I nominated Raging Rabbit for being alliterative...Jack wrote:I nominated cheesfan for being first and Jdodge for starting with a J.
As a side note, Hi Maz! I promise I won't be a
Irrelevant as in that person didn't get nominated. Sorry for not being clear about that.Jack wrote:umm?JDodge wrote:Because I was theSkruffs wrote:Why would Maz care? <.<
I nommed Cheese and Maz. Mostly because I'm scared of them.worst cop everin a newbie game with him.
Tsk, tsk. I didn't nominate only you, RR.I just prefer not to say my other nomination as it is not relevant.
I thought about this, actually, and thought it might be better for the town if we did share all of our nominations; my original theory didn't make much sense to me either after I'd thought about it for a while.Raging Rabbit wrote:I was originally being sarcastic, but this is really quite weird.JDodge wrote:Irrelevant as in that person didn't get nominated. Sorry for not being clear about that.
I feel that the only people who need to share their nominations are those who either nominated someone who's up for lynch, or got NK'd.
I personally don't see any real use in sharing your nomination ofanyone, since I don't think we can learn anything from it atm. However, I'm also sure sharing your nominations can't hurt the town in any way, so I'm willing to play along just for the heck of it. I really don't see what makes you think it's only useful to share your "popular" nominees, what sets them apart from the other ones?
I think you shouldn't be hiding information from the town, since even though it's a really neglectible it still makes you look a tiny bit scummy.[/i]
# of games I've been in, in which Cheesefan's avatar has been mistaken for Harry Potter: 2Cheesefan wrote:ARGHSkruffs wrote:Sidenote: Considering we have a skunk, a dog, a bunny, and harry potter nominated, I'm wondering if this island is a refuge or an insane asylum. >.>
Its NOT harry potter
Its John lennon
*breaks into tears*
Wrong. Us, the nominated, have nothing to lose. Everyone else does.Raging Rabbit wrote:I dunno, but why the fuck do you care? We've got absolutely nothing to lose...Maz Medias wrote:I want to ask again what we gain from full revelation of nominations? All I see happening is the scum jumping on to any overlaps in voting and using that to maneuver us towards a mislynch.IGMEOY: MM.
Think about it.Raging Rabbit wrote:What exactly would that be?JDodge wrote:Wrong. Us, the nominated, have nothing to lose. Everyone else does.
Logic would imply that you would look at facts beforehand.Raging Rabbit wrote:I've been doing that quite a lot if you haven't noticed how active I am, just didn't think it worth my time to doublecheck if he shared his nominations since his logic clearly implies he shouldn't have.
Without all of the facts, anyone can manipulate the results to make it look like someone is scum. We would need to know exactly who everyone nominated.Raging Rabbit wrote:I actually suspect him more now that I've realized my mistake, since his course of action is ideal for scum - first he shares his nominations on the spot so he won't get any bad attention for not being helpful, than he uses lameass logic to try to convice others not to share theirs so the town won't be able to gain any information (the only way to possibly figure out who lied is to have everyone's nomination accounted for, except obviously poor Firecoal).
But why would anyone pro townJDodge wrote:Without all of the facts, anyone can manipulate the results to make it look like someone is scum. We would need to know exactly who everyone nominated.
Except for potentially set up an innocent for a lynch.Raging Rabbit wrote:That indeed makes it a lot more difficult for us to gain information from this, but Skruffs seems to know how and again it just doesn't hurt us in any way.JDodge wrote:We need to know who everyone nominated, including Fircoal, in order to come to a conclusion.
Anyone can allocate those two nominating votes that Fircoal had to where they wish in order to change any information we'd get out of it.
You're clutching at straws, too. Assumption is a fatal flaw in any arguement.Raging Rabbit wrote:I didn't bother to check because I figured you wouldn't cotradict yourself this obviously without even saying you changed your mind, and when I realized you did do it made me suspect you that much more. You are so clutching at straws here.
I'm good with numbers too. That would be relevant if numbers actually mattered in this situation.Raging Rabbit wrote:I can tell you're good with numbers, that's exactly why I want to keep you around. The general conseous (which I agree with) seems to be that you're the most valuable player atm, and no way are we going to lynch you in the case of a random lynch. That makes me wonder why you keep suggesting to sacrifice yourself when you know we'll never take you up on it, which could very well be a scummy attempt to further prove your innocence by showing us how willing you are to be lynched.
Give me one example of how numbers help this situation.Raging Rabbit wrote:I'm ok with them too, and pretty sure Skruff's better than either of us. And of course numbers matter here. Like, duh...JDodge wrote:I'm good with numbers too. That would be relevant if numbers actually mattered in this situation.
Information we could easily gain from nomination patterns is not always correct.Raging Rabbit wrote:Ignoring information we could easily gain from nomination patterns and essentially turning this game into Limited Lynch Mafia would really make the scum's day.JDodge wrote:This setup is misleading; it's not about deducing information from nominations, it's about the town working as a collective towards a favorable outcome.
I might also point out that The Town Working as a Collective Towards a Favorable Outcome, while certainly an admirable thing for any Communist party to say, isn't an actual strategy.
Raging Rabbit wrote:ButJDodge wrote:Information we could easily gain from nomination patterns is not always correct.additional info doesn't hurt us in any way. I'm getting tired of saying that.
No, I think it was the extreme Libertarianism that caused that.Raging Rabbit wrote:That'd probably explain what you're doing on an abandoned island. Mod, do I get bonus points for revealing his secret?JDodge wrote:Glad you think I'm a communist. I've been working hard on that.
I'm worried that people might use the information incorrectly. What we stand to lose from people manipulating the results to their favor outweighs what we can gain from having said info.Raging Rabbit wrote:My sincere apologies for not being bothered to check back right now. A not necessarily comprehensive list:Ghyrt wrote:@Raging Rabbit: What specifically do you find unlogical about JDodge? To me, his posts seem objective and non-commital.
First of all, the "let's make this game Limited Lynch Mafia, we can't possibly risk mislynching" argument he's been pushing pretty hard sucks bad and hurts the town. Second, I strongly dislike his ad homini-cious "There's just obviously somethingabout Raging Rabbit, can't you people see it?!" post. Third, I dislike the contradiciton between his earlier sharing his nominations to his current "no misleading info" BS - while it's certainly possible for people the change their minds, I just don't get why he never bothered to say he's changed his mind IIRC, and his earlier attack on me for missing his contradicition makes no sense.WRONG
I can't agree that any player is any more useful than the other at the moment.Raging Rabbit wrote:Again I'm not gonna check back atm, but I seem to recall quite a few people other than me commenting on Skruffs' pro-townishness. Also, I just think that unless his way of discerning information from the nominations list proves a complete dud, he's pretty objectively the most useful player atm.Skruffs wrote: Why are you asserting that there is a general consesus that Skruffs is useful?
I would say the same about everything you've said thus far.Raging Rabbit wrote:Damn, I'm such an idiot.JDodge wrote:I'm worried that people might use the information incorrectly. What we stand to lose from people manipulating the results to their favor outweighs what we can gain from having said info.
I changed my mind; is that illegal now?My former list refers to MM, not JDodge. I find it odd you didn't notice that yourself, though.
Ghyrt luv, about JDodge - it's just a stream of possibly-town-but-nonetheless-wrong stuff. He's not that much below neutral in my book, I just wanted to say which way I was leaning.
I would say that the math will be misleading and easily manipulated.Raging Rabbit wrote:I would say the math whizz.JDodge wrote:I can't agree that any player is any more useful than the other at the moment.
The first part is somewhat true.Raging Rabbit wrote:I do like to believe I'm capable of stopping said "winding convos" when they really aren't going anywhere, for example my current lack of reply to JDodge or the current situation in another game of ours with somone whose name rhymes with Magneto.
Also, don't you find me amusing anymore?!
I'm sorry, can you say that again? I can't see what you're saying.Raging Rabbit wrote:Oh. That's not outguessing anyone, then, it'd be much stronger in hands of mafia. Period. Quite a misrepresentation, too.JDodge wrote:I believe he means where we're trying to figure out his alignment by figuring out whether or not his role would be more balanced as town or scum.
QFT!Jack wrote:*is confused*Raging Rabbit wrote:Oh. That's not outguessing anyone, then, it'd be much stronger in hands of mafia. Period. Quite a misrepresentation, too.JDodge wrote:I believe he means where we're trying to figure out his alignment by figuring out whether or not his role would be more balanced as town or scum.
2nd guessing the mod means assuming the mod would have done something a particular way e.g. "there's a doc in this game so there must be a cop". Making assumptions about Romanus's role is 2nd guessing the mod, we have no way of knowing if the mod would have given it to a pro town player or to a scum player. You can't say for sure what the mod would do.
It's still an assumption. Just because something is more likely to be, doesn't mean it must be.Raging Rabbit wrote:It's somewhat like that, yes, only the difference is way, way bigger, Romanus treats himself as a power role rather than a drawback which it sorta is if he's really pro town, and I have other reasons for finding him suspicious if you'll bother reading back.JDodge wrote:Of course! That's like saying that because a roleblocker is more often a scum ability than a town ability, that said roleblockermustbe scum!
Arguements based on assumption are unimportant.Raging Rabbit wrote:In a game of limited information, assumptions are somewhat necessary.JDog wrote:It's still an assumption. Just because something is more likely to be, doesn't mean it must be.
While I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, MM's earlier logic sucked.JDog wrote:Just like you did with Maz's nominations earlier.
No, but ignoring the facts is.Raging Rabbit wrote:MM changed his mind without mentioning he did, I made the logical assumption he's following his own logic. It was a mistake. It doens't have any terrible consequences, I realized I mistook him and conceded the point. What I don't like is how MM (and now yourself) made such a big fucking deal about it. Even the Infallible RagingRabbit can make mistakes, y'know. I don't see what makes this a scumtell, are scum more likely to miss that kind of thing when it's blatantly obvious someone's gonna pick them out on it?
It could be that I'm trying to keep people from basing their entire case on nominations.Yellowbounder wrote:Infomation is always good, because any information you gain in a mafia game (unless the mod is screwing with you), you take into account any scum that may be influencing the information, or trying to stop it, probably in this case. Good enough for me, for a Vote: JDodge.
And that isSkruffs wrote:Side note : POwer roles relevant to nominations
It's possible there are other power roles out there, too - everyone saying who they nominated clears most possibilities, though, like a nomination blocker, a nomination 'switcher'. There could be a nomination cop. Well hold on, there could be a blocker or switcher; if there is, they targetted someone who didn't nominate one of the current nominees.
I'm not saying that we completely ignore scumtells and the like; I'm just saying that any information derived from nominations have enough variables to be completely false.yellowbounder wrote:Even in a normal mafia game with a cop, you should take into account Guilty Townies, Godfather immunity, and insanity. There is always false information, which you combine from assments of play styles (which contains false information because there are scum pretending to be town).
By your logic, you can't decide a lynch based on information such as scum tells, because some of the information could be false.
This is what I've been saying all along...Jack wrote:This kind of analysis is not going to help us at all. It would be easy for scum to say they nominated fircoal. They could say they nominated whoever they liked, it if doesn't add up in the end we have no way of knowing who lied about it. Your assuming maz is innocent and dean and I are scum off of this?
2 is a terrible choice. 3 is only slightly better.Ghyrt wrote:Dang! This set-up really favors scum.
Anyway, your logic makes sense... sort of; but think about it this way:
1) If we nominate 2 people (which the town can easily force to happen) we get screwed as you explained.
2)If we try to nominate 3 people, then we have to delegate votes, and it would be very easy for scum to force a situation where 2 town get nominated. (See previous item)
3) If we try to nominate 4+ people, scum essentially picks who gets nominated.
The more nominations we make (or the more randomly we nominate), the higher chances scum have of choosing who gets nominated. The only way we can win (which kind of sucks), is if we vote on who is scummiest before night and make sure they get nominated. Even though option 1 is dangerous, its the only way we can be guaranteed (excepting power roles, of course) to lynch who we want. If we don't, scum will have better odds than town in getting who they want onto the block.
Hello? You disagree with every arguement I've set forth, and you're voting forDeanWinchester wrote:Arggggggg
The graph helps. (Period)
Right now we have to be carfule how we use it, as the game progresess the info from the day one noms will be very helpfu.
Can I get that picture as my avatar? I LOVE it.
Skruffs argument was so Damn good I wanted to believe it over my Role PM, and nominate myself for being scum.
We need to figure out noms and vote. This day needs to get a little close to ending.
I say Nominate Ghryt and Jack. Jack because of the graph. Ghryt because he is scum. Romanus and Maz can wait.
Vote: cheesefanHis not tyrying to defend himself has me thinking he is the best one out of the current noms. And the graph has me atm thinking Jdodge is town.
Not exactly.Raging Rabbit wrote:I think it's safe to say the balance of 7-6-6 is strong enough to be safe from any scum tampering it. I also think it's much safer than leaving everything to chance, which only goes to make it easier for the mafia to spoil our plans.Maz Medias wrote:RR, your latest suggestion is once more blasted by the presence of power roles, or even simple mafia cunning. I'm standing by my position that revealing nominations is akin to planning night actions, which is always a bad plan in a normal game...
Easy. The town can delegate who votes for whom amongst themselves during the day.Raging Rabbit wrote:How else could they interfere?
I agree. It's no different than a vote during the day, and you don't make complex charts and overly complex ideas for a vote, do you?Cheesefan wrote:I will never agree to vote as others tell me or tell people who i am going to vote.
I will vote as i wish but provide logical reasons for doing so the next day.
Let's call those votes A, B, and C.Raging Rabbit wrote:JDawg, lets try using math here:
Lets assume we lynch an innocent, worst case scenario an' all. We still have 11 people, with a maximum of 3 in a single scum group. I was an idiot before, a total of 22 nominations means an 8-7-7 split. Please explain how the scum could ever possibly fuck up such a thing under anything but the most extreme circumstances. If you choose to assume such circustances, please explain how the 3 nominee system makes it easier for them to fuck up than just randomizing everything.
Please don't answer this with general statements, I really feel this warrants actual math.
What? It's not the right line of thinking... unless it is? That makes no sense.Raging Rabbit wrote:That isDawg wrote:The best plan in this situation is to not have a plan. Any plan we have will not end well.neverthe right line of thinking. Even if we choose to play it totally random, we should have a good rationale for doing so.
You assume too much. I'm not saying play it random, I'm saying play it without a preset plan for who nominates who.Raging Rabbit wrote:You're not getting me here. Right now you and our Scottish friend here are basically saying "lets play it random because it's the simplest, probably also the most intuitive approach". I say, if we ever decide to play it random, it shouldThe best plan in this situation is to not have a plan. Any plan we have will not end well.notbe done for these reasons but because we come to an informed decision that itisthe best approach, not only the simplest. I personally think my 3 nominees system is the less dangerous course of action.
I'm saying that because a plan will corrupt too easily, and you'll end up with the scum steering the town around, that no plan would be better than not having one.Raging Rabbit wrote:You're saying that because it's the simplest/most intuitive, not because you have some sort of mathematical proof that it's better than my plan.Dawg wrote:You assume too much. I'm not saying play it random, I'm saying play it without a preset plan for who nominates who.
I already showed you my proof. Remember when you asked for a mathematical reason as to why your plan does not work? There's my proof.Raging Rabbit wrote:A'ight, please show me what makes "anarchy" less easily corrupted than my plan.Dawg wrote:I'm saying that because a plan will corrupt too easily, and you'll end up with the scum steering the town around, that no plan would be better than not having one.
Already have.Raging Rabbit wrote:Show me what makes me wrong, then, instead of making empty statements.JDodge wrote:You're thinking of ways to lead us into a trap.Raging Rabbit wrote:You're thinking very anti-town, then.JDodge wrote:I refuse to abide by someone telling me how to use my nominations.
I would also like you to note that I refuse to participate in this, which changes the dynamics severely. Same with anyone else who refuses.JDodge wrote:Let's call those votes A, B, and C.Raging Rabbit wrote:JDawg, lets try using math here:
Lets assume we lynch an innocent, worst case scenario an' all. We still have 11 people, with a maximum of 3 in a single scum group. I was an idiot before, a total of 22 nominations means an 8-7-7 split. Please explain how the scum could ever possibly fuck up such a thing under anything but the most extreme circumstances. If you choose to assume such circustances, please explain how the 3 nominee system makes it easier for them to fuck up than just randomizing everything.
Please don't answer this with general statements, I really feel this warrants actual math.
You have 8 "A"s, 7 "B"s, 7 "C"s.
Now, let's assume for the sake of this that the three mafia members happen to get AB, AC, and BC. They could all switch to AB, which would cause this:
9 As,
8 Bs,
5 Cs.
Get it?