|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 22:35:55 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 24, 2012 22:35:55 GMT -5
NETA on separate off boards
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 22:39:19 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Nov 24, 2012 22:39:19 GMT -5
TOS* wombat99 for not knowing who the Modarator is. *Toe of Suspicion. It's like a Finger of Suspicion, only stubbier Scum tell by plankton. Everyone skims TOS And as we all know, Skimming is a scum tell.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 22:48:08 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Nov 24, 2012 22:48:08 GMT -5
This sounds good in theory, and I like the idea of applying some pressure, but if we limit our lynch pool to the first 7 or 8 players to get votes, then only place secondary votes in that pool, then can't the non-LG factions stack the odds in their favor by coming in first and voting for players they know aren't on their team? Even if that did happen, it would still provide some good informatin for later Days, though. Are you assuming the non LG teams know of each other? - we know CE does-per the rules or do you have other information? my memory is not clear on the first one but they were all able to communicate on an off board- (I don't recall you being there) but that may not apply to this game The rules say "Some roles may be able to communicate on a hidden board" which isn't specific, but I take it to mean more than just the CE.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 22:52:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 24, 2012 22:52:53 GMT -5
otie dotie. someone is a runaway based on whatever reasoning was used. let's fuck the reasoning and the people behind it by just voting some poor schlub that has no votes because, "gosh darn they just have to be scum" and it will smoke them out. pizza has gotten into the parthenon. i know he is not on my team. anything that he says will be filtered that way. Okie Dokie.....So you know who is on your team and who isn't on your team Peekers? Is that how you know that Pizza isn't on your team? I'm going to assume from that that you know who is on your team, and therefore are not on one of the "good" teams. [ Vote: Peekerst'was pizza who suggested it, not i. i will admit that i am not on pizza's team. i would counsel killing me and when i flip killing pizza and anyone who would support him or his lot. hey, 1 for 2 or 3 be fine with me. it's easy peasy.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 23:13:20 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Nov 24, 2012 23:13:20 GMT -5
attempt to be useful-Suggestion: Nominate some folks who have zero votes. Once we get about 7 or 8 of them, start placing a secondary vote on the nominees. Make it a horserace. Alternative: random wagon someone and don't make it close. But that's not only boring, it's generally bad policy. <snipped> otie dotie. someone is a runaway based on whatever reasoning was used. let's fuck the reasoning and the people behind it by just voting some poor schlub that has no votes because, "gosh darn they just have to be scum" and it will smoke them out. pizza has gotten into the parthenon. i know he is not on my team. anything that he says will be filtered that way. say what now? Are you just being facetious or are you really aware of who your teammates are? I know it's been a freaking long time since I played, but that just doesn't sound right to me. It's a better reason than random, so until I I hear a reasonable explanation for that statement, [blue]vote peekercpa[/blue]
|
|
|
Post by crys on Nov 24, 2012 23:16:55 GMT -5
i went and saw lincoln last night. it is worthy. I had been wondering about that film......glad to hear it passed the peek o spection Sent from my TAB-730 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by crys on Nov 24, 2012 23:18:24 GMT -5
<snipped> otie dotie. someone is a runaway based on whatever reasoning was used. let's fuck the reasoning and the people behind it by just voting some poor schlub that has no votes because, "gosh darn they just have to be scum" and it will smoke them out. pizza has gotten into the parthenon. i know he is not on my team. anything that he says will be filtered that way. say what now? Are you just being facetious or are you really aware of who your teammates are? I know it's been a freaking long time since I played, but that just doesn't sound right to me. It's a better reason than random, so until I I hear a reasonable explanation for that statement, [blue]vote peekercpa[/blue] Lol....it juat sounds like peeks tbh I do have a hard time reading him though Sent from my TAB-730 using proboards
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2012 23:19:57 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 24, 2012 23:19:57 GMT -5
It would appear that - like the last one- all factions NOT LG have an off board and know who each are- it doesn't mean they aren't Lawful OR Good but not both.
|
|
|
Post by crys on Nov 24, 2012 23:26:02 GMT -5
As far as the strategy of appkying pressure I have found it to be inconclusive and more often than not you end up with a town on town hissy fit that throws suspicion on the rest of the game.
Which would only be good for the non town imo.
Sent from my TAB-730 using proboards
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 3:41:01 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 25, 2012 3:41:01 GMT -5
8) Night threads are fluff only, that seems to be how folks like 'em. All alignments except Town have offboards to communicate, and may only use them at Night. i know he is not on my team. There wasn't a Night 0 but you know your teammates, I guess that applies to all non-Town. Since most of us don't know who we are aligned with- that does make sense. non? So you think Town is the majority? Or are you assuming that only CE know each other? Weren't you non-town in the last game? I'm going to assume from that that you know who is on your team, and therefore are not on one of the "good" teams. I think we can almost assume the same about you. my memory is not clear on the first one but they were all able to communicate on an off board- (I don't recall you being there) but that may not apply to this game But you made that helpful post summarising the rules without reading them? In an effort to save some of that confusion I posted what I remembered. Taking some clues from the current rules. The rules say "Some roles may be able to communicate on a hidden board" which isn't specific, but I take it to mean more than just the CE. You're reading the wrong part of the rules. It seems you know Peeker's not necessarily CE only because you also know who's on your team, are you LE? It's a better reason than random, so until I I hear a reasonable explanation for that statement, Another knee-jerk reaction to apparent PIS. I'd suggest that a player who assumed only CE members know each other is LG or CE, I'm not seeing a LE or CG jumping to that conclusion. A LG may not have fully read the rules while a CE may have presumed that they're the only "special" ones. So, we have: Likely CE: Lightfoot, who was LE in the last game and is an expert on the rules but jumped on Peeker's comment Likely LE or CG: Peeker, I don't think it was a scum slip Wombat, she gave the "wrong" reason why Peeker wasn't necessarily scum Likely LG or CE: Dizzy, assumes "good" team s cannot communicate Hockey, knee-jerk UnvoteVote Lightfoot
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 3:45:39 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 25, 2012 3:45:39 GMT -5
Peekers' nonsense is harder to parse than usual.
I think he's a good nominee for me.
Vote Peeker
I haven't even read page 4 yet, but I know I'd lurve to see him dead.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 3:47:04 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 25, 2012 3:47:04 GMT -5
Wait, I think peeker just admitted to being on a team besides lawful good. That isn't why I'm voting him. But it is making it harder for me to unvote him.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 4:02:48 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 25, 2012 4:02:48 GMT -5
Do you see a flaw in my vote on Lightfoot?
Do you agree that lynching CE takes priority over LE or CG?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 4:03:51 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 25, 2012 4:03:51 GMT -5
NETA And if Lightfoot is CE, Peeker must be LE or CG?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 4:59:25 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 25, 2012 4:59:25 GMT -5
Oh cow flop guiri
I don’t even recall what my alignment was last go round- I was typing from memory
I did miss the bit from the rules where all but LG were confirmed with off boards
I did consider that that may have changed from game one. ( although I did recently go back to check if it was the case the first game.= after some of my comments about off boards)
I do find it intriguing that attempting to break down the game is more suspect than stuffing/dressing/cranberry comments- don’t you think the “bad guys” are going to avoid game talk where possible to avoid PIS?
So far Peeker and Wombat are my most likely LE or CG
Alluding to having other communication would be risky play for a CE If many- like myself- were unsure or unaware that the other factions had off board communication
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 5:09:22 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 25, 2012 5:09:22 GMT -5
Something to consider There was no Night 0
In the previous game I was instrumental in trying to lynch one of my team-mates LE or CG I forget
Because I did not know who was on my team until we all checked in on the off board AFTER Day one
So Peeker knowing that someone is NOT on his team tells me
• The set-up was changed to allow other teams to be made aware of each other before N1 • He’s CE
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 5:23:18 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 25, 2012 5:23:18 GMT -5
@ Guiri-
No, I don't follow. And as someone who frequently checks back in over the course of a day phase, and as I am liable to change my vote, you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to re-explain it to me.
But honestly, you're hard pressed to make peeker an undesirable lynch.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 5:27:36 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 25, 2012 5:27:36 GMT -5
#99, right before your vote on Peeker. What don't you follow?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 5:48:22 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 25, 2012 5:48:22 GMT -5
Do you agree that lynching CE takes priority over LE or CG? Courtesy of Dirx, with further explanation here.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 7:37:18 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 25, 2012 7:37:18 GMT -5
To those voting me for a drive by post: I told you BEFORE the game started that I wouldn't be able to participate much this weekend. The post you all think is scummy was written from my cell in the car on the way to a party. A party where I got drunk, and am now hungover. The following was written in a stupor:
My feelings about the game thus far: I am at best indifferent to askpizzaguys suggested strategy on closer inspection. I don't believe there is a really good D1 strategy that will actually work. But the theory of distributing the votes is sound. We *are* forcing scum to make public decisions by voting and often breaking a tie. *shrug* I don't think the strategy will work though. Much like herding cats. It sounds possible, to it requires everyone to play along.
Also, what I don't like is the random.org part. That is essentially a freebie vote for scum.
Peeker: I always want to vote peeker. His ramblings distract me, and makes it harder to play that game IMO. I assume this is his strategy to conceal himself when he is scum, and that he also has to play that way when he is town. Alternatively, he is just plain old incoherent. However, peeker rambling is a null tell for me. Much like fish being wet.
However, peeker claiming that he knows someone is not on his team on D1 without being able to perform a night action is enough to warrent a vote from me at this stage in the game. So as much as I hate bandwagons, I have to:
vote peekercpa
for now.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 12:13:30 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Nov 25, 2012 12:13:30 GMT -5
What is PIS?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 12:23:47 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 25, 2012 12:23:47 GMT -5
guiriYour logic is internally consistent but I do not believe you can reliably infer Lightfoot's alignment so far. AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT I will move to Lightfoot to give your vote more traction and keep the horserace close. But I am so warning yall- peeker attracts my vote like a powerful electromagnet at this point. In a tie, I'm switching back to peeker because I think I can either work with or at least try to analyze Lightfoot. She's worth the effort.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 12:24:54 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 25, 2012 12:24:54 GMT -5
It's what happens when you drink too much coffee. Unvote,Vote: Lightfoot[/b][/color]
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 13:09:10 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 25, 2012 13:09:10 GMT -5
My attempt to play the game is getting me votes
Ok then
By his own admission peeker is not LG
But I don’t think he is CE ( fwiw that would be bold but not unheard of )
wombat was cagier but appears to be other than LG as well
Vote: Wombat
For now I look forward to more players joining the fray in later time frames
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 13:13:53 GMT -5
Post by gnarlycharlie on Nov 25, 2012 13:13:53 GMT -5
Perfect Information Syndrome. certain players, particularly scum, have information that most players don't. sometimes these players post something that seems to indicate they know more than they should.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 13:26:39 GMT -5
Post by astralrejection on Nov 25, 2012 13:26:39 GMT -5
Warning for those who haven't played with me before: I tend to post big chunks at a time. The reason being, this improves our odds that a person we want lynched gets "pressured" Day One. Telling is, who they get pressured by. Using this spread vote strategy, you *will* have the odds in your favor a guilty-from-your-perspective person will be on the brink of death. Now, the odds are also good that they, or someone else, will make a "move" to allow them to escape from death, This is called the flinch. The flinch is hard to identify right away, however: if the person being spared and the person sparing them are both still alive much later on, and make no concerted effort to eliminate each other, that suggests a partnership. The issue I have is that I don't think any of this will happen. If Astral Rejection (to use myself as an example) has 5 votes, and four other players have 4 votes, we're all "feeling pressure." I agree with this. But let's pick a faction. Say I'm chaotic-evil for this hypothetical. Yay! Lawful-good folks are gonna lynch someone diametrically opposed to them. My teammates could consider voting someone else to save me, but you've gone ahead and said you're specifically looking for that. The simplest thing for my hypothetical buddies to do is just sit tight. At some point, it's fairly likely that someone else will make a move that spares me and kills someone else. And if I eventually get lynched or killed, that person is gonna start looking pretty fishy. And on top of that, my hypothetical chaotic evil buddies can win with two other factons! So it doesn't much matter if I die, as long as enough of them avoid suspicion until end game, which "not saving my sorry ass" would certainly help. I guess my question is, would it really still work if you've outlined exactly what you expect people to do and how to nail them for their actions? Yeah. That's like saying I dunno, would it really work to try to look for scummy behavior if you're announcing that's what you're doing? Their alternative is to not flinch which reduces their ability to save themselves. Isn't that also good news? Come on astral, you're better than this. I don't care for this smudge, but I don't tend to find smudges like this scummy, so I oppose it on personal grounds. I think many, many people who have played with me would not, in fact, think I'm better than this. There's a difference between what you're proposing and somebody announcing "I'm looking for scum tells." Scum tells are subjective, and scum make mistakes. Your plan is looking for a binary reaction: did they flinch, or didn't they? And then you plan to extrapolate from there. Potential flinchers know exactly what you're looking for. Where you and I ultimately disagree is your second paragraph. Yes, they could not flinch, which does indeed reduce their ability to save themselves. If they're the top vote recipient. If they're in the running for it at all. I just don't think they'd try to save themselves so transparently. Long story short, I think pizza's suggestion is a solution in search of a problem. Over on the SDMB, town throws themselves into the usual Day 1 runaway train game after game, and yet still win better than 50% of the time. This indicates to me that our usual Day 1 strategy isn't really all that deleterious to our chances of winning. There's no good reason to think a Chaotic-Evil player would end up as the lynch, and there's no reason to think a teammate would swoop in to save them. I think the odds are stacked in favor of people assuming a vote shift was to save someone, and would result in a lot of mislynches. And beyond that, 3/4ths of the players can win with town, and 3/4ths of the players with scum, and there's (obviously) a lot of overlap among those numbers. For many, many players, there's no reason to shift your vote and draw attention to yourself anyway, as it probably doesn't terribly matter who gets lynched. ----------------------------------------------- I guess my question is, would it really still work if you've outlined exactly what you expect people to do and how to nail them for their actions? Hi there! I considered making a thanksgiving pun for my first post, but then I remembered you were in this game. ;D
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 13:53:20 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 25, 2012 13:53:20 GMT -5
Wait, I think peeker just admitted to being on a team besides lawful good. That isn't why I'm voting him. But it is making it harder for me to unvote him. you mis parse as usual. i think the mog made it clear that their were going to be odd combinations of wincons and combos. so is your plea to bring out lawful evils and join your side if that is in fact your role? that way the lawfuls win and town is fucked? a lot of times masons will not necessarily know who is against them. but they sure as fuck know who is with them. capiche?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 13:55:09 GMT -5
Post by astralrejection on Nov 25, 2012 13:55:09 GMT -5
wombat was cagier but appears to be other than LG as well Vote: Wombat LightFoot, what alignment do you think Wombat is?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 14:05:55 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 25, 2012 14:05:55 GMT -5
wombat was cagier but appears to be other than LG as well Vote: Wombat LightFoot, what alignment do you think Wombat is? Chaotic or Evil or both Yes I realize LG can win with either CG or LE but not both AND CE needs to be eliminated no matter what ( as I see it) I'm willing to lynch any player that is not LG at this point of the game
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 25, 2012 14:10:02 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 25, 2012 14:10:02 GMT -5
Wait, I think peeker just admitted to being on a team besides lawful good. That isn't why I'm voting him. But it is making it harder for me to unvote him. you mis parse as usual. i think the mog made it clear that their were going to be odd combinations of wincons and combos. so is your plea to bring out lawful evils and join your side if that is in fact your role? that way the lawfuls win and town is fucked? a lot of times masons will not necessarily know who is against them. but they sure as fuck know who is with them. capiche? Even if I follow your crumby path a LG mason would know another mason but not other players' alignment- So by your determination that ATPG is NOT on your team you are not LG
|
|