|
Post by Sai on Apr 29, 2013 5:34:19 GMT -5
Lastly Pleo - the use of a DEADLINE VOTE will prevent the hammer that you fear. Read the updated rules; those were removed.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on Apr 29, 2013 5:44:04 GMT -5
Actually, swammer - upon rereading, I realized something. If a Witch/Jr claims Holy/Basic, then the other kind of Witch knows for sure they're not a spy. So if everyone does that, the witches instantly know all the spies. Yes, the whole claim thing falls apart when villagers are forced to lie. I don't know what you think I said here. I'm not suggesting that villagers should lie, I'm saying that following it will allow the two witch teams to find each other and by the same token know all of the village spies. Since the witches aren't going to claim spy, the other witch-squad will know that they are NOT spies. By PoE, the witches will then know all the spies and each other. Since people seem to have trouble understanding me, I'm going to repeat the exact same information in a different way - If an individual player says that they are Holy/Basic and are town, it is true that they give the Witches no information and give the town more information. This is good. If an individual player says that they are Holy/Basic and are a witch, they tell the other witch team that they are a member of the other witch team. If all of the witches do this, all of the witches know each other, as well as the identities of all of the spies. This is bad. Swammer was saying that Scathath was being suspicious because of Point 1 - that if a player is townie, they give the town information and do not tell the witches anything. Upon rereading the rules, I realized that when Witches make the exact same claim that is helpful for a townie to make, they help their own team even more.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 5:46:49 GMT -5
Any reason you aren't taking your own advice? Read the updated rules; those were removed. That's a pretty good reason.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on Apr 29, 2013 5:50:21 GMT -5
Ok, I think guiri meant that the spies could counteract that by also claiming Holy/Basic. This would remove the bad part of Point 2, but also make Point 1 kinda useless, since we couldn't rely on the veracity of those claiming Holy/Basic, since Spies might want to make the same claim to prevent the witch teams from uniting and identifying them.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 6:36:40 GMT -5
Ok, I think guiri meant that the spies could counteract that by also claiming Holy/Basic. This would remove the bad part of Point 2, but also make Point 1 kinda useless, since we couldn't rely on the veracity of those claiming Holy/Basic, since Spies might want to make the same claim to prevent the witch teams from uniting and identifying them. The problem is that there is no motivation to claim anything except holy/basic. So what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by Sai on Apr 29, 2013 6:39:30 GMT -5
Yeah, it took me two steps to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on Apr 29, 2013 6:42:16 GMT -5
Also, Swammer's probably town on account of him not thinking about how the witches get information from their counterpart-team's claim.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Apr 29, 2013 6:57:31 GMT -5
Ok - I'm here my weekend was slammed.
I would like to place on vote on Peeker but I don't want to be a hammer vote if others need more time. mostly because Peeker didn't claim and 2 he has posted maybe it is real life but in the one other game I played with him he seem to show up at least once every 24 hours or so.
Anyway, I'm a plain niller town as the witches already know so I'm happy to give this information to town.
I was very glad for the extra day and I will be around to vote before day ends
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Apr 29, 2013 6:58:45 GMT -5
and I make typo's all the time that should say he hasn't posted
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Apr 29, 2013 7:01:33 GMT -5
Maybe I should also say that I do have a 2nd card/power in addition to being plain town.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 7:04:53 GMT -5
Anyway, I'm a plain niller town as the witches already know so I'm happy to give this information to town. What? There are no vanilla townies in this game right? Do you mean basic? And if you do, then how would the witches know that?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Apr 29, 2013 7:40:42 GMT -5
Please note everyone only has one vote, but may vote for any other living player.
Edit: certainly. Day will end on the 29th instead, at 10:00 PM CDT. Wow, I'm surprised at the added day to the Day. This seems unfair to both sides. If the lynch switches now and impacts the final result either way, that seems odd. Was day extending part of the rules? I actually would have voted to extend Day if it was in the rules, but I had no idea it was.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Apr 29, 2013 7:56:14 GMT -5
Pleo and Peeks are being themselves atm, so I am going to not drink that wine. I have reread this thread like 5 times. The only thing I keep coming up with is where Sai basically said that peeks should lie about his role after making a claim. The only thing I see this doing is causing confusion etc where none needs to be. Why would we want him to claim? That would paint even larger target on his back. I see this line of conversation as someone that is indeed fishing for information. Vote sai Pleo already explained it, but I will restate it - Peeker is almost certainly not Basic Town. This means he is a Witch of some sort, a Village Spy, or a Holy Villager. The Witches know who is a Spy/Other Witch. Therefore, they already know what category Peeker is. The Town does not know this same information. This means that it does not help the Witches for Peeker to claim his category, but it does help the Town. So yes, I suppose I am fishing for information, but this is information that the Witches already have but the town does not. This really shouldn't be hard to understand, since Pleo spelled it out explicitly in multiple posts. i agree. i don't think it's fishing if it's overtly done. we're all saying the same thing, which is to claim. otherwise it looks suspicious. he's probably scum or a holy villager. if he's the latter, he should let town know because scum would assume he's holy. also i've noticed that some players are still against townies lying. i think that's archaic thinking. town should lie if they feel it's in the best interest of town, especially if it will help scum more. Vote peeker - He does need to claim, I think, at this point. This may have screwed us over if he is a very strong role, but the fact he hasn't claim may make him a witch. Vote silverjan - intentional density? or trying to save a witch partner? i'll have to agree with this assessment. i'd vote peeker but i think that will drop the hammer without him replying. he may be just busy. for now i'll, Vote silverjan
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Apr 29, 2013 7:59:51 GMT -5
Anyway, I'm a plain niller town as the witches already know so I'm happy to give this information to town. What? There are no vanilla townies in this game right? Do you mean basic? And if you do, then how would the witches know that? Didn't you read my other post? ok I'm 1/2 plain townie
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Apr 29, 2013 8:00:52 GMT -5
Is the next vote on Peeker the hammer??
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 8:11:11 GMT -5
What? There are no vanilla townies in this game right? Do you mean basic? And if you do, then how would the witches know that? Didn't you read my other post? ok I'm 1/2 plain townie Simulposted with you. 1. There are no vanilla townies in this game. Vanilla means no power. 2. You keep saying things like "plain", but although there are different categories of townie in this game, plain is not one of them. 3. You should not claim to be specifically basic or holy because WITCHES DO NOT KNOW THAT. All they know is that you are not a witch (or possibly a spy I guess).
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Apr 29, 2013 8:55:44 GMT -5
AUGH. Stupid layout.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 29, 2013 10:02:22 GMT -5
Replying as I read... Oh, in all that I didn't actually post my rephrased question. Pleo, do you have a read on Peeker aside from the mechanics of his claim? Yes. I find peekercpa's intentionally obfuscatory posts to be scummy. In a game that depends on players interpreting each others' posts, making one's posts hard-to-read indicates that they're hiding something. This is an interesting comment. You are implicitly excluding <b>peeker</b> from the group "townies". Why? Funny, I thought the request for doc protection was an implicit assumption that Peeker was a townie! Heh, I thought the "doctor" request was an out-of-game comment on peeker's mental state. (I still don't automatically associate "doctor" with a protector in mafia.) Pleo and Peeks are being themselves atm, so I am going to not drink that wine. I have reread this thread like 5 times. The only thing I keep coming up with is where Sai basically said that peeks should lie about his role after making a claim. The only thing I see this doing is causing confusion etc where none needs to be. Why would we want him to claim? That would paint even larger target on his back. I see this line of conversation as someone that is indeed fishing for information. Vote sai Your confusion is causing you to suggest poor play. peeker has already given the Witches everything they need to know. By not claiming, they are allowing the Witches to keep that particular information disparity. Your vote for sai for suggesting good play is especially bad. vote crys for voting a player for being pro-town. OMG! Not again. Sai it's freaking D1 and all you have done is tell Peeker to lie. It's like your the only one who knows all the flaming rules and is the only one to have an original thought. I should have voted for you when I first saw your post. HOW do you know Peeks isn't a basic townie? Because if it's from the way he has posted well then you are really good. Forcing someone to claim on D1 is so not good. Vote SaiAnd also vote silverjan for voting for being pro-town. If peeker is the Bishop or Priest, they need to claim to prevent us from lynching them. But instead of claiming truthfully, they could claim to be the one other Character who knows exactly which role they are (hypothetically). Not that it really matters, since if peeker is Holy (and the Witches already know that if they are), then they're dying ToNight no matter what. Please note that this game has neither protectors, watchers nor trackers. There are five player types in this game: 4 Holy Villagers (Priest, Bishop, Acolyte, Nun) 10 Basic Villagers 3 Village Spies 4 Elder Witches 3 Junior Witches The Witches already have lists of Spies and Witches, so I'll tell them something they already know: I am either a Basic or a Holy Villager. I encourage other Basic/Holy Villagers to make a similar declaration. I'm always happy to see others make soft claims, although I wouldn't go so far as to encourage others to do it. Please note everyone only has one vote, but may vote for any other living player.
Edit: certainly. Day will end on the 29th instead, at 10:00 PM CDT. For a moderator who said they wouldn't be gasterd or misleading, you're making it rather hard to understand the rules.
The rules state "any living player may vote for any other living player". It's kind of unfair to change that to "one vote" now. Except you still say we can vote for "any other living player". So which is it, "one" or "any"?Colby - there are 2 votes required to lynch him. I'd encourage you to leave your vote off if you can be on before PC, since someone might not catch up in the thread and then hammer, or hammer and then pretend to not be caught up. I'm not sure why you're being wishy-washy here. In this game, we can't lynch without hammering. While hammering early in the Day is not good, we're past that point ToDay. Actually, swammer - upon rereading, I realized something. If a Witch/Jr claims Holy/Basic, then the other kind of Witch knows for sure they're not a spy. So if everyone does that, the witches instantly know all the spies. Sometimes townies lie, too. Yes, the whole claim thing falls apart when villagers are forced to lie. I don't know what you think I said here. I'm not suggesting that villagers should lie, I'm saying that following it will allow the two witch teams to find each other and by the same token know all of the village spies. Since the witches aren't going to claim spy, the other witch-squad will know that they are NOT spies. By PoE, the witches will then know all the spies and each other. While you're not explicitly asking Villagers to lie, if you follow your logic (which you explain quite well, although I snipped it out), some Villagers should lie in order to prevent that exact sequence of events. Ok, I think guiri meant that the spies could counteract that by also claiming Holy/Basic. This would remove the bad part of Point 2, but also make Point 1 kinda useless, since we couldn't rely on the veracity of those claiming Holy/Basic, since Spies might want to make the same claim to prevent the witch teams from uniting and identifying them. Precisely. And while it may be bad to do a mass claim of any sort, we can still gain useful information from some players making claims. Anyway, I'm a plain niller town as the witches already know so I'm happy to give this information to town. Actually, that's something the Witches did not know. Assuming you're telling the truth, they only knew that you were either a Basic Villager or a Holy Villager. So you've eliminated one of those possibilities. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing (I'm generally in favor of soft claims), but I hope you made an considered decision to reveal that information (and whether to tell the truth or lie) and didn't simply blurt it out.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 10:08:09 GMT -5
Please note everyone only has one vote, but may vote for any other living player.
Edit: certainly. Day will end on the 29th instead, at 10:00 PM CDT. For a moderator who said they wouldn't be gasterd or misleading, you're making it rather hard to understand the rules.
The rules state "any living player may vote for any other living player". It's kind of unfair to change that to "one vote" now. Except you still say we can vote for "any other living player". So which is it, "one" or "any"?Woah, I completely misread that. I thought we had multiple votes for some reason. unvote all vote peeker
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 29, 2013 10:31:27 GMT -5
For a moderator who said they wouldn't be gasterd or misleading, you're making it rather hard to understand the rules.
The rules state "any living player may vote for any other living player". It's kind of unfair to change that to "one vote" now. Except you still say we can vote for "any other living player". So which is it, "one" or "any"? Woah, I completely misread that. I thought we had multiple votes for some reason. Probably because the rules say we have multiple votes.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Apr 29, 2013 10:46:33 GMT -5
Woah, I completely misread that. I thought we had multiple votes for some reason. Probably because the rules say we have multiple votes. Actually, I wouldn't really interpret the "may vote for any other living player" as us having multiple votes. I don't know why I had a brainfart about it.
|
|
|
Post by crys on Apr 29, 2013 11:04:26 GMT -5
Isn't this game confusing enough without having us have multiple votes too??? I think it is lol
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 29, 2013 11:27:58 GMT -5
Probably because the rules say we have multiple votes. Actually, I wouldn't really interpret the "may vote for any other living player" as us having multiple votes. I don't know why I had a brainfart about it. "Any" means "one or more"; it does not mean "only one". If the moderator didn't intend for us to have the option to vote for more, they could have said "one other" or "another" . Instead they said "any other". Originally, that is. Then the moderator gave additional conflicting information and has left us with an ambiguous rules set. Isn't this game confusing enough without having us have multiple votes too??? I think it is lol While the way roles and alignments have been handed out is very unusual, the lynch is rather bare-bones. We do not get any reveals from our lynches--no alignment, no role, no nothing. Well, we do get the name of the deceased. We also must hammer in order to lynch, virtually guaranteeing that some players will not have all the votes or thoughts down that they wanted to. Nor do we get any reveals from the Night kills--no alignment and no role. So it would be nice to have something to work with, like a voting record that was more than a single vote per player. The requirement that a majority of us need to vote a player in order to lynch them, if combined with a single vote per player, means that players would be forced to vote not for who they think should be lynched, but for who they think could be lynched. Which would totally muddy the water about the voting record.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 29, 2013 11:46:34 GMT -5
If peeker is the Bishop or Priest, they need to claim to prevent us from lynching them. But instead of claiming truthfully, they could claim to be the one other Character who knows exactly which role they are (hypothetically). Not that it really matters, since if peeker is Holy (and the Witches already know that if they are), then they're dying ToNight no matter what. Please note that this game has neither protectors, watchers nor trackers. You lost me here. How would the 'Character who knows exactly which role the False Claimer is, hypotetically' be able to determine whether the person falsely claiming their role was doing so under the circumstances that you suggest or is instead a scummy liar who may or may not be trying to appear to be under the circumstances that you suggest? Maybe there are some assumptions missing from my understanding of your proposal. So much for multi-voting. If I had another one to throw out, it would be on SilverJan at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Apr 29, 2013 12:18:38 GMT -5
Isn't this game confusing enough without having us have multiple votes too??? I think it is lol Not really. I'm not saying I've read and thought deeply about every role, but it's not so complicated to disallow multiple votes. Anyway, I guess my vote on peeker stands.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 29, 2013 12:18:40 GMT -5
If peeker is the Bishop or Priest, they need to claim to prevent us from lynching them. But instead of claiming truthfully, they could claim to be the one other Character who knows exactly which role they are (hypothetically). Not that it really matters, since if peeker is Holy (and the Witches already know that if they are), then they're dying ToNight no matter what. Please note that this game has neither protectors, watchers nor trackers. You lost me here. How would the 'Character who knows exactly which role the False Claimer is, hypotetically' be able to determine whether the person falsely claiming their role was doing so under the circumstances that you suggest or is instead a scummy liar who may or may not be trying to appear to be under the circumstances that you suggest? Maybe there are some assumptions missing from my understanding of your proposal. Please read about the Characters the Nun and the Acolyte. Take an example. Hypothetically, let's pretend that peeker is the Holy Villager Bishop and I am the Holy Villager Nun. As the Nun, my power is that I know that peeker is the Bishop. So when peeker falsely claims to be the Nun, I know they're lying. But I know why and it's okay. Or, let's pretend that peeker is the Zealot and an Elder Witch, and I am the Nun. To avoid the lynch. peeker claims to be the Nun. I know they're lying because I'm the Nun. Or if they falsely claimed to be the Bishop, I'd know they're lying then, too.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Apr 29, 2013 15:05:12 GMT -5
swammer - I agree that scathath's line there is bad. What do you think about other players who are saying the same thing, in particular silverjan? I don't like my words being twisted, thank you very much. My bitch is that asking a player to lie about their claim is bad. Urgh! I might be stupid but I don't see the point. If Peeker is a witch then then he can just pick any role to claim, they are all out there. If he is a spy then why would he claim? It would give the witches an advantage because then there are less people they have to figure out who could be a junior witch. If he is a holy person, do the witches need to know that? If he is a basic villager then the witches know that (you know what I mean, that he is not one of them but he could be a holy person too). What am I getting wrong? After saying all that, I am beginning to think that Peeker might be a witch, not because he hasn't claimed but because of what he said about roles (the post that Dizzy picked up on) and the fact that he hasn't come back to defend himself.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Apr 29, 2013 16:03:30 GMT -5
I am happy leaving my vote on peeker, even more now that he has disappeared.
@crys, what on earth is that bear supposed to be doing?
I am confused about hammers and deadline voting. If peeker reaches 13 before EOD, is that the EOD? If peeker does not reach 13 before EOD does that mean no one is lynched? Is there no longer a way to deadline vote, i.e. vote without hammering?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 29, 2013 17:00:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure how we can win this without dumb luck. <snipped> i agree with this. it's really a race for the witches to kill the bishop before halftime (if i understand the durn rules and roles). but without death reveals (as i understand it) even that kind of shoots town in the foot. and the way i understand it the potential spies leave themselves open to a counter claim by either elder witches or junior witches (most likely junior witches - i would think). but even that might not be a bad thing. just lynch into one group until they are gone and if the announcement comes back that all spies are dead then bingo there is a group that has about a snowball's chance in hell. and the elder witches would no doubt leave the spies alone because if one of them turns up NK'd then that would make me look at the other group with a large hmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 29, 2013 17:02:40 GMT -5
and if i am covering stuff that has already been discussed, sorry. but i tend to post as i attempt to catch up.
|
|