|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 8:03:29 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 11, 2007 8:03:29 GMT -5
I AM saying that it might behoove us to think carefully about when we play the "I have a secret" card-- roosh's demonstration is a perfect example, because some of us townies DON'T know why closed setups are better (aside from scum not knowing which power roles to look for tells about, so we townies can make up power tells to confuse the bejeezus out of them) and therefore we can't play up whatever it is. This strikes me as somewhat of a bad idea. If there are certain power roles in the game, and a vanilla townie decides to "confuse the scum" by dropping hints to say that they are that power role, they don't just confuse the scum...they confuse the person who actually has that role...who will then be thinking that this vanilla townie might be scum. So unless you want to pretend to be the Flying Pumpkin That Shoots Laser Beams Out Of Its Ass, or something more bizarre like a Chia Bingo Manager, your making up power role tells is only going to confuse the REAL Doc or Cop or whatever they're going to be called in this game, and eventually get you killed one way or the other--either by scum who thinks you're a power role, or by town who Lynches All Liars. And we don't want town dead, we want scum dead. Does that make any sense? So why ARE closed setups better? All I'm feeling is mass confusion at the moment.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:02:22 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 11, 2007 9:02:22 GMT -5
Note to self:Post quicker or preview. But on preview the posts start from the first and don't get to the latest ones. Is there a way to toggle that? Posts available for Preview are limited to the page number to which you respond. So, to get full Preview effect, you have to reply on the most recent page.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:06:30 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 9:06:30 GMT -5
I never saw the point of ever mentioning the randomness and applying it to yourself in this game because everyone already knows that it's random for town on Day One. Drawing attention to that fact just seems to be trying to subtly plant the seed of towniness early on. Not to necessarily jump to WTF's defence (scumtell scumtell, ding ding ding ) Idle, but everybody doesn't necessarily know that Day One is essentially all about random voting, we have several (included WhatTheFrack I think?) completely new players in the game. I for one originally expected there to be some real basis for votes right from the get go, a notion which I was quickly disabused of You know what? In M1, the very first Mafia game I ever watched, someone voted for Menocchio on the grounds that he was the third person on a bandwagon. This was not random. Mennochio turned out to be the Alpha Werewolf (lead scum). In Asylum Lane, MadtheSwine and I picked up on what we saw as suspicious behavior out of drainbead and eventually lead a wagon to lynch her. This was not random. drainbead turned out to be scum. I reject out of hand the proposition that "Day One is essentially all about random voting." This is not to say that I oppose random voting or think it's scummy - I won't be doing it, but everyone has their own strategy - but to say that we have no options on Day One other than to roll the dice and hope is ceding Day One to the scum. It's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you say "all we can do is random vote," and you're believed, then the scum, along with everyone else, will just random vote. Then they can hide in the randomness. If you accept that it is possible, even on Day One, to vote for a real reason (not necessarily a definitive reason, but a reason), then you force the scum to play that way - and make it just a bit harder for them to hide. And so I begin with an FoS on both Greedy and Idle, for trying to get everyone to accept as commonly-known fact a statement - that Day One is "essentially all about random voting" - that is both untrue and beneficial to the scum.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:11:18 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 9:11:18 GMT -5
First: I'm a Firefly noob--I've seen about half of Serenity, never seen the series. Second: I'm not going to have as much time for this game as I have previous ones--I'll be posting at least once a day, but I might not be in as many ongoing discussions. Third: My experience in M5 is making me really REALLY want to short-circuit the secretiveness thing--we as town were way too secretive about power roles and it led to them being unable to coordinate after the scum already knew who they were. I'm not saying give everything away early, but I AM saying that it might behoove us to think carefully about when we play the "I have a secret" card-- roosh's demonstration is a perfect example, because some of us townies DON'T know why closed setups are better (aside from scum not knowing which power roles to look for tells about, so we townies can make up power tells to confuse the bejeezus out of them) and therefore we can't play up whatever it is. I am totally serious about this. This bit us in the ass many, many times in M5--I'm guilty of it myself, because my failure to claim for Cookies and Sach resulted in Monkgate. Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed! Watching M5 has been the most frustrating experience I've ever had, because the townies were reserving as secret things that would have been more useful as open knowledge. It's important to keep a secret when there is a compelling reason to do so - but if there isn't, dogmatically refusing to share what you know is counterproductive. And please, can we try to keep a lid on the "I have a theory/secret/bit of knowledge, and maybe you can guess it, but I'm certainly not going to tell you if you can't guess yourself" kind of posts? If you have a theory that the scum shouldn't hear, then you shouldn't mention the theory at all. There is no benefit to announcing to all and sundry that "Eureka! I have found it! But I'm not telling you about it!"
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:12:45 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 9:12:45 GMT -5
Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed! Watching M5 has been the most frustrating experience I've ever had Just so you all know I don't take this game too seriously: I mean, the most frustrating experience I've ever had playing Mafia.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:13:19 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 11, 2007 9:13:19 GMT -5
FTR, I'd likw to opt out of the random discussions this time as well. Deja vu all over again. I may not be able to keep myself from responding to others' posts on the subject, though...
|
|
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 11, 2007 9:26:07 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 9:26:07 GMT -5
oh. And just for my own sake.... Can you guys each point out who's completely new to the FF world and who's a fanatic of the series? Just so I don't like slip up on something silly by going "wait, where did they know that info from" if its just something that's known in the show. I myself Am a FF newbie. I've only seen serenity, and it was an eh action movie for me. For your own references. This strikes me as fishing. IMO, knowledge of the series will have minimal to zero impact on the game. We can make certain assumptions about how many of what kinds of roles there will be. However, as some have pointed out, there are various roles in the universe that could be aligned in various ways. Further, another comment from Roosh about about Closed setup favoring town. Open set up favors town MUCH more. Look at it this way: In Open setup, everyone has information on roles (say, R) and each role has information about himself (X1..Xm); thus the townie has a total information of R + X and the scum have a total of R + nX (where n is the number of scum). In a closed set up game, a townie has X and scum have nX. Because R > 0 we can safely say [(R + X) / (R + nX)] > [X / nX]. Thus, the average ratio of information for each vanilla townie to each scum is higher in an open setup game. For that reason, I think Roosh is trying to play the same way he did before, but deliberately throwing out silly information and expecting the "veteran" players to figure it out for him rather than justifying it himself. Nice try. Vote RooshFTR, I'm also suspicious of Diomedes, but it is largely because of the tone of his posts, and thus it is unsubstantiable.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:26:15 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 11, 2007 9:26:15 GMT -5
First: I'm a Firefly noob--I've seen about half of Serenity, never seen the series. Second: I'm not going to have as much time for this game as I have previous ones--I'll be posting at least once a day, but I might not be in as many ongoing discussions. Third: My experience in M5 is making me really REALLY want to short-circuit the secretiveness thing--we as town were way too secretive about power roles and it led to them being unable to coordinate after the scum already knew who they were. I'm not saying give everything away early, but I AM saying that it might behoove us to think carefully about when we play the "I have a secret" card-- roosh's demonstration is a perfect example, because some of us townies DON'T know why closed setups are better (aside from scum not knowing which power roles to look for tells about, so we townies can make up power tells to confuse the bejeezus out of them) and therefore we can't play up whatever it is. I am totally serious about this. This bit us in the ass many, many times in M5--I'm guilty of it myself, because my failure to claim for Cookies and Sach resulted in Monkgate. Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed! Watching M5 has been the most frustrating experience I've ever had, because the townies were reserving as secret things that would have been more useful as open knowledge. It's important to keep a secret when there is a compelling reason to do so - but if there isn't, dogmatically refusing to share what you know is counterproductive. And please, can we try to keep a lid on the "I have a theory/secret/bit of knowledge, and maybe you can guess it, but I'm certainly not going to tell you if you can't guess yourself" kind of posts? If you have a theory that the scum shouldn't hear, then you shouldn't mention the theory at all. There is no benefit to announcing to all and sundry that "Eureka! I have found it! But I'm not telling you about it!" If you want another example of how it can be very important. Try to imagine what could have happened if Pleonast had told the town what his power was before I set up zuma's death in M5. By keeping that knowledge, he was certain to die when it could have taken out a Cultist instead.
|
|
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 11, 2007 9:28:57 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 9:28:57 GMT -5
FTR, I have played scum twice, and each time placed at least one random vote (IIRC, I random voted twice in M3). Each time I REALLY DID go to random.org for my vote. In M6, I actually came back with a result for a fellow scum, and I still voted that way. IOW, I think assuming that scum won't "random vote" for eachother is a bad assumption. Random voting vs. Non Random voting. For the scum, there is no random voting. They are playing with knowledge of who their team mates are. However, they don't know who else is playing what. I'm really not convinced of the truth of this statement. If I want to make a random vote, I pick up a die (I have a few spare by the printer). In this game it would probably be the d30 right now. If I were scum (just for the sake of this argument), I'd simply reroll the die (or roll a smaller die) if it came up any of my scumbuddies. The result would still be random. The chance of the result I did get would be slightly higher than the chance a vanilla crew had of getting the same result. Over a large number of such rolls this might be detectable, but a single result? Not a chance. Thus this "scum can't play at random" is wrong. They're just as capable of randomising a single result as the crew are. Now I have to read the thread again and assimilate it. (I didn't think it would be a good idea at 4am).
|
|
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 11, 2007 9:32:47 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 9:32:47 GMT -5
Erm... wow, that was poor form. I should have posted my response BELOW the quote to which I was responding. OY!
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:33:30 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 11, 2007 9:33:30 GMT -5
So, all we know is our own role, that some people sha other people, and what our win condition is right? There may be more than one group of "town" and more than one group of "scum". If there are numerous win conditions, couldn't we end up with a situation where "an enemy of my enemy is my friend, but also an enemy of mine"? I'm assuming that there will be at least some type of good guys versus bag guys element to the game (that is the point of the game isn't it?), [glow=green,2,200]or is this version more of an "every man for him/her self"?[/glow] I guess you could divide us into killers and non-killers, but I'm not sure that would help any of us get our win condition. Also, I have no problem believing that there could be some sort of gray area 'twixt the two as well.
I'm corn-fused. (glowing the relevant sentence) Ok, so I know what my role PM said, and based upon that I know the game is not "every man for him/her self". Hence, dnooman has a different role than I do, and different == bad! Vote dnooman.--FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:36:35 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 11, 2007 9:36:35 GMT -5
I was going to say that the reason a closed setup helps the town more is that there is a lot more ambiguity about the roles and what they are capable of.
The scum have been reluctant in other games to deal with someone who they do not know about and are unsure of the consequences of dealing with them.
An open setup is more beneficial for vanilla townies as they know what the situation they are playing for.
A closed setup will help town power roles as they can hide what they are truly capable of from the Scum.
The question concerning setup is going to be a matter of choice as to whether you think the vanilla town or town power roles have more of an impact in the game.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:45:44 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 11, 2007 9:45:44 GMT -5
So, all we know is our own role, that some people sha other people, and what our win condition is right? There may be more than one group of "town" and more than one group of "scum". If there are numerous win conditions, couldn't we end up with a situation where "an enemy of my enemy is my friend, but also an enemy of mine"? I'm assuming that there will be at least some type of good guys versus bag guys element to the game (that is the point of the game isn't it?), [glow=green,2,200]or is this version more of an "every man for him/her self"?[/glow] I guess you could divide us into killers and non-killers, but I'm not sure that would help any of us get our win condition. Also, I have no problem believing that there could be some sort of gray area 'twixt the two as well.
I'm corn-fused. (glowing the relevant sentence) Ok, so I know what my role PM said, and based upon that I know the game is not "every man for him/her self". Hence, dnooman has a different role than I do, and different == bad! Vote dnooman.--FCOD Apparently I can't see "glowing" in Firefox either.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 9:58:39 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 11, 2007 9:58:39 GMT -5
FTR, I have played scum twice, and each time placed at least one random vote (IIRC, I random voted twice in M3). Each time I REALLY DID go to random.org for my vote. In M6, I actually came back with a result for a fellow scum, and I still voted that way. IOW, I think assuming that scum won't "random vote" for eachother is a bad assumption. I would agree. In fact assuming anything at all is usually a really bad idea. You are far more likely to be wrong than right.
|
|
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 11, 2007 10:00:08 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Sept 11, 2007 10:00:08 GMT -5
FTR, I have played scum twice, and each time placed at least one random vote (IIRC, I random voted twice in M3). Each time I REALLY DID go to random.org for my vote. In M6, I actually came back with a result for a fellow scum, and I still voted that way. Let's take a concrete example. In M5 I selected my first night's investigation at random. I picked up the d30 and rolled it while looking at the player list. Was it any less random because as well as excluding player number 11 (for being dead) and player number 27 (for being me) I also excluded player number 13, because I already knew that player's role? My point here is that just because the selection is from a smaller field, it does not make it less random. it makes each individual result more likely, but does not make it less random. I also suggest that unless a given player makes more than one random vote, the increased chance of the vote he or she did make is not going to be detectable. Deliberately including your packmates is a decision that each individual scum can make for themselves. It helps avoid patterns. It also does not change the fact that I am unfond of random votes and won't use them.
|
|
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 11, 2007 10:51:40 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 10:51:40 GMT -5
FTR, I have played scum twice, and each time placed at least one random vote (IIRC, I random voted twice in M3). Each time I REALLY DID go to random.org for my vote. In M6, I actually came back with a result for a fellow scum, and I still voted that way. Let's take a concrete example. In M5 I selected my first night's investigation at random. I picked up the d30 and rolled it while looking at the player list. Was it any less random because as well as excluding player number 11 (for being dead) and player number 27 (for being me) I also excluded player number 13, because I already knew that player's role? My point here is that just because the selection is from a smaller field, it does not make it less random. it makes each individual result more likely, but does not make it less random. I also suggest that unless a given player makes more than one random vote, the increased chance of the vote he or she did make is not going to be detectable. Deliberately including your packmates is a decision that each individual scum can make for themselves. It helps avoid patterns. It also does not change the fact that I am unfond of random votes and won't use them. I don't think your investigative case is comparable to a random vote. The point of scum random voting is to look like vanilla townie random voting. That is, a townie who random votes obviously wouldn't vote for himself, but may or may not randomly vote for scum. Thus, a scum who wants to mimic this pattern would exclude himself but would want to include scum, otherwise, when it's determined that he is scum, anyone he voted for could safely be put in the confirmed town list. Plus, he wouldn't want to look strange if he random votes several times, each one is from the sample of non-scum, and thus draws some suspicion from people who feel like crunching the numbers. In your case, you're not trying to mimic another distribution, you're trying to maximize information gain, thus it wouldn't make sense to investigate yourself, investigate a dead person, or anyone who may have claim. Similarly, a random voter wouldn't ever vote for himself, vote for a dead person, or vote for anyone who may have claimed (unless scum claimed to be scum). IOW, scum aren't trying to maximize information gain, they're trying to minimize information output. By deliberately including all of their scummates, and using a truly random resource, there will be no patterns except those that may occur naturally in randomness (which is porportionally more likely to cluster them with townies than scum anyway); however, if they deliberately manipulate the sample, there will necessarily be patterns because scum will not random vote eachother, thus there will more likely be clustering around the scum, which defeats the entire purpose from their perspective.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 10:56:20 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 11, 2007 10:56:20 GMT -5
mhaye, you're correct about it being 'random', but what most people expect of 'random' is that it is randomized over all players in the game. If 10 people decide to confine their choices to the same two players, chosen 'at random', certainly the voting results will not be what most consider a random choice.
You've argued that the skew will not be as large as that, and you may be right. The voting method in this game makes it moot anyway (see below).
But you've already said you don't like random voting, and storyteller0910 made a good point - random voting concedes the Day to the scum.
More importantly, the voting must be a majority to even have a lynch. This means that at the end of toDay, 15 of us are going to be voting for one person. If you want to know why this favors the scum, ask Roosh. If he thinks like me, he'll probably tell you that the scum will have a much easier time hiding in a large voting bloc. Bandwagonning scum are harder to detect. Also - once we catch scum, we won't have quite as much information from voting patterns either. About the only thing we can say is not to trust anyone who favors no-lynch. It quite simply has no chance of killing scum.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 10:57:37 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on Sept 11, 2007 10:57:37 GMT -5
Well, this is refreshing. I thought that actually going to class and getting some sleep the night the Day began would put me hopelessly behind, but I've actually managed to catch up. Shiny! (FTR, I watched all of the show, watched the movie AND was part of a Firefly RPG. I was Wash and some dude was my wife...) I've never played a closed setup like this before, and I'm not too certain about how it'll affect strategy. The only possible advantage for us that I see is that the scum are slightly more in the dark than usual. They know who they are, but no idea about how many power roles or what kinds. I'm not sure how big of an advantage that is, but it is a start, I suppose. Then again...that means that we don't know how many power roles or what kinds we have either. Oy.
|
|
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 11, 2007 11:04:09 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 11:04:09 GMT -5
More importantly, the voting must be a majority to even have a lynch. This means that at the end of toDay, 15 of us are going to be voting for one person. If you want to know why this favors the scum, ask Roosh. If he thinks like me, he'll probably tell you that the scum will have a much easier time hiding in a large voting bloc. Bandwagonning scum are harder to detect. Also - once we catch scum, we won't have quite as much information from voting patterns either. About the only thing we can say is not to trust anyone who favors no-lynch. It quite simply has no chance of killing scum. I disagree. All the majority voting means is the town has to do a better job of cooperating and coordinating. For instance, one plan would be to simply vote as normal for, say, the first half of the Day. After that, pick the top candidates who have more than one vote and have a run off that lasts, say the next day or so (this gets rid of all the 1 person votes, but leaves them on the record for determining later). Finally, take the top two vote getters and have a run off between those two which will necessarily force a majority vote if everyone participates. Whether or not that's the best plan, I don't know, it's just what came to mind now. But, we MUST come up with some method to keep people from having one-off votes near the end of the time limit when we're struggling to get a majority.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 11:14:30 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on Sept 11, 2007 11:14:30 GMT -5
I disagree. All the majority voting means is the town has to do a better job of cooperating and coordinating. For instance, one plan would be to simply vote as normal for, say, the first half of the Day. After that, pick the top candidates who have more than one vote and have a run off that lasts, say the next day or so (this gets rid of all the 1 person votes, but leaves them on the record for determining later). Finally, take the top two vote getters and have a run off 'twixt those two which will necessarily force a majority vote if everyone participates. Whether or not that's the best plan, I don't know, it's just what came to mind now. But, we MUST come up with some method to keep people from having one-off votes near the end of the time limit when we're struggling to get a majority. I'm not sure if I'd say that's the best way of doing things, but avoiding the one off votes probably is a good idea. I've been the timid townie who wanted to avoid the whole bandwagon mess and planted my vote well away the action and you know what it did? It came back to bite me on the ass. Some kind of crazy bandwagon of frothing madness doesn't do much good either, but, "Oh, I didn't vote on any of the top candidates, so you can't blame me!" is completely unhelpful if you're crew. The only players who would gain an advantage from that would be scum.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 11:25:14 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Sept 11, 2007 11:25:14 GMT -5
More importantly, the voting must be a majority to even have a lynch. This means that at the end of toDay, 15 of us are going to be voting for one person. If you want to know why this favors the scum, ask Roosh. If he thinks like me, he'll probably tell you that the scum will have a much easier time hiding in a large voting bloc. Bandwagonning scum are harder to detect. Also - once we catch scum, we won't have quite as much information from voting patterns either. About the only thing we can say is not to trust anyone who favors no-lynch. It quite simply has no chance of killing scum. I disagree. All the majority voting means is the town has to do a better job of cooperating and coordinating. For instance, one plan would be to simply vote as normal for, say, the first half of the Day. After that, pick the top candidates who have more than one vote and have a run off that lasts, say the next day or so (this gets rid of all the 1 person votes, but leaves them on the record for determining later). Finally, take the top two vote getters and have a run off 'twixt those two which will necessarily force a majority vote if everyone participates. Whether or not that's the best plan, I don't know, it's just what came to mind now. But, we MUST come up with some method to keep people from having one-off votes near the end of the time limit when we're struggling to get a majority. I can't agree on that point. During the Crazyville game, Day 1 provided an excellent insight into scum operations precisely because we didn't force anyone to align themselves to any of the main vote getters. In that case, their (your) attempt to distribute yourself "randomly" made it easier to identify once a couple of days had passed. In other words, Day 1 actually provides loads of information. But you have to wait for the dust to clear to be able to see it. And on storyteller's point (of non-randomness): you're right, as usual. But only about yourself. The problem is, you're very good at finding and pointing out scum (or at least have been in the past games I've played with you) merely on the strength of their posts. I have seen few others who actually have that strength (maybe tirial).
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 12:23:44 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 12:23:44 GMT -5
Oh, I too am not a fan of keeping secrets throughout the game. However, I'm totally ALL for the ability to keep secrets for a while, just to watch people squirm and see how they react.
In my view, I've got 10 days to reveal my thoughts. Yes, there is a chance that before I get back 15 people might suddenly decide to bandwagon me and kill me off before I get a chance to reveal my thoughts (which is SO Scummy that that would be an awful thing to do for ANYONE, information = good). However, I'm a frequent enough checker of these boards, and if i saw votes accumulating I'd def. talk before I go down.
But right now its less than 24 hours into the game. So I don't mind holding "Secrets' as long as they will be revealed before the next day begins. I certainly don't have the patience to wait 5 days to reveal my thoughts, but I do have enough for maybe 24 hours. Because in the meantime it gives us information on what people are thinking about.
And my comments are in no way talking about PowerRoles to whoever suggested that nugget. In fact, it's the opposite. This Game heavily favors the Town. Not Power Roles, and not Scum. Town.
But your thoughts are noted on the matter, CatInASuit. PanamaJack, you mentioned my name. I dislike name dropping randomly. It tries to create a sense of trust between people. But yes, I do agree with you. With a majority of 15 being needed, it will be easy for Scum to hide their votes. Because on Day 2, what are you gonna look at more suspiciously, but in the end it'll lead to more WIFOM in the early days. Only after 2-4 days will we start to get more information on the Voting patterns.
See, here's the thing BM. There are multiple killing groups (The Mods said if there was 28 peep, there would be an additional killing group, so I'm assuming a min. of 2 killers at night). For the Mafia people, they actually benefit from No-lynches AND Lynches.
Your plan of Co-ordinating the town creates just a lot of delays and worries over something that any scummy person could easily get along with. because in the early stages the chances of us hitting scum are lower, so Mafia could easily play the odds by going joining in on the townie killing. in fact, they'd know when we ARE NOT Lynching scum, which would make them even MORE Eager to lynch said townies in chance that it might be the 2nd killing group.
I'm not as worried about the One-Off votes yet. If there's only 1 killing group, then i'll start to really worry about the one-off votes, because that's when it starts to favor them to just go w/ night kills only.
Those are my thoughts for now.
|
|
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 11, 2007 12:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 12:39:21 GMT -5
*raising hand* Teacher, teacher! I have an idea!
How about, if a power role has some information that they think will be beneficial to the town right now, tell us now. If they think their information will be more useful later, tell us later. If they think their info is better kept to themselves for the duration of the game, by all means, keep your mouth shut.
If you're going to vote randomly, vote randomly. I've had this conversation more than once, I'm not doing it again. At the end of the Day, we need to have 15 votes on the same person. Everybody needs to cooperate a bit for this to happen. We don't have to follow some master plan to get it to happen, as I think it will become clear who the major candidates are near the end of the Day, and we can figure out what to do from there.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 12:46:57 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 12:46:57 GMT -5
Oh, I too am not a fan of keeping secrets throughout the game. However, I'm totally ALL for the ability to keep secrets for a while, just to watch people squirm and see how they react. Hey, whatever floats your boat. But I'm not sure exactly what you're hoping to see. You say: "I have a theory." Others say, "tell us your theory." You say, "not for a few days." Others say, "uhhhhh... OK?" I mean, what have you accomplished here, beyond burning a few posts worth of discussion time? You've told us nothing, and since you've said nothing, none of the responses you receive will be in any way meaningful. Keep secrets all you want. But part of keeping a secret is keeping the existence of the secret... well, secret. If you don't want to talk about it, why mention it? I don't see how. Can you specify? What information have you gotten as a result of your "magic bag" post on how other players are thinking? How is it useful? Yeah, I really don't agree with this statement. But since you provide no evidence to support your belief, I can't really debate it with you. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter who the game favors, when it comes to finding scum. I don't understand this paragraph. What delays and worries? Blaster Master's plan seems to me to be only peripherally about averting covert scum action and more about making sure that the typical end-of-Day dithering and uncertainty doesn't result in a long string of no-lynches.
|
|
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 11, 2007 12:59:26 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 12:59:26 GMT -5
I disagree. All the majority voting means is the town has to do a better job of cooperating and coordinating. For instance, one plan would be to simply vote as normal for, say, the first half of the Day. After that, pick the top candidates who have more than one vote and have a run off that lasts, say the next day or so (this gets rid of all the 1 person votes, but leaves them on the record for determining later). Finally, take the top two vote getters and have a run off 'twixt those two which will necessarily force a majority vote if everyone participates. Whether or not that's the best plan, I don't know, it's just what came to mind now. But, we MUST come up with some method to keep people from having one-off votes near the end of the time limit when we're struggling to get a majority. I can't agree on that point. During the Crazyville game, Day 1 provided an excellent insight into scum operations precisely because we didn't force anyone to align themselves to any of the main vote getters. In that case, their (your) attempt to distribute yourself "randomly" made it easier to identify once a couple of days had passed. In other words, Day 1 actually provides loads of information. But you have to wait for the dust to clear to be able to see it. No disagreement from me there. I still want to have people vote for whom they think is scummiest. The problem is, left up to our own devises, the people with the most votes at the end of the day MAY have around 25% of the total. That was the point of the plan that I mentioned. That is, go ahead and let people one-off vote, so we get a record of that. But after that, we HAVE to find a way to ensure that we get a majority. A no-lynch on the first day is, IMO, very bad for the town. What do we do if we have three or four leading candidates, but each is FAR away from a lynching majority? How do we conglomerate those votes into forming a lynching majority?
|
|
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 11, 2007 13:02:19 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 13:02:19 GMT -5
<snip> What do we do if we have three or four leading candidates, but each is FAR away from a lynching majority? How do we conglomerate those votes into forming a lynching majority? Then we have a runoff for those three or four leading candidates. Let's figure it out when most of us have our votes in. No use worrying about it now.
|
|
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 11, 2007 13:08:59 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 13:08:59 GMT -5
Oh, I too am not a fan of keeping secrets throughout the game. However, I'm totally ALL for the ability to keep secrets for a while, just to watch people squirm and see how they react. I'm going to go back to one of my pet theories from M4 (since I don't think it ever came up in M6). That is, the scum have more information and there's more than one of them. They have MORE deductive ability than you do AND there's more of them to think about it and work together on figuring things out. IOW, we have to assume that the scum collectively are at least as smart as any one of us individually. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily come up with ellaborate schemes, but it DOES mean they're much more likely to figure out rule loop-holes and strategies and potential power roles. Townies, especially vanilla ones, have precisely ZERO reason to hold back information, particularly with regard to strategy, because chances are the scum know as well, and all they're doing is keeping that information away from the rest of the town. When you say "look, I've got goodies, but it's not about power roles", what do you expect to see? I think Storyteller said it well, in that, how can we determine if you're right or not if we don't know what your reasoning is? Hell, I even presented my reasoning for the opposite of what you said, and you didn't offer any kind of counterargument. In essence, your behavior is distinctly anti-town at this point.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:10:32 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 11, 2007 13:10:32 GMT -5
Ok, a couple of notes while I try and get up to speed here: 1. Apparently, I'm a glutton for punishment. The Firefly Mafia Voting Chart is up and running. For obvious reasons, I don't have a formatting key like the last charts ( scum, believer, non-believer, etc...). 2. Zero exposure to Firefly/Serenity. I remember when the teasers were being shown on Fox, I said "Hey, that looks cool as hell" and my wife said "Hey, that looks like crap". I shrugged and thought "'Eh...I watch too much TV anyway". One of these days I'll find someone I can borrow the box set from and I'll just have a workday marathon (I love telecommuting). 3. Should I vote for Hal Briston, because the theory of probability* says that, as often as people have thought he was scum, he must be scum by now? I realize you were probably speaking hypothetically, but just so you're aware -- on the Hispanolia I was semi-scum to start, and subbed back in as full-fledged scum.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:10:45 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Sept 11, 2007 13:10:45 GMT -5
(snip) But after that, we HAVE to find a way to ensure that we get a majority. A no-lynch on the first day is, IMO, very bad for the town. What do we do if we have three or four leading candidates, but each is FAR away from a lynching majority? How do we conglomerate those votes into forming a lynching majority? I say, let's cross that bridge when we get to it. In most games the first couple of Days were clustered around two players, anyhow. So my guess would be, around day 8 we should abandon those candidates who have non-significant minority votes (say 1 or 2 votes) and around day 9 we should start talking about who of those remaining should get lynched. In other words, treat day 8 as a first "deadline" and the next couple of days like a run-off between the leading candidates.
|
|
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 11, 2007 13:14:26 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 13:14:26 GMT -5
<snip> What do we do if we have three or four leading candidates, but each is FAR away from a lynching majority? How do we conglomerate those votes into forming a lynching majority? Then we have a runoff for those three or four leading candidates. Let's figure it out when most of us have our votes in. No use worrying about it now. First off, I think it will help generate discussion, which will lead to us finding reads. Second, I don't want to wait to figure it out later, because then we have people potentially manipulating reasoning to get a specific person lynched or save another person. If we do it now, we don't have any alterior motives except for the generic scum ones that are always present, and they would be hard pressed to support an illogical method when they're not even sure if it will help or hurt them.
|
|