Because my role PM supports the idea that saying citizen of the Alliance and Crew-aligned, while claiming no powers, is claiming that they are vanilla town. And you were hounding her for claiming to be in the group which is very likely still to be the single largest (in terms of numbers). Where did I say "citizen of the Alliance"? Read the quote you just quoted. I said (and in bold) WIN CONDITIONS AND ALIGNMENT. Not role name. 1. People were giving their WIN CONDITIONS AND ALIGNMENT. 2. They matched mine. 3. dotchan said that she's an Alliance Citizen (same as dnooman) and thought that everyone saying their win conditions and alignment was narrowing it down for scum. 4. From what my PM says, this is not possible. What do you fail to get? You and I must be in different factions too if you're getting confused over this. Because MY PM doesn't say anything either way about what is what. So if YOU are Town just like I am, we must be in different name groups (In MV Town = believers and non-believers. This is what it has to be with you and me if you really are telling the truth). If it weren't so late in the day, I would suggest that we take a serious look at some of the people who have voted for her since her claim...those were Diomedes, Cookies, drainbead, diggitcamara, Hal Briston, zeriel, MadtheSwine, and FCOD. Since Diomedes and Mad have role claimed, take those two off the list for now. I'll be focusing my attention during the downtime of the Night to the posts of these people. Hopefully, I'll be able to post some good analysis come Tomorrow Morning. In other words, put heat on more people and hope they roleclaim? Story, your idea sounds sound however there's one thing in it that I don't agree with. The fact that scum would be the only ones to think a no-lynch is bad. Me, I think a no-lynch is bad, of which I've explained why in an earlier post in this marathon of a topic. But I'm not scum. Sorry Hal, But I disagree. They should either be poked or subbed, but trying to arrange a lynch on a player with no information on them is just ... well... scummy. Not so. Maybe it used to be but not anymore. It can go either way now. In MV a lot of people were saying kill off and vote for people who aren't posting. Me, as scum, I wanted them subbed out and not have them (protownies) use it as a reason to vote for them (other people I knew were protown). Anyway, story, I'd just say do what your heart tells you. If you are truly town, then you're doing it, at least, in town's best interest. If you're scum, hell, it even works then because you're still playing for your own team to win. So either way, just do what you think is best. Meanwhile, as I said above, I disagree with your no-lynch idea. So far I count twelve votes on dotchan. I'm willing to vote for her to actually make sure there is no "no-lynch". Unvote CatInASuit (whom I don't know what to think about anymore but remain suspicious of) and Vote dotchan (whom I also don't know what to think about but remain suspicious of) Someone else said above...both claimed vanilla town. But when it comes down to it, I guess I trust dotchan's a little less. From reading comments about Wash, it seems to me he's a fairly large and important character. One who would be in the game if it was a themed game (which this happens to be). I also realize that NAF said there was at least one character who was not on the 30+ name list on wiki...but as far as I know, TWO people have said they aren't on that list... dotchan and FCoD. One name I can understand..MAYBE. Two gives me mistrusting one of them. And since dotchan is the one with the most and I just happen to still find her shady some, my vote goes back on her.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:00:06 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 20, 2007 16:00:06 GMT -5
I also realize that NAF said there was at least one character who was not on the 30+ name list on wiki...but as far as I know, TWO people have said they aren't on that list... dotchan and FCoD. One name I can understand..MAYBE. Two gives me mistrusting one of them. Idle Thoughts: I count four people not on the Wikipedia lists. MadTheSwine, FCoD, dotchan and the other sanchez brother. 2 of those people are Firefly characters, 1 cannot be found and the other we know nothing about. I guess we wait and see.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:05:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 20, 2007 16:05:47 GMT -5
Dotchan currently has 13 votes.
There is 1 hour an 25 minutes left.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:12:28 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 20, 2007 16:12:28 GMT -5
At this time, I'm not going to vote for dotchan. However, I'll be around before the deadline, and if the majority of everyone wants a lynch over a no-lynch, I'll help out. If the majority wants a no-lynch over a dotchan-lynch, I won't. Dude, that's just twinging my scumdar meter. It's the problem people had with you in the beginning of the game. Don't be wishy-washy like that and do what you feel the "majority" of the town wants to do. That makes me think you're scum trying to get on the town's good side. Watch yourself. I gotta go. so can't read last page. I'm on pg. 46. I'm Anti-No-lynch. Because I don't want to go through another Day 2 like this one. And i fear that's all we'll end up with. And for the record, I believe Dotchan is scummy. So for me it feels that Dotchan is just getting off if we no lynch. Because i think she made up her roleclaim, but we'll never know. Maybe the issue gets settled on page 47. Gotta go ~R.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:28:28 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 20, 2007 16:28:28 GMT -5
This was one of the major points of my argument against Roosh's plan. We should not be using peoples names, one way or the other, as any kind of major evidence to indict or exonerate anyone. Even if we find that several of the major characters are pro-crew, who's to say NAF/Kat didn't take some creative license with the story (ie, so-and-so was converted, prior to the start, by a reaver; someone had a "change of heart" for whatever reason; etc.). Unfortunately, until we start lynching people, we're not going to to know yea or nay on this one. If this is the case, then all of the role-claims are up for grabs: there's no reason to think Wash or Inara or Mr. Universe are pro-crew, so any of our role-claims could be uncountered as scum. Where do you propose we go from here, then, in rooting out scum? Edit Note: Unfliltered Yea for clarity I propose we use the same method that we've ALWAYS used. I intend to use the names as flavor, not as clues. Names are extra information we do not normally get in a mafia game, and we seem to do fine without them there, why do we have to use potentially misleading information here? Basically, names are either useless and potentially dangerous at worst, and redundant (that is, they are highly correlated with the townie/scum roles). I'm inclined to beleive its the first because we've seen several nameclaims thus far, some major, some not, and not a single counter-claim. Further, because I suspect at least one of the claims is false, I can also postulate that it isn't necessary for scum to make a false name-claim. That is, I suspect they'll give their name, and falsify their claim through their alignment and/or powers. I really don't understand why so many people seem SO attached to using the names to indict or exonerate people. They should sink or swim based on their towniness/scumminess, not because they may or may not have a name that people don't feel sufficiently correlates with what you think should be the good guys and bad guys based on your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the series.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:35:48 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 20, 2007 16:35:48 GMT -5
About fifty-two minutes left in Day by my clock (I'm on the same time as NAF is.
To say this game is suspenseful would be like saying the Nile is a creek.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:39:41 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 20, 2007 16:39:41 GMT -5
Unfortunately, until we start lynching people, we're not going to to know yea or nay on this one. If this is the case, then all of the role-claims are up for grabs: there's no reason to think Wash or Inara or Mr. Universe are pro-crew, so any of our role-claims could be uncountered as scum. Where do you propose we go from here, then, in rooting out scum? Edit Note: Unfliltered Yea for clarity I propose we use the same method that we've ALWAYS used. I intend to use the names as flavor, not as clues. Names are extra information we do not normally get in a mafia game, and we seem to do fine without them there, why do we have to use potentially misleading information here? Basically, names are either useless and potentially dangerous at worst, and redundant (that is, they are highly correlated with the townie/scum roles). I'm inclined to beleive its the first because we've seen several nameclaims thus far, some major, some not, and not a single counter-claim. Further, because I suspect at least one of the claims is false, I can also postulate that it isn't necessary for scum to make a false name-claim. That is, I suspect they'll give their name, and falsify their claim through their alignment and/or powers. I really don't understand why so many people seem SO attached to using the names to indict or exonerate people. They should sink or swim based on their towniness/scumminess, not because they may or may not have a name that people don't feel sufficiently correlates with what you think should be the good guys and bad guys based on your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the series. I think we each need to find our individual sweet spots between putting too much weight into name-claims and disregarding them altogether. If we assume Mad is indeed who he says he is (a Sanchez brother), as he says he is (town, and one of two masons, the other being his brother), that shows that names can indeed be significant on their own and should not be preemptively disregarded.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:39:58 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 20, 2007 16:39:58 GMT -5
I propose we use the same method that we've ALWAYS used. I intend to use the names as flavor, not as clues. Names are extra information we do not normally get in a mafia game, and we seem to do fine without them there, why do we have to use potentially misleading information here? Basically, names are either useless and potentially dangerous at worst, and redundant (that is, they are highly correlated with the townie/scum roles). I'm inclined to beleive its the first because we've seen several nameclaims thus far, some major, some not, and not a single counter-claim. Further, because I suspect at least one of the claims is false, I can also postulate that it isn't necessary for scum to make a false name-claim. That is, I suspect they'll give their name, and falsify their claim through their alignment and/or powers. I really don't understand why so many people seem SO attached to using the names to indict or exonerate people. They should sink or swim based on their towniness/scumminess, not because they may or may not have a name that people don't feel sufficiently correlates with what you think should be the good guys and bad guys based on your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the series. Perhaps the reason I've been so attached to using names is because of my affinity for the setting in general, and the fact that my name corresponded closely to both my role and my alignment. It made sense to me that, following that, there was rhyme and reason to the assignment of roles and alignments. Further, I'm just not used to the closed setup. Metagaming through name claims just seemed an easy thing to latch onto in order to provide a bridge between the familiar open game and this one. Not the best of reasons, either, I know. I'll take this under advisement in future days.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:55:07 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 20, 2007 16:55:07 GMT -5
1 - atarus - (hockeymonkey)
5 - CatinaSuit - (Yattara, Pygmy Rugger, Spaceman Spiff (BlaM), Captain Klutz, panamajack)
13 - zuma/Dotchan - (Roosh, CatInASuit, sinjin, Cookies, drainbead, diggitcamera, Hal Briston, zeriel, Mad The Swine, FCoD, Diomedes, mtgman, Idle Thoughts)
30 minutes and change left in the Day.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 20, 2007 16:56:30 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 20, 2007 16:56:30 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to try to do this quick, because we're running short on time, but there's some points in here I VERY much disagree with, and some of them I touched on much earlier in the thread. In which I go out on a limbOR The case for No-lynchHoo boy. I don't expect this to be a popular post, but I'd like to ask folks to at least read and consider. After a lot of re-reading, rethinking, and trying to apply some kind of reason to the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a No-lynch would be the best possible outcome of this Day given where we stand right now. I will outline why. See what you all think. In M5 (The Sekham Game), the scum threw up a false Mason claim that was obviously intended to draw the town into lynching one of the claimants. One of the pro-town players (I think it was Queuing, but if you think I'm re-reading that thread right after re-reading this one, you're crazy) asked, in essence: "Why are we doing what the scum want us to do?" As an observer, who knew he was pro-town, I thought that was a useful question. As I re-read, I tried to apply myself to figuring out the answer to one question: what do the scum want us to do?The answer to that seems ostensibly obvious - they want us to kill a townie. Right? Well, sure... but how important, in the long run, is the outcome of this Day? Whatever we hit, there's a long way to go until the endgame. What else is of value to the scum? FTR, this much I agree with. This is definitively untrue. Let us say that the information from the setup is S, and the information that each individual play has is X and X o is the information a vanilla townie knows (ie, he's town aligned). Let n be the number of scum. Then we can say that at the beginning of the game, the information that the town has is I = S + sum (1,p,X j - X o) + Xi. That is, the total information of the setup, whatever information the power roles have and, for each person, his own role. At the beginning, the X j cancels with X o (since the power roles have no information other than their own role) and thus it simplifies to I = S + X i. However, the scum information is I = S + sum(1,n,X j) which simplifies to I = S + nX o. Thus, the information ratio of scum to town is (S + X o):(S + nX o). However, because S open > S closed it necessarily follows that this ratio MUST be higher in a closed game because as S->inf, the ration approaches 1 and as S->0, the ratio approaches 1/n and n > 1. Besides the fact that your premise is false... you're right, the scum can't plan to deal with them. But the town can't plan to utilize them either. Plus, all they have to do to devise a false claim is either claim vanilla or come up with a power (eg, like Roosh claims to have) This goes against fundamental mafia philosophy. The scum want to minimize information gain because otherwise they lose their advantage. Or, they trade a little bit of their information edge to chip a larger chunk from their numbers disadvantage. Huh? A no-lynch minimizes information gain, plus it gives THEM to opportunity to decide who dies, thus necessarily helping their cause for a numerical advantage. I agree with all but the last bit for the reason I stated above. This is wrong. We're letting them select what information we gain through a no-lynch. They could easily choose someone, like dnooman, who's information seems to be largely accepted by the town and thus confirming it adds little to what we know. You're darn tootin'. This is precisely the type of twisting of logic to sound pro-town that I would expect from you. I'll be taking a closer look at you to determine if it is deliberate or just a mistake.
|
|